Poland

Let me begin by congratulating President Jan Eliasson on his election. Allow me to assure him of Poland’s readiness to support him in his efforts during this session. I would also like to join the European Union presidency — to whose statement we fully adhere — in expressing my words of gratitude to His Excellency Mr. Jean Ping for his leadership during the preparations for the sixtieth anniversary summit. This year in Poland we are commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the Solidarity movement. In the history of Europe since the Second World War, there have been few events that can be celebrated with a similar sense of pride and satisfaction. The history of Solidarity — and in particular its rebirth in 1989 — opened the way to profound historic changes in Europe and the entire world, including the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Communist bloc. I hope and believe that Solidarity’s message still remains an inspiration not only for Poland, but also for the entire world — wherever there are people who uphold or aspire to freedom and solidarity. In that spirit, I would like to repeat our call to celebrate 31 August as a world day of freedom and solidarity. In our opinion, global solidarity should be the central value in and the key tool for achieving a new sense of community and realizing our common interests. Poland’s dedication to the concept of solidarity also draws strength from the fact that Poland itself benefited from foreign aid and support. Today, we are undergoing an important transition in our status: from aid recipient to donor. We hope that Poland’s active cooperation for development will serve as a catalyst for further change and help lay the foundation for democracy, sustainable development, human rights and the rule of law. For us, however, the concept of responsible solidarity is not solely limited to humanitarian endeavours; it means more than assisting the poor and underdeveloped. Solidarity is an operational principle, which generates cooperative attitudes among countries in need, including those plagued by terrorism, natural and manmade disasters, weak State structures and other calamities. Solidarity means rescue rather than relief, remedy rather than alleviation. It should be driven by need — not by right — and cut across dividing lines. It is solidarity that can help to bridge religious and ideological divides and overcome the difficult legacy of the past. Indeed, if we want to build a world without divisions we must first suppress all disputes that feed on past grievances. We have to find a way to reconcile divergent points of view without sacrificing our principles. The recently concluded High-level Plenary Meeting was a product of enormous efforts to forge a new global consensus on development, security, human rights and United Nations institutional reform. The agenda of the summit was long and ambitious. The preparatory process, as well as the summit itself, offered many insights, ideas and useful recommendations that merit further serious consideration. However, despite the great determination and expectations, we failed to achieve unity in confronting all of the world’s most menacing problems. The United Nations is a ponderous institution and does not embrace change easily. Thus, we should not expect that each and every summit will provide us with revolutionary changes. Real breakthroughs are usually the result of a lengthy process. Consequently, our outcome document should be regarded not as the end of reform, but as a guide for the further practical steps that need to be taken. In that context, I call on Members to devise a plan to implement our summit decisions and to submit it to the General Assembly for adoption. This time, we must break the vicious circle of inaction and ensure a proper follow-up to the summit. Finding workable forms and mechanisms for cooperation has never proved easy and will remain a serious challenge for the months ahead. The United Nations operates in a constantly changing international environment. We have already identified major new threats, risks and challenges: the fanaticism of international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, organized crime, States in crisis and failed States. Although we claim to know their nature, we will never be quite able to predict how, where and when those threats will manifest themselves. At the same time, such threats cannot overshadow the importance of addressing their root causes, such as development gaps, poverty, social exclusion, natural disasters, discrimination and intolerance, among others. 19 We are passing through a transitional stage with all its strains and stresses. International institutions and mechanisms — designed to serve the old international system — must face the challenge of reform and accommodation. The United Nations is not an exception. As a consequence, we have had to find ways and means to respond to the swiftly changing nature of security threats and risks. Thus, the challenge remains the same as for all of us: how do we manage that change? In this era of globalization and rapid change, no country alone can fully ensure its own security. State security is more than ever before dependent on external determinants. What we need is an innovative and imaginative approach to security, both in the realm of strategy and in its constituent processes. Moreover, we have to develop a new security paradigm according to which the security of individuals is as important as the security of States. Likewise, we need a new concept of sovereignty that attaches greater importance to protecting the rights of people than to the prerogatives of State power. We must place the human being at the centre of the activities of international institutions. It is true that the first duty of a Government should be to protect those living within its jurisdiction from genocide, mass killing and human rights violations. However, in certain instances, the responsibility of the international community to take action must be ensured. