UK

I begin by paying a tribute to Dr. Akila Al-Hashimi, a senior member of the Iraqi Governing Council, who died earlier today. I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Al-Hashimi earlier this year in London and later in Baghdad, and I was struck by her courage and her dedication to the Iraqi people. Dr. Al-Hashimi was murdered by those who would deny the Iraqi people the democratic, prosperous future they so richly deserve. The best service that we can render her memory is to defeat the terrorists and to ensure that her vision of a peaceful, free Iraq prevails. Of course, we owe this service to all those who have fallen in the cause of peace in Iraq. Sergio Vieira de Mello and the United Nations personnel who were killed or injured in the blast in Baghdad on 19 August were committed to bringing the ideals of the United Nations to the people of Iraq. They paid the ultimate sacrifice for their dedication. We mourn their loss, but we will not weaken in our resolve to help the Iraqi people rebuild their country on the principles of justice and security. What, I think, makes Iraq so important was the way in which it tested the role and purpose of this institution over more than a dozen years. Throughout that period, the international community remained in agreement that the regime of Saddam Hussein posed a Chapter VII threat to international peace and security by its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction programmes and its unparalleled defiance of the will of the United Nations. Yet, earlier this year, sadly, we divided on when and what action was necessary to deal with the Iraqi threat. Of course, I acknowledge the controversy over the military action which the United Kingdom, the United States and others took and the heavy responsibilities we now bear, but I firmly believe that the decisions we took were the right ones. The authority of the United Nations was at stake. Having given Saddam Hussein’s regime a final opportunity to comply with the United Nations, what would have happened if we had simply turned away? Would the world be a safer place today? Would Iraq be a better place today? Would the United Nations be a stronger institution today? The answer to each of those questions is no. Saddam Hussein would have been emboldened by our failure to act; every dictator would have been encouraged to follow his example; and the authority of this United Nations would have been gravely weakened. Yet, whatever the arguments of the spring, we have now to come together again for a common purpose. As the Security Council has recognized in its three resolutions 1472 (2003), 1483 (2003) and 1500 (2003), we have a shared interest in helping Iraqi citizens to embrace the rights and freedoms which they have been denied so long and for which this institution was founded. Yes, the security situation does present formidable challenges. Terrorists who despise freedom are seeking to plunge Iraq into chaos. They have inflicted terrible blows on the Iraqi people, coalition soldiers and international aid workers, but ultimately they will fail. And let us also not lose sight of what has been achieved and what is taking shape. Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror is over. The apparatus of torture and oppression which claimed hundreds of thousands of 31 lives is at an end. Instead, we have the beginnings of a representative Government run by Iraqis for Iraqis; new ministries providing daily services to the people; a free press; the freedom for members of all religious communities to worship as they wish; hospitals and schools in operation; bustling traffic on the streets and highways; and a start to real economic regeneration. We shall stay in Iraq as long, but only as long, as it is necessary to meet our clear responsibilities and to restore sovereignty to the Iraqi people as quickly as we can in an orderly manner. I hope very much that we can agree a new Security Council resolution to strengthen the United Nations role in Iraq. In managing this transition, we should be guided by three central principles: first, the transfer of powers must reflect realities on the ground in Iraq, particularly the need to ensure security; secondly, the Iraqi institutions must be sufficiently robust to take on increasing responsibilities; and thirdly, the exercise of executive powers and responsibilities must be based on good governance, involving representative Iraqi authorities and coherent constitutional arrangements. In other words, the timetable should be driven by the needs of the Iraqi people and their capacity progressively to assume democratic control, rather than by fixing arbitrary deadlines. Iraq is, sadly, not the only territory in the Middle East where the international community faces great challenges. Three months ago, we all had high hopes about the work of the Quartet of the United Nations, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United States in Israel and the occupied territories. It is tragic that these hopes were blown apart on 19 August by the terrorist atrocity in Jerusalem, which came only a few hours after the terrorist atrocity against the United Nations in Baghdad, but the international community has to stay united on both the means and the ends in the Middle East. There are no alternatives to the road map and there can be no alternatives to the outcome the entire world wishes to see — two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. This can be the only fitting memorial to the thousands who have died on both sides since the beginning of this appalling conflict. The breadth of the issues being tackled by the United Nations and its agencies demonstrates the continued relevance of this institution. The Counter- Terrorism Committee has given the United Nations a focus for its work following September two years ago, but we must now build upon that work, giving the Committee the expertise and the remit to reinforce the capacity of Member States to tackle and to overcome terrorism. We also know that proliferation is one of the greatest threats we face alongside terrorism. Much good work on proliferation is being done by United Nations agencies, particularly the International Atomic Energy Agency, but it is extraordinary that the Security Council itself has not addressed the issue of proliferation for over 10 years. In our judgement, it is time that it did. Problems of internal conflict, on the other hand, are regularly on the Security Council’s agenda. The United Nations has unrivalled expertise and experience in this area and has achieved great things in countries as far apart as East Timor and Sierra Leone, but nation- building is a collaborative effort, requiring the resources and commitment of Member States if the United Nations peace-building is to be effective. We therefore need new mechanisms to help prevent conflicts and then to help States before they collapse. We must also make a real success of the Millennium Declaration. We have to overcome the setback of Cancún and secure a positive outcome to the Doha Round. These and other shared problems require collective responses, as our Secretary-General so eloquently said here in his speech on Tuesday. A key to this is to ensure that the United Nations itself remains an effective global forum capable of delivering results. The Secretary-General posed some difficult questions two days ago. I welcome his initiative to seek the advice of a distinguished group to make proposals on reform. I welcome, too, his parallel commitment to modernizing the United Nations and its agencies. For our part, the United Kingdom is committed to making the Security Council more representative. The issue is not whether but how to do this. A bigger and more representative Council, however, will not of itself make it easier to make the tough choices which it has to face so often. The most important ingredient is the political will and determination of the members of the Council to take effective action. The most important part of the Secretary- General’s speech on Tuesday was about the choices now confronting the United Nations. He was right about those. We have indeed come to a fork in the road. 32 Down one route lies a world in which the United Nations strengthens its role as the collective instrument for protecting our peace and security; down the other route lies a world in which collective action becomes a synonym for “inaction”. We must not take this second route. The Secretary-General’s speech was a challenge to all of us. We all share a world in which international terrorists strike down the innocent, regardless of faith or nationality, and we are all less secure when weapons of mass destruction are in reckless hands. We do not have the luxury simply of rejecting unilateralism, while proposing no multilateral means of confronting and dealing with these threats. The British Government is profoundly committed, as it always has been, to the ideals of the United Nations. To us, the importance of this Organization has always been its ability to put those high ideals into effect. We will work wholeheartedly with the Secretary-General and the international community to ensure that the United Nations retains and strengthens both its idealism and its effectiveness.