The Headquarters
of the United Nations is currently undergoing a major
renovation, and that is a good thing. It is good because
the building no longer meets the requirements of the
new century. In the meantime, work goes on as usual,
27 10-55103
and here we all are, discussing the big issues of the
day.
Of course, the parallel is obvious. The United
Nations system itself has now reached a certain age
and is also in need of renovation. And in this sense,
too, the day-to-day work of the United Nations must go
on, for we cannot afford to take a break from tackling
the global problems we face. The United Nations may
be under renovation, but it still has to stay open for
business.
It was 65 years ago that the United Nations was
established in San Francisco. There, and at Bretton
Woods, the world’s leaders laid the foundations for a
multilateral system that would be built upon the
smoking ruins of the Second World War. This system
has demonstrated its usefulness, but it is based on post-
war realities, not on the international balance of power
and the global problems of today.
I use the word “renovation”, because we do not
need to build from scratch. Over the past 65 years, the
system has more than proved its worth. There is
nothing wrong with the foundations or the basic
structure. Besides, experience has taught us that a
practical step-by-step approach is a more effective way
to reform a large organization than reliance on a “big-
bang” strategy. Or, as Dag Hammarskjöld, one of the
great leaders of the United Nations, put it, “Constant
attention by a good nurse may be just as important as a
major operation by a surgeon”.
Today, I would like to look briefly at three of the
core tasks of the United Nations in order to show how
the Dutch Government views various concrete reforms
in practical terms. Those tasks relate to human rights,
the international legal order, and peace and security.
Let me begin, however, with the background to these
renovations, using my own experience as a guide,
starting with the question of why they are necessary.
In human terms, 65 years is often an age at which
we start to take things easier. Unfortunately, that is not
an option for the United Nations, for despite all our
efforts, peace, security, legal certainty and
development are still not guaranteed for everyone. In
fact, since the United Nations was established, the
global challenges facing us have only grown larger.
Consider the climate crisis, or the energy and food
crisis, or the international economic crisis that has
shown so clearly how closely connected everything is
in our time. We need each other more than ever before,
and we need the United Nations as the organization
uniting us more than ever before.
In this light, I applaud the choice of theme for
this sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly:
“Reaffirming the central role of the United Nations in
global governance” — although I must confess I would
have replaced the word “reaffirming” with
“recovering”, because ground has clearly been lost, as
has become especially apparent in the last few years.
The Group of 20, and not the United Nations, has taken
the lead in tackling the economic crisis, for example.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference could
have delivered more if the world had been able to unite
behind the tough decisions. And where the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) are concerned, we see
mixed results. A lot has been achieved, but on some
Goals we are lagging far behind, thanks to a
fragmented and defective international aid architecture.
We discussed this earlier in the week at the MDG
summit.
What these examples show is that the United
Nations is losing its position — and its convening
power — as the obvious global platform for discussion
and decision-making. It pains me to say that. However,
I also have every faith that the United Nations can
continue in the future to claim its vital role as the
world’s overarching governance organization.
In my view, the end of the cold war freed the
United Nations from a long period of confrontation and
stagnation. In its wake the international agenda was
redefined with great speed and vigour. Relatively new
topics like the environment and climate change, social
themes and gender issues began to claim our attention.
The international legal order was strengthened by new
international tribunals, the International Criminal Court
and a growing number of peace missions under the
United Nations flag — and of course, in setting the
MDGs at its Millennium Summit (resolution 55/2), the
United Nations showed how ambitious it can be.
The United Nations is only able to achieve such
things because every country is involved and everyone
has a voice. That is the power of the United Nations,
but also its greatest weakness. Inclusion does not only
foster legitimacy — the unique selling point of the
United Nations. It also leads to sluggish decision-
making, politicized relationships and a bureaucratic
structure that lacks transparency. I believe that anyone
10-55103 28
familiar with the international circuit over the past 10
years will recognize this picture.
It is often said, “If the United Nations did not
exist it would have to be invented” — and indeed, a
global organization with universal membership is
essential. Still, no matter how representative an
organization may be, it will lose its relevance if it does
not deliver sufficient results. In short, legitimacy and
effectiveness are two sides of the same coin.
