Netherlands

First of all, please convey to His Excellency, Ambassador Insanally, my congratulations on his election to the presidency of the forty- eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly. This session of the General Assembly is being held at a point in time in which the United Nations is being asked to play a constructive role in many fields. The onerous task of helping to respond to this challenge rests on his capable shoulders. I should like to wish him every success in his task and I pledge the full support of the delegation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The world is balancing between great hope and immense suffering. Walls have tumbled not only in Europe. In the Middle East two courageous leaders, Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat, have set out on the road to reconciliation between their people. In South Africa Mr. Mandela and President De Klerk showed similar courage in breaking with the past and ushering in a new democratic South Africa. At the same time, we see violence of many kinds raking the face of the Earth. From Angola to Bosnia villages are being destroyed and innocent people are slaughtered in cold blood. The future of Russia as well is crucial to our hopes. A democratic Russia at peace with itself and its neighbours is a major element of international stability. In Russia, too, we see a courageous statesman trying to break with the past: President Boris Yeltsin. I join many others in expressing my full support for his efforts to consolidate democracy in Russia. The end of the cold war created a historic opportunity to shape a more just and peaceful world. History will judge us severely if we let this opportunity slip through our hands. Strengthening international peace and security involves a broad range of efforts. It is now widely recognized that "security" cannot be viewed in military or political-military terms alone. A broader definition is called for. Indeed, last year’s summit meeting of the Security Council emphasized that non-military sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian and ecological fields can be threats to peace and security as well. The traditional distinction between conflicts between States and conflicts within States is also becoming blurred. Bloodshed within a State tends, sooner or later, to spill across national borders. This, of course, raises the issue of sovereignty. How do we define sovereignty at a time of increasing interdependence and increasing mutual vulnerability? Sovereignty is certainly an important principle of international law. But this principle can never have been intended to shield from the outside world dictators who massacre their own people. Nor can it be intended to allow the perpetuation of large-scale suffering and death in a State that has collapsed into anarchy. At times the international community can indeed have a moral duty to intervene. And at times it can be necessary for the United Nations to take over the de facto exercise of sovereignty in such a shattered State to allow it to be rebuilt. We must hope that this will succeed in Somalia. We can take heart from current developments in Cambodia, which prove that such ambitious ventures can succeed. A number of recent resolutions of the Security Council have broken new ground by extending international responsibility to encompass the plight of individual countries such as Somalia and Bosnia. Thus the definition of what constitutes a threat to international peace and security has gradually been widened. In his recent speech in Quebec, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali discussed the issue of "conflict situations within nations". He said: "It is these new conflicts which are most threatening to international peace today and which are most damaging to the rights of individuals". On that occasion the Secretary-General called for "a new diplomacy for democracy and human rights". I believe 22 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session that this idea is a valuable addition to our "Agenda for Peace". Let me mention here the United Nations Conference on Human Rights, which opened up new possibilities for improving the protection of human rights. After a difficult start, the outcome of the Conference was certainly gratifying. The Final Document contains important recommendations for further steps, which should now be implemented. Thus, the Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to underscore the urgent appeal of the Conference to the Secretary-General and the General Assembly to increase drastically the funding of the United Nations Centre for Human Rights. It is of crucial importance that in the course of this session of the General Assembly the post of high commissioner for human rights be created, and the broad outline of the mandate established. This session will also provide us with an opportunity to tackle one of the most heinous categories of human rights violations - that of grave war crimes - through the establishment of the International War Crimes Tribunal. The Kingdom of the Netherlands, with its rich tradition in the field of international law, is proud to have been asked to host the Tribunal in The Hague. The increasing responsibilities that the United Nations is called upon to shoulder emphasize the twin requirements of legitimacy and effectiveness. This brings us to the heart of the debate on enlargement of the Security Council. Clearly, we must be careful not to jeopardize the decision-making ability of the Security Council by making it unwieldy. However, I would favor extension of the Council by the inclusion of a few major countries, provided that they were willing and able to carry the share of collective responsibility that went with their membership. The "Agenda for Peace" invites us to take a broader view of the task of maintaining peace and security. It rightly stresses the need for early warning and early action with regard to a crisis; or - even better - preventive action. Developments in the former Yugoslavia and in other trouble spots of the world have once again confirmed that the longer a crisis is allowed to fester, the more difficult it is to bring it under control, and the higher the cost of such action. I believe that, in this light, we should try to rethink the interrelationship of the various instruments of crisis management. Diplomatic efforts, economic sanctions and military pressure should not necessarily be viewed as sequential but, rather, as an integrated set of instruments. Peacemaking, peace-keeping and post-conflict peace-building require the full range of United Nations instruments, including those of the humanitarian and socio-economic sectors. The enormous increase in the number and scope of United Nations peace-keeping operations confronts us all with a daunting task. Moreover, in many cases the environment in which these operations take place has changed: whereas, previously, peace-keeping operations tended to be conducted in a benign environment, where all parties benefited from