Portugal

In September of each year the Member States of the United Nations politically rediscover the Organization of which they are shareholders and beneficiaries. The practice of business as usual should not mark this session of the General Assembly. The Secretary- General suggested that the heads of State and Government come to New York to make their contribution towards the strengthening of the United Nations. Portugal, as a committed member of this Organization, wishes to take part in this debate with a clear objective: to recognise, as does Kofi Annan, that the United Nations is an indispensable tool, and also to recognise that we must re-examine our practices and our working tools. Inactivity is not an option that this Organization should contemplate. Rethinking the United Nations means, first of all, reaffirming and rethinking its Charter. Maintaining peace and international security will continue to be our main objective. But the reaffirmation of our faith in fundamental rights, in the dignity and worth of human beings, in equality between men and women and in equality between nations, is also part of our vision for the United Nations, as is the determination to promote, together, social progress and better living conditions for our peoples. These objectives must not be overlooked when the Organization faces crises of confidence from time to time. The Secretary-General is correct in his encouragement to us to persevere. But a positive mental attitude is not enough. It is also essential that we do not ask more of the Organization than it can provide at any given moment. Otherwise, great expectations will lead to great disappointments. Realism and pragmatism are necessary, but we must not lose sight of the ambitious objectives that this Organization is intended to serve. It is time for us to look at the United Nations as a reflection of what we are collectively, and not as a convenient scapegoat to mask the incapacity that the Member States sometimes still reveal when we should, but are unable, to act together. 24 We are also bound to understand, sooner or later, that we are facing common threats that require common responses. At the forefront of these threats is terrorism. In fact, a new type of terrorism has emerged: the terrorism of mass destruction that constitutes a crime against humanity; the terrorism that kills blindly and indiscriminately in New York, in Bali, in Casablanca and in Nairobi, in the name of non-values presented as values on ideological and religious grounds; and the terrorism that did not spare the United Nations itself, as we so tragically witnessed in Baghdad. The crime which claimed the lives of Sergio Vieira de Mello and his collaborators was an attack on all of the values which the United Nations represents. It was an attack against us all. If there were still lingering doubts or illusions when some thought that terrorism was aimed essentially at some States, they disappeared in Baghdad. It was not the Iraqi people who murdered Sergio Vieira de Mello and United Nations personnel. Terrorists are responsible for that crime. It is not the Iraqi people who are opposed to the United Nations presence in their country. Again, it is the terrorists. The United Nations must not bow to terrorism. Portugal believes that the United Nations should have a central role in the definition of a global strategy for fighting terrorism, largely because maintaining international peace and security depends on the outcome of this fight. It is a fight we must undertake without losing our souls, that is to say, the values on which this Organization is built. It is for this reason that more security is necessary, but also more democracy, more dialogue between cultures and civilizations, more development, more and better environmental protection measures and a drastic reduction in poverty. It is also vital that this fight be undertaken in the name of, and with respect for, our law — international law. The concept of the rule of law should have real global resonance. This is why we defend the improvement of the laws in force, namely through the negotiation of a global convention on international terrorism. But we must also bear in mind that international law will be irrelevant without the imposition of its norms, by force if necessary. New challenges and new threats require innovative responses from the United Nations. It seems blatantly obvious that the composition and decision- making process of the Security Council are obsolete. But changes are also needed in this Assembly, which each year automatically re-adopts hundreds of resolutions instead of adopting only those that are strictly necessary. As for the Economic and Social Council, the most that can be said is that the external impact of its actions is not perceptible, while the Trusteeship Council is nothing more than a relic devoid of any relevant objective. In his report on the implementation of the Millennium Declaration (A/58/323), the Secretary- General focused on this point with particular insight. The proposals that he put forward should guide our thinking and joint action. But there is a particularly worrying aspect, on which we can, and indeed must, act without delay. I am referring to the need for the establishment of a real preventive culture by the United Nations in matters of armed conflict. In this context, we agree with the relevance that the Secretary-General attributes to preventive diplomacy, to disarmament and non- proliferation measures, to peace-building, to respect for human rights, to good governance and to the development agenda. In the final analysis, we must be fully aware that the usefulness of the United Nations will always be judged as a function of its capacity to avoid and handle conflicts. In the implementation of that mission, the fundamental role lies with the Security Council, which has, over the years, authorized various peacekeeping