United Kingdom, 1992

I am privileged to speak this morning on

behalf of the European Community and its 12 member States. It is a pleasure

to do so under your guidance, Mr. President under the guidance of a fellow

European Foreign Minister whose country has made such great progress in recent

years and whose foreign affairs, under your leadership, have also made a very

substantial step forward.

It is also a pleasure to speak in the presence of the Secretary-General.

I do not wish to heap compliments upon you at this stage,

Mr. Secretary-General, but I hope that the contents of what I have to say and

what we offer you in terms of support for your practical policies you will

accept as an adequate compliment.

As my colleagues from other regions of the world have no doubt noticed,

we in the European Community are conducting a lively discussion on how to

achieve the ever closer union to which we are all committed. I am not going

to speak about that subject today because I want to speak about Europe and the

wider world, but I do want to emphasize on behalf of us all that so far from

turning away from that wider world, we in Europe are increasingly active in

it. And I want to make it clear that the European Community and its member

States are determined to build up the place and the role of the Community and

its 12 member States in world affairs. We intend to work together for the

better world order in which we all believe and we intend to carry that work

forward with greater impetus and greater effectiveness.

Two years ago, when I first came to speak at the Assembly, the world was

celebrating the end of the cold war, the beginnings of freedom. Everyone was

optimistic, because everything had changed - it appeared for the better

since I had first attended a session of the General Assembly, at the height of

the cold war back in the 1950s.

At the end of 1992 we see things differently. The world after the cold

war is a better place, but it is also less stable. We have seen both a

democratic spring and a demagogic spring, an outpouring of hope but also, in

places, an outpouring of hate.

International order is threatened in the short term by the unleashing of

extreme nationalism, of challenges to the rule of law. In the medium term we

have to reinforce the system of collective security based on the United

Nations. Respect for good government, respect for human rights must move to

the centre of our stage. In the long term we face the threat to international

peace and security posed by poverty, posed by environmental degradation. We

cannot afford to postpone action on the longer-term problems while we wrestle

with the short-term problems. I should to look, very briefly, at each of

these three challenges in turn.

The short term the immediate. Nationalism, of course, is not a fault

in itself; it is a natural instinct of man in society. We see its benign

manifestations in many places in the former Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia,

though even there, there are problems. Yugoslavia is the worst example of the

bitterness of nationalism producing intolerable results. That is why both

Europe and the United Nations have to work strenuously for peace with justice,

for the relief of suffering in those tortured lands of the former Yugoslavia.

Since last autumn the European Community and the United Nations have

indeed been working closely, the United Nations leading on peace-keeping and

the European Community on peace making through Lord Carrington's Peace

Conference. This cooperation has helped stop the killing in, for example, the

Serb Krajina in Croatia, where the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR)

and the European Community monitoring mission have achieved a good result.

As conflict escalated, particularly in Bosnia, the United Nations and the

European Community decided with wide international support to harness their

efforts more closely together through the process launched by the London

Conference last month. The International Conference on the former Yugoslavia

is now working in Geneva under the co-chairmanship of Mr. Cyrus Vance for the

United Nations and Lord Owen for the European Community. It is powered by the

determination of the international community to bring an end to the violence

in the former Yugoslavia.

The Conference has two main objectives: humanitarian and political; to

alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict and to bring that

conflict permanently to an end by negotiating a political settlement. This

is, of course, difficult work, requiring a deep understanding of the problems,

requiring the respect and cooperation of the parties, requiring the unstinting

support and, when necessary, the mobilizing of pressures from the

international community.

In this context, I believe that Prime Minister Panic's new approach shows

great courage and I salute that courage. It offers a different way forward

which we believe should be supported. But while the killing and suffering

continue, as they did yesterday and as they do today, we cannot relax our

efforts. We have to measure progress by deeds and not promises.

We have to continue to deal with other problems left by the rolling back

of the cold war. In Cambodia, we must not let the peace process drift. The

Khmer Rouge have not joined phase II of the cease-fire arrangements. They are

delaying the implementation of the comprehensive political settlement. On the

positive side, the military deployment of the United Nations Transitional

Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) is now fully complete and the civilian component

is beginning to take control of the key ministries. We have to make every

effort to hold to the timetable for elections next April.

