General Assembly Session 59 meeting 87

Mr. Menon (Singapore)

Mr. President, the Singapore delegation would like to thank you once again for leading this effort towards the 2005 summit, including organizing this series of meetings to discuss the report of the Secretary-General as a whole and then in clusters.

My delegation would like to congratulate Assistant Secretary-General Robert Orr and his team for their excellent work in putting together the important report before us. Theirs was a daunting task, because much had already been said in the two major reports that the membership of the United Nations had spent much time considering, namely, the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and the Millennium Project report. It was daunting task also because after hearing the feedback from Member States on what they liked or did not like about the two earlier reports, their key challenge was to assemble a good package of recommendations that the Secretary-General could present to the General Assembly. In this regard, they have managed to prepare a fairly concise and readable report with about 60 recommendations in all, which is about half the total number from the two earlier reports. Now that they have done that, the ball is in our court.

The Singapore delegation welcomes the Secretary-General's refreshing approach in issuing his report as a call to the United Nations membership to realize what he called "larger freedoms" for all: freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom to live in dignity. To these we could perhaps add a fourth freedom for the United Nations: freedom from the inertia and narrow political interests that hold us back from really revitalizing and reforming the way we organize our work in this Organization.

My delegation hopes that we will all rise to this call to freedom, as the generation before us did when the United Nations decolonization process led the march to freedom of so many nations who became new States and are now represented among us here. The Trusteeship Council, which has been rendered redundant, stands today as a worthy testimonial of that major accomplishment.

In the interest of time and efficiency, the Singapore delegation will not repeat all that it had previously said -- which remains valid -- on crucial issues such as terrorism, the threats posed by the proliferation of nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons, the use of force, the expansion and reform of the Security Council and the very significant and welcome idea of a Peacebuilding Commission. We will instead focus our preliminary views on some of the new elements in this report.

To begin with, it is worth noting that without peace, there can be no freedom. This was why the United Nations was created, to free or "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". While we have largely succeeded in reducing and phasing out inter-State conflicts, too many people today still know of and suffer from wars. Intra-State conflicts are a key reason for the lack of security, of investment and of development. A prolonged conflict situation creates poverty and want and uncertainty and fear, and it perpetuates a sense of helplessness and lack of dignity. We need to be more creative to break the vicious cycle of conflicts. My delegation strongly believes that there is scope for the Secretary-General to use his good offices to do more in the areas of mediation and conflict prevention. To that end, we should all agree to more resources being allocated in an institutionalized manner through assessed contributions.

In the context of freedom from want, Singapore appreciates the attention paid to Africa's special needs and, more generally, to the urgent need to dismantle barriers to market access and phase out trade-distorting domestic subsidies that hurt developing countries. We strongly support the recommendation that Member States provide duty- and quota-free market access for all exports from the least developed countries. We further agree that least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States should be given the necessary support to enable them to break out of their poverty traps or to overcome the special problems that the Millennium Project report has identified, so as to achieve sustainable development. In that regard, I would like to echo what the Permanent Representative of Samoa said on the importance of the Mauritius Strategy as a comprehensive plan for small island developing States to meet their Millennium Development Goals.

In the context of freedom from fear, the "Five-D" approach the Secretary-General has outlined seems fairly comprehensive and wise: dissuading people from supporting terrorism, denying terrorists access to funds and materials, deterring States from sponsoring terrorism, developing State capacity to counter terrorism, and defending human rights. Singapore is encouraged that so soon after the release of the Secretary-General's report, the Ad Hoc Committee on an international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism was able to conclude such a convention, after seven years of work.

In the context of freedom to live in dignity, Singapore fully subscribes to the importance of the rule of law as a necessary framework for an enabling environment in the new millennium in which we can work to advance human development. In the absence of the rule of law, the rule of man, mob rule or the law of the jungle will prevail. My delegation recalls the Secretary-General's landmark statement on the rule of law in the 3rd meeting of the fifty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly, in which he rightly pointed out that many of the problems that humankind continues to face today stem from the lack of the rule of law.

But laws and norms are also not static. They evolve over time. In a highly evolved global community, and especially in this new millennium, it is high time that massive killings and crimes against humanity become things of the past. Yet these things continue to happen, and they continue to be protected by the walls of an antiquated notion of absolute sovereignty. I am certain that none among us will speak for such crimes.

