Romania

I am greatly pleased to extend my warmest congratulations to our newly elected President of the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly. Also, I join previous speakers in expressing our debt of gratitude to the outgoing President, Mr. Didier Opertti, for his able stewardship of the proceedings of the Assembly during the past session. I welcome the newcomers to the United Nations family, Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga. It has not been an easy year for our Secretary-General. We all appreciate his wisdom and sense of balance in steering the reform process of the United Nations itself with a firm hand at a time of profound change on the international scene. Whether we like it or not, globalization is upon us. A satisfactory definition of the term may not be yet available, but we all feel the effects of it: pervasive; subtle or less so; disturbing; sometimes perverse; and, above all, challenging. The end of a millennium and the advent of a new one is a good time for reflection. It is not just coping with the millennium bug, which may cause our computers to go awry; it is — to use the Secretary General's well polished phrase — a “symbolically compelling moment”. It is not for me to answer the question of where we are and where we are heading: the collective wisdom of the United Nations Member States, assisted by academia and, we hope, by civil society too, will take charge of that at the millennium summit next year. I think we must take that event seriously: although we may have a lot to celebrate, we still have a lot more to do, earnestly, pragmatically and effectively. Like all good things, globalization produces beneficial effects; then again, as happens with most good things, those benefits are not evenly distributed: those who are better equipped to face the challenge of going global will reap its fruits sooner, while those who are not will have to try harder. What I mean is that as we talk about globalization we do not have to indulge ourselves in slogans or idolatry: globalization involves great benefits, but also great risks. We should not forget that our century first experienced the dark side of globalization: world war. Luckily, it is also globalization — this time in its good sense — that can make it impossible for conflicts to become chronic, because the whole world instantly learns about any local dispute and mobilizes all available energies to identify and implement solutions. The moral underpinning of globalization is called solidarity. One could say that in its very structures and goals the United Nations anticipated contemporary globalization: the United Nations is all about institutionalized solidarity, and to belong to this Organization means making solidarity the norm of best conduct. Social, political and economic solidarity; cultural, inter-ethnic and regional solidarity; solidarity born out of respect for values, and fostered by goodwill and good faith — these are the ethics that we wish for the forthcoming millennium. It should be clear that the individual must necessarily be the beneficiary of any form of solidarity: international organizations, States and governments do not acquire legitimacy and cannot be judged otherwise than through their impact on individual destiny. The real man or woman, rather than generic mankind, and the values embodied by the human species, rather than self-serving projects, are the true subjects of politics. This way of thinking has lately brought up the issue of humanitarian intervention, human rights and reform of the system of international law. This is a sensitive issue and one full of pitfalls. There are those who say that we should not tolerate legal injustice under the pretext of 39 humanitarian intervention. That is true. Similarly, some say that we should tolerate either social injustice nor crime under the pretext of non-interference in domestic affairs. Undoubtedly respect for human rights is primarily the responsibility of national Governments and State institutions. However, if they do not fulfil this task, there should be an instrument capable of enforcing respect for international standards and there is no better instrument for doing so than the United Nations. Preventing conflicts is a complex undertaking. Unfortunately, we do not always have time to act subtly and imaginatively. We are not doing enough in the field of education in the sense of cultivating values of respect for the integrity of the individual and for his or her right to be different. We do not always understand in time that the most efficient way to fight war and violence is to fight poverty. We do not always know how to distinguish between political manoeuvring and public interest, between national pride and universally valid principles. We must reflect on these things not only when crises are unleashed but instantly calmly and clear-mindedly. There is no simple way of coping with complexity. It requires vision, enlightened foresight, careful planning and hard work. The revolutionary changes of ten years ago in Central and Eastern Europe and the ensuing process of transition were essentially focused on values — political pluralism, parliamentary democracy, separation of powers, individual freedom, market economy and human rights, including the rights of people belonging to ethnic, religious or other minorities. Those values prevailed because they were right, because they survived in our hearts and minds through decades of totalitarian communist oppression, and because they were embraced by the vast majority of people in our countries. But shared values themselves are not enough to build a truly prosperous democratic society: they have to be underpinned by an equally coherent set of institutions designed to serve and actually implement those values. The two — values and institutions — are inextricably linked in a functioning democracy, and it is precisely from this linkage that the indispensable ingredient for further progress arises: leadership. That, in a nutshell, is the substance of good governance. We are reminded here of the idea that: “The important thing for government is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and to do them a little bit better or a