Some States still show a willingness to challenge the rule of

international law and, indeed, to resort to terrorism. The invasion of Kuwait

by Iraq was the first test of the post-cold-war era, and the liberation of

Kuwait was one of this Organization's great successes. Unfortunately, we have

to note that Saddam Hussein continues to defy the United Nations, that his

Government is failing to meet Iraq's obligations under Security Council

resolution 687 (1991), that he continues to repress his own population,

particularly in northern and in southern Iraq. That is why pressure must

and will - continue until he implements the resolutions of the United Nations

in full. The message has to be that all States must comply with Security

Council resolutions. We still wait for Libya to implement Security Council

resolution 731 (1992).

Those are just some of the short-term challenges that we have to meet.

There are long-running problems which we must not forget, and one of

particular concern to the European Community is Cyprus. This year,

Mr. Secretary-General, you have made an energetic effort. It is not yet

decisively successful. You are renewing the effort next month. There is a

need for fresh impetus, it seems to us, on the key issues of territory and

displaced persons. There must be a willingness to negotiate on all sides;

otherwise there will be no lasting settlement.

You have our full support, Mr. Secretary-General, as you renew your

effort. Not only does it deserve to succeed, but it is in the crucial

interest of Europe and the international community that it should succeed.

In the medium term we have to build a stronger system of collective

security. And here, everybody looks, rightly, to the United Nations. But as

the Secretary-General has pointed out, we are in danger of loading the

Organization with too heavy a burden: a burden of intervention and a burden,

in effect, of partial administration.

"Something must be done." That phrase is on many lips; it is the impulse

which we all feel as we read about or as we watch on television screens some

fresh evidence of man's inhumanity to man. But we have to realize where that

impulse, that phrase "Something must be done", leads us. We should not wander

down that road without serious thought because it would involve a

restructuring of armed forces so that they could take a full part in the

growing number of peace-making and peace-keeping exercises of the United

Nations. It would mean a massive increase in the funds which the United

Nations and its humanitarian agencies would require from Member States from

us: from all of us in regular contributions and in aid, in times when many

Member States face severe budgetary problems. These are just two of the

implications of the course on which the world is beginning to propel the

United Nations because "something must be done".

How do we prevent these demands from getting out of hand? The best way,

of course, is to prevent those conflicts which give rise to the demands - in

short, diplomacy: preventive diplomacy. I know that diplomacy is

unfashionable in the world of the knee-jerk reaction and the dogmatic

sound-bite on television. Diplomacy lacks news value; it lacks glamour; it

involves compromise; it takes time; it is easy to mock. It just happens to be

indispensable.

That is true, to take one example of many one could take, of conflicts in

the Middle East. There the parties have from time to time tried to cut the

knot; they have tried to resolve their disputes by force, but in vain. This

is a critical moment in the Arab-Israel peace process, which we in Europe

strongly support. We in the Community know that all concerned must seize this

opportunity; the tide must be caught. The negotiation of a final settlement

based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) will take time

yet, will take hard work yet. What is important in the immediate future is

for all parties to work towards visible progress, building step on agreed step.

Diplomacy is partly a matter of institutions and strengthening them.

Speaking as a European on behalf of Europeans, I hope that one day the

Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) will be effective in

the prevention of conflict throughout Europe. With the adoption of the

Helsinki document the CSCE has begun to give itself the tools to tackle

problems by conciliation before they slide into violence, and to manage crises

once they develop. That document shows that the CSCE is a regional

arrangement according to Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. That

makes a crucial link between European and global security.

But of course the United Nations is the centre of this thinking, and

reform of the United Nations is crucial to its performance. Early this year

the Secretary-General made a determined start on administrative reform. I

believe that will turn out to be a decisive step. This is being followed up

both in the Secretariat and in the vast superstructure of intergovernmental

bodies which have grown up over the past 40 years in the economic, social and

other fields.

We welcome the work of the General Assembly to which I know that you

personally, Mr. President, are devoted to rationalize its agenda. All this

is welcome; all this has to be carried forward.

A summit of the Security Council met last January at the initiative of my

Prime Minister to consider next steps. We asked the Secretary-General to

prepare a report on the ways in which the United Nations could help tackle the

new challenges of which I have spoken. On 17 June, you,

Mr. Secretary-General, published your ideas on preventive diplomacy,

peace-keeping, peace-making and what you called peace-building. This

collection of ideas is going to turn out to be a turning-point in the history

of our Organization. You tried to address a need which is not some distance

ahead, but which is here and now. I believe you are in the extraordinary

position of someone who is being asked to manufacture a vehicle while he is

driving that vehicle on the road. It is not easy, but it is necessary.