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a longstanding problem that has afflicted the international community for many years. However, in the light of the particularly threatening nexus of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, it has taken on a new dimension. No State is immune to it or is protected from its consequences. At the same time, existing systems of national control and international non-proliferation agreements are not completely effective and are undermined by loopholes and lacunae which enable States and individuals to bypass the regime. It is all the more disappointing, therefore, that the United Nations summit failed to reach an outcome on non-proliferation and disarmament. To address that challenge adequately, we have to strengthen the three pillars of the nuclear-arms-control regime: non-proliferation, disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. We should, however, ensure that it works in a harmonious and self- sustaining way. Another issue is that of enforcement. Legal norms that are not effectively enforced obviously do not serve their purpose. We have to seek ways and means to ensure effective verification and to enforce respect for existing non-proliferation and disarmament obligations. We cannot count solely on persuasion and containment. More fundamentally, we need a comprehensive review of the existing negotiating machinery. With that in mind, two methods of action are possible. One would be to establish a group of experts; the other — perhaps a better solution — would be to request that a respected international independent research centre — such as, for example, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute — prepare a report containing recommendations on how to make existing United Nations institutions and mechanisms more effective, operational and efficient. Our concerted efforts to strengthen the United Nations will be doomed to failure if we continue to believe that only security issues matter. They certainly do matter, but security is a much broader concept. It does not involve only the absence of hard or soft threats. It is, above all, about the absence of threats to fundamental human values. Likewise, the eradication of poverty is essential not only to peace and development, but, first and foremost, to the preservation of human rights and standards. Ensuring social justice and reducing inequalities do not involve only the allocation of scarce resources to guarantee security; they also presuppose both human freedom and human dignity. In that context, Poland welcomes the proposed changes to the United Nations human rights machinery, especially the decision to establish a Human Rights Council. We believe that such an organ would enable us to promote respect for human rights in a more efficient and responsible way. We should also promote democracy through the United Nations in order to protect human rights and expand democratic freedoms. No one can claim that democracies are free of contradictions and injustices. But it is democracies that best serve to defend the values we want to protect and promote. In that spirit, on behalf of the citizens of Poland, I would like to reiterate our sincere and strong support 20 for the Democracy Fund, established to assist countries in their transition to democracy. I truly believe that this new mechanism will help to address differences among and within societies in a spirit of true respect and understanding. Poland’s commitment to the community of shared values does not mean that we disregard the institutional and technical aspects of reform. Institutional adaptation should be characterized by openness, transparency and effectiveness. These are precisely the principles that have guided us in the process of analysing Security Council reform and establishing the Peacebuilding Commission and the Human Rights Council. Reform of the Security Council is proving to be an enormously complex and divisive issue. Although necessary, it should not be conducted at the cost of compromising the Council’s capacity to meet its Charter responsibilities. The Republic of Poland believes that the effectiveness and efficiency of the Security Council rests on the assumption that membership not only grants additional privileges but also increases responsibilities. Furthermore, Poland fully recognizes the importance of the ongoing process carried out by the Secretary-General, which is aimed at enhancing effective management of the Organization. We strongly encourage continuing such efforts to strengthen United Nations accountability and its oversight mechanisms as well as to promote the efficient use of its human resources. System-wide coherence, particularly regarding operational capabilities and humanitarian assistance, should be high on the reform agenda. We hope that such an approach will enhance the Organization’s capacity to carry out its new tasks and meet its new challenges, thus enhancing the authority of the United Nations and its role in the international system. Poland’s commitments in the framework of the United Nations are not made based on tactical considerations. We are not calculating what we can gain from this or that choice. We do not expect to make political profits or economic gains. But we share a sense of solidarity and responsibility with respect not only to our own country but also to the entire international community. A system based on values and principles may not be perfect, but it is likely to be more peaceful and, in the long run, more conducive and responsive to the needs of peoples. In that spirit, I hope that this anniversary session will provide a strong impetus to rebuild the community of shared values and enable us to replace the global psychology of competition with a spirit of cooperation.