the implementation of a limited mandate, now peace-keepers often operate in a hostile climate, where one or more parties frown upon the United Nations presence and the Organization’s mandate. This means that many operations these days are fraught literally with physical danger for United Nations personnel - civilian as well as military - and that privileges and immunities are often violated. No longer does the blue flag automatically command respect, and this directly affects the credibility of the United Nations. Consequently, mandates now tend to be stronger than before, and often they are explicitly based upon Chapter VII of the Charter. The changing character of peace-keeping operations requires personnel with different qualifications. Well-trained soldiers used to be able to do the job; today we require also specialized units in the field of logistics, staff officers with experience in multinational operations, mine-clearing experts, and so on. On the civilian side, police officers, electoral experts, administrators and human-rights specialists are indispensable for integrated operations. Increasing recourse to the United Nations, particularly when it comes to initiating peace operations, is pushing the United Nations to the limits of its organizational and financial resources. This means that in the future the United Nations will have to rely more on regional organizations and structures to carry out peace operations and other missions. The Charter makes provision for this, and the Secretary-General has advanced a similar proposal in his "Agenda for Peace". On one hand, this will relieve the United Nations of some of its commitments; on the other, it will enable regional organizations or structures with greater first-hand knowledge of the conflicts in their parts of the world to contribute more effectively to resolution of the underlying problems. There are no standard formulas which dictate how these interlocking institutions should interact, and each case will have to be looked at individually to determine which form of cooperation is most suitable. Forty-eighth session - 29 September l993 23 The Kingdom of the Netherlands has consistently endeavoured to make a high-grade contribution to effective peace operations, to which we feel committed as a Member of the United Nations. The present reorganization of the Netherlands armed forces is specifically geared to enabling our country to participate even more broadly, speedily and effectively in future peace-keeping operations. The Netherlands believes that adequate preparation and efficient supervision are crucial to the success of peace operations and has accordingly made a number of military officials available to the United Nations. As peace operations increase in number and scope, so does the need for support from the Secretariat. The Secretariat should be able to expand - and to contract - in proportion to the need for peace-keeping tasks. Whenever expansion is required it should take place at an early stage. The preparation, planning and budgeting that precede the actual operation are precisely the elements that are essential to its success. The budgets currently proposed to the General Assembly for setting up new peace operations are inadequate. This not only makes it difficult for the Member States to reach decisions on the funding of operations, but also indicates that, at the time the budgets are presented, there is no complete picture of the way the operation is to be set up. Obviously, if the number of peace operations decreases, the additional staff at the Secretariat will also no longer be necessary. What I am suggesting here is that any reinforcement be temporary, flexible and prompt. Apart from proper planning and training, adequate staffing and a satisfactory level of supervision - all of which are indispensable to the success of a peace operation - it is important that United Nations peace forces be on the spot as soon as possible after the decision to deploy them has been made. Otherwise, there is a danger that hostilities will be resumed and thus that the basis for successful implementation of the Security Council mandate will have disappeared before the forces are in position. Speed is therefore of the essence if the use of greater force is to be avoided. This is possible only if there is a clear picture of the forces that can be made available to the United Nations at short notice. In this connection, the Netherlands welcomes the formation of the stand-by forces planning team, which is engaged in formulating a concept and drawing up an inventory of rapid deployment forces. The Netherlands has undertaken to communicate by the end of 1993 which Dutch units could be eligible for designation as stand-by forces. The final decision concerning possible deployment of troops will of course always rest with the Netherlands Government. The growing demands on the United Nations system can be met only if standards of management, administration and accountability are high. The responsibility for determining and maintaining these standards lies first and foremost with ourselves as Member States. It is our responsibility to indicate clear priorities, to ensure consistency in the decisions taken by different United Nations commissions and governing bodies, and to provide the financial resources required to meet agreed priorities. Much criticism levelled against the Organization indicates a genuine need to improve the functioning and management of the Secretariat. Part of this criticism has its roots in the way Member States discharge their responsibilities: the failure of Governments to set priorities, the adoption of resolutions with unclear objectives and the failure to pay assessed contributions cannot be blamed on the Secretariat. I am convinced that the vast majority of United Nations staff members are dedicated and loyal international civil servants. We owe them our respect. In areas ranging from the direct provision of health care to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, many of them work under difficult conditions, some even risking their lives. But despite the quality and commitment of its staff, the Secretariat should take a long hard look at its own management structure. Key phrases such as management by objectives, transparency and accountability must become household words in United Nations vocabulary. Line managers must be given greater responsibility and should be held accountable for the attainment of predetermined objectives. Moreover, the Secretariat should respond to criticism in a more satisfactory manner: first of all, by ensuring that justified criticism is acted upon and that corrective measures are taken without delay; and, secondly, by promptly refuting false allegations. In short, the public relations of the United Nations need improvement. The Secretary-General has taken several commendable initiatives to restructure the Secretariat. The first changes were introduced in the political sectors, and this year the social and economic sectors were reorganized. This