YouSaid · the spoken record

Jozias van Aartsen

lines on the record: 65
first: 1998-09-24
most recent: 2001-09-24
sittings or episodes: 4
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“Multilateralism is solidarity worked into a plan. As I said, the reaction by the United Nations system in the aftermath of 11 September has been prompt and responsible. In order to maintain that level of performance, we, the Member States, will have to show the stamina, support and commitment to make it happen. Our track record is not impeccable. The United Nations can go no faster than we will let it, which means we have to make it work. This also means we have to provide it with all the resources, and the political will, to give it the push and punch we need.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Especially now, caught in the crossfire, the Afghan people are not to be envied. Their plight will not be over once the guns are silent. Food stocks, health care, housing, utilities, schooling, agriculture — the list of concerns is a long one. But all of us need to push that agenda. We may not be part of the problem of Afghanistan, but we must be part of the solution. Yet again, reconstruction cannot be imposed upon a nation. Here, too, a sustainable recovery needs to come from within. All the men, and especially the women of Afghanistan, must once again become the makers of their own fate and future. The answer lies with them. The United Nations is not merely “an ineffective acronym”, as a misguided message on the Internet would have you believe. For global issues, multilateral cooperation is the only answer.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Let us not limit our view to the part of the 16 United Nations here in New York, but rather broaden it to the entire United Nations system, including the Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods institutions. We need to bring the full weight of that system to bear on the future of Afghanistan. I am speaking of the World Health Organization and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the United Nations Drug Control Programme, of the International Labour Organization and the World Food Programme, of the United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank. There is no need to set up a whole new mechanism. The Afghanistan Support Group is fully entrenched, and we should use it.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“In a previous context, Ambassador Brahimi has offered us a wide spectrum of lessons learned about United Nations peacekeeping. We should take them to heart. Now, as the Special Representative, he deserves all the support he needs from us. Concerning mine clearance: Afghanistan has more landmines than any other country in the world. The country cannot possibly get back on its feet as long as those mines are there. We have to get rid of them, and the United Nations can help us to do that. We must pay the bills. As to reconstruction: we should capitalize on where the United Nations is uniquely positioned either to deploy operations in the field or to coordinate those of others.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“As regards security: in the absence of a functional national army, transitional military arrangements are essential. They are essential to create a secure environment enabling reconstruction to begin and refugees to return home. Choosing the right format is critical. A conventional United Nations peacekeeping operation may not be a good idea — certainly not for the country as a whole. Supplying peacekeepers is still voluntary. Realistically, the troop levels needed for a country this size would almost certainly not be attained. Bosnia has taught us the hard lesson of the price we pay when we send in a United Nations force that is below par. We should be careful to avoid another Somalia. Different formats for security arrangements are possible, and we should reflect on them as a whole.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Much as we seek to avoid it, a political vacuum is a realistic prospect, given that tribal conflict in Afghanistan is as old as the country’s history. Afghans are a proud people. Hostility towards outside intervention is strong. The country needs to be governed from within. We may be looking both for a broad-based interim Government and for a stable permanent structure. Without rushing to elections, we need to be satisfied that such a political settlement is supported by the population. In the process, the United Nations might play a central role as a catalyst and as an adviser, but not as a governor. Afghanistan is not East Timor. It is important, too, that any settlement be supported by the neighbouring States and by a Security Council resolution.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Consensus is growing that in post-Taliban Afghanistan, the United Nations should play a central role. I certainly support that view. But a central role in what? For make no mistake: once the bombing stops, the difficulties are still overwhelming. The country is not only rugged and ruined, but also the size of Central Europe and packed with landmines. Factional fighting is bound to continue. The United Nations can do a lot, but we need to beware of sending the United Nations on an impossible mission. Instead of calling on the United Nations for functions where it is weak, let us call on the United Nations for functions where it is strong. For example, take governance, a major worry to us all.