Netherlands

It is a great pleasure to see you, Sir, a youthful symbol of a profoundly changed Bulgaria, in the Chair. I know and trust that you will steer us skilfully through this session of the General Assembly. The cold war is over. The world has heaved a sigh of relief. The United Nations now has an unprecedented opportunity to carry out the mandate contained in the Charter, even though politically the world has grown much more complex and complicated. Of course, no change has occurred in the underlying problems of a long-term nature. The threat to the very survival of the human race posed by the deterioration of the environment, overpopulation and poverty was there already, even though awareness of the threat has increased quite dramatically in recent years. It is a threat that will be with us for years to come, and it will grow more and more acute if there is a lack of appropriate action. One course of action is for the United Nations to put its house in order in these areas through a restructuring of its economic and social sectors and through a meaningful follow-up to the Rio Summit. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development has put sustainable development high on our agenda, and there it should remain. The establishment of solid machinery, including a high-level commission on sustainable development, will, we hope, be one of the major achievements of this session of the General Assembly. But in the political field, on which I will concentrate today, there has been a qualitative change. We are still thankful for the end of the cold war, with its menace of massive nuclear destruction, but in its stead a plethora of conflicts and potential conflicts has sprung up with a vehemence which nobody had foreseen. Each of these conflicts has its own characteristics, and each has to be dealt with in a particular fashion. The United Nations is, on the whole, the right organization to deal with these emergencies, whether directly or indirectly. In order to carry out that task it will need to possess all the means necessary for what I would call a flexible response, ranging from preventive diplomacy to repressive action. A number of these requirements have been set out by the Secretary-General in his impressive report "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277). This Agenda will form the basis for our discussions on the subject. Where and when should the United Nations intervene? Clearly, it cannot be everything to everyone. In order not to overstretch, it inevitably has to apply a certain degree of self-restraint. Moreover, the membership of our Organization consists of sovereign States, and respect for their sovereignty is one of its principles. Nevertheless, it would be too easy to make non-intervention and deference to domestic jurisdiction the leading guideline. Moreover, it would not work. Frontiers have become porous and information world-wide. Atrocities and aggression committed within a country cannot pass unnoticed, and once noticed will not be tolerated by world opinion. For the United Nations to stand idly by would be detrimental to its new-found status, which we all have an interest in protecting. With the end of the cold war, regional conflicts have proliferated, but at the same time the possibility of doing something about them has increased. This is both because the Security Council is not paralyzed by vetoes any more and because the risk of a conflict's degenerating into global war has subsided. This makes it possible to contemplate international action where it would have been impossible or unfeasible before. With the possibility of action comes the notion that lack of action is a form of action as well, requiring a decision, just as a decision is necessary to act. A decision not to act in the case of flagrant violations of human rights or the rights of minorities, or in the case of large-scale human suffering, will now set a precedent, just as planned intervention does. It is no longer possible just to look the other way. Perhaps somewhat belatedly, this has been recognized in the case of Somalia. The international community could not afford to condone the intolerable situation in that country any longer. The short-term task consists of assuring the survival of the people. In the somewhat longer term, the whole country will have to be reconstructed. The United Nations has a major role to play on both counts. The United Nations has also become involved in former Yugoslavia. Here we see massive aggression, destruction, impending starvation and even the establishment of concentration camps, all with a view to making large areas "ethnically clean", as the ugly saying goes. Nationalism and irredentism have run wild and are threatening neighbouring States as well. Everyone knows who is mainly responsible. Concerted action can and should be taken. Effective delegation and cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations is crucial. Joint United Nations-European Community efforts to help solve the Yugoslav crisis are a clear example. Interaction between the United Nations and the European Community, in their co-chairmanship of the London Conference, has underlined the potential for coordination between the United Nations and regional organizations in the field of preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping and peacemaking. It is not only Chapter VIII that is being put into practice here. Even more important is the linkage between the quest for a diplomatic solution on the one hand and the possibility of enforcement action by the United Nations on the other hand, in the event of non-compliance by the parties concerned. The recognition of territorial and ethnical faits accomplis would be an insult to the Charter. To my mind, the Yugoslav crisis is a compelling case for action. More could be done, and I hope that more will be done soon. The Netherlands fully supports the Secretary-General's view that: "regional arrangements or agencies in many cases possess a potential that should be utilized in serving... preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping, peacemaking and post-conflict peace-building". (A/47/277, para. 64) Indeed, I am convinced that regional organizations increasingly have to take up responsibilities with regard to regional peace and security. The role of the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in the Yugoslav crisis is a clear example of this trend. So are others, such as the Organization of American States and the Organization of African Unity. The process of delegation and cooperation between the United Nations and the various regional organizations does not have to stop at this level. Organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Western