restructuring has provided a solid basis for improving effectiveness and coordination. But further measures are required. It is important to maintain the momentum and to 24 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session provide clear perspectives for United Nations staff members: they should not be kept in the dark about their future status and about the direction of reform. Lingering uncertainty has affected staff morale and thus staff effectiveness. I have already said that Member States have a responsibility to provide financial resources for agreed priorities and mandated activities. The United Nations cannot be run on a shoestring. Year after year the Organization suffers from long delays in the receipt of assessed contributions. As a result, mandated activities can be implemented only in part or after substantial delay. In the area of peace-keeping, troop contributors unfortunately have to be prepared and able to provide long-term advance financing for peace-keeping operations. This lack of discipline among Member States forces the Secretariat to spend a great deal of energy attempting to solve incessant liquidity problems. The painful paradox is that the Secretariat’s relative success at shoestring budgeting seems to contribute to a further deterioration in payment discipline among Member States. Moreover, the burden of keeping the United Nations in business now lies unfairly with those Member States who make their payments promptly and in full. A number of Member States appear to make partial payments as an expression of their dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the Organization’s work. The United Nations does not serve an à la carte menu: dissatisfaction should be voiced in debate and by force of argument, not by withholding assessed contributions. We shall be considering the recommendations of the Volcker-Ogata report on the financing of the United Nations system during this session. The merits of many of the recommendations are obvious, but generally speaking they can only help to alleviate the immediate problems; they do not go to the heart of the matter. Ultimately, the only solution to the Organization’s financial problems - and this cannot be stated often enough - is prompt and full payment of assessed contributions by all Member States. While we insist that Member States meet their financial obligations, we also expect the Secretariat to use its financial resources in an efficient and effective manner. Some Member States have suggested the establishment of new financial control mechanisms. These proposals may have merits, but we should not lose sight of the fact that a number of control mechanisms already exist. I believe that a critical review of the functioning of the present mechanisms is in order before we decide upon new structures. But auditing alone is insufficient. The structure of the Organization must be such that financial and administrative mismanagement is prevented. Line managers, for example, must be held accountable for budgets under their control. In recent years the Netherlands delegation has presented several ideas aimed at the improvement of the management of United Nations programmes, and these have subsequently been adopted by the General Assembly. In addition, I advocate greater cost-awareness, not only among United Nations staff but also, and especially, among Member States. It is relatively simple to request the Secretary-General to undertake new activities, call additional meetings or produce reports on a variety of issues. But we must ask ourselves each time whether these requests meet a real need, as they compete for strained financial and staff resources. Although the resources of the United Nations are limited, genuine priorities must be met. In this respect, at this session the General Assembly will face a particularly difficult task. It will have to determine which activities will receive priority under the regular budget for 1994 and 1995. As new priorities emerge, a number of activities will have to be reduced or even eliminated altogether. We have to live within our means. The Netherlands believes that additional resources are needed most to strengthen the capacity of the United Nations in the area of human rights, to improve the Secretariat’s capacity to plan and manage peace-keeping activities and to ensure the effective coordination of humanitarian and emergency operations. So far I have addressed a number of conditions that will have to be fulfilled if the United Nations is to respond effectively to the new challenges confronting it. A sound financial basis, effective management and the availability of qualified personnel, both at the Secretariat and in the context of peace operations in the field, are the material requirements which must be met. However, no less crucial is the determination actually to implement the resolutions adopted by the Security Council. Decision-making in the Council should reflect the combined political will of its members - acting on behalf of the United Nations Member States - actually to translate their words into action where necessary, once the material conditions have been fulfilled. Too often in the recent past, there has been a failure to take decisive action despite a declared willingness to do so when such action was both necessary and justified. Irrespective of the detrimental effect this can have on peace operations themselves, it can also cause irreparable damage in the long term to the standing and credibility of Forty-eighth session - 29 September l993 25 the United Nations as a whole. Let me be clear about this: I am not advocating resort to military action at the drop of a hat. But if the Security Council draws a line and says that if the line is crossed military action will be taken, it must be prepared to fulfil this pledge. If such a course proves impossible, then the mandate was not adequately tailored to the situation. If, on the other hand, the mandate is adequate but the Council lacks the will to carry it out, its apparent determination is nothing but an empty threat. Either way, the credibility of the Organization is dealt a severe blow. If this occurs too often, we run the risk that the new decisive United Nations of the post-cold-war era will become a paper tiger, making decisions that it cannot or will not put into practice. This must not be allowed to happen. Now, more than ever, we need a decisive United Nations and a firm commitment on the part of the Member States. The United Nations needs Member States that pay their dues, provide the Organization with the necessary human resources and have the political will to carry out the decisions which they have collectively arrived at. The Member States need a United Nations which is able to perform those tasks, which operates efficiently and effectively and which can be made accountable for the resources entrusted to it. It is the wish of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that this forty-eighth session of the General Assembly will bring us closer to achieving these aims.