The issue then is what we, the members of the General Assembly, do about it. The reality is that we cannot simply wish such crimes away. My delegation sees this as a special challenge for Member States. We need to have frank, open-ended discussions to establish clear rules, underscored by clear and agreed criteria on how to prevent and deal with such crimes -- criteria that would, at the same time, leave no room for abuse of any sort by anyone.

The Secretary-General also touched on democracy, asserting that the right of people to choose how they are ruled and who rules them must be the birthright of all. He also stated that its universal achievement must be a central objective of an Organization devoted to the cause of larger freedom. While Singapore is a democracy, and democracy is a fair and increasingly common means of achieving legitimate government, we believe that democracy should not be an end in itself. It is more important to have wise leadership and sound policies in place so as to ensure the delivery of results that meet people's aspirations.

Democracy provides for regular accountability by Governments to their peoples, favouring, but not necessarily guaranteeing, good governance. Good government requires good people at the helm who have leadership qualities and the best interests of the people at heart. The challenge for any country is to evolve a system that will continually inspire good and capable people to step up to the plate. Good leaders have the courage to stand up and do what is right -- which often will not be what is expedient, especially in terms of posturing for the next election. Good leaders realize the importance of providing their people with a vision. They also believe in taking a long-term view by investing in their people and in infrastructure and by creating an enabling environment in which people can fulfil their potential and aspirations. Those are the necessary elements or ingredients for success in sustainable development that Professor Jeffrey Sachs and his team in the Millennium Project identified through their thorough work.

To guard against abuse and to prevent politicians and Governments from seeing their mandate as a short-term licence to do as they please, every State needs strong institutions for the rule of law with their own checks and balances. That is where the United Nations, as an Organization, can help, where such help is sought. By helping to build strong institutions and facilitating good governance, the United Nations can help advance the cause of larger freedom.

That leads me to my final point. The United Nations itself, as an institution, needs to be reformed and strengthened. We are encouraged to learn about the broad range of internal reform measures, some of which are long overdue -- but better late than never -- that the Secretary-General is planning to implement. One noble goal is to enhance the accountability of senior managers. In short, this is to practise what the Secretary-General has himself preached: to establish the rule of law in the Secretariat, with transparent rules and decision-making procedures. This should lead to a much better working environment for international civil servants by providing certainty as to their rights and responsibilities and eliminating any room for arbitrary decisions based on office politics or mob pressure. Regardless of rank, everyone should be held accountable for his or her own deeds or inactions. I would add that everyone should also be given his or her due credit, where credit is due. All of that will make for a more professional Secretariat.

In the cluster discussions, Singapore will provide further views, in particular on the revitalization of the General Assembly, the Secretariat and the proposed Human Rights Council.

Mr. Duclos (France)

My delegation would like to express its condolences to the Permanent Observer of the Holy See on the passing of His Holiness Pope John Paul II.

We would also like to express condolences to the delegation of Monaco on the passing of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III.

The Permanent Representative of Luxembourg has set out the position of the European Union. France fully shares and supports that position. I will therefore limit myself to making a few additional comments. First, however, I would like to refer to the responsibility that we believe we all share in the decisive period that has just begun.

We all understand the important issues that will be at stake during the September summit. These include, first, the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals and, in particular, the need for development efforts to be stepped up. Secondly, we must modernize the multilateral institutions. In this respect, we should ask ourselves what the cost of failure would be. We must have no illusions: let there be no mistake about the serious consequences of failure in September: the impetus to attain the Millennium Development Goals would be greatly weakened, and the credibility of our Organization would be damaged. Africa, whose special needs must be recognized during the summit, would also suffer as the result of such a failure.

We believe that the summit will be successful, because we believe that the conditions for its success are present. I would like to refer to two of those conditions. First, I believe that we have a good process that will lead to a successful outcome. Here, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to you, Mr. President, for the way in which you have been guiding our work. You have been able perfectly to combine the necessary openness and transparency with the authority that will enable us to make progress in a coherent manner. France fully supports the road map that you have drawn up for the next few months. Only in that way -- under your direction and with the help of the facilitators -- will we be able to reach the best possible results in September. It goes without saying that we fully place our trust in you.

The first condition, then, is a good process; that is now in place. The second condition for success is support for the proposals set out in the Secretary-General's report (A/59/2005), which we believe provide the best possible basis for the achievement of positive results. We could improve them, make them more specific or flesh them out. But we believe that they provide the foundation for our work.