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“But more importantly: the solution should not come from the outside, but rather from the inside. Even in the poorest country we will find well-educated citizens just as committed to building better lives for their children as in the rest of the world. They need a helping hand in building good governance and a viable civil society. Yet, ownership is paramount. Failing States, too, have the capacity to fix themselves. Indeed, only if they fix themselves will they no longer fail. Our role should be to help galvanize and to enable those capacities. Lesson number three: the United Nations should be doing the right things. As of today the Northern Alliance has entered the city of Kabul. That fact makes it even more imperative that we speak about Afghanistan in the United Nations.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Indeed, it may turn out to be the most pernicious problem of the new century. From that point on, we need to build a strategy, and do so together, within the framework of this Organization. What are we aiming at? How ambitious are we? Can we get in early to prevent failing States from failing? Are there any early warning signals to look out for? If we see those signals, do we have the means to act? And the political will? Once States are failing, do we try and fix them? Do we settle for ending the fighting, wherever fighting is going on? Or do we limit ourselves to humanitarian aid? These are all difficult questions. My belief is that outside intervention only goes so far. I do not believe that massive injections of aid are the right answer to failing States. For one thing, donors are reluctant to poor money down a black hole.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“We knew they were there all along, but we have never been quite sure how to deal with them. Why should we care about failing States? For several reasons. Look at the avalanche of drugs, drug-money, weapons, and warlords spilling out of Afghanistan. Look at the blood diamonds streaming out of Africa. Think of how failing States attract parasites and how they turn into breeding grounds for terrorism, a haven for international crime. Think of peace and security, too; of how faltering countries become a liability to their own people; of how they flaunt the rules of the game and become a liability to the whole neighbourhood. 15 How do we deal with failing States? That question has never been answered in a systematic manner. Any answer begins by recognition on the part of the Member States of this Organization that failing States are a problem.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Long ago, we drew a line beyond which we cannot step — we cannot detract from the basic principles of human rights. Those principles are the true measure of our evolution and our civilization. If we look the other way, we lose the moral high ground. If we compromise, we lose out to those who besiege us. What is being put to the test here is our own value system. The core notion of that system is tolerance. Tolerance must, however, come from all sides. Tolerance is not the equivalent of giving in to intolerance. It does not imply that you bend at the slightest pressure. Tolerance means that you stand up to be counted, that you draw a line in the sand when your basic values are challenged. That is lesson number one. Lesson number two: there are “black holes” in the international order: failing States.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Let us resume our efforts to turn the Biological Weapons Convention into an instrument that can really make a difference. The need for stepping up security is immediate, comprehensive and self-evident. In the aftermath of 11 September, nobody would deny it. But we need to be concerned with the downside of security as well. Parts of our value system may come under pressure when Governments seek to bolster public safety, and by this I mean human rights and fundamental freedoms. As private citizens we must be ready to make concessions and, yes, we will be forced to relinquish some freedom from intrusion in our private lives. But we cannot be expected to live in a never-ending state of siege. Wherever we have to strike a balance, we have to do so wisely.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“My country has some expertise to offer and will gladly share it. Meanwhile, an overarching convention against terrorism is in the works. That is good. But we are getting bogged down over a definition of terrorism. That is bad. Let us not forget that it took us 20 years to produce a fairly useless definition of aggression. The world cannot wait that long. Besides, when terrorism stares you in the face, you’ll know it. In addition to rule-making, the real challenge lies in implementation. There, we should try harder. Let me give you one example. Just before the summer we lost our momentum in the fight against biological warfare, and therefore the fight against bio-terrorism as well. The world is a scary place. Anthrax is only one motive for retrieving that momentum.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“A striking example of innovative rule-making was presented by the Security Council. Binding under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, resolution 1373 (2001) takes action not in regard to a specific threat or breach of the peace, not against a particular Member State, but takes action to confront a phenomenon, a threat to our human values and economic interests — action against unidentified enemies. By writing new law, the Council has broken new ground. Even more so, as it has set up the Counter-Terrorism Committee to monitor the implementation of its decision. Jointly with our partners in the European Union, we are taking the implementation of resolution 1373 (2001) very seriously. One aspect of it is especially important to us: promoting ratification of all of the various anti-terrorism conventions and monitoring compliance.