Germany

First of all, I should like to wish you every success, Mr. President, in your responsible office. We are delighted that you, a representative of our Czech neighbours, will preside over the General Assembly this year. I also express my sincere thanks to the outgoing President. I endorse the statement of the Danish presidency of the European Union. One year ago, the world was shaken by the terror of 11 September, which was disdainful of human life. Civilian aircraft were transformed into guided missiles whose deployment had been planned without any regard for human life. The devastating consequences destroyed families, shattered hopes and tore people apart, regardless of their age, gender or religious affiliation. Three days ago, we remembered the victims in a moving ceremony here in New York. We have not forgotten the images of 11 September; we have not recovered from the shock. Our solidarity with the United States is unbroken. We understand our American friends. Just like them, we are not prepared to live under the sword of Damocles that terrorism represents. The murderous attack on the people and the Administration of the United States was also an attack on all open societies. Countless States mourn their countrymen among the thousands of World Trade Center victims. The attack could have struck any open society, but the terrorists consciously chose the United States as a symbol of freedom and democracy. We know that the new totalitarian challenge is also directed at us all. Since 11 September 2001, the community of nations has had to look at the question of peace and security at the dawn of the twenty-first century from a whole new angle. We will not be able to negotiate with terrorists like Osama bin Laden. His aim is to kill as many innocent people as possible, thus creating the maximum degree of terror and fear. If the terrorists succeed in acquiring weapons that are yet more horrific, they will deploy them against us all without hesitation. Therefore, we must work together in the international coalition against terrorism to overcome and destroy that international terrorist network. The highly dangerous combination of religious hatred, smouldering regional conflicts, terrorist attacks and the danger of the deployment of weapons of mass destruction must be prevented at any price. But, above all else, we must not forget: on the one hand, terrorism must be fought resolutely by the military and police; on the other, we need to resolve the political and social conflicts quite rightly emphasized in the Millennium Declaration, as they form the breeding ground for the emergence of terrorism. Opting for one approach and neglecting the other risks failure. Our common goal is for the people in our countries to be able to live in safety and freedom, and without want. To achieve that, we need a system of global cooperative security that, unlike the former bipolarity of the cold war, includes all levels of global policy relevant to security: the relations among great 17 Powers and their alliances as well as the potential danger of regional crises and the threat posed by asymmetrical conflicts. For one thing is clearer than ever after 11 September: terrorism threatens world peace just as much as civil war and regional conflicts. Such a system, therefore, must not be toothless, but rather must function in all three fields through reliable verification systems and enforceable sanctions mechanisms. I am convinced that developing such a comprehensive system of global cooperative security will be our central political task for the twenty-first century. This problem can be solved only through multilateralism — that is, if nations work together. Terrorism does not stop at national borders, and shaping globalization is a task that Governments can no longer tackle alone. Thus, the United Nations has a major role to play in developing this security system; it is the most important forum for establishing global rules. No other organization has comparable legitimacy and credibility. Decisively strengthening its ability to act by continuing the reform path of the Secretary- General is, therefore, a central focus of German foreign policy. The developments in Iraq fill us with grave concern. Saddam Hussein's regime is a brutal dictatorship. Under his leadership, Iraq has attacked its neighbours Iran and Kuwait, has fired missiles at Israel and has used poison gas against Iran and against its own Kurdish population. The regime is horrendous for the Iraqi people and a risk to the region. For that reason, an effective containment policy and reliable military control of the no-fly zones have been implemented and a strict sanctions regime against Iraq has been introduced since the Gulf War. The regime in Baghdad must not own or produce the means for mass destruction or the systems to deliver them. Despite binding demands from the Security Council, Saddam Hussein refuses to provide credible and verifiable answers to the pressing questions posed by the community of nations regarding his weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, the United Nations not only must maintain the pressure on the Iraqi Government but also must intensify it. We welcome the fact that President Bush, in his most recent speech, turned towards the Security Council. Even if it becomes very difficult, we must do everything possible to find a diplomatic solution. The Security Council and Member States must make it unequivocally clear to Baghdad that the unrestricted and unconditional re-admission of the weapons inspectors is the only way to avert a great tragedy for Iraq and the entire region. The Iraqi Government must implement all relevant Security Council resolutions in their entirety and without delay. We do not, however, want any automatism leading to the use of military force. The fight against international terrorism remains perilous. We have not yet managed to fully stabilize Afghanistan. Explosive regional conflicts in Kashmir, the Middle East and the Caucasus must be resolved or at least effectively contained. Certain central questions arise for us. Have all economic and political means of pressure been truly exhausted? What consequences would military intervention have? What would it mean for regional stability? What effect would it have on the Middle East conflict? Are there new, concrete findings and facts? Does the situation as assessed justify the taking of a great risk, namely, taking responsibility for peace and stability in the entire region for years or even decades to come? Would such action gain the consent of the Arab neighbours? What consequences would it have for the continuation of the global coalition against terrorism? In the face of these open questions, we feel deep scepticism with regard to military action and thus hold to our approach. I would like to pose the further question of whether a peaceful solution to the