I would like now to comment in further detail on the Secretary-General's proposals. First of all, the proposals are relevant, coherent and clear. They are relevant because the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change worked for a year on collective security. The Millennium Project brought together hundreds of development researchers. Above all, we discussed the issue at length in the Assembly under your guidance, Sir, at the beginning of the year.

The report of the Secretary-General has taken account of the contributions made by the Panel and the Millennium Project, as well as the contributions of delegations during the course of the many consultations that took place of the beginning of this year. The report of the Secretary-General has succeeded in focusing on the few questions that call for a decision of the part of heads of State or Government.

The Secretary-General's proposals are also balanced. Here again, our messages were properly understood. I am thinking, first, of development, which the report has now given its rightful pride of place while retaining the boldness of the Sachs report. Due account has now been taken of a number important issues that had been addressed inadequately by the two major outside reports, such as human rights, the environment, humanitarian action. The same is true for some of the key organs of the United Nations, specifically the Economic and Social Council. In our view, the report of the Secretary-General strikes a proper balance among all those equally legitimate concerns.

Let me briefly hail the clarity of the Secretary-General's proposals. Too often, we yield to the temptation to offer weak formulas that are never implemented. Thus, we welcome the Secretary-General's decision to propose specific measures that are both bold and feasible.

Of course, as I said a moment ago, we need further clarifications, modifications and additions. Some of the proposals themselves call for new developments, and France, along with the European Union, will offer suggestions in that regard. But again, during the discussions we must not lose sight of what is important.

I shall now address a few more specific matters in order to illustrate the general comments I have just made.

First, in our view, financing for development is a key element of overall balance. The commitments we make will determine in large part whether or not the Millennium Development Goals are attained. We must therefore make every effort to follow the course plotted by the Secretary-General. This includes the following elements: a specific timetable for increasing official development assistance to 0.7 per cent of gross national income; a massive improvement in the quality of assistance; ensuring that debt is manageable; and providing the innovative resources that are indispensable for meeting the needs before us. On the latter element, France will work with others to clarify the Secretary-General's proposals, which we fully support. In addition to taking decisions of principle, we must plan a number of pilot projects, such as a tax on air travel to help fund the fight against AIDS.

My second example is the fight against terrorism, which demands unambiguous responses. We must identify terrorism and fight it together. The strategy outlined by the Secretary-General in his 10 March statement in Madrid offers the elements for joint action. We must be ready to adopt them. The adoption on 4 April of a draft convention against nuclear terrorism shows that this is possible. It shows that there is a determination to overcome our differences. We must continue pressing forward.

My third example is peacebuilding. Our discussions have shown clearly that we lack a forum to mobilize and coordinate action on the part of all relevant actors. In our view, the establishment of a peacebuilding commission is already among the expected outcomes of the summit. The mandate and functions proposed by the Secretary-General seem to us to be sound. They are in line with the general thrust of our early debates on this subject. We hope that we are nearing a solution on this matter.

Fourthly, the promotion of human dignity is a key purpose of the United Nations. In today's world, its importance is increasing. For our part, we believe in the "responsibility to protect". We believe in the rule of law. We believe in human rights. The Commission on Human Rights played a primary role in establishing the body of standards, policies and instruments that we formulated together over past decades. But we must recognize that it is now facing problems. To bolster the legitimacy and effectiveness of the United Nations body responsible for human rights, France endorses the idea of enhancing its status, with a parallel strengthening of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Here again, to be sure, we must carefully consider the practical details. We must bear in mind that human rights are universal and that all States and civil society must therefore be engaged, in one way or the other, in United Nations debates on human rights. This is something on which special consideration should begin very soon, under your leadership, Mr. President.

Fifthly, the proposals related to the specialized agencies are of great importance. To an extent, they will determine the Organization's capacity to respond to the challenges of development, humanitarian action and the environment. It is increasingly obvious that, for some agencies, bold reform is required to ensure the coherence of their activities. The September summit will provide a unique opportunity to create momentum in that direction. Here, I am thinking in particular of the environment.

Let me end with a few words about the principal organs of the United Nations. We welcome the Secretary-General's proposals on the revitalization of the General Assembly and on the Economic and Social Council, and we are prepared to work on those proposals. We support their general thrust, although, of course, they require some clarification.

On the Security Council, the French position is well known; it has not changed.