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“The reaction on the part of the United Nations from the beginning of this crisis has been prompt and responsible. As we meet this week, we must try and keep the momentum going. And that is precisely what we are doing. There is something I have sensed in the first few days of this general debate — namely, determination — determination to use the United Nations to the fullest, on many different fronts, as a centre of gravity for our common actions — common action for confronting a global threat — common action to maintain the international order. With regard to that common action, what have we learned so far? Three lessons. Lesson number one: the law must be firmly in place. There is a wealth of legal rules to guide us in these difficult times, and more of them are on the way.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“How can anyone stand on the smoking ashes of “ground zero” and not be overwhelmed by disbelief, anger, and frustration? How can anyone escape the enormity of what happened in September or not feel compassion for all those who have lost someone dear to them? At “ground zero” we not only witness death and destruction, but we also see how American values have come under siege. These are shared values. That is why the people I represent now stand squarely behind the United States. 14 No matter how deeply moved we may be, we must look beyond our anger and frustration. Through our tears, we should discover opportunity. Through our bitterness, necessity. We must turn compassion into solidarity, turn solidarity into common action. We need a plan — in sum, we must turn to the United Nations.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“In such a vision, the principle of non- intervention yields to the defence of human rights; sovereignty is further reappraised; there is room for civil society and the private sector; and economics are also held responsible for social and development goals. Such is the road less travelled, but the only one that can make all the difference.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“For too long we have been remoulding old ideas. While doing so, we have kept the United Nations on a very short leash, hardly allowing it to stray off the beaten path. More of the same is not enough. In other words, the United Nations is bound to miss its cue if we, the peoples, pursue our business as usual. The future will pass us by. The alternative is an avenue that is much more ambitious. It amounts to using the United Nations system as a vehicle for the development of a new vision of world politics, a vision for the “post- Westphalian” era. In such a vision, present trends would be given legitimacy and a conceptual framework.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“Even though the odds are staggering, the United Nations system can make a difference in reducing poverty, gender inequality and child and maternal mortality. But it can make a difference only from a position of strength and from a platform shared by other actors at the international level: from a position of shared responsibility. The Millennium Summit has declared poverty eradication the United Nations number one priority. We applaud that. But fighting poverty is not only a moral imperative, as it always has been; it has also become an economic one. That is another reason for the United Nations to become more inclusive of the private sector. The Secretary-General's report (A/54/2000), “We the peoples”, duly poses the question of how to take the United Nations forward. Whatever the way forward, it needs to be a bold one.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“Kofi Annan has been vigorously pursuing closer relations with all these various forums, and we encourage him to do more of the same. Responsible corporate partnership is also about protecting the weak. The United Nations was set up not only to guarantee peace and security, but also to secure freedom from want. Despite its obvious advantages, globalization is leaving too many victims by the wayside. The gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen, and the poor suffer the most, in war and in peace. Meanwhile, the private sector wields 17 a great deal of power in its decisions as to where it will buy, sell and invest. Those decisions may bear directly on the quality of life in many developing countries.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“Policies are tested in the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos or decided elsewhere. Brussels has become a hub of world affairs. That focus has brought on a different cast of players than in the days of Talleyrand and Metternich. Foreign Ministers now work shoulder to shoulder not only with development ministers, but also with finance and trade ministers, as well as with central bankers. International affairs, whether we like it or not, are increasingly about economics. Forging a relationship with the private sector is therefore indispensable if the United Nations wants to preserve its relevance over the long haul. The multilateral system, for its part, must seek closer ties with other centres of power and with the business community. Mr.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“States were once thought of as bulwarks against harmful economic impact from abroad. Economic weight was viewed as a trump card in the power play among nations. Today, States are increasingly serving as instruments for adjusting domestic policy to the realities of the present-day world economy. They have become intermediaries between the world economy, with its own structure of power, and domestic societies. This brings up the question of where world affairs are being conducted and how they have caused a shift in the style of diplomacy. Economic globalization has shifted the focus of attention to forums other than the United Nations here in New York, notably to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and, on a regional level, the European Union.