Five years after the
destruction of the Twin Towers and just a few days
after the commemoration of that terrible tragedy, I
would like to extend my deepest sympathy to the
people of this great city, which serves as mankind’s
meeting point.
Last year, I stressed our collective responsibility
to protect tolerance from intolerance. I spoke of
freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Today I
should like to revisit that theme. But, in addition, I will
discuss the relationship between fighting terrorism and
respecting human rights, the search for peace in the
Middle East and reform of the United Nations.
Moreover, I will renew my call for intensified
dialogue. Only dialogue at all levels of society leads to
more knowledge about one another — and often to
more mutual understanding.
The threat of terrorism has not subsided. To fully
understand the nature of the challenge we face, we
have to ask ourselves what terrorists are aiming for.
They aspire to undermine a society based on
democracy, fundamental freedoms, human rights and
the quest for progress. In their view, there is no place
for the principles and tenets of our free society.
Instead, they try by means of terror and violence to
impose their views of the world on others.
As to the means used by terrorists, there can be
no doubt that large-scale and systematic terrorist acts
qualify as crimes against humanity under international
law. While civilized societies uphold international legal
and moral standards in defending themselves, terrorists
completely reject the central principles of international
law. Our campaign against this threat must be fought
with great determination by all of us. Indiscriminate
violence must be countered by the collective will to
defend our values, in order to protect our civilization
and human dignity.
In order for this campaign to be successful in the
long run, we must also place great emphasis on
development, fair trade and dialogue. Unlike those who
have prospects for a better life through access to
education and jobs, people without prospects and
without a voice are more easily lured by the siren call
of hatred. To deal with that issue is one of the core
missions of the United Nations. We — all nations of
the United Nations — have a collective responsibility
to give people a future and a voice so that they can
improve their lives.
Extremists cleverly seek to exploit the freedom of
open societies with the aim of destroying that very
freedom. This confronts us with a dilemma: do we
close our societies in self-defence, thus becoming more
like the evil we face, or do we remain open societies
and accept a certain degree of vulnerability? Anti-
terrorism measures can be effective only if adopted
within the context of the human rights commitments
we have undertaken. Ultimately, our defence should
not come at the expense of the very values upon which
our societies are founded. Our citizens must be able to
distinguish between the societies in which they lead
productive lives and the terrorist movements for which
human life has little value. I am happy with the
agreement we reached on the United Nations Global
Counter-Terrorism Strategy (resolution 60/288). But
now, we must see to its implementation. It is also in
our collective interest to conclude a terrorism
convention as well.
The need for interfaith and intercultural dialogue
is as great as ever. During and after the so-called
cartoon crisis, I engaged in discussions with colleagues
and the media in Asia and the Middle East. We talked
about freedom of expression and freedom of religion,
and I discovered that such personal efforts are crucial
in finding common ground. One of the initiatives we
have taken is to host the annual Asia-Europe Meeting
conference on interfaith dialogue in Amsterdam in
2008.
For any interfaith dialogue to be meaningful,
respect for diversity is a precondition. In our view, all
of the world’s nationalities, religions and beliefs
should live side by side, united by a tradition of
pluralism, democracy and the rule of law. According to
international instruments to which we all subscribe,
respect for diversity means, for example, freedom of
religion and belief. That includes the freedom to adhere
to any religion, or to no religion at all. In my country
— and in many others as well — an individual is free
to be a Christian, Muslim, Jew or Hindu or to adhere to
any other belief. This philosophy includes the right to
change one’s belief, as the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights clearly states.
06-53005 32
We believe that the separation of Church and
State and the independence of the courts are the best
guarantees that nobody has the power to impose his or
her beliefs on others. Freedom of religion and freedom
of expression are two sides of the same coin. Does this
mean that people can say whatever they want? No. The
right to free speech does not entitle a person to insult
others. But restrictions on the freedom of expression
must never go further than what is necessary within a
democratic society. In individual cases where freedom
of expression conflicts with legitimate restrictions, it is
up to the courts, not the Government, to decide which
principle should prevail.
