Netherlands

It is a great pleasure for me to see you, Sir, presiding over this very important session of the General Assembly. As a politician with a long and distinguished career, you are eminently qualified to guide us ably through the crucial coming months. It goes without saying that I fully endorse the intervention by Minister Solana on behalf of the European Union. At this fiftieth anniversary session of the General Assembly, I would like first of all to affirm the deep attachment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations. The United Nations is the expression of the relatively new notion that nations and people anywhere in the world have the same rights and are bound by the same duties. For 50 years, this Organization has provided the basis for building a civilized international community and we cannot afford to be cynical about the United Nations. There is no alternative to the United Nations in dealing with global challenges. It is up to us, the Member States, to make use of the Organization and to make it work. This anniversary should be an occasion neither for self-congratulatory speeches nor for despondency. Rather, it should inspire us to unite in a renewed effort to bring the Organization into harmony with the demands of the times. In this age of instant communication and televised images, respect for human rights and solidarity among nations can no longer be applied selectively. Aggression, war crimes and massive violations of human rights, such as those in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, trigger an immediate and massive response throughout the world. It is impossible for people to remain indifferent to the fate of their fellow human beings anywhere — unless, of course, they should be denied access to these means of communication. However, the revolutionary growth of communications has also created a gap between people’s demands for action and the limited ability of Governments and organizations to satisfy these demands. The same observation applies to national decisions touching on the security concerns of people in countries around the globe; and nowadays, these concerns include environmental, ecological and all other aspects of human security. Sovereignty has become restricted and circumscribed because of new global interdependencies. It is an illusion to think that in this age States can continue to conduct their business in splendid isolation without regard for international public opinion and sensitivities. Again, as sovereignty becomes less formidable a barrier and people organize themselves freely and globally in various ways, the need for global 12 regulation becomes more pressing. For this purpose, people look to the United Nations. But can the United Nations meet these new demands? The crises in Bosnia and Rwanda illustrate the types of conflict that at present pose the biggest threat to the international system. In many parts of the world ethnic, racial and religious divides are resurfacing with a vengeance. Where State structures are weak or disintegrating, those divides may become battlegrounds for struggles over land, water and other scarce resources. The response of the international community to these political and humanitarian emergencies has often been inadequate, slow or hesitant. Lack of resolve in the early stages of a crisis has forced Member States to scramble later to close the gap between their acts and their words and to restore lost credibility. There is a certain tendency to take words for deeds and to be satisfied with words alone. Language is a currency whose value depends on corresponding behaviour. For the United Nations to be credible, its language must be credible, and its language can only be credible if it is matched by its deeds. These are simple, basic rules, not only in banking but also in politics. Unfortunately, it can be convenient to forget these rules for reasons of political expediency. In such cases a higher price must be paid at a later stage. The war in former Yugoslavia is a tragedy for its people, but it also exemplifies the dangers threatening the international order. The fatal practice of “ethnic cleansing” has been unanimously condemned by the international community. Those warnings have not been heeded, and the mad dream of ethnic purity is still being pursued. The practice of “ethnic cleansing” has, moreover, set in motion a cycle of revenge and further violence. The end of the war may now come into sight, thanks to forceful international intervention and a shifting balance on the ground. The current diplomatic initiative is designed to exploit this opportunity and finally to create conditions for true peace. We should do everything in our power to assist the negotiators in their mission. But for the international community, represented by the United Nations, the question also remains of whether it should have intervened earlier, and with greater decisiveness. Members of all the parties to this conflict have at various times committed crimes and breaches of international law. But there is a difference in the scale of human rights violations and criminal responsibility. The Bosnian Serb side has from the beginning resorted to “ethnic cleansing” and acts of terror against the civilian population as a systematic tool in its campaign, and therefore its leaders carry prime responsibility for initiating these practices. The latest and perhaps largest single crime was committed against the population of the former Bosnian enclaves of Srebrenica and Zepa. The victims were living in areas declared safe by the Security Council. The Serb behaviour has been condemned by the Security Council, but the United Nations and its Member States cannot escape sharing some of the blame for not living up to the United Nations commitment. We, the Member States, had convinced ourselves — and what is more, our Bosnian protégés — that a largely symbolic United Nations presence would be sufficient to deter aggression. It did not. We have been proved cruelly wrong, and as a result the populations of the enclaves paid a terrible price in terms of human life and displacement at the hands of the Bosnian Serbs. The Netherlands, whose small contingent of Blue Helmets was powerless to prevent the onslaught on Srebrenica, is deeply shocked by the massive violations of human rights which were committed by the Serb aggressors. We share the Security Council’s deep concern about the fate of the former inhabitants of Srebrenica who have not been accounted for. There are strong indications that thousands were murdered in cold blood. It is a disgrace that the Bosnian Serbs have not honoured their commitment to give immediate and full access to representatives of international organizations to investigate the situation of those who are missing. In the interest of the credibility of any future peace agreement, we cannot acquiesce in the Bosnian Serb refusal to cooperate on this and other human rights issues. We expect the same kind of cooperation from the Croat and Bosniac authorities with regard to verification of reports about human rights violations in areas under their control. If similar calamities are to be prevented in the future, we, the Security Council and the troop contributors, must ensure that the operational aspects of the Council’s resolutions have a solid foundation in military planning and available capabilities. This includes the political will to use those capabilities when needed. Therefore, in the future no mandate should be given 13 before the means and the readiness for implementation are assured. Srebrenica and Zepa have also shown that humanitarian action can never be a substitute for decisive measures against a party which perpetrates aggression and massive human rights violations. Humanitarian assistance, important though it undoubtedly is in itself, risks being tainted in the eye of the public if it is perceived as a substitute for decisive action going to the root