Madam
President, let me first of all express my happiness at
seeing you preside over the General Assembly. Your
election sends a clear signal concerning the ever-
stronger participation of women in decision-making
processes worldwide. We value your impressive track
record on women’s rights in particular, and we will
assist you in every possible way in the fulfilment of
your difficult task.
We can take pride in the many accomplishments
achieved during the past session, most prominently the
establishment of the Human Rights Council and of the
Peacebuilding Commission. These are important
institutional advances which offer us a real opportunity
to do things differently and to do them better. They do
not, however, automatically guarantee the results that
we had in mind when we made the decision that new
institutions were needed. No structural change,
however skilfully crafted, can bring about substantive
change in and of itself. In the area of human rights in
particular, we must increase our efforts in order to
create the truly new international discourse that is
needed, based on cooperation and the even-handed
implementation of international standards. Only a new
partnership in the field of human rights, with the full
participation of all stakeholders, including civil society
and the private sector, can ensure that people
worldwide enjoy all the human rights to which they are
entitled. It is only through such a new partnership that
we will be able to make the quantum leap towards an
era of implementation.
One of the major issues that we did not resolve
following the World Summit in September 2005 is
Security Council reform. Here again, we are of the
view that structural change is needed but that it is not
sufficient in itself. On the one hand, the Council must
be given a new structure and a different composition in
order to maintain its credibility worldwide. It must
better reflect the geopolitical realities of the twenty-
first century, which are fundamentally different from
those that prevailed at the time of the creation of the
Organization. But we must also address the equally
urgent necessity to improve the way in which the
Council goes about its daily business.
Time and again we have witnessed occasions on
which the Council did not live up to its mandate, as
enshrined in the Charter, to act on behalf of the
membership as a whole. A better representation of the
views of the general membership is therefore essential
for its effectiveness and credibility, in particular
through a stronger involvement on the part of non-
members of the Council that have a particular interest
in, or expertise on, a given subject. We are satisfied to
see that the Council has taken a step in the right
direction in that regard, and we will remain committed
to helping to improve its working methods.
Working methods and enlargement are clearly
complementary elements of Security Council reform. It
would appear that, after a pause of more than a year, it
is time to try our hand again at expanding the Council,
preferably through a sober approach that takes into
account the experiences gained in 2005.
Like many before me, I would like to applaud
Secretary-General Kofi Annan for his outstanding
tenure at the helm of the Organization. One key
element of his legacy is the high priority he has
attached to the rule of law. We agree that the core
strength of the United Nations is its solid grounding in
international law, its proud track record in promoting
international law, and the unique legitimacy it can
provide in making decisions. In our globalized world,
06-53317 32
in which non-State actors play an ever-increasing role,
clear rules are needed which are applied equally to
everyone, in a transparent manner.
However, we have yet to witness the advent of an
era of the rule of law, as called for by the Secretary-
General. On the contrary, we have witnessed a
dangerous erosion of international law, in particular
international humanitarian law, and we must urgently
find ways to place the issue of the rule of law high on
the agenda of the Organization. We will work with
others to ensure that the General Assembly makes
concrete progress on this matter during this session.
While there are negative trends in the area of
respect for international law, we have made some
significant advances, in particular in the area of
international justice. It is now commonly understood
that there can be no impunity for international crimes
and that no one who has committed them is immune.
This is a historic development which has found its
most powerful expression in the establishment of the
International Criminal Court. The Court is now seized
of three situations, one of which was referred to it by
the Security Council, and more than 100 States have
become parties to the Rome Statute. This very strong
momentum can be maintained only if States and,
indeed, the Organization lend their active support to a
judicial institution which fully relies on such
cooperation in gathering evidence and arresting
indictees. Most importantly, we must realize that peace
and justice are, in the long run, complementary
concepts, and we must uphold the principle that there
can be no amnesty for the worst crimes under
international law.
The international fight against terrorism poses a
particularly complex challenge in the area of the rule
of law. First, we must complement the existing
international legal framework by adopting a
comprehensive convention against terrorism. We have
put forward our ideas in this respect and hope that they
can help in reaching an agreement, which is long
overdue. Secondly, it must be clear that the fight
against terrorism and the observance of human rights
and international humanitarian law are complementary
and mutually reinforcing. Human rights are at the core
of the value system of the international community, as
we all recognized at the Summit last year. Curtailing
them in the name of the fight against terrorism would
therefore play into the hands of terrorists, who fight
this very system with fanatic zeal. Last but not least,
the United Nations, and the Security Council in
particular, must lead by example in upholding due
process and the rights of individuals.
When I spoke in this Hall last year, I presented a
mixed assessment of the outcome of the World
Summit. On the one hand, I expressed disappointment
at the vagueness or even complete absence of some
aspects of United Nations reform, but I also warmly
welcomed some real advances. The recognition of the
responsibility to protect constituted such an advance;
indeed, it was a real milestone in the Outcome
Document. Today, we must acknowledge that the
international community has not followed up the
commitment it made at the World Summit with
concrete action.
The situation in Darfur, irrespective of the
definition of the crime in question, clearly falls within
the scope of the responsibility to protect, but we have
yet to see the action necessary in accordance with our
common commitment to protect civilian populations.
The United Nations, in spite of its shortcomings,
remains the only such Organization of global reach and
is uniquely placed to address the complex challenges
the world is facing today. However, it will be capable
of living up to this role only if we re-establish the
institutional balance within the system. In particular,
the General Assembly must reassert its role as a central
policymaking body and work on a par with the Security
Council.
The most prominent topics for the Organization
in the coming weeks are clear: the situation in Darfur,
the Middle East, the nuclear programme of Iran and the
appointment of a new Secretary-General. All these
topics are dealt with in the Security Council, while the
General Assembly plays at best a secondary role. The
Assembly must, therefore, address in parallel, and
make progress on, the development agenda in all its
aspects, system-wide coherence, disarmament, Security
Council reform and other priority areas of the work of
the organization. A better division of work between the
two most important organs will make the Organization
as a whole more effective and more efficient. It is,
therefore, in the common interest of all States to make
the General Assembly the central policymaking body it
was designed to be by the founding fathers.