The general debate should be a genuine debate on the ideas advanced in

the report. All United Nations bodies, notably the Security Council and the

General Assembly, should follow up swiftly in the light of the debate.

Preventive diplomacy I have already mentioned. Obviously, it is

quicker. It is more helpful to peoples about to be embroiled in conflict than

even the most successful peace-keeping operation which comes after the

outbreak of violence. It is also less costly in terms of lives and in terms

of cash. The Secretary-General should be ready to make full use of his powers

under Article 99 of the Charter to draw the attention of the Security Council

to any matter which in his opinion may threaten international peace and

security. Greater use is already being made of fact-finding missions; we

would like to encourage this trend.

Preventive deployment of troops might take place to deter aggression or

conflict between States, possibly involving deployment to only one side of an

international border. Of course there may be difficulties about timing the

dispatch of such a force in a given crisis, but we believe this is essentially

a sound idea that could be applied case by case.

I warmly welcome what President Bush said yesterday on his initiatives to

strengthen the peace-keeping work of the United Nations.

In the European Community we want to follow up the idea of preventive

deployment in the event of an internal crisis, where the Government concerned

requests help, with humanitarian assistance or conciliation. No two cases

would be the same. There would need to be careful discussions with

Governments and the parties concerned before the international community could

usefully deploy monitors.

Recognizing that, the European Community and its member States have

already decided in principle to send civilian monitoring missions to States

which want them where this could avert a crisis and possible bloodshed. In

South Africa, for example, with the agreement of all the parties, established

during a recent visit of the troika, the United Nations will be joined by the

European Community and by the Commonwealth in sending observers to reinforce

the national peace accords there.

Of course, part of this prevention of conflict must involve prevention of

the proliferation of armaments, especially weapons of mass destruction. We

welcome the agreement on a global convention on chemical weapons. This is a

step towards a safer and more secure world.

We recognize that peace-making brings pain to some. Bringing pressure -

even peaceful pressure, say, of sanctions on warring parties, means

sacrifice for innocent third parties. We understand the economic difficulties

often caused to third parties by the imposition of sanctions under

Chapter VII. Countries which need balance-of-payments help, countries which

may also at the same time be carrying out prudent adjustment programmes, can

be badly affected. The international financial organizations are in the best

position to assess and then take into account the effects of United Nations

mandatory sanctions when the;_' design support packages for the countries

concerned.

The Secretary-General's report contains a number of proposals for Member

States to earmark forces for enforcement action and for peace-keeping. All 12

States members of the European Community have responded to his questionnaire

on this and all Members of the United Nations should, we believe, keep it

under regular review.

Then there is money, financial contributions. The Secretary-General

rightly, continuously underlines the importance of financial as well as

military contributions to peace-keeping. The figures speak for themselves.

The 12 States members of the European Community are supposed, under the rules,

to contribute one third of the cost of peace-keeping operations financed

through assessed contributions. At the end of August we, the Twelve, had in

fact given not 33 per cent but over 40 per cent of total contributions

actually collected so far for the various new operations launched or expanded

since the end of the last session of the General Assembly. Those European

Community member States, of which mine is one, joining in the new operation in

Bosnia, will bear all their own costs. We believe we are doing our bit so far

as this is concerned in Europe, and look to others to do the same. The

Secretary-General is quite right: the financial problems of the United

Nations must not be allowed to slide, must not be allowed to fester. We

support the proposed peace-keeping reserve fund, subject to negotiation on the

detail, and we believe the General Assembly must follow this up.

The role of the United Nations does not stop once a conflict is over.

That is why the Secretary-General's study entitled "An Agenda for Peace"

rightly looks at how we can build peace after a conflict. Take El Salvador,

an illustration that has already been used by His Excellency the President of

the Republic of Korea. The promotion of free elections and democratic

institutions is a key part of such peace-building, and so, to take a very

different example, is de-mining. Is it not a sad commentary on the state of

the world that the removal of mines in the aftermath of conflict has to be

high on our agenda, whether in Cambodia, northern Somalia or Angola?