European Union have specific operational contributions to make as well. Both organizations recently announced at the CSCE Summit in Helsinki their decision to make resources available to support the CSCE or the United Nations in carrying out peace-keeping activities. The CSCE can also call on others, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States, to contribute to peace-keeping activities. This development is a concrete example of an evolving network of organizations which we refer to as 'interlocking institutions'. The Security Council is rightly the focus of world attention nowadays. This new interest has provided the discussion on the Council's membership with a fresh impetus. In the last chapter of "An Agenda for Peace", the Secretary-General observes that agreement among the permanent members of the Security Council must have the deeper support of the other members of the Council. It should also have the wider support of the membership of the Assembly if the Council's decisions are to be effective and are to endure. This raises the question of the relationship between members and non-members of the Council and of the Council's composition. The achievements of the Council in terms of effective leadership and decision-making, particularly during the last two years, need not be elaborated upon. Supporters of the maintenance of its current composition can hence, with some justification, argue that there is no need to change a winning team, or, to use a colloquial expression of our host country, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The critics of the status quo argue that the Council's present composition is a reflection of the balance of power of days gone by. This leaves us with a dilemma because both sides have a point. Important changes have taken place in international relations. The number of Member States has increased enormously since the enlargement of the Council in 1963. The Charter specifies in Article 24 that the Council acts on behalf of all Members. This implies that the Council should be, to a certain degree, representative of the international community. Were the Council to become an exclusive club disconnected from the United Nations membership as a whole, this might tend to undermine its authority and diminish its effectiveness. So what are we to do when faced with the question of the Council's effectiveness on the one hand and its representativeness on the other? A possible solution to this question might be found in severing the automatic link between permanent membership of the Council and the right of veto. A number of concrete options can be considered in this respect. One would be to consider the adoption of a double veto: two negative votes by permanent members being required to hold up a decision instead of one. Another suggestion put forward is the creation of semi-permanent membership of the Security Council. This membership would apply to a certain category of important States for a period of, say, five to seven years, possibly without the right of veto. To determine which countries would be eligible for this type of membership, it seems that two criteria are relevant: both the political weight of the country concerned and the degree to which its membership would contribute to a more equitable geographical distribution of the Council's composition. In view of the Council's responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, it would appear to me that those two elements should be carefully balanced against each other. Clearly, the creation of semi-permanent membership is only one of a number of options that can be considered. A broad international discussion on this issue has already begun. The basis of this discussion should be in the agreement that any change envisaged should first and foremost seek to ensure the continued effectiveness of the Council for the United Nations as a whole. In recent years we have seen some very encouraging developments all over the world in the field of human rights. Many nations have taken the difficult but promising road to democracy. Their success will undoubtedly contribute to a further spread of respect for fundamental human rights. It was our hope that the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights, to be held next year in Vienna, would contribute to this positive trend. The Netherlands welcomed the process from the start. We are, for instance, a major donor to the fund that allows delegations from the least privileged countries to participate. However, the preparatory process has thus far failed to produce an agenda for the Conference. The Chairperson of the preparatory process rightly concluded that most States will be disappointed at the lack of results. The Netherlands shares this feeling of disappointment. Curiously enough, the results thus far have lagged behind the constructive and relatively harmonious results achieved in other United Nations forums such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The perfect example of this was the recent unanimity displayed by this Commission when it met for its first emergency session, which was devoted to the human rights situation in former Yugoslavia. In view of this sharp contrast, one cannot but wonder what causes the World Conference process to be so polarized and, subsequently, what positive contribution the Conference can make in these circumstances to the United Nations work in the field of human rights. Meanwhile, human rights are still, in practice, being violated in numerous countries. I have already mentioned former Yugoslavia, where outrage at the massive violation of human rights and international humanitarian law in Bosnia-Herzegovina, confirmed by the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mazowiecki, has increased the calls for measures against the perpetrators of such acts. Personal accountability under international law and the appropriate machinery to deal with the individuals responsible are still lacking, but Security Council resolution 771 (1992) paves the way for follow-up action by Member States. My country favours the establishment of machinery for the systematic gathering of data concerning criminal acts committed by individuals with regard to the Geneva conventions and the human rights conventions. I believe that such an approach can be expected to have a deterrent effect. For the longer term. Member States could consider the establishment of an international criminal court, taking into account work already undertaken by, among others, the United Nations International Law Commission. Although it is clear that the establishment of such a court will not come about overnight, it is certainly worthy of