'Not Enough To Denounce Unilateralism'

The last twelve months have been very painful for those of us who believe in collective answers to ourcommon 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.

In the Korean peninsula, and elsewhere, the threat of nuclear proliferation casts an ominous shadow acrossthe 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 it was attacked again.Another major disaster was averted only by the prompt action of the Iraqi police, one of whom paid with hislife.

I extend my most sincere condolences to the family of that brave policeman. And my thoughts go also to thenineteen injured, including two Iraqi UN staff members. I wish them all a rapid recovery. Indeed, we shouldpray for all those who have lost their lives or been injured in this war – innocent civilians and soldiersalike. In that context I deplore – as I am sure you all do – the brutal attempt on the life of Dr. Akilaal-Hashemi, a member of the Governing Council, and I pray for her full recovery, too.

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

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

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

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

Excellencies,

Three years ago, when you came here for the Millennium Summit, we shared a vision, a vision of globalsolidarity and collective security, expressed in the Millennium Declaration.

But recent events have called that consensus in question.

All of us know there are new threats that must be faced – or, perhaps, old threats in new and dangerouscombinations: 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, and thespread 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 povertyeradication, starting with the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; in the common struggle toprotect 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 where manymillions of people endure brutal oppression and extreme misery will never be fully secure, even for its mostprivileged inhabitants.

Yet the "hard" threats, such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, are real, and cannot beignored.

Terrorism is not a problem only for rich countries. Ask the people of Bali, or Bombay, Nairobi, orCasablanca.

Weapons of mass destruction do not threaten only the western or northern world. Ask the people of Iran, orof Halabja in Iraq.

Where we disagree, it seems, is on how to respond to these threats.

Since this Organisation was founded, States have generally sought to deal with threats to the peace throughcontainment and deterrence, by a system based on collective security and 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 withbroader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the UnitedNations.

Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an "armed attack" with weapons of massdestruction 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 weapons systems that might be used to attack them arestill being developed.

According to this argument, States are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the SecurityCouncil. 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 peaceand stability have rested for the last fifty-eight years.

My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation ofthe 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 makesome States feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. Wemust show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action.

Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 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, weredetermined to make the second half of the twentieth century different from the first half. They saw that thehuman race had only one world to live in, and that unless it managed its affairs prudently, all human beingsmay perish.

So they drew up rules to govern international behaviour, and founded a network of institutions, with theUnited 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 changesare needed.

And we must not shy away from questions about the adequacy, and effectiveness, of the rules and instrumentsat 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 urgentneed for the Council to regain the confidence of States, and of world public opinion – both by demonstratingits ability to deal effectively with the most difficult issues, and by becoming more broadly representative ofthe 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 authorisation of coercive measuresto address certain types of threats – for instance, terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction.

And they still need to engage in serious discussions of the best way to respond to threats of genocide orother comparable massive violations of human rights – an issue which I raised myself from this podium in1999. Once again this year, our collective response to events of this type – in the Democratic Republic ofthe Congo, and in Liberia – has been hesitant and tardy.

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

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

But the Security Council is not the only institution that needs strengthening. As you know, I am doing mybest 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 roleof the Economic and Social Council – and the role of the United Nations as a whole in economic and socialaffairs, including its relationship to the Bretton Woods institutions –needs to be re-thought andreinvigorated.

I even suggested that the role of the Trusteeship Council could be reviewed, in light of new kinds ofresponsibility that you have given to the United Nations in recent years.

In short, Excellencies, I believe the time is ripe for a hard look at fundamental policy issues, and at thestructural 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 fourtasks:

First, to examine the 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 the major organs of the United Nations and the relationship betweenthem; and

Fourth, to recommend ways of strengthening the United Nations, through reform of its institutions andprocesses.

The Panel will focus primarily on threats to peace and security. But it will also need to examine otherglobal challenges, in so far 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 this GeneralAssembly, so that I can make recommendations to you at that session. But only you can take the firm and cleardecisions 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 peopleput it to good use.

The United Nations is by no means a perfect instrument, but it is a precious one. I urge you to seekagreement on ways of improving it, but above all of using it as its founders intended – to save succeedinggenerations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, to reestablish the basicconditions for justice and the rule of law, and to promote social progress and better standards of life inlarger freedom.

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