Liechtenstein

It is a great honour to again address this Assembly, especially at the first general debate ever opened by a woman. What an inspiration! This debate has already proven that the General Assembly can indeed play a central role in multilateral diplomacy, in particular at this time of great change and turmoil. I would like to express the solidarity of my country, Liechtenstein, with all of the peoples of the world that have, in recent months, sought to attain freedom from oppression and tyranny. We admire the courage of all of those women and men, young and old, who have stood up for their rights, often at great personal risk. We, the United Nations, must stand by them. I also wish to welcome South Sudan as the 193rd State Member of the Organization. The United Nations has yet again proven its ability to settle complex and violent conflicts by peaceful means. The developments in northern Africa and the Middle East may have roots mainly in the lack of connections between Governments and their people. While they may be primarily internal in nature, there is also an international dimension to the rapid changes we are witnessing. The events since February have put the Organization itself to the test, and more challenges can be expected to occur. In recent years we have sharpened tools and concepts that are essential in helping us solve or prevent conflicts. So how did we apply them during these challenging times? First, how well did we carry out our commitment to protect civilians? The United Nations has made much progress in developing the concept of the responsibility to protect. The concept has three pillars: in the first instance, the primary responsibility of the State concerned, and then the second pillar, according to which other States have a responsibility to assist in the protection of civilians. In two recent instances, however, the international community has had to act under the last and third pillar. We commend the Security Council for taking swift action to protect civilians in Libya and in Côte d’Ivoire. In both instances, the Council authorized the use of force only as a last resort, but also without undue delay. Some have criticized the actions taken and argued that they were aimed at regime change. Let us not forget, however, that the regimes in question had a 11-51398 2 choice. It was they who chose to attack civilians. It was they who forced the international community to act. At the same time, we sympathize with those who perceived a selective application of the responsibility to protect. As the stalemate in the Security Council on Syria showed, politics continues, at times, to trump principle. In response, however, we need more principled action, not more politics. Secondly, have we lived up to our promise to ensure accountability for the worst crimes? Have we lived up to the promise of “Never again!”, which we gave in the aftermath of Rwanda and Srebrenica? Once more, the international response to crimes committed in Libya has provided a glimmer of hope. The Security Council’s unanimous referral of the Libya situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) was a historic decision. The ICC responded appropriately with swift action. Furthermore, the Court is also undertaking preliminary investigations regarding Côte d’Ivoire. The central role played by the Court in those situations and in many others has illustrated the profound paradigm shift brought about by the Rome Statute. The core principle of that shift is now firmly entrenched in the fabric of international law: there must be accountability for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. But accountability has not yet arrived everywhere that it is needed. Serious allegations of crimes committed in Sri Lanka and in Syria, for instance, have not yet found an appropriate and transparent justice mechanism. Again, the primary responsibility to ensure an end to impunity falls on the States concerned. International mechanisms, such as the ICC, can and must only become active where States fail to live up to their responsibilities. Thirdly, how effective have we been in using mediation as a tool in the peaceful settlement of disputes? This topic, which was rightfully chosen as the central theme of the presidency, is at the very heart of the Organization’s mandate. We support the Secretary-General’s call to raise prevention from an abstract concept to a core operating principle. It is simply paradoxical that only a small fraction of the Secretariat’s resources is dedicated to mediation, while we spend $7 billion per year on peacekeeping. In many situations, the good offices provided by neutral and trusted actors, such as envoys of the Secretary-General, can make a real difference on the ground. Such actions involve highly intense, often heroic efforts, which deserve much stronger support from us as Member States. Mediation efforts are increasingly influenced by accountability mechanisms. The General Assembly itself acknowledged this fact in its first ever resolution on strengthening mediation, where it emphasized, that “justice is a fundamental building block of sustainable peace” (resolution 65/283, thirteenth preambular paragraph). In this new age of accountability, mediators can never offer amnesty from criminal prosecution or withdraw arrest warrants issued by the ICC. That is not only a matter of principle, but a matter of law. The ICC would never be bound by such promises. At times, the imperatives of peace and justice may compete with each other temporarily and make the mediator’s job more difficult. Over the long run, however, they are not only compatible, but mutually reinforcing. That message is sent around the globe upon each ratification of the Rome Statute. And we are particularly happy to note that the message has been sent 118 times so far, most recently by the Philippines and the Maldives. Fourthly, have we done enough to include women in efforts at conflict prevention and resolution and to make them agents of change, instead of bystanders? Have we done enough to protect them during conflict, in particular, from sexual violence? We have collectively sent strong signals in this regard. Liechtenstein particularly supports the Security Council’s work on women, peace and security. We welcome the new focus on the role of women brought about by the creation of UN-Women. Women have been a driving force in the Arab Spring. But as some countries transition to a new era, women risk being left behind once again. The United Nations is often involved in transitional processes. It must ensure a strong role for women and apply a gender perspective. Most important, the United Nations must lead by example and appoint more women as leaders in mediation and other transitional processes. It was therefore with great pleasure that I signed the joint statement on advancing women’s political participation, earlier today. Regarding the protection of women and girls from sexual violence, we place high hopes in the new monitoring and reporting mechanism. Expert teams will help strengthen domestic accountability mechanisms. The greatest responsibility, however, lies with peacekeepers on the ground. They are mandated 3 11-51398 to go into harm’s way and protect civilians. They must fulfil that mandate even more effectively when faced with situations of sexual violence. Most important though, we must once and for all eradicate all instances of sexual abuse committed by peacekeepers themselves. It is not enough to simply repatriate Blue Helmet soldiers who have committed such crimes. Zero tolerance for sexual abuse must finally become a reality. Fifthly, have we done enough to address the root causes of the unrest in many countries, including poverty, unemployment, corruption, lack of freedom and human rights? Those root causes and the strong popular opposition against them, remind us of a simple truth: economic and social development are inextricably linked with good governance, human rights and the rule of law. The international community has many tools at its disposal to assist countries in reforming their systems of governance. We strongly support United Nations activities to promote the rule of law and combat corruption and make financial contributions to that end. There is no shortage of assistance and capacity-building programmes. What is needed is greater political will to actually make use of them. It is, however, the task of the United Nations to improve the manner in which rule-of-law assistance programmes are delivered and coordinated. We would welcome a stronger role for the Rule of Law Coordination and Resource Group in this regard, and hope that progress can be made at next year’s high-level meeting on the rule of law. The events of recent months have shown us once again how irresistible the call for freedom can be. And they have shown us, once more, how indispensable the Organization is when it comes to assisting peoples that aspire to such freedom through democracy. Despite all the criticism, I am convinced that the United Nations has in recent years become more effective in delivering on its mandate. If we work together here, we will achieve results much more efficiently than through individual actions. Great opportunities lie ahead of us — let us accept the challenge.