It is a great honour for
me to address the General Assembly, a body that
represents the heart of multilateral diplomacy, for the
first time tonight. As such, it is called to fulfil the
expectations and hopes of peoples and individuals
around the world — hopes for peace, hopes for an end
to poverty and suffering and hopes to see human rights
respected.
Since my arrival in New York a couple of days
ago, I have been encouraged by the multiple calls for
international cooperation and the renewed commitment
to multilateralism. For Liechtenstein, the United Nations
has always been the epitome of multilateralism. We
believe that genuine multilateralism is needed today in
order to address the challenges before us.
On disarmament and non-proliferation, we seem
to be finally about to enter a new era.
On climate change, the United Nations is working
hard to seal the deal. Last Tuesday, an unprecedented
number of heads of State or Government gathered in
this Hall to discuss climate change threats. We applaud
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for this excellent
initiative. The Liechtenstein delegation left that
meeting with the belief that a breakthrough is possible
because everybody seems to understand the gravity of
the situation. We are approaching Copenhagen with the
firm conviction that we must listen to the voices of
those who are most at risk — those whose very
survival is at stake. What is now required from us is a
leap of faith — no half-hearted compromises, no more
postponing, and no more talk about concessions either.
Copenhagen is not about giving up something — other
than our self-destructive habits. It is about investing
into the future of our planet.
The global financial and economic crisis has
rippled through our countries and disrupted the lives of
people worldwide. It has also deeply affected our
progress towards the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals. While much attention has been
paid and much money has been mobilized to keep the
world economy afloat, another crisis has emerged in its
wake. It is a crisis of global governance, and it may
have lasting repercussions.
We acknowledge that there are times when
concerted action by groups such as the Group of Eight
and the Group of 20 (G-20) can bring us closer to
solutions for everyone. But we cannot ignore the gap
between those who are taking decisions and the rest of
us. Good and effective solutions require the support of
those who are to implement them. Most important,
rules must apply to everyone equally, on the basis of a
level playing field.
The notion of sovereign equality is one of the
core principles of the United Nations Charter. Indeed,
it is the main pillar of genuine multilateralism. I was
therefore pleased to accept an invitation from the
Foreign Minister of Singapore to discuss issues of
global governance together with some other colleagues
and friends. I look forward to continuing those
exchanges and I hope that the G-20 and other partners
will find interest in our input and ideas. Our goal is
positive engagement, productive cooperation and the
highest possible quality in decision-making.
The drafters of the United Nations Charter
understood that the inclusion of all States was a
prerequisite for effective multilateralism. In today’s
interconnected world, we must uphold this principle
more than ever. But the practice of the Organization
has sometimes veered away from the ideals of
inclusion, transparency and legitimacy.
On international peace and security, the Security
Council is mandated to carry out its functions on behalf
of all of us. Our understanding is therefore that the
Council’s legitimacy depends on the extent to which its
actions reflect a very wide political consensus. Often,
45 09-52592
though, the Council shows little interest in including in
its decision-making process those who are instrumental
for implementation. Together with the other members
of the Small Five Group, we will continue to work for
inclusion and transparency in the Council’s work. We
will also look for further improvements in the
Council’s sanctions procedures. As numerous judicial
challenges have shown, those procedures must be
brought closer to international standards of human
rights and due process. Such improvements would go a
long way in improving the effectiveness, perception
and legitimacy of sanctions.
The composition of the Security Council is
outdated. This is sadly almost the only agreement we
have found after many years of controversial
discussions on its enlargement. Our position on the
matter is clear. None of the proposals submitted at the
2005 World Summit, or variations thereof, will receive
the necessary support in the Assembly, let alone in the
ratification process. We see only two avenues towards
expansion. We can wait for a massive institutional
crisis to hit the Organization and then expand the
Council under enormous public pressure, or we can
work in a cooperative manner towards a solution that is
both a compromise and politically sustainable. We
believe that only the latter approach is in the best
interest of the Organization. As a result of the last
session, there are now clear ideas on the table on how
to bridge the gap. They deserve a thorough review
during the coming months.
Over the past two decades, multilateralism has
perhaps been most successful in the area of
international criminal justice. The first generation of
international tribunals has had a tremendous impact,
and is now approaching the conclusion of its work.
Most important, we have created the International
Criminal Court — an institution that seemed a distant
dream not too long ago. During its first years in
operation, the Court has been remarkably successful. It
has also been subject to controversial political
discussions. This is not surprising, because justice can
be difficult and can seem inconvenient. That is
particularly true in situations of ongoing conflict. But it
is not a choice. To quote Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon,
the debate is no longer between peace and justice but
between peace and what kind of justice. Indeed, peace,
development and justice go hand in hand. These tasks
must be fulfilled, first and foremost, by States
themselves. We must therefore galvanize efforts to
strengthen national judiciaries, in accordance with the
principle of complementarity.
The International Criminal Court will not be able
to put on trial all perpetrators of the most serious
crimes. But its work illustrates the world’s consensus
that there must be accountability for these crimes and
that impunity is no longer an option. The 2010 review
conference will give us the opportunity to add the
crime of aggression to the list of crimes under the
active jurisdiction of the Court. We hope that we will
find it in ourselves to seize this historic event.
The General Assembly remains the heart of
genuine multilateral work. We must trust that the
President will lead the Assembly in a manner that
reflects the priorities of the membership as a whole.
Important negotiations are ahead of us. We will prepare
the 2010 summit on the Millennium Development
Goals, continue discussions on the arms trade treaty,
move ahead with various reform processes, negotiate both
a new budget and a new scale of assessments, address
human rights both in specific situations and thematically,
keep working on the promotion of the rule of law at all
levels, work to strengthen the framework for development
and humanitarian assistance, and much more.
Looking at the work programme ahead, it seems
to us that the General Assembly does not need much
revitalization. There are numerous concrete challenges
in front of us, to which we Member States must rise.
We must look beyond our short-term domestic interests
and work hard to make progress on our comprehensive
agenda. The renewed expressions of commitment that
we have witnessed in this Hall over the past days give
us confidence. The Assembly will do its best to live up
to the world’s expectations and, more than ever, strive
in unison.