General Assembly Session 58 meeting 7

The President

This general debate of the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly takes place at a time of enormous challenges for the United Nations. The participation of a significant number of heads of State and Government in the debate sends a strong message of support for the United Nations and reaffirms to the people of the world that their leaders are at the forefront of international efforts to address the broad range of issues of importance to them. As President of the fifty-eighth session, the presence of world leaders here is encouraging to me.

Some 58 years on, recent unfolding, and often tragic, developments worldwide pose a serious challenge for the United Nations, and particularly for the General Assembly. That is particularly so in the areas enshrined in the Charter as the Organization's primary objectives: the promotion of economic and social advancement, tolerance and peace and the maintenance of international peace and security, including collective security. Lately, we have engaged in a process of self-searching and re-examination, looking, for example, at the goals we have set for ourselves in the economic and social fields and at our efforts to keep peace in the world. Reform and revitalization of our Organization is key to the success of our initiatives, and thus is among the issues we are reviewing.

The safety and security of United Nations personnel has high priority, and has taken on renewed urgency following yet another attack on the United Nations in Baghdad. As we express our sympathy over yet more loss of life and injury, I wish to assure the Secretary-General of our continuing support for his efforts to protect United Nations staff.

Our achievements over the past decade are unquestionable, but many of our initiatives are useful only if they lead to concrete action. We the Member States of the General Assembly are partners, and must work cooperatively to ensure that urgent and necessary action is taken to implement those initiatives, if we are to remain relevant. In doing so, I believe it to be in our best interests to be consistent in our respect for the Charter and for international law, to demonstrate by our action that the General Assembly has not only the capacity but also the political will to constructively address and resolve the complex problems of the world and to close the gap between our agreed objectives and the resources needed to implement them.

The General Assembly has oversight of the United Nations system as a whole, and hence has before it the full range of international issues. As advocate, supervisor and policy-making body, it must give the direction necessary to ensure coherence in the system, so that the Organization may respond in a holistic manner to the many challenges it faces. Heads of State and Government must bring new dynamism to the General Assembly during this session. The political direction that they will provide will be key to enabling the Assembly effectively to address critical issues such as sustainable development, poverty alleviation, violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, terrorism, and United Nations reform. This is the direction we need for the entire year of this session, including from January to September 2004, for it is during this less intensive second part of the session, so to speak, that we can look more reflectively at the decisions we have taken in the fall and begin the critical task of implementation and other aspects of the Assembly's work.

We all know the problems. I will be looking to heads of State and Government and to other high-level participants in this general debate for their advice on how best we may arrive at the solutions.

In accordance with the decision taken at its 2nd plenary meeting, on 19 September 2003, the General Assembly will hear a presentation by the Secretary-General of his annual report on the work of the Organization under agenda item 10 of the provisional agenda.

I give the floor to the Secretary-General.

The Secretary-General

The last 12 months have been very painful for those of us who believe in collective answers to our common problems and challenges.

In many countries, terrorism has once again brought death and suffering to innocent people. In the Middle East, and in certain parts of Africa, violence has continued to escalate. On the Korean peninsula and elsewhere, the threat of nuclear proliferation casts an ominous shadow across the landscape. And barely one month ago, in Baghdad, the United Nations itself suffered a brutal and deliberate assault, in which the international community lost some of its most talented servants. Yesterday the United Nations was again attacked, and it was only because of prompt action by the Iraqi police that another major disaster was averted. Unfortunately, an Iraqi policeman lost his life.

On this occasion, I wish to convey my most sincere condolences to the family of that brave police officer. But I am thinking also of the 19 people, including local United Nations staff, who were injured in the attack. I wish them all a swift recovery, and I hope that all those who have been injured or were killed in the war -- soldiers and innocent civilians -- will remain in our prayers.

In this context, I deplore -- as all present here do as well, I am sure -- the brutal attack that nearly killed Ms. Akila al-Hashemi, a member of the Governing Council. I pray, too, for her swift recovery.

The Secretary-General

Excellencies, the United Nations is you. You are the United Nations. The staff who were killed or injured in the attack on our Baghdad headquarters were your staff. You had given them a mandate to assist the suffering Iraqi people and to help them recover their sovereignty.

In future -- not only in Iraq but wherever the United Nations is engaged -- we must take more effective measures to protect the security of our staff. I count on your full support -- legal, political and financial.

Meanwhile, let me reaffirm the great importance I attach to a successful outcome in Iraq. Whatever view each of us may take of the events of recent months, it is vital for all of us that the outcome be a stable and democratic Iraq, at peace with itself and with its neighbours, and contributing to stability in the region.

Subject to satisfactory security considerations, the United Nations system is prepared to play its full role in working for a satisfactory outcome in Iraq, and to do so as part of an international effort -- an effort by the whole international community -- pulling together on the basis of a sound and viable policy. If it takes extra time and patience to forge a policy that is collective, coherent and workable, then I, for one, would regard that time as well spent. Indeed, this is how we must approach all the many pressing crises that confront us today.

Three years ago, when you came here for the Millennium Summit, we shared a vision of global solidarity and security, expressed in the Millennium Declaration. But recent events have called that consensus into question.

All of us know that there are new threats that must be faced -- or, perhaps, old threats in new and dangerous combinations: new forms of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

But while some consider these threats as self-evidently the main challenge to world peace and security, others feel more immediately menaced by small arms employed in civil conflict, or by so-called "soft threats" such as the persistence of extreme poverty, the disparity of income between and within societies, the spread of infectious diseases, or climate change and environmental degradation.