But we of the European Community welcome the emphasis the

Secretary-General gives to human rights, democracy and development. Perhaps

during the cold war some of us tended to concentrate exclusively, or almost

exclusively, on abuses of human rights in the Soviet bloc. Elsewhere there

was lip-service when there should have been action. But all people are

entitled to full human rights. We want the World Conference on Human Rights

at Vienna in June 1993 to take real steps in that direction.

We warmly welcome as part of that effort what we see as the tide of

political reform now flowing in the continent of Africa. We are helping to

promote good government and sound human rights and electoral practices. Both

at the national and the Community level, we have already shown that we are

ready to meet requests for help in election monitoring, notably in Ethiopia,

the Congo and, later this year, in Kenya and Ghana, and also in the

inter-parliamentary work going on in Namibia.

But of course in the longer term collective security can be undermined by

deeper economic and social forces, such as poverty and environmental

degradation. Relief must be followed by recovery or else the countries

afflicted will be overwhelmed by despair. Is that not what we see in

Somalia? This appalling tragedy is a warning of what could happen elsewhere,

of what could become widespread, because Somalia is just the most extreme form

of a problem now affecting large parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

I say this all the more strongly because at the beginning of this month I

led a European Community Troika visit to Mogadishu. What we saw there is what

many colleagues have spoken of, and I echo their voices. We saw the

disintegration of a society. We marked the absence of all legitimate

authority. We witnessed the collapse of a State and of all services connected

with a State. Instead of order, instead of law, teenage gangsters roam the

streets, toting their Kalashnikovs and offering protection at a price.

Instead of a distribution system, whether capitalist or socialist, there is

blackmail and looting.

Against that background we saw the new humanitarian relief arrangements

being put into place by Mr. Eliasson and many other devoted people. We saw

how the United Nations has to work naturally, intimately and without rivalry

with non-governmental organizations. We saw how urgently the Somalis need a

reconstruction of civil authority. We fully support Ambassador Sahnoun's

efforts in Mogadishu, in Somalia. He is an outstanding civil servant on

behalf of us all. Last month the Security Council rightly voted to strengthen

the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) so that its security units

will be better able to distribute aid. Among the States Members of the

European Community, Belgium, with the support of all of us, plans a

substantial contribution to that security.

Of course not all disasters are man-made, though it looks as if an

increasing proportion are. There is the drought in the Horn of Africa and

southern Africa, which will require a major international effort over the

coming year.

For the first time, over the last two or three years, the environment has

become a priority for all countries. I have to say that the road from Rio de

Janeiro may be harder than to the road to it. The United Nations Conference

on Environment and Development in Rio attracted the world's leaders, the

world's media and the world's imagination. But sustainable development has to

stay at the top of the international agenda. That is why, immediately after

his return from Rio de Janeiro, Prime Minister Major proposed an eight-point

follow-up plan picking up the key elements agreed upon at Rio de Janeiro.

That initiative was broadly endorsed at our European Council in Lisbon and at

the Economic Summit in Munich.

The Sustainable Development Commission, which is to be set up by the

General Assembly, will be crucial to the follow-up. The Assembly must create

an effective instrument to ensure that the impetus built up at Rio is not

dissipated and lost.

To conclude, for the medium and long term we need to turn hope into

reality. In the short term, time after time, in place after place, we must

bring hope to what is already a grim reality. The legacy of the cold war is a

mixed one. In facing it, the international community must be realistic,

because history cannot be denied, cannot be uprooted. The solving of problems

which have their roots deep in the centuries is a slow, frustrating business.

After the brief gleam of optimism in 1989 and 1990, when all seemed easy,

we are now more realistic. Progress towards a more decent, orderly world will

never be without effort. Our best hope is to take two steps forward for each

step back. Even that imperfect progress will require the rapid strengthening

of our institutions and in particular of the family of institutions called the

United Nations - not essentially by more conferences and more speeches, but by

the practical effort which the United Nations, under the guidance of the

Secretary-General, mounts today in Somalia, Yugoslavia, Cambodia and countless

other troubled places.

The trucks of our agencies, painted white, and the blue berets of our

United Nations contingents do not bring magic or instant happiness, but they

bring a glimmer of hope where till then there may have been despair. In the

effort of bringing hope, in the short term and in the longer term, the

European Community and its member States will take a persistent, energetic and

worthy part.