little bit worse, but to do those things which at present are not done at all.” [John Maynard Keynes, “The End of Laissez-Faire”] We in Romania, much like those in many other Central and East European countries, have been and still are learning that simple truth the hard way in a difficult and sometimes painful process of transition. It is in that spirit and in recognition of the international dimension of good governance at a time of global change that the Romanian delegation has submitted a draft code of democratic conduct (A/54/178, annex) for examination by the Assembly this session. The text before the Assembly is the result of extensive consultations and includes meaningful contributions from many quarters based upon the original framework from the Conferences of New or Restored Democracies. The important — and I would say, novel — thing about this document is that, in addition to listing principles and stating general aims, it also spells out practical modalities for carrying them out in the political, legal, administrative, economic and social spheres. Last but not least, it emphasizes the crucial role of non-institutional players — business communities, unions, non-governmental organizations, civil society, the media — in shaping policies and in building consensus for implementation. In a changing world, the world Organization itself is also changing. The scope and pace of its reform and adaptation to the new realities and requirements may have been uneven, patchy in some respects and even disappointing, but the process has gained momentum and there are hopeful signs for steady progress in the future. The United Nations is uniquely equipped by its structure and acquired expertise to seek specific rather than standard solutions to specific problems. Every crisis we have had to face in recent years and months had a physiognomy of its own. To be effective, the response must match the challenge in terms of innovative complexity. In relation to the enlargement of the Security Council membership and its improved performance, we believe that proper consideration should be given to the interests of all regional groups, including the Group of Eastern European States, which has seen the most spectacular rise in numbers over the past three decades. Romania welcomed the initiative to create the United Nations Stand-by Forces High-Readiness Brigade and takes part in it. Recent events across the world have demonstrated the urgent need to make it operational as soon as possible. We have been reminded of this in a most dramatic fashion by the recent events in East Timor. Romanian contingents took part in several United 40 Nations-led and other peacekeeping, peace support and policing operations and are further prepared to improve and diversify their contribution to such activities. Our cooperation with the United Nations agencies has become better focused and more effective. I should like to mention the importance we attach to the support of the United Nations Development Programme in designing and managing specific, high-priority projects for Romania, notably in public administration, in the preparation of a national strategy for sustainable development and of a local Agenda 21 programme. Further useful work is expected to be done jointly with the World Bank for the formulation of a comprehensive development framework at both the national and the regional level. The Balkan tragedy has been in the headlines for the whole of this past year. We all had an object lesson on the harm that ethnic and religious intolerance compounded by rabid nationalism can do to an entire region. As so many times in history, it was the innocents that had to suffer most, individuals and nations alike. But we have also learned that determination and prompt action by the international community can make a difference. It is gratifying to note that trans-Atlantic solidarity again passed a crucial test in these past few months. In fact, if we are able to look into the future of the region with a reasonable degree of optimism, it is because we have seen concerted action at work. The Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe is such proof of a new, bold approach — a comprehensive, forward looking programme which proposes to deal with the entire region with specific action envisaged on three tiers: international security, economic development and democracy and institution-building. Romania has welcomed the plan from the very beginning, is part of it and seriously means to do its utmost to bring it to fruition. It is still early, but three preliminary observations may be in order. First, the actual participation of the countries in the region and of its immediate neighbours, such as Romania, is crucial for its success. Secondly, in focusing on the eventual integration of the region as a whole into the European and Atlantic structures, the sequence and content of the steps to be taken should realistically differentiate among the actual requirements and capabilities of each participating country. Thirdly, besides action at the governmental level, it is vital to secure the active involvement of business interests and the various organizational expressions of civil society in order to give substance and continuity to the whole process. Almost as an afterthought, I think I should also mention the need for a watchful eye on transparency, applying equally to political decision-making and to procurement procedures, including those practised by the agencies of the United Nations family. This is a legitimately sensitive subject for the countries of the region, particularly for the companies registered there, and ought to be duly considered as such. Romania's commitment to its strategic goals of European and Atlantic integration is steady and unwavering. It has passed the acid test of the Kosovo crisis. We are looking forward with confidence and hope to the major decisions which are due to be taken before the year's end and thereafter. The United Nations may not be perfect, but is perfectible and, after all, is the only world forum available. It is up to us to make it live and deliver. We, the Member States, have to deliver in order to live in a peaceful world. For this I hope and pray.