Peace in the Middle East would reinforce a global
spirit of dialogue. We have reason to be optimistic.
Security Council resolution 1701 (2006) ended
hostilities between Hizbollah and Israel, unfortunately
only after many innocent civilians had lost their lives. I
commend the Secretary-General for his tireless efforts
to promote the resolution’s effective implementation.
The renewed United Nations Interim Force in
Lebanon (UNIFIL) is an important symbol of hope.
Peacekeepers of different religious and cultural
backgrounds are working together under the sky-blue
banner of the United Nations, as they have been doing
in the Great Lakes region in Africa and will hopefully
soon be doing in Darfur, the Sudan. I am proud of the
fact that several States members of the European
Union, together with Turkey, China and Indonesia,
provide the backbone of UNIFIL. The Netherlands is
actively considering contributing to UNIFIL’s maritime
component. Practical implementation will depend on
the cooperation of all parties and countries in the
region, and beyond, including Syria and Iran. I call
upon them to act in accordance with Security Council
resolution 1701 (2006).
Regional peace also requires resolution of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Israeli-Syrian
dispute. I call upon all parties involved to seize the
political momentum created by Council resolution
1701 (2006) and engage in serious dialogue. The
Quartet could, at the request of the Security Council,
outline a comprehensive Middle East settlement.
In this world, we need the United Nations to
manage change, rather than lag behind. We need to
renew and reinvigorate the United Nations. Last year’s
Summit was devoted to that very task. We have made
substantial progress since then, but more needs to be
done. My country’s vision of an effective United
Nations includes less fragmentation, more
concentration and more synergy. We need a United
Nations that cuts red tape, rather than one that creates
more bureaucracy. For example, in an interdependent
world, it makes no sense to have 38 different United
Nations humanitarian and development agencies. That
is why we have suggested one office, one programme,
one representative and one financial mechanism at the
country level.
My vision of the United Nations encompasses a
Peacebuilding Commission that focuses on critical
peacebuilding needs and a Human Rights Council that
is the single most authoritative voice on human rights.
It is a United Nations led by a Secretary-General with
greater authority to determine the optimal use of
human and other resources than is the case at present.
As an active Member of the United Nations, the
Netherlands will continue to contribute to the best of
its ability to turn this vision into reality. The
Netherlands does not just preach; it delivers. For more
than 60 years, ever since the foundation of the United
Nations, we have provided means, ideas and people.
And, of course, we remain committed to its cause.
Security Council reform is a difficult part of the
overall United Nations reform agenda. A pragmatic
approach would be to opt for a temporary solution that
could be modified after, say, 10 years. The world is
dynamic and the Security Council’s composition
should reflect this. The geopolitical realities of today
might not necessarily be the geopolitical realities of
tomorrow.
We should focus on the longer-term gains we all
benefit from, rather than on short-term progress at the
expense of others. Let us work to make the United
Nations operate in a less antagonistic way. We have
successfully tried this approach in the Group of Friends
for the Reform of the United Nations, in which
different countries, including the Netherlands, engage
in constructive debate to arrive at solutions that are
acceptable to all.
The United Nations is beset by problems that
require major reforms. We are united by the
opportunities and challenges of our time. In promoting
peace and stability, in debating human rights issues, or
in combating extreme poverty, we are compelled to
work together and to coordinate our actions. Let us
adopt a twenty-first-century mentality to address
33 06-53005
twenty-first-century problems. Now is the time to align
our agendas and shoulder our responsibilities together.
A strong United Nations strengthens us all.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest
appreciation to Secretary-General Kofi Annan for the
commitment and determination he has shown in pursuit
of a better world, with a United Nations that works
effectively for the security, safety and well-being of
people everywhere. Even the rocks of which he spoke
seemed a light burden under his stewardship. We
commend him for achieving tangible results in the area
of crisis management and conflict prevention and for
furthering the Millennium Development Goals.
Secretary-General Annan’s personal performance has
brought hope and optimism to the hearts of citizens all
over the world.