Netherlands

First of all, I should like to extend congratulations to the President on his election. My colleague Foreign Minister Kinkel, on behalf of the European Union, has just given a broad overview of our approach to the United Nations. The great challenges which the United Nations faces today are well summarized in his statement. The idea that the world is divided into a North and a South with greatly diverging interests is being replaced by a growing awareness that the fundamental problems we face are common, global problems - to ensure sustainable development, to protect our environment, to solve the population problem, to prevent social 20 disintegration, to uphold justice and to protect the dignity of the human person. The United Nations will have to play a central role in our common efforts to find answers to these global problems. There is a need for coherent, integrated policies for problems which have so far been treated largely as separate questions - problems of peace and security, development, trade, democracy and human rights, the environment. The United Nations "Agenda for Peace" and its agenda for development are closely connected. By building on its comparative advantages the United Nations can play its role as the primary institution for global international cooperation which is envisaged in its Charter. We, the Member States, will have to enable the United Nations to do so. Are we really providing this body with the necessary means to live up to expectations? It has become fashionable, when expectations are not met, to blame shortcomings on the United Nations itself. I tend to take a different view. Member States are to be blamed at least as much as the Organization which struggles as our faithful servant. Rather than making the United Nations our scapegoat, Member States have first of all to make an honest and serious effort, through timely and full payment of financial contributions, to provide it with the means to play the role we expect it to play. But we need a change in attitude as well. As inhabitants of the global village, we can no longer remain indifferent to the fate of our fellow human beings, even if they live on a different continent. CNN brings their problems right into our living rooms, visible, immediate, inescapable. Rwanda, Haiti and former Yugoslavia, Goma and Vukovar - tragedies such as these touch the conscience of citizens in all parts of the globe. How do we respond to this? The prerequisites for successful action by the United Nations are credibility and legitimacy. To put it differently: the United Nations must become an institution in which all peoples of the world are fairly represented and have a fair say in decision-making. There must be a balance between burdens and benefits for all and, most importantly, there must be an awareness at the level of both Governments and individuals that the United Nations can make a difference. The paradox is that the distance between decision- makers and those represented seems to grow, in spite of the increase in the speed and volume of communications. This does not affect solely the credibility - and therefore the legitimacy - of the United Nations. The credibility of State structures at the national level is equally at stake. Everywhere in the world, including in what used to be called the first, the second and the third worlds, we see a profound cynicism about government and Governments. This is partly due to the fact that certain expectations cannot any longer be met. The power of Governments has been diminished because many important activities, especially in the economic sphere, have moved from Government into private or corporate hands. They are not quite outside the sphere of direct action of Governments and, for that matter, of the United Nations. However, a substantial part of this widespread cynicism stems from the perception of a lack of common decency, from the feeling that Governments and institutions work for their own good in the first place and that the interest of the people whom they are supposed to serve comes second. In this respect I think we can take heart from the success of the International Conference on Population and Development held recently at Cairo. That success was built on a formula that essentially amounted to common decency, namely, to face the population problem not through coercion and discrimination but by giving people the means to follow, freely and responsibly, the path of their own choice. This should serve as an example for us as Governments with regard to other matters as well. If we apply the criteria of fairness and decency to the United Nations, then it is clear that major adjustments are needed. In some fields work on this task has started and a number of preliminary steps have been taken - for instance, the appointment of an inspector general. We should not deceive ourselves, however, into believing that everything is therefore well. Good bookkeeping is essential, but fraud never constituted the core of the United Nations problem. Even good management, immensely important though it is, is only a necessary tool. Let me mention some of my priorities for an agenda for a revitalized United Nations. The tremendous increase in peace-keeping operations clearly signals a change in the role of the Security Council. The emphasis is more and more on cooperative crisis management, resolution and prevention in various regional conflicts. The permanent members of the Council are expected to take a leading role when countries are requested to 21 contribute the means needed to implement the Council’s decisions. In this new era the yardstick for great-Power status is no longer the number of nuclear bombs but now the concrete contribution that a country is prepared and able to make to the cooperative effort to stem the tide of war, misery and poverty in the world. For this reason the Netherlands is in favour of the admission of Germany and Japan to the Security Council as permanent members. Both countries have an impeccable record as Members of the United Nations. They have expressed their willingness to shoulder a larger part of the common burden, and they have the power and the means to do so. Their permanent presence on the Security Council would therefore significantly strengthen the authority and capabilities of the United Nations as a whole. The question of equitable representation of various geographical regions will also have to be addressed for the sake of the Council’s legitimacy in the eyes of the world at large. All in all, we believe that it is possible to achieve consensus on an expansion to a total number of seats somewhere in the low twenties. This would indeed be a most significant step towards improving the credibility and legitimacy of the United Nations. At least as important however is enhanced transparency and closer coordination between the Security Council and the United Nations membership at large. My own country’s position may illustrate this point. