United Kingdom, 2002

In an imperfect

world, our citizens need the United Nations as they

have never needed it before. The United Nations has

not resolved all conflicts by peaceful means, nor could

it. The authority of the United Nations has to be

underpinned by the force of arms. But the remarkable

achievement of this body has been to make the fine

language of its Charter a force for good beyond just

words; by this the United Nations has raised the bar

against the illegitimate use of violence, by States and

now by terrorists. In doing so, the United Nations has

saved lives by the million and saved millions more

from fear, poverty and tyranny.

Without the United Nations, there could have

been no salvation for the people of East Timor, no

prospect of lasting peace in Sierra Leone, no one to

help rebuild Afghanistan. Forty years ago, President

John F. Kennedy predicted a world in which 25 States

would have nuclear weapons. But the Non-

Proliferation Treaty, supported by international

safeguards, has ensured that this nightmare scenario

has failed to materialize.

All this should serve to remind us of the critical

role which the United Nations has to play in world

affairs, under its excellent Secretary-General, Kofi

Annan. It is the responsibility of all of us here in the

Assembly to ensure that the legitimacy, the authority

and the capacity of the United Nations to preserve

peace and to help build prosperity is strengthened and

not undermined.

Today, alongside the traditional threats to global

peace and security, the United Nations and the world

community face three rising challenges: failing States,

terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

The world saw in Afghanistan the graphic

dangers of State failure, where order breaks down, law

is undermined and anarchy takes over. We in the

international community must accept our share of the

blame for allowing that country to disintegrate. Al

Qaeda and their evil creed were only too willing to take

advantage. But we delude ourselves if we believe that

the chaos in Afghanistan over much of the last decade

is unique. In too many areas of the world, our fellow

citizens are forced to live under the rule of gangs,

without the security and freedoms which we all should

be able to take for granted.

If we are serious about the concept of an

international community, then, as Members of the

United Nations, we must accept our responsibility to

help prevent States from failing and to restore order

where States have already collapsed.

The United Kingdom's own experience in

Afghanistan, as the International Security Assistance

12

Force (ISAF) lead nation, working with the United

Nations, shows what can be done; but we all know that

much more needs to be done. We need a much more

structured and methodical approach to this growing

problem of failed and failing States.

But the tools are there. At Monterrey in March

and at Johannesburg earlier this month, the world

community has built on the Millennium Development

Goals to reduce poverty among the world's most

disadvantaged people. We are backing this commitment

with action. Between 1996 and 2006 the United

Kingdom will have doubled its development assistance.

Together with the Doha Round of the World

Trade Organization (WTO), we have within our grasp a

new era of sustainable economic growth and prosperity,

a stable political future for the developing world and a

much more secure global environment.

But people cannot be freed from poverty unless

they are also free from fear. Security is not an option; it

is a necessity. Three years ago over half of Sierra

Leone was under the control of rebels; over half the

population was displaced; countless civilians had been

murdered, abducted or horribly mutilated; a spiral of

sickness and hunger was taking over. Now, thanks to

United Nations and British intervention to end that

decade-long civil war, people are returning home and

rebuilding their shattered lives. But long-term

commitment is necessary in situations like that.

As we found in Afghanistan, when we deal with

failing States, we have to tackle the second challenge

to international law and justice — that of global

terrorism — as well.

All the nations of the world, and all its people —

black, white, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu

and Sikh — have a common interest in defeating

terrorism. There must be no hiding places for terrorism

or for terrorists; no hiding places for their money; and

no semantic hiding places either. The distinction some

claim between terrorists and freedom-fighters is false

and dangerous. Their victims enjoy no such distinction.

There must be no such distinctions either in

international law.

Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) created

new obligations on all of us. The United Kingdom has

been honoured to chair the Counter-Terrorism

Committee. There has been an overwhelmingly

positive response. But, as we recall those who lost their

lives on 11 September last year, we cannot relax our

collective determination.

Alongside the threats from failing States and

from terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction poses the greatest current threat to global

security, and nowhere is the case for universal support

for the enforcement of United Nations law stronger

than in the field of weapons of mass destruction.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear

Weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the

Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention comprise

one of the world's most significant bodies of

international law. For the past three decades, this

corpus of law has ensured — with one infamous

exception — that no States have resorted to these, the

world's worst weapons.

That exception is Iraq. For two decades, Saddam

Hussein's regime has defied and frustrated every

attempt to enforce the international rule of law. Iraq is

the only country to be condemned by the United

Nations for breaching the Convention on Chemical

Weapons. Iraq has fought wars of aggression against

two neighbours, and has launched missile attacks

against five countries in the region. Iraq has used

poison gas against its own people. Saddam Hussein has

persistently mocked the authority of the United

Nations. No country has deceived every other country

in the world as systematically and cynically as Iraq.

And no country presents as fundamental a challenge to

the United Nations as Iraq.

Every society, from the smallest village to the

global community represented here in the General

Assembly, must have rules, and every member of that

community must accept responsibility for respecting

and maintaining those rules. Without this, the very

concept of community breaks down. So those of us

who believe in an active international community

cannot stand by and do nothing while Iraq continues to

defy the will of the United Nations. All of us who

believe in the United Nations have to make up our

minds now about how to deal with Iraq. The authority

of the United Nations itself is at stake.

We cannot let Iraq do grave damage to this

Organization and the international order which it

represents. We cannot let Iraq go on defying a decade

of Security Council resolutions. If we do, we will find

that our resolutions are dismissed by aggressors

everywhere as mere words. We have spent 57 years

13

building this Organization beyond a talking shop. We

cannot now let that work be undone.

There are times when hard choices have to be

made. On Iraq, we have now reached such a moment. If

we fail to deal with this challenge, the United Nations

itself will be seriously weakened. And that would make

the world a much more dangerous place.

As President Bush spelled out in his powerful

speech to the Assembly here on Thursday, we have to

be resolute in the face of Iraq's defiance and secure the

will of the United Nations. We must require Iraq to re-

admit inspectors, with unfettered access. We have not

just an interest but a responsibility to ensure that Iraq

complies fully with international law. We have to be

clear to Iraq and to ourselves about the consequences

which will flow from a failure by Iraq to meet its

obligations.

And yes, in dealing with the threat posed by Iraq

we must also tackle those other international

challenges outlined so eloquently by Kofi Annan in his

address.

Over the past year we have seen a further

deterioration in security in Israel and in the occupied

territories. There has never been a greater need for

international involvement in the Middle East peace

process to secure the outcome we all want to see: two

States, Israel and Palestine living side by side within

secure and recognized borders, based on Security

Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 1397

(2002).

In Kashmir, we should continue to urge both

India and Pakistan to act with restraint, and to seek to

resolve that long-running conflict.

At the end of the cold war we had all hoped that

future generations would be able to enjoy a world

where cooperation rather than conflict was the

hallmark of international affairs. That goal is still

within reach, if we are united in tackling State failure,

in the war against terrorism and in confronting those

threats of weapons of mass destruction.

The tasks facing the founders of this institution

were no less intimidating. Yet their combination of

high values and hard-headed realism created the

greatest instrument in history for the avoidance of war.

Our founders' achievement has been formidable. But

the Organization now faces new and emerging threats.

We have to confront those threats and be ever alive to

the challenges which are out there to peace and justice

across the world. All of us who believe in those

principles of international law and justice have a duty

to ensure that they are both upheld and enforced.