operations. The overall result has been positive. Portugal has contributed significantly to those operations and remains available to continue to collaborate with the United Nations. But conditions on the ground are not always clear-cut, and it is not always possible to separate what is and what is not a conflict, and what would justify or not an intervention by the Security Council. There is an immense grey area that can be perilous in pre-conflict and post-conflict situations. We must also create the tools for dealing with countries and situations that do not need support in terms of security, namely through a peacekeeping operation. The intervention of the United Nations at the critical phase of a conflict, followed by a premature withdrawal, may well end in failure, which will 25 essentially lead to the waste of the investment made by the international community up to that point. This assessment recommends, for example, that the United Nations continue to monitor closely the situation in East Timor. It is a country whose democratic institutions are still in the consolidation phase. Without a tradition of self-government, it has made uncommonly rapid progress in several areas but is still in need of our help and attention. If we truly want East Timor to be a real success story for the United Nations, it is important to give the people of East Timor time to consolidate their institutions. However, in other cases in which a peace operation is not yet justified and where State institutions are fragile, where there is an enormous lack of basic services and development has not taken off, it is advisable to have a strong United Nations presence, coordinated on the ground by the Secretary-General. I would also like to take this opportunity to mention Guinea-Bissau, which is frequently overlooked and which once again requires our attention. Having avoided falling into a destructive spiral as has happened to so many countries in the region, that country is still fighting to recover. It must be helped, not ignored. They are a people who can and should be helped by the international community — and indeed deserve to be. For that reason, we support the efforts of the Secretary-General on behalf of democracy and development and applaud the original contribution of the Economic and Social Council. Under the present conditions, the Security Council does not take into account all the factors involved in prevention: security, nation building and development. Each one follows a more or less independent path. There is one other factor to add: the Council is fully absorbed with the management of the most pressing matters on the international agenda and at times demonstrates a notorious lack of attention to some countries in pre- or post-conflict situations. We believe there is a solid case for advocating the creation of a new institutional mechanism: a new commission with the mandate to routinely monitor cases of conflict-prevention and the creation of conditions for peace and development. In conjunction with the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, which would both preserve their respective areas of competence, this commission could identify and deal with the most pressing needs. For each of the countries in situations of risk, it would draw up integrated strategies allying the objectives of security and strengthening institutions and economic and social development. While other decisions of great importance are being prepared, we can — and should — begin here to deal with pre- and post-conflict situations. It is not enough for the United Nations to affirm its relevance. It is absolutely indispensable that the Organization is seen as relevant by the Member States and that States act accordingly. The credibility of the Organization must not be questioned. Otherwise its functioning and effectiveness may be severely compromised. Iraq is undoubtedly the case that requires of us all, in particular the members of the Security Council, that we carefully evaluate the Organization’s capacity for action. A collective turn of the page is necessary, since there is no valid alternative to a policy that enables the Iraqi people to freely define their system of Government and political leadership and that maintains the country’s political and territorial integrity. To build a democratic society on the ruins of one of the most violent dictatorships of the past century is a challenge the international community must not shrink. It is a task that demands much realism with respect to the difficulties to be confronted. For that very reason, Portugal has always been in favour of the progressive involvement of the United Nations in Iraq’s stabilization process, with a corresponding gradual transfer of power to Iraqi representatives. We also encourage the Security Council to come to a rapid understanding on this matter. For our part, we are already taking concrete steps, including in the security field, to support all those that are already locally assisting the Iraqi people to live in freedom. A larger commitment by the international community is indispensable for resuming the Middle East peace process. The road map cannot be shelved. It is up to us to demand a proactive attitude from all interested parties. Also, we should not be indifferent to the Palestinian people’s legitimate desire for liberty and self-determination. Israel and Palestine will have to coexist in peace and in security, within recognized borders. But here again, terrorism, which only benefits 26 the enemies of peace, must be condemned without ambiguity. Great challenges generate great opportunities. It is up to us, the Members of the United Nations, to create the conditions that will allow this Organization to function in accordance with its potential and the ideas that were an integral part of its creation. Those ideas remain valid, and Portugal stands ready to give its contribution.