In truth, we do not have to choose. The United Nations must confront all these threats and challenges -- new and old, "hard" and "soft". It must be fully engaged in the struggle for development and for poverty eradication, starting with the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; in the joint struggle to protect our common environment; and in the struggle for human rights, democracy and good governance.

In fact, all these struggles are linked. We now see, with chilling clarity, that a world in which many millions of people endure brutal oppression and extreme misery will never be fully secure, even for its most privileged inhabitants.

Yet the "hard" threats, such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, are real and cannot be ignored. Terrorism is not a problem only for rich countries. Ask the people of Bali, Bombay, Nairobi or Casablanca. Weapons of mass destruction do not threaten only the western or northern world. Ask the people of Iran, or of Halabja, in Iraq.

Where we disagree, it seems, is on how to respond to these threats. Since this Organization was founded, States have generally sought to deal with threats to the peace through containment and deterrence, by a system based on collective security and on the United Nations Charter. Article 51 of the Charter prescribes that all States, if attacked, retain the inherent right of self-defence. But until now it has been understood that when States go beyond that and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an armed attack with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group. Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, States have the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other States, and even while the weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still being developed. According to this argument, States are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council. Instead, they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions.

This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last fifty-eight years. My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it would set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification.

But it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action.

We have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than in 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded. At that time, a group of far-sighted leaders, led and inspired by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, were determined to make the second half of the twentieth century different from the first half. They saw that the human race had only one world to live in, and that unless it managed its affairs prudently, all human beings might perish. So they drew up rules to govern international behaviour and founded a network of institutions, with the United Nations at its centre, in which the peoples of the world could work together for the common good.

Now we must decide whether it is possible to continue on the basis agreed then, or whether radical changes are needed. And we must not shy away from questions about the adequacy and effectiveness of the rules and instruments at our disposal.

Among those instruments, none is more important than the Security Council itself. In my recent report on the implementation of the Millennium Declaration, I drew attention to the urgent need for the Council to regain the confidence of States and of world public opinion -- both by demonstrating its ability to deal effectively with the most difficult issues and by becoming more broadly representative of the international community as a whole as well as the geopolitical realities of today.

The Council needs to consider how it will deal with the possibility that individual States may use force pre-emptively against perceived threats. Its members may need to begin a discussion on the criteria for an early authorization of coercive measures to address certain types of threats -- for instance, terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction. And they still need to engage in serious discussion of the best way to respond to threats of genocide or other comparable massive violations of human rights -- an issue which I raised myself from this podium in 1999. Once again, this year, our collective response to events of this type -- in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Liberia -- has been hesitant and tardy.

As for the composition of the Council, which has been on the agenda of the Assembly for over a decade, virtually all Member States agree that the Council should be enlarged, but there is no agreement on the details.

I respectfully suggest to you, Excellencies, that in the eyes of your peoples the difficulty of reaching agreement does not excuse your failure to do so. If you want the Council and the Council's decisions to command greater respect, particularly in the developing world, you need to address the issue of its composition with greater urgency.

But the Security Council is not the only institution that needs strengthening. As you know, I am doing my best to make the Secretariat more effective, and I look to this Assembly to support my efforts. Indeed, in my report I also suggested that this Assembly itself needs to be strengthened, and that the role of the Economic and Social Council -- and the role of the United Nations as a whole in economic and social affairs, including its relationship to the Bretton Woods institutions-needs to be rethought and reinvigorated. I even suggested that the role of the Trusteeship Council could be reviewed, in the light of new kinds of responsibility that you have given to the United Nations in recent years.

In short, I believe the time is ripe for a hard look at fundamental policy issues and at the structural changes that may be needed in order to strengthen them. History is a harsh judge: it will not forgive us if we let this moment pass.

For my part, I intend to establish a high-level panel of eminent personalities to which I will assign four tasks: first, to examine current challenges to peace and security; second, to consider the contribution which collective action can make in addressing these challenges; third, to review the functioning of major organs of the United Nations and the relationship between them; and fourth, to recommend ways of strengthening the United Nations, through reform of its institutions and processes. The panel will focus primarily on threats to peace and security. But it will also need to examine other global challenges, insofar as these may influence or connect with those threats.

I will ask the panel to report back to me before the beginning of the next session of the General Assembly so that I can make recommendations to you at that session. But only you can take the firm and clear decisions that will be needed. Those decisions might include far-reaching institutional reforms. Indeed, I hope they will.

But institutional reforms alone will not suffice. Even the most perfect instrument will fail, unless people put it to good use.

The United Nations is by no means a perfect instrument, but it is a precious one. I urge you to seek agreement on ways of improving it, but above all of using it as its founders intended: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, to re-establish the basic conditions for justice and the rule of law, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

The world may have changed, but those aims are as valid and urgent as ever. We must keep them firmly in our sights.

The President

I thank the Secretary-General for his presentation.

The President

Before giving the floor to the first speaker for this morning, I should like to remind members that the list of speakers was created on the basis that statements will have a time limit of up to 15 minutes per statement. In the light of that given time frame, I should like to appeal to speakers to deliver their statements at a normal speed so that interpretation may be provided properly.

I also should like to draw the General Assembly's attention to the decision taken by the Assembly at previous sessions, namely, that the practice of expressing congratulations inside the General Assembly Hall after a speech has been delivered is strongly discouraged.

In that connection, I should like to suggest that speakers in the general debate, after delivering their statements, should leave the General Assembly Hall through room GA-200, located behind the podium, before returning to their seats.

May I take it that the General Assembly agrees to proceed in the same manner during the general debate of the fifty-eighth session?