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“In the future, we must create appropriate channels of communication with the private sector, inside this Organization, where they, as well as Governments and civil society, can try and get a hold on the convulsions of our time — a forum where, at the very least, they can deliberate and begin to break down the barriers of mistrust that have divided them for so long. That is the first reason why the United Nations needs to broaden its scope and become more inclusive. The second is the power of the private sector. Many companies have turnovers larger than the national budgets of some Member States, and the same is true for the personal fortunes of some chief executive officers. The relationship between States and the private sector has altered dramatically over time.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“I do understand the trepidations of some non-governmental organizations who fear that multinational corporations will drape themselves in the United Nations flag and become untouchable in the pursuit of profit. I understand, too, the apprehension felt by diplomats in this hall, who have a lifetime invested in the exclusivity of the State and its monopoly on multilateral discourse. But the Global Compact is not a Trojan horse. And I will go even further. We have given civil society structural access to the United Nations system. By contrast, the access we are giving to the private sector, with the notable exception of the International Labour Organization, has been ad hoc, not structural.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“The United Nations cannot credibly hope to play a galvanizing role in meeting the challenges of the coming century if it cannot show that its debates and its action platforms reflect the real world outside the conference rooms. If we want to see the United Nations as “unique in world affairs” — as the Millennium report puts it — it must be able to show that all players are on the stage. The Secretary-General's Global Compact could not have come at a more opportune moment. It is the mere beginning of a process, but it is off to a promising start. The Global Compact deserves the active support of the international community, and it deserves to be joined by other multinationals.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“Companies should find it in their own interest to assume a responsibility equal to their weight in international relations and the influence they have at 16 the domestic level. Chief executive officers, too, want a livable world for their grandchildren. The private sector must be called upon to enter into a responsible corporate partnership in sync with other actors at the international plane. True, the role of each actor needs to be different. Their motivation can remain different, too — as does the legal basis on which they act. But their determination needs to be the same: the determination to secure the longevity of life as we know it and to secure for everyone on the planet an equitable share of its bounty. Different roles, shared responsibility. That concept needs to take root in this Organization as well.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“For equitable working conditions, and other forms of social justice, States need to involve the private sector. The same is true for fighting corruption, the spread of small arms, wasting water or AIDS. We have truly entered an era that is very different from the one in which the United Nations was born — an era in which the course of humanity and the quality of life on earth have more and more become a shared responsibility; an era where Governments, the private sector and civil society are drawn ever more closely together. They all have a stake in global governance. The so-called global public goods are a matter for all of them together. The private sector has a stake in the future of the planet, too. Of course, it is here to do business. But no planet, no profit.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“As an example, I refer to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, in which the pharmaceutical industry closely cooperates with international organizations, Governments and other actors. We need to build on that. Indeed, the time has come to expand the concept of a partnership with the private sector. Why? Two reasons. First of all, the world is up against incredible odds and, secondly, the private sector does exist and wields a lot of power in the international arena. About the odds: take a sustainable future, where elementary laws of ecology must be respected. Not even the most powerful Government can put a stop to global warming — nor all the Member States of the United Nations combined. A sustainable future needs to be pursued in conjunction with industry, civil society and the scientific community.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“Although a potent actor on the domestic and international levels, the private sector has been virtually ignored by traditional United Nations diplomacy. The business community, and notably transnational corporations, were viewed by many as the competitor, if not as the enemy of international public interest. Documents critical of multinationals were being issued by the United Nations and the specialized agencies until recently. Confrontation rather than dialogue. I am not contending that there were no grounds for that position: quite the contrary. However, nowadays we see a growing awareness in the business community of the necessity of responsible corporate policies and of a role for private enterprise in the pursuit of interests that go beyond maximizing immediate profits.