Sweden, 1999

The past year has been a

difficult one for the United Nations. Its principles have

been challenged. Its relevance has been questioned. Still, at

the end of the millennium, we have proved ourselves

unable to prevent war between Ethiopia and Eritrea and

unable to prevent genocide in Rwanda or ethnic cleansing

in Kosovo. Still, we see flagrant disrespect for international

law, humanitarian law and human rights. Children are used

as soldiers in Sierra Leone, women are denied all rights in

Afghanistan, fundamentalist forces have demonstrating

students arrested and possibly sentenced to death in Iran.

Other tragic examples can be found in almost all parts of

the world.

We can change all that, if only there is political will.

It is up to us, the Member States, to ensure that the United

Nations and the Security Council are able to uphold

international law and their responsibility for international

peace and security.

I would like to highlight four key areas that we, the

United Nations and its Member States, need to address to

make the United Nations truly relevant: the questions of

intervention; early action and prevention; nuclear

disarmament; and human rights. To succeed, the United

Nations system also needs to be reformed, and I will come

back to that.

When it comes to intervention to secure peace,

regional organizations and arrangements, as well as so-

called coalitions of the willing, can have important roles,

together with the United Nations, as we have just seen in

East Timor. But it is for the Security Council to provide the

legal foundation — the mandate — for such action, in

particular when force has to be used. Without such a legal

foundation, we run the risk of anarchy in international

relations, and in fact we undermine the prospects for peace

and security; and that long-term perspective must never be

lost.

Our responsibility for international peace and

security implies that necessary action by the Security

Council should not be hindered by a veto. If the Security

Council in an urgent situation is paralysed by a veto or a

threat of veto, this may undermine the authority and the

relevance of the United Nations itself. It also presents the

international community with a difficult dilemma.

When human life is threatened on a massive scale,

it is not possible to remain passive. Humanitarian

intervention has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in

view of the values at stake and whether all other means

have been exhausted. The effects on international law and

international security at large have to be considered as

well.

As the Secretary-General said yesterday, we must

ensure that the Security Council is able to rise to the

challenge. It must negotiate in earnest, with creativity and

without the threat of veto, to define threats to peace and

security at an early stage, and to deal with a crisis before

an emergency situation arises. Council action does not

necessarily mean the use of force. The use of force

almost inevitably causes suffering for the innocent. It

should, therefore, only be the last resort. There are many

other tools available. The United Nations Charter offers

several options.

The most obvious alternative to the use of force is

conflict prevention and early action. Member States, in

particular the permanent members of the Security

Council, must share information on conflict situations and

early warning signals with the Secretariat. The Secretary-

General should be invited to react to such reports and to

propose appropriate and timely action to the Security

Council. The United Nations offices in the field and early

fact-finding missions dispatched to areas of potential

conflict could help the Secretary-General formulate such

proposals. Academic institutions and non-governmental

organizations could also be helpful in this regard.

The Swedish Government has adopted a programme

of action to facilitate and contribute to the prevention of

armed conflict. It is our hope that this action plan will

stimulate a debate on how to change the focus from crisis

management to early preventive action in order to

promote a culture of prevention.

When considering peacekeeping operations, the

Security Council should not be hampered by short-term

budgetary considerations. This sends a very negative

message and runs counter to the need for early and

32

preventive action. All countries must pay their assessed

contributions in full, on time and without conditions.

Naturally, that also goes for the host country. The United

Nations must be given the necessary resources to be able to

act swiftly upon decisions by the Security Council.

The danger of nuclear devastation has not faded. On

the contrary, we are faced with new threats. Last year the

positive trend set by Argentina, Brazil and South Africa

having joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was reversed by India and

Pakistan, which both tested nuclear weapons. Their actions

have endangered international peace and security, as well

as stability in the region, and are a serious setback to our

hopes for a world without nuclear weapons.

Sweden will follow up its call of last year for a new

agenda for complete nuclear disarmament. India and

Pakistan have taken us further away from that goal. We call

upon them, and all other States which have not yet done so,

to give up their nuclear ambitions. All countries should

become parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban

Treaty (CTBT) and the NPT.

The five nuclear-weapon States also have a

responsibility to complete nuclear disarmament.

Deployment of national missile defence systems in the

future would create uncertainties and have a negative

impact on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. We

encourage the United States and Russia to re-establish a

new momentum in the stalled START negotiations, and

especially we call upon Russia to ratify the Start II

agreement without further delay. Reductions should be

extended to non-strategic nuclear weapons. Furthermore, we

urge the three nuclear-weapon States which have not yet

done so to ratify the CTBT. All this should be done in an

effort aimed at the elimination of all kinds of weapons of

mass destruction, which still pose a threat to human beings

all over the world.