As you have said, Mr. President, we are beginning the second phase of our work leading up to the summit. This will be a decisive phase, for which the Secretary-General, as requested, has provided the solid foundation we require to formulate the draft decisions that we will place before our heads of State or Government. Now, we must work actively for success.

Mr. Denisov (Russia)

At the outset, allow me, on behalf of my delegation, to echo previous speakers' words of condolence on the passing of the head of the Catholic Church and of the head of the Government of Monaco.

The Russian delegation welcomes this discussion of the report of the Secretary-General entitled "In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all", which is taking place in a collective and transparent format -- that is, in a General Assembly meeting.

The content of the report is consonant with Russia's fundamental position on the strengthening of the international system of collective security, with the United Nations and the Security Council as key players; on the enhancement of the structures of the world Organization; and on increasing the effectiveness of its work in all areas.

We fully agree with the Secretary-General's conclusions on the interconnectedness of the various actions that need to be taken to address the fundamental threats and challenges facing the world today. Indeed, the role of the United Nations in tackling these issues is pivotal.

However, the Organization must have the necessary resources at its disposal in order to be more effective and more efficient. That is the main goal of United Nations reform and should lead to a further rallying of the international community around the principles of multilateralism. That is why decisions on fundamental issues should be based on the broadest possible agreement among Member States and on the bedrock of international law -- the Charter of the United Nations.

The Secretary-General rightly expressed the common understanding that socio-economic development is a priority, identifying key areas of work to implement the Millennium Development Goals. We agree with the rationale of the Millennium Declaration and the Monterrey Consensus, which served as a basis for the report. That rationale represents a recognition of the relevant commitments made in the area of development with respect to developed and developing countries, and this, in our opinion, is a constructive basis for decision-making at the September summit.

With respect to reform of the Economic and Social Council, we support the focus on more effective implementation of the decisions taken at global socio-economic conferences; the strengthening of the link between the normative and operational activities of the United Nations system; and the enhancement of the Council's capacity to address the socio-economic problems related to post-conflict peacebuilding and development. However, we are not convinced that there is a need for a major review of the Council's functioning. We believe that all of the reform initiatives proposed by the Secretary-General are fully attainable within the framework of the current format of the Council.

One of the most important elements of the "new consensus" referred to in the report should be agreement on the issue of the use of force. Russia believes that the Charter of the United Nations remains a reliable and solid legal basis for resolving problems related to the use of force and does not require revision or a new interpretation. We fully share the Secretary-General's recommendations on the adoption of a Security Council resolution that sets out principles on the use of force. The elaboration of such principles, however, must not compromise the Security Council's ability to take relevant decisions in specific situations.

The Secretary-General and the High-level Panel define the concept of "responsibility to protect" as an "emerging norm". Strictly speaking, the establishment of an international norm presupposes that there is wide support within the international community for such a norm. However, that is not the case here. Yet it is clear that massive human rights violations and genocide could be cause for intervention by the international community. Such action can be taken only when authorized by the Security Council, once the Council has qualified the relevant internal or regional crisis as a threat to international peace and security under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. In such cases, Security Council decisions must be based on reliable information. The positions of the relevant regional organizations should be taken account of, and the use of force must remain a last resort.

On the whole, we welcome the Secretary-General's proposed comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism, including countering its newest and most dangerous manifestations -- first and foremost, the threat of terrorists' gaining access to weapons of mass destruction.

We support the willingness of the Secretary-General and of the High-level Panel to contribute to the drafting of a universal definition of terrorism. However, the elements proposed for such a definition are more political than legal in character. It is important to avoid wording that could be interpreted as placing the criminal acts of terrorists on an equal footing with the anti-terrorist efforts of States.

We agree with the Secretary-General's call for the further universalization and fine-tuning of anti-terrorist conventions and mechanisms. An important step in this area was the adoption on 1 April of this year by the Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism of the draft International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, which was initiated by Russia seven years ago. We hope that the text of that Convention will be adopted by the General Assembly in the near future.

As concerns the disarmament section of the report, I should like to point out the rightly emphasized need for further effective steps to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, including the counter-terrorist aspect of this problem. Worthy of consideration is the recommendation to adopt a Security Council resolution that would make it more difficult for terrorists to acquire or use man-portable air defence systems.

However, at this stage it would be premature to speak of pushing for the drafting of a legally binding international instrument on the marking, tracing and brokering of small arms and light weapons. There is no agreement yet on this issue, and the work of the expert groups is ongoing.