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“Their actions are now much more shaped by economic pressures, information flows, and population movements. For States, too, globalization is here to stay. Other actors have entered both the domestic and international scenes. Civil society is one. The private sector is another. Since 1945, civil society, made up of non-profit organizations, has blossomed along a wide spectrum, beyond any expectation of the United Nations founding fathers. Many non-governmental organizations operate across national boundaries. At the present time, the United Nations system could never hope to operate properly without the assistance of non-governmental organizations, not to mention normative thinking and advocacy. Non-governmental organizations have acquired access to the United Nations at different levels, and participate in many of its discussions.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“The private sector is not referred to at all. In other words, the Charter conforms to a model of governance as old as the Peace of Westphalia, a state system going back to the mid-1600s. In order to strategize for the future, we need to ask ourselves: who, in actual fact, runs the world today; where and how are world affairs conducted; and how can we position the United Nations accordingly? The United Nations is made up of Member States. That is fitting and proper. States will be the custodians of foreign relations for a long time to come. But their roles have changed significantly with time. States can no longer be thought of as the hard billiard balls of international relations. Internationalization has altered the concept of sovereignty. Nor are Sates autonomous entities as before, pursuing self-defined national interests.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“The Brahimi recommendations deserve to be implemented — the sooner the better. At present, the Netherlands Government and parliament are debating how to improve our national contribution to peacekeeping. 15 “We, the Peoples” can lead to reflections on a totally different side of the United Nations reality as well. I, for one, would take this opportunity to argue in favour of closer ties between the United Nations and the private sector. In 1945 the world was run by States. The Charter hinges on that very assumption. It covers all aspects of life as they were prevalent at the time, from peace and security to social justice, from economic cooperation to human rights. Despite its ambition, the Charter hardly mentions any other actors besides States. Non- governmental organizations appear in the Charter only once.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
““We, the peoples” is a powerful rendition of world affairs and a daunting portrait of life for future generations. It took intellect and diplomatic savoir-faire to state a complex case in such a concise and forceful way. We are grateful to the Secretary-General and his staff for producing it. “We, the peoples” are of course the opening words of the Charter, and I want to take them as a point of departure. Other speakers have done so before me and have argued in favour of a more robust structure for keeping the peace in the world community. They are right. The United Nations role in the area of preventing or limiting armed conflict was conceived as its principal purpose. The Brahimi report has shown how, in spite of that, the United Nations peacekeeping function has in fact become its Achilles heel.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“Its decision on East Timor gave us hope for the Council's potential.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“I am convinced this is one of the paramount issues of our time. Momentum is building, and we should seize it. Let us put the issue squarely on the agenda: the agenda of the United Nations, of the Council and of our parliaments at home. I ask the legal community to keep a keen eye on the groundswell that is developing and to be innovative in its thinking. We politicians have a vast responsibility here. We should steer the discussion towards the people instead of the State. The Security Council should be stronger, not weaker. It should be a credible leader in the maintenance of peace. In order to be credible, it must be consistent, swift and proactive. It must show courage, drive and vision. It must keep changing with the times. It must put people over politics. That is a tall order.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Let me go one step further. The blurring of the boundaries of sovereignty does not stop at human rights. In the future, the notion of sovereignty is going to be tested beyond that. Think of decrepit nuclear installations, massive damage to the environment, lack of water or mass marketing of narcotic drugs. Can responsible statesmen afford to wait until the damage is actually done? Or do they in fact have a duty to prevent it? These are questions which, at some point, the Security Council will have to be involved in. It is not the lack of early warning, not the absence of preventive diplomacy, not the veto per se. I call on every politician and every diplomat in this room to accept that the traditional balance between sovereignty and human rights, between the State and the people is shifting.