Any regime violating human rights paves the way for

crisis and armed conflict. The defence of human rights is a

legitimate concern for the Security Council and the

international community. It is our duty to react when the

rights of individuals are violated, wherever it happens.

Still, disrespect for democracy and human rights is

obvious in many parts of the world. The events in East

Timor show how the will of the people can be totally

ignored by armed thugs. In Kosovo, innocent civilians are

attacked for belonging to a certain ethnic group.

Still, poverty and social injustice deprive people of

health and education.

Still, women and girls are facing discrimination. The

brutalizing and killing of women is carried out with

impunity in many countries. In wars, rape is used as a

means of terror. Often women are deprived of their right

to earn their own living or participate in the economic

and political life of their countries. I urge all countries to

adhere to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms

of Discrimination against Women, without reservation.

Still, 10 years after the adoption of the Convention

on the Rights of the Child, the hopes of children for the

future are overshadowed by daily hardship and fear. Too

often their talents and skills are buried in poverty or

diseases which are curable but not attended to. Too often

they are denied proper education, or suffer from

discriminatory school systems. The recruitment of child

soldiers is a shameful practice that causes individual

suffering and will harm the security and development of

societies for many years to come. I appeal to all

Governments to assist in the conclusion of the two

optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the

Child in order to prohibit sexual abuse of children and the

use of children below the age of 18 in armed conflict.

The use of the death penalty has no place in a

civilized society. Sweden welcomes moves taken in a

number of countries to put an end to this repugnant

practice. The abolition of the death penalty would

enhance human dignity worldwide.

Still, the ugly face of racism appears in all parts of

the world. Manifestations of racism are an affront to the

fundamental principle of non-discrimination and a threat

to the fragile fabric of peaceful relations between people

in an increasingly global community. The preparations for

the World Conference against Racism, Racial

Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

provide an important opportunity to identify concrete and

action-oriented ways to combat racism. Another important

manifestation will be the Stockholm International Forum

on the Holocaust, to be held in January 2000.

The early entry into force of the Statute of the

International Criminal Court would send a clear signal

that the international community is determined to end the

culture of impunity for the most heinous crimes under

international law. Sweden is committed to early

ratification, and we urge all countries to be similarly

committed.

33

As I said at the outset, in order to have an efficient

and relevant United Nations, not paralysed by the veto and

able to cope with the challenges of conflict prevention,

nuclear disarmament and the protection of human rights, we

also need reforms. In particular, we need to strengthen the

United Nations capacity for conflict prevention and to

address root causes of conflict. This is a moral imperative

as well as a humanitarian, political and economic necessity.

The Security Council should be enlarged to better

reflect the realities of today’s international relations. A

geographical balance is important in this regard so that the

Council can become truly representative of the international

community.

The use of the veto, or even the threat of its use,

hampers the work of the Council. We support the proposal

that as a first step the right of veto should be limited to

decisions on enforcement action under Chapter VII of the

Charter. We would also like to see the five permanent

members agreeing on a moratorium on the use of the veto.

The Security Council should be more transparent and

open. This would contribute to the acceptance and

legitimacy of its decisions. The Council should be able to

hear the views of all relevant parties to a conflict without

the implication of political recognition.

The involvement of humanitarian organizations in the

Council’s deliberations would enhance the quality of its

decisions. The humanitarian consequences of Security

Council action should always be taken into consideration.

This is particularly important when sanctions are imposed.

Sweden welcomes the Secretary-General’s efforts to

reform the Secretariat and modernize its management

culture, and we appreciate the improved efficiency that has

followed. Reform is not only about cost-cutting. The aim

must be to revitalize the Organization and the multilateral

system to cope with the many challenges before us.

Long-term security is closely linked to sustainable

development and the eradication of poverty. We need to

strengthen not only the United Nations capacity to provide

humanitarian assistance but also its long-term social and

economic development efforts.

A basic problem is the lack of funds. The donor

community needs to ensure sufficient and predictable

financial resources to allow the reforms to produce long-

term results. Sweden is one of only four countries that meet

the United Nations aid target of 0.7 per cent of gross

national product. Development requires a true partnership

between countries, ensuring sufficient external resources,

sound use of internal resources and good governance.

The reform process has to continue, and we look

forward to the Millennium Assembly and the summit next

year as an opportunity to accelerate the work.

We all have a tendency to blame the United Nations

for our own failures and shortcomings. In fact, when the

United Nations fails, it is because we fail. If the United

Nations loses its relevance, we lose. There is no real

alternative to global cooperation to cope with increasingly

global problems, and for this, we need the United

Nations — but a strengthened and reformed United

Nations.