We share the view that the protection of human rights must be one of the components of the United Nations strategy to combat terrorism. We must also bear in mind the threat posed by terrorism to human rights at the national and international levels, as well as the problem of protecting victims of terrorism.

We concur with the Secretary-General that the work of the Commission on Human Rights is often hampered due to excessive politicization, confrontational attitudes and the use of double standards. Change is definitely overdue in that respect. But what changes are required? And how can the positive aspects of the work of the Commission on Human Rights be maintained? Clearly, we have to keep in mind the broad support that exists for the High-level Panel's idea of universal membership in the Commission.

We share the concern expressed about the failure to allocate sufficient resources to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, especially in the light of the proposals made to broaden its area of responsibility.

One of the key components of United Nations reform is reform of the Security Council to make that key organ in the security sphere more representative. Russia's position on specific aspects of the issue of Council expansion is well known; we have expressed it repeatedly, including during the discussion on the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (A/59/565). We must continue our efforts to reach the broadest possible agreement on that issue in order to avoid a schism in the United Nations, which would have grave consequences for the world Organization.

With regard to amending the Charter of the United Nations, a cautious approach is required. We continue to believe that, at this stage, it would be premature to discuss deleting the articles concerning the Military Staff Committee.

We consider that the Secretary-General's recommendations will encourage joint efforts to strengthen the peacekeeping capacity of the United Nations, including through strengthened cooperation between the Organization and regional partners, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter.

We support the idea of creating a peacebuilding commission to enhance the coordination and effectiveness of post-conflict assistance to countries emerging from crisis. The working methods for such a body must be carefully and thoroughly discussed.

In our view, the implementation of the proposed reforms should not increase the financial burden on Member States.

We reaffirm the General Assembly's decisive role in ensuring that the Organization's resources are used in the most efficient way, in deciding on the specific ways in which they will be used, and in appropriately monitoring the work of the Secretariat.

In general, the Secretary-General's proposals are a solid basis for a successful United Nations summit in September. The important problems mentioned in his report deserve to be considered carefully and thoroughly, without any artificial deadlines. With regard to some issues on which there is broad agreement or, better yet, consensus, decisions could be taken very soon, before the September summit. We agree with the Secretary-General that the summit should result in a number of far-reaching and courageous decisions. Russia will do its utmost to facilitate that.

Mr. Ilkin (Turkey)

Let me begin by thanking the Secretary-General for his visionary, comprehensive and thought-provoking report (A/59/2005), which will be guiding us during the reform process. I would also like to thank you, Mr. President, for your active personal involvement in the reform process and for your successful conduct of our meetings and consultations. Last but not least, my warmest thanks go to our facilitators, who are doing everything possible to ensure the successful conclusion of our endeavours to reform the United Nations.

While we fully align ourselves with the European Union statement, I would also like to emphasize some points of particular interest to Turkey.

We have come a long way since the 1990s in our efforts to reform the Organization. We recognize that the prospect of reform seems more within reach than ever before. All Member States should seize the opportunity to contribute to the reform process and should show maximum flexibility in order to achieve an outcome that is cohesive, lasting and in the interest of the Organization as a whole.

When we undertook to reform the Organization, we knew that there was a difficult and long road ahead. We should continue to strive to find the best solutions in each reform cluster, which will strengthen the credibility of the Organization and sustain it for a long time to come. As we do that, we should acknowledge that the framework and the substance of the reform package are both of the utmost importance. There is no way that we can rebuild the Organization in a selective manner, leaving some parts of the old structure intact. That is something we cannot afford to do.

It is clear that one of the main difficulties on the way to achieving reforms is the restructuring of the Security Council. It is only natural that we might have differences among ourselves, since every country has its own interests, requirements and expectations. All of these need to be reconciled. Although full consensus is very desirable, it seems that we may not be able to achieve it on this particular issue. Yet the United Nations Charter clearly defines what is required to amend it. What is important is that we find a common denominator among the overwhelming majority of Member countries.

As for the restructuring of the Security Council, the Secretary-General clearly underlined in his report that models A and B are not presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We will try to see to what extent we can produce a common denominator from those models -- if need be, by introducing some new ideas. For example, is the number 24 for the total membership of a new Security Council an unrevisable figure? Why not 25 members, for example? Why is there a need to reorganize the existing regional areas and to reduce their number from five to four? Such a change would necessitate an entirely new format for the functioning of the various United Nations bodies. What is more, through the proposed merger, the Western European and Eastern European groups stand to lose a seat -- something that potential non-permanent members from those two groups could not afford.