The Dutch Government is convinced that the
United Nations can improve its effectiveness and
decisiveness and so increase its legitimacy and public
support. This can be done by utilizing the United
Nations and its process to solve problems and by
putting practical considerations first when problems
are tackled. The Netherlands wants to see that happen
and will work to make it happen. We will do so as a
founding Member of the United Nations but also
together with our partners in the European Union, of
which we also are a founding member. The European
Union is strongly committed to the United Nations, and
we subscribe to its contributions to secure the future of
the United Nations.
That brings me to the first of the three core tasks
I mentioned at the start of my speech: human rights.
This, without question, is an area in which the United
Nations has achieved great success in setting standards,
with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an
unshakeable basis. Unfortunately, though, it still falls
short in enforcing those standards. We still hear reports
every day of torture, unfair trials, curbs on freedom of
expression and other human rights violations. The
Dutch Government considers it unacceptable that
people, often women, are still being stoned to death in
2010. We must continue to resist this practice with
every ounce of our being.
The Dutch Government urges that the capacity of
the human rights machinery, and particularly the
Human Rights Council, be strengthened. To start with,
a clear division of tasks between the Human Rights
Council and the Third Committee of this General
Assembly is needed. Overlap and lack of clarity make
it too easy for some regimes to distract attention from
human rights violations. The Netherlands will press for
clarity.
Of course, human rights are closely related to the
international legal order, the second area I want to
touch on. As you know, this is a subject very close to
the Netherlands’ heart. The city of The Hague is not
only the centre of Dutch democracy, it is also known as
the legal capital of the world — and we are proud of
that. More important, though, of course, is the fact that
the international institutions based in The Hague are
sending a clear message with the work they undertake.
The international community will not allow human
rights violations and crimes against humanity to go
unpunished. That applies to the various ad hoc
tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia. It also applies to the
International Court of Justice and of course the
International Criminal Court (ICC).
Over the last 20 years international criminal law
has developed at an impressive rate. Today, those who
commit the most terrible crimes, wherever in the world
they may be, know that their chances of being called to
account are growing by the day. Now we must act
boldly. We must strengthen these institutions’ visibility,
credibility and authority. We can do that by improving
international cooperation on investigations and
prosecutions, by increasing compliance with the
relevant Security Council resolutions and by pushing
for as many countries as possible to sign the Rome
Statute and to conduct themselves according to both its
letter and its spirit. With that in mind, I say that it is
unacceptable to the Dutch Government that someone
like President Al-Bashir of the Sudan, against whom an
arrest warrant is outstanding, should be allowed to
move freely in a country that is an ICC partner.
In closing, I would like to say a few words about
the broad topic of peace and security. At this moment,
there are some 100,000 people taking part in United
Nations peace missions around the world. So no one
can deny that the United Nations plays a leading role in
this area — and rightly so, because it is precisely in
matters of war and peace that legitimacy and resolve
are most essential. Such legitimacy and resolve can
only be provided by the United Nations and the
Security Council.
We saw only recently, in the incident involving
the Republic of Korea’s naval ship, the Cheonan, how
difficult and shaky the position of the Security Council
can sometimes be. On the one hand, the Council
condemned the attack unanimously and in strong
terms, and that has to be applauded. On the other hand,
the Council remained silent on the question of blame,
which is an extremely hard thing to bear for the
survivors and the victims’ loved ones.
29 10-55103
It is precisely in order to guarantee the legitimacy
and strength of the Security Council in the future that
the Dutch Government continues to support reforms of
the Council that reflect the geopolitical realities of
today and not of 1945. Naturally, the exact substance
of those reforms is still open to debate. But it is clear
to the Netherlands that there should be more room for
more countries to join the discussions and exert
influence: room for large countries that in 1945 were
not yet large enough or were not yet Members of the
United Nations; but also room for smaller nations that,
as troop-supplying countries or as interested parties in
a particular region, should have the right to speak. I
would add immediately that countries that want
influence should realize that this entails financial,
political and moral obligations. Or, in the words of
Winston Churchill, the price of greatness is
responsibility.
I have briefly sketched why the United Nations is
in need of renovation. I hope I have made clear that its
relevance is tied not only to its legitimacy but also to
its effectiveness. And I have suggested the direction the
renovation might take in three specific areas. One thing
I have not yet done, however, is to reaffirm that the
Netherlands, in keeping with its long international
tradition, will continue to work for quality in the
United Nations system. Together with others, together
with all represented in this Hall, we will work in the
knowledge that this renovation, like all our activities,
requires us to pool our resources. Or, as the United
Nations Charter says: “unite our strength” and
“combine our efforts”. Let those words inspire us in
the work that lies ahead.