careful consideration by the 'Assembly. The Assembly might give the International Law Commission the task of developing this idea further. The United Nations involvement in conflict settlement has led to a wide array of peace-keeping operations. The number of Blue-Beret military has reached an all-time record. The Netherlands contributes sizeably to United Nations operations worldwide and will continue to do so: taking into account other obligations and practical limitations, all units of the Netherlands armed forces can in principle be assigned for peace-keeping. We support the concept of making available contingents to the United Nations at short notice and have included this in our standing offer to the Organization. The Preamble to the Charter clearly states the United Nations determination to promote social progress and better standards of living. Many countries are confronted with a lack of social stability, mass migration, rapid urbanization and other problems which affect the fabric of society. The world summit for social development, in principle to be held in 1995, will allow us to address these issues at the highest levels of government. This will help the United Nations to carry out the tasks inherent in its important social mandate. The Security Council has rightly qualified the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction as a threat to international peace and security. This underlines the importance of combating their proliferation. Arms control and regional, political and security arrangements have their role to play. So have export control regimes. The Netherlands attaches particular value to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, and it is heartening to see before the Assembly the concrete elaboration of technical procedures for this Register, agreed to by consensus by a representative panel of governmental experts. The time has come to render the Register fully operational starting next spring, in 1993, and we look forward to a universal implementation of its provisions. A convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons will be put before this session of the Assembly. It is a magnificent achievement for all the members of the Geneva Conference on Disarmament. My country hopes that many countries will be amongst the original signatories of the chemical weapons convention, so that it can be strictly implemented. The Netherlands, as host country for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), has a special role to play, and we shall endeavour to live up to expectations. With the chemical weapons convention achieved, it becomes all the more important to reflect upon ways and means to strengthen the biological weapons Convention, in particular in matters of verification. Securing compliance with the Convention could involve more than just voluntary measures, important though these may be. As to the third category of weapons of mass destruction, we have to bear in mind that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is up for extension in 1995. My country strongly advocates such an extension for an indefinite period. We welcome the progress made recently to strengthen the non-proliferation regime by both further accessions to the NPT and modifications of the Tlatelolco Treaty, opening the way for the entry into force of that Treaty for all Latin American and Caribbean States. We are are placing ever-increasing demands upon the United Nations. Cambodia, Yugoslavia and Somalia are only a few examples of its increasing involvement. This is not without severe financial consequences for the Organization. Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that, at a time when we expect the United Nations to play its demanding role, an important number of Member States is not paying its contributions on time and in full. We believe it is essential for the proper functioning of the United Nations that all Member States, not just 5 per cent, meet the condition of full and timely payment. The United Nations will not be able to fulfil its task unless everyone picks up his share of the bill. Financial discipline on the part of Member States is as important as it is on the part of the Organization. With regard to peace-keeping especially, if regional responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security is to acquire real meaning, we would strongly favour Member States looking at the concept of burden-sharing on a regional basis. In any case, the present short-term solutions of ad hoc financing are neither satisfactory nor equitable. If we want a healthy United Nations to deal with tomorrow's problems, this issue needs to be addressed today. It would be an illusion to think that the current stopgaps, creative as they may be, will eventually suffice. As I have already stated, the opportunities for the United Nations to carry out its mandate are unprecedented. This is true for a number of conflicts which until recently seemed intractable. Cambodia is the clearest case where a United Nations peace plan is being implemented. Angola is another example of what the United Nations can do. The continuing dialogue by South African parties provide us with a spark hope for the establishment of a non-racial democracy. There is an initial involvement on the part of the United Nations. Negotiations within the framework of the Madrid Conference have carried the Middle East peace process further after a long period of standstill. I hope that in this area, too, the United Nations can at some stage become closely involved. My friend and colleague Douglas Hurd, speaking on behalf of the European Community and its member States, rightly observed that the challenge facing us in this turbulent time is to reinforce the system of collective security based on the United Nations. As I said earlier, the United Nations cannot be everything to everybody. Nevertheless it is clear that, because of the success our Organization has achieved over the last few years, enormous expectations have been raised. It is our duty to see to it that the United Nations is equipped in terms both of personnel and financing to face the tasks with which it will of necessity be confronted. That brings me, logically and finally, to the Secretary-General. It is a source of the greatest satisfaction to me to see Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali in this august position. His profound international experience, his keen intelligence and the determination which he has already shown in tackling a number of issues make him very much the right man in the right place. I wish to assure Mr. Boutros-Ghali of the co-operation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the discharge of his arduous task.