On the other hand, the review mechanism envisaged for the year 2020 does not seem realistic when we consider what we have been experiencing for the past 10 years. Thus, we should agree on a new structure for the Security Council that would not necessitate further change for the foreseeable future.

The Security Council and the General Assembly are two inseparable institutions. Clearly, the General Assembly also needs to be reformed, and one can see that there is a general understanding on what needs to be done. As we restructure the Security Council, we should ensure that we retain the delicate balance between the two organs. In other words, in real and practical terms, the role and the powers of the General Assembly should not be overshadowed.

As to the criteria to be taken into consideration in evaluating candidatures, those proposed in the reports are indeed objective. Yet we must admit that they are quite restrictive and exclusive. We should not deprive countries of non-permanent seats on the Security Council just because they are unable to fulfil all or some of the criteria. In principle, all countries should be represented at some time in all United Nations bodies, on a rotational basis, if necessary.

Moreover, the criteria related to participation in peacekeeping operations need to be reconsidered and more broadly interpreted. The contributions of Member States to the maintenance of international peace and security, as referred to in Article 23 of the Charter, cannot and should not be limited solely to their contributions to United Nations-led peacekeeping operations. In honouring that article, we must be inclusive. We need to take into account the contributions of Member States to peacekeeping operations mandated but not led by the United Nations. That is a realistic and feasible approach, as we are trying to promote cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations. More and more, we are asking regional organizations to contribute to peacekeeping operations throughout the world. Yet we are still making a clear distinction between United Nations-led operations and operations conducted by regional organizations. If regional organizations are not encouraged to make contributions to United Nations-mandated peacekeeping operations, then the United Nations will have to undertake such operations using its own assets. The question is, can the United Nations afford that?

Terrorism has undoubtedly become one of the most serious threats to the peace, security and welfare of the global community. As a country which has long suffered from this scourge, Turkey has been calling for increased international cooperation in the fight against terrorism. We welcome the suggestions put forth by the Secretary-General for preventing terrorism, as well as his comprehensive strategy to eradicate that universal threat. We strongly believe that the legal framework in this particular area can be strengthened only if all Member States become parties to the relevant United Nations conventions and protocols.

I would like to touch upon the High-level Panel's recommendations on sanctions. The recommendations address only one basic dimension of the issue, without referring to the needs and problems of third States in implementing sanctions. It is a fact that Article 50 of the Charter cannot be easily invoked. Turkey's experience in the aftermath of the Iraq-Kuwait conflict is a case in point. Therefore, we welcome the Secretary-General's clear reference to that shortcoming in his report.

The issue of the use of force is very much at the heart of United Nations reform. The common understanding that we are expected to reach on this issue will have a direct impact on the future role of our Organization in defending peace and security.

In order not to repeat what has already been said by a number of my colleagues, I would just like to reiterate that Turkey also fully shares the vision and strategy of the Secretary-General with respect to what he has so eloquently termed "freedom from want".

We concur with the Secretary-General's inclusive and comprehensive approach towards addressing the current problems of Africa. In the course of all of the deliberations and work in this Organization, therefore, we should always take the African dimension into account, with a view to extending vital coordinated support to help African countries. The Turkish Government declared 2005 the Year of Africa and looks forward to further developing close relations and cooperation with the countries of the continent.

The recommendations of the Secretary-General related to the Economic and Social Council are valid and appropriate. The Economic and Social Council definitely needs to be revitalized in the light of the immense changes that have taken place in the economic and social spheres over the past 60 years. A more focused Economic and Social Council should provide strategic guidance, promote coherence and coordination and evaluate performance without interfering in the work of other financial and trade organizations.

We must examine in depth the issue of the proposed human rights council. Since the idea is new, and since it would inevitably affect the functioning of human rights mechanisms in the United Nations as a whole, we need to further evaluate it and consult among ourselves.

As to the reorganization of the Secretariat, we are of the opinion that the most authoritative person to come up with new ideas and recommendations is the Secretary-General himself. We have full confidence in the wisdom and experience of the Secretary-General, and support his ideas and proposals related to the reorganization of the Secretariat.