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Since 1945, the world has witnessed a gradual shift in that balance, making respect for human rights more and more mandatory and respect for sovereignty less and less stringent. An elaborate body of international human rights law has come to counterbalance the dictates of paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article 2. Today, human rights have come to outrank sovereignty. Increasingly, the prevailing interpretation of the Charter is that it aims to protect individual human beings, not to protect those who abuse them. Today, we regard it as a generally accepted rule of international law that no sovereign State has the right to terrorize its own citizens. Indeed, if the Charter were to be written today, there would be an Article 2.8 saying that nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize Member States to terrorize their own people.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“At the time, the notion of human rights, although grafted onto the Charter with much conviction, was essentially at odds with classical legal thinking. In a way, the tension became even more pronounced at the adoption of the Universal Declaration. After all, for half a millennium the notion of sovereignty had served as the basis of our global political architecture. As the idea was enshrined in the Charter, the founding fathers believed it would stand the test of time. By contrast, the idea of human rights in international relations was, for the most part, a post-war novelty. Indeed, the Charter is much more specific on respect for sovereignty than on respect for human rights.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“I know that many interventions share a common element — they compare the notion of sovereignty to that of human rights and territorial integrity to humanitarian intervention. To be sure, the question per se is as old as the Charter itself. What is new is the venue. I cannot recall that Foreign Ministers at the General Assembly have talked about this question at any length before. I strongly believe that this issue was bound to surface at this level at some point or another. In 1945, the architects of this Organization included two contradictory premises: respect for territorial integrity and political independence, on the one hand; and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, on the other. 22 The world in those days was ruled by Governments alone, and so the United Nations was made up of States.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Understandably, such images rouse indignation and horror among millions of viewers. They expect instant action. As people are being better informed about current events, their level of expectation rises. The gap between what is expected and what is possible becomes more visible and more acute. By contrast, diplomacy comes with tools that may be old and respectable, but are also solid and slow. And so, while in a globalizing world human misery is disseminated along the electronic highway, diplomacy today still proceeds along a footpath. This leaves me with the central question: Why is the Council often running behind reality? How can we make it catch up with developments? As I look back at the general debate this week, I think that we are getting very close to identifying the main obstacle.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“No matter when or how the debate on the veto will end, this Assembly should meanwhile call on those who possess it to exercise maximum restraint, particularly in humanitarian emergencies. I concur with my German colleague that the permanent five are duty-bound to explain to the world why they are blocking action by the Council. Moreover, we might consider a situation in which a negative vote by a permanent member does not in itself block action. Fourth question: Does the problem lie in the political will, perhaps? To simply say that the political will has been lacking is not only a platitude, but also a very partial view of reality. For part of that reality is that images of all the conflicts on the globe travel around the world with the speed of light. The media broadcasts live images of human suffering.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“The very fact that a single Member State can hold the entire world community in limbo in the face of harrowing brutalities is affecting the stature and moral force of the Organization. That, too, may be spawning dissolution. It may be argued that, without the veto, the United Nations would not have survived its first 50 years. It may also be argued that, with the veto, the United Nations will not survive the next 50 years. In the first 50 years, the Organization might have fallen apart if the veto had not been there as a buffer against the push and pull of a bipolar world. In the second 50 years, in a multipolar world, repeated inaction by the Security Council would result in parallel actions outside the United Nations framework, pushing the Organization, as a custodian of world peace, more and more into the margins.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“The recent mission it dispatched to East Timor is a good example of how the Council can be more assertive. Missions are an existing instrument that is, in my opinion, in need of an upgrade. In addition, the open debate on East Timor in the Council, at which everybody spoke plain language, fuelled the mounting international pressure on Indonesia. Third question: Is the problem, perhaps, the veto? I know this is a popular view, but it is also a tenuous one. True, we cannot ignore the veto as a factor in the Council's performance record. True again, in our discussions on reform of the Council, the veto is a core element we will one day have to come to grips with. Yet, the problem is an intractable one. Tampering with the veto may itself create the risk of dissolution for the United Nations as a whole.