of the problem. In order to avoid the repetition of violent outbursts, the seeds of future wars must be eliminated. These seeds often lie in the ruthless exploitation of situations of potential conflict by unscrupulous politicians and local warlords. To deter such action, justice must be done and be seen to be done. The establishment of the international criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda may prove to be an important step in the right direction, and in more than one respect. For the second time in history, after Nuremberg and Tokyo, the international community is holding individuals responsible for their actions during wartime and in the initiation of war. So, hopefully, the blame for atrocities will not be put on entire peoples, which would call for massive revenge in the future, but on those who are personally and directly responsible. We hope that the creation of these Tribunals will prove to be a catalyst for the establishment of a permanent international criminal court. The question of United Nations credibility in Bosnia and Rwanda points to a broad range of issues related to United Nations reform in the domain of peace operations, the structure and work methods of the Security Council, finance and the economic and social area. Let me comment briefly on each of these. At last year’s session of the General Assembly I noted that a more rapid response by the United Nations might have prevented the genocide in Rwanda. My suggestion was that in order to deal with emergencies like these we should consider creating a permanent brigade which could be deployed almost instantly once the Security Council had taken a decision. In the months thereafter this idea was explored in a series of consultations in New York and at an international colloquium organized in the Netherlands. These discussions resulted in the Netherlands non-paper on a United Nations rapid deployment brigade, which was distributed to all Member States last April. But the idea of a United Nations brigade should be seen as a contribution to the wider debate on United Nations peace operations. The most logical manner to address the problem of rapid response would be, in my opinion, a small, standing United Nations force which could fill the time lag between a Security Council decision and the deployment of national contingents. However, the Netherlands will support and actively contribute to any proposal that represents an intermediate step towards the longer-term objective of a United Nations force for rapid deployment. Against this background, we applaud the Canadian study on a United Nations rapid-reaction capability. Among other things, it recommends, as our colleague Mr. Ouellet pointed out, setting up a United Nations planning cell, which could function as a mobile headquarters and be part of the vanguard concept. That is, it could be the nucleus of a force composed of national contingents under the United Nations stand-by arrangements system. We fully endorse this recommendation, which partly realizes the idea I raised and in due course could lead to the creation of a standing United Nations brigade. We shall be in touch with other interested Member States in order to coordinate practical suggestions with a view to possible further political action. The continued viability of United Nations peace operations ultimately rests on the preservation of their legitimacy. This implies that the Security Council should be made more responsive to the views of the United Nations membership at large. The transparency of the Council’s decision-making concerning peace operations has already undergone noticeable improvements. Nevertheless, further adjustments are called for. Therefore, we support the creation of a mechanism for the discussion of all aspects of peace operations with troop contributors. The Assembly should address with the utmost urgency the critical financial situation of the United Nations. Without early agreement on financial contributions, there can be no basis for the necessary broad reforms. It is unacceptable that responsible Member States should carry the burden of making up for other States’ lack of financial discipline. These States are in contravention of the Charter, which makes assessed contributions, once agreed, a binding obligation on Member States and, thus, of international law. I strongly associate myself with the European Union Presidency in calling upon Member 14 States to pay their contributions in full, on time and without conditions. The problem can be solved only if Member States participate actively in the current negotiations aimed at strengthening and reforming United Nations financing and refrain from unilateral actions. The Netherlands, for its part, will participate constructively in efforts to arrive at a solution. The provision of the necessary resources would also give the United Nations the possibility of dealing more effectively with the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples. But effective multilateral action on socio-economic issues is not a matter only of financial resources. It will require new thinking on the future of the United Nations. The Secretary-General indicated the right direction last year, in “An Agenda for Development”, in his analysis of the five dimensions of development: peace, economic growth, the environment, justice and democracy. A number of initiatives, some from within the Organization and others, such as the Carlsson report, from outside, aim at strengthening, revitalizing and reforming the United Nations. The Netherlands recognizes the need for a thorough debate and early decisions on ways to improve the performance and accountability of the United Nations. We welcome these initiatives, including the creation of the High-level Open-ended Working Group by the General Assembly. I could imagine that three years from now, in 1998, a ministerial conference could meet to agree on the basis for the implementation of the High-level Group’s findings. In the field of disarmament, the Netherlands attaches the highest priority to the conclusion next year of a comprehensive test-ban treaty. In order to ensure that the negotiations will reach this absolutely essential objective, they should be given a strong political impulse. In this context, the Netherlands deplores the recent nuclear tests and fervently hopes that the other nuclear-weapon States will maintain their moratoriums. A decision not to conduct any further tests would be of great benefit to the creation of a positive climate for the resumption of the negotiations and their successful completion in 1996. Therefore, the Netherlands strongly urges the nuclear-weapon States to desist from all further testing. Having said all this, I should like to close on a note of hope and appreciation for what the United Nations has done and can continue to do in a number of very important areas. I am thinking of the environment, the population problem, human rights, the status of women, democratization and social policy. In these areas, the United Nations is providing the infrastructure for the shaping and consolidation of a world-wide consensus and for the practical realization of what this consensus is about. Much of this happens through large-scale conferences, with elaborate preparatory processes involving the various regions of the world and a wide spectrum of both governmental and non-governmental actors. The women’s Conference in Beijing is clear proof of the crucial role of these meetings in bringing about a global awareness of the issues at stake. These conferences set norms and standards by which individuals and non- governmental organizations around the world can measure the progress made by Governments and by the United Nations as a whole towards well-defined goals. If properly implemented and monitored they can prove to be decisive for the quality of life of future generations, and even of our own, and for the credibility of our Organization.