question of the Middle East could not contribute considerably more to the establishment of regional stability, to the successful fight against terrorism and to the effective control and disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. In that way, would the regime in Baghdad not be isolated much more effectively, thus generating political pressure for change? Would this cooperative approach to finding a new order for the region not be a more promising way to bring democracy to the Middle East — one that would be supported by the regional Powers? Nowhere is the connection between terrorism and regional conflict more obvious than in the Near and Middle East. The breakthrough to peace is therefore of paramount importance in that region of the world. The consensus among the international community of nations on the Middle East question is now greater than 18 ever. We must all pull together to achieve the goal envisaged by President Bush for 2005, that of two States, Israel and a democratic Palestine, living as neighbours within secure and recognized borders. The European Union has devised a road map to achieve that goal. An early conference on the Middle East could help to build bridges and accelerate the process. Together with our European Union partners, we are ready to make a considerable contribution in that respect. A comprehensive peace in the Middle East must also include Lebanon and Syria. Saudi Arabia's significant initiative contains the assurance that the Arab world would then also be ready to fully normalize its relations with Israel. Without a just and lasting solution to regional conflicts, we will not be able to eliminate the recruitment base for terrorists and thus successfully counter the asymmetrical threat. Afghanistan is an obvious example here. The Taliban system has collapsed there and the Al Qaeda network has largely been destroyed. We are still a long way from being able to call the situation in the country stable and secure, but progress can be noted. The implementation of the provisions of the Bonn Conference agreement began with the formation of a legitimate Interim Administration. The process that was launched on the Petersberg was taken to the next level with the convening in June of the emergency loya jirga. For the first time in years, the Afghan people have the chance to lead a life of dignity based on self-determination. The people of Afghanistan will only grow in courage, however, when they see and feel that the international community is also standing by its pledges for the reconstruction of their country. The commitments of the donor countries must materialize in the form of concrete projects. A system of global cooperative security must be based on a comprehensive security concept. This must embrace not only military security but also the economy, human rights, democracy and culture. “To achieve a safer world, we must create a better world”: that is how President Bush summed up the situation in his impressive speech to the German Bundestag last May. Shaping cooperative global security therefore also means shaping a new global economic order. Account must be taken of the needs of all — the developing and the developed world alike. Resources must be more fairly distributed and poorer countries must be able to participate in international trade and take advantage of the opportunities of globalization. This will necessitate free market access for all, as well as the realization of economic and political freedoms and a just and reliable legal framework. We must not close our eyes to the problems of Africa, in particular. The food situation in the South of the continent is a particular source of concern. Countless people are going hungry and comprehensive assistance is needed there. In Zimbabwe, however, the former granary of Africa, a wholly irresponsible policy is the reason for the difficult situation. In Zimbabwe, hunger is caused principally not by failed harvests or droughts but by self-destructive governance — a policy of keeping a grip on power through the suffering of the people. Such a policy relies upon the fact that the international community's humanitarian conscience and readiness to assume responsibility will reduce the consequences. We must hold this policy up against the benchmarks defined by Africa itself in the framework of the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Climate and energy policy is a key component of the new global economic order. The Kyoto Protocol can be seen as a milestone in global climate protection. I am delighted that several countries have recently announced plans to ratify the Protocol, and hope that this will happen as soon as possible so that it can enter into force. In the long term, a sensible energy policy — and that means, above all, the promotion of renewable energy sources and economical energy consumption — is the best solution to the climate problem. Work must therefore start today. Let us not forget that difficult economic and ecological problems, with their social and humanitarian repercussions, will increasingly endanger stability and security too. The protection of human rights must be one of the pillars of a global security system. All efforts to secure peace will fail if human rights are not protected and made a reality. We need a binding global set of values to prevent and overcome conflicts that emerge through inequality, injustice and the denial of freedom. Here, too, States are called upon to play a decisive and active role. Moreover, we must be careful today to ensure that basic human rights are not annulled under the pretext of combating terrorism. No one has the right to an “anti-terrorism bonus”. 19 Cooperative global security will have to measure up to the binding legal framework in which it is embedded. It is imperative for the globalization process to be flanked by a growing set of international rules, because international law and the rule of law constitute the indispensable foundations for peaceful and ordered coexistence. That is why the establishment of the International Criminal Court is so important to us. Its Statute entered into force on 1 July; Germany, along with all the other members of the European Union, is among the 79 States to have ratified it. The Assembly of States Parties gave the green light this week to the establishment of the Court. Next spring we will celebrate its opening in The Hague. The International Criminal Court will start work as soon as possible and as efficiently as possible. But it must not be weakened in its work from the outset. My country is applying for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for the period 2003-2004. Germany wants to play an active role in developing the international security system within the United Nations along the lines that I have outlined. I would like to ask all members for their vote in the election on 27 September.