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“The call for establishing early warning systems has been around for decades; it has become a buzzword used whenever the inadequacies of the United Nations response machinery are being discussed. But in fact, given the level of communications in modern times, policy planners have plenty of information to be forward-looking. It is not the failing of an early warning system that can be put to blame, nor the lack of data. It is, instead, the failure of decision- makers to react adequately. Second question: Why, then, does the United Nations react inadequately? Do we not have preventive diplomacy? We do, not only in terms of bilateral efforts of major nations or of the good offices of the Secretary-General; the Council itself can be proactive.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“On many occasions in its lifetime, I have admired the United Nations for the way it intervened in emergencies. In particular, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food 21 Programme have enjoyed a long tradition of being in the forefront. Many non-governmental organizations, such as Médecins Sans Frontières and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), have stood there right beside them. Let me pose a number of questions on how the Security Council performs in emergencies. First, do we not see a crisis coming before it breaks? Do we not have early warning systems? Of course we do.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“It is one image the founding fathers of this Organization might not have had, one image that by itself already holds a promise for the future: the next century may well be the century of Africa. The Secretary-General, in his report on Africa, has made a link between conflict and prosperity. For this reason, my delegation felt that members of the Council would be well advised to consider this question in some depth, and, in our presidential capacity, we have therefore organized an open-ended public debate, to be held next week, in which the Secretary-General will brief us on the state of Africa. Let me now turn to the question of how to improve the effectiveness of the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular, in coping with crisis situations.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Africa is not a land of troubles alone but also of happiness, not a continent only of catastrophe but also one of hope. The sheer mass of Africa's problems obscures our view of its promise and its potential. In the public mind, an unbalanced view of Africa prevails. That view, I feel, needs to be corrected: we need to rid ourselves of prejudice and think positively. Instead of dejection, we need a deepening commitment. Africa, despite the odds, has come a long way already. Personally, I was struck, at the opening of the general debate, by the sight of an African President of South Africa, speaking in front of an African President of the General Assembly, seated next to an African Secretary- General. It is hard to miss the symbolism of that image.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Speaking to the Assembly one year ago, I demonstrated that the Kingdom of the Netherlands qualified for membership on the Security Council. During the elections two weeks later a substantial majority of this body supported us, and we are grateful to them. As the Netherlands has served on the Council now for more than eight months and is currently its President, I think it is only fair for me to report to all the Assembly members who showed confidence in us. I wish to speak on Africa, on the Council, and on shifting our attention from the State to the people. Most of today's armed conflicts are in Africa. From Sierra Leone to Eritrea and from the Sudan to the Congo and Angola, Africans are fighting Africans. Fighting accompanies all the plights and pains that are known to humankind, from poverty and pestilence to famine, fear and flight.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“Areas where we have made contributions include human rights, legal cooperation, crime prevention, criminal justice and so forth. Much of the groundwork for the International Criminal Court was done under Dutch chairmanship. If indeed we are to serve on the Security Council, what will be our aims in the next two years? Our aim is the primacy of international law. Our aim is building bridges. Our aim is addressing all issues before the Council. Our aim is more contact between non-members and the Council. And our aim is openness and transparency. In a nutshell, we will be driven by idealism, but guided by realism. It is in that spirit that we approach our membership in the Council and, indeed, the future of this Organization.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“The Netherlands has been an active player in the Commission on Human Rights since at least 1980, has seen several of its countrymen serve in prominent human rights positions, has either drafted or supported countless resolutions and has strongly advocated standard- setting and monitoring. It is a topic that enjoys solid support in Dutch society and has constituted a clear political imperative for a quarter of a century. Member States can count on our toeing the line in the future. Promoting respect for the rule of law at the international level has been recognized as part of our heritage ever since Hugo Grotius, in the early 1600s. In modern times, the Netherlands has sought to contribute to the advancement of international law.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)