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is de facto the eleventh highest contributor to the budget of the United Nations. We are in tenth position in terms of the numbers of military personnel contributed to peace-keeping operations, yet we are not involved in the Council’s decisions in which the mandates and modalities of these operations are laid down. As in government, there should be no taxation without representation. The members of the Security Council have to remember that they exercise their authority on behalf of the entire membership of the Organization. For that purpose they need the confidence of the General Assembly. The Council can no longer operate as an exclusive club. Therefore the Netherlands is in favour of the creation of a subsidiary organ of the Council, where all aspects of peace- keeping operations could be discussed with major troop contributors. Moreover, we join those who call for systematic and independent reporting and evaluation of peace-keeping operations. The reports should not end up, labelled "Confidential", in the desks of the United Nations bureaucracy. Those who contribute and the people whom they represent have a rightful claim to this information. On this score as well, the principle of accountability must urgently be introduced in the interest of the overall credibility of the United Nations. Another area with important potential for improving the working of the United Nations system is that of the regional organizations. Together with Germany, the Netherlands has argued for a more active role for the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) as the regional United Nations arrangement for Europe. I strongly believe that the United Nations should apply what the European Union calls subsidiarity. This principle means that the higher level should not deal with matters that can be dealt with satisfactorily at the lower and more specialized level. Responsibility should be exercised as close as possible to the grass roots. European countries should try to solve their own problems in the framework of the CSCE before dropping them into the lap of the United Nations. This, however, remains a matter for voluntary regional cooperation, and in no way detracts from the primary responsibility of the Security Council. In Africa, we see encouraging signs of a development in the same direction. In the framework of the Organization of African Unity, as well as at regional and subregional levels, efforts are being made to develop a regional peace-keeping capacity. These initiatives deserve our wholehearted support. On the other hand, the Netherlands shares the concern of these countries that self-reliance in this domain should not cut them off from assistance and active involvement by the international community through the United Nations. In Rwanda, for instance, African countries are contributing most of the personnel for the operation of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR). Other United Nations Members have provided equipment, logistical and financial support and transportation. The Netherlands has made a contribution in matériel to match the deployment of a peace-keeping contingent by Zambia. This may provide a model for more permanent, structural means of practical cooperation between countries in the region and those outside - a kind of mutual adoption arrangement. Much has been said about the need for an enhanced early-warning capacity. In fact, in most cases the information was available before crises erupted into violence. But, as the former Yugoslavia has demonstrated, early warning is not sufficient if States are 22 not willing and ready to undertake early action once a potential crisis has been identified. A similar remark can be made about the United Nations system of stand-by forces. This is an excellent idea, and the system may serve as a useful database for the United Nations. But it is no guarantee of greater efficiency in all circumstances. In connection with Rwanda, the system was put to the test for the first time. The results of that test were extremely discouraging. None of the countries that had indicated possible contributions were willing to provide troops for rapid deployment. What is the use of an instrument if the political will to use it is lacking? Regrettably, lessons are drawn mostly when it is too late. The human tragedy in Rwanda will always remain a shame for the international community. Collectively, we must acknowledge that we had ample warning of impending disaster and that we could have done more to prevent the genocide. In this context I have been struck by the words of a high-ranking United Nations official: "A mechanized brigade deployed in Kigali within 7 to 14 days might have stabilized the situation." If this is true, then the moral dimension of our failure to provide the United Nations with the necessary means becomes all too apparent. If deploying a brigade could have prevented the indiscriminate slaughter of many hundreds of thousands, what prevented us from doing so? Let us face it: the reason for our inaction was neither lack of means nor lack of time. The reason was that, under the circumstances, no Government was prepared to risk the lives of its citizens. The physical danger was considered too high. How can we resolve this dilemma? Hand-wringing will not absolve us from our responsibility in a situation of genocide. Either we act upon our feeling of horror and indignation, or we stop moralizing. If Member States are not in a position to provide the necessary military personnel, will it then not become unavoidable for us to consider the establishment of a full-time, professional, at all times available and rapidly deployable United Nations brigade for this purpose - a "United Nations Legion" at the disposal of the Security Council? Such a relatively small, international, all-volunteer "fire brigade" may enable the United Nations to save lives in situations such as Rwanda. Its establishment could help to solve the dilemmas that we, Governments, face when trying to come to grips with the phenomenon of the failed State. Of course, the preferable way to deal with conflicts is by preventing them. In Europe, the discreet activities of the High Commissioner for National Minorities appointed by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and those of other actors, have undoubtedly played a crucial role in defusing potential crises in the Baltic and other regions. It is a fact of life in politics that solutions and happy endings quietly achieved do not attract the same attention as failures and disasters. Trusted and respected personalities could play a similar role in other regions. As Minister Hurd said last year: for the expense involved in the deployment of one battalion of peace-keepers, the Secretary-General can send a great many personal representatives. I also wish to say a few words about the aftermath of conflicts that could not be prevented: the punishment of those responsible for crimes against humanity. It is of the utmost importance not only that these terrible crimes be condemned by the international community but also that those responsible for these crimes, as well as the actual perpetrators, be prosecuted. Strangely enough, this was done only at the end of the Second World War. But now at last we see the establishment of an international tribunal for crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and the start of a broad discussion on a future tribunal for Rwanda. Punishment of war criminals and ethnic cleansers is not a matter of revenge. It is a matter of justice and also a matter of deterrence. Impunity encourages future crimes against humanity. We therefore strongly support both tribunals; as well as the early establishment of an international criminal court that will exercise jurisdiction with regard to serious crimes of international concern. With the introduction of a draft statute for such an international criminal court, a major step forward has been made. In closing, let me emphasize my fundamental point: the credibility of the authority exercised by Governments and by the United Nations. In the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, the world community has failed to stop the breakdown of civil society and the descent into barbarity. Such failures undermine people’s belief in the authority of the United Nations, in the authority of regional organizations, in the authority of Governments, and indeed in public authority as such. The authority of a national Government does not depend only on its own credibility; it also depends on the credibility of the wider international authority in which it participates. Therefore, it is in our own national interest to uphold that wider 23 authority. We can only do this if we provide the United Nations with the tools it needs to face its daunting task.