'The Underlying Causes Must Be Addressed'

Distinguished Heads of State and Government, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

We cannot begin today without reflecting on yesterday’s anniversary – onthe criminal challenge so brutally thrown in our faces on 11 September 2001.

The terrorist attacks of that day were not an isolated event. They were anextreme example of a global scourge, which requires a broad, sustained andglobal response.

Broad, because terrorism can be defeated only if all nations unite againstit.

Sustained, because the battle against terrorism will not be won easily, orovernight. It requires patience and persistence.

And global, because terrorism is a widespread and complex phenomenon, withmany deep roots and exacerbating factors.

Mr. President, I believe that such a response can only succeed if we makefull use of multilateral institutions.

I stand before you today as a multilateralist – by precedent, by principle,by Charter and by duty.

I also believe that every government that is committed to the rule of law athome, must be committed also to the rule of law abroad. All States have a clearinterest, as well as a clear responsibility, to uphold international lawand maintain international order.

Our founding fathers, the statesmen of 1945, had learnt that lesson from thebitter experience of two world wars and a great depression.

They recognised that international security is not a zero-sum game. Peace,security and freedom are not finite commodities – like land, oil or gold –which one State can acquire at another’s expense. On the contrary, the morepeace, security and freedom any one State has, the more its neighbours arelikely to have.

And they recognised that, by agreeing to exercise sovereignty together,they could gain a hold over problems that would defeat any one of them actingseparately.

If those lessons were clear in 1945, should they not be much more so today,in the age of globalisation?

On almost no item on our agenda does anyone seriously contend that eachnation, or any nation, can fend for itself. Even the most powerful countriesknow that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, toachieve their aims.

Only by multilateral action can we ensure that open markets offer benefitsand opportunities to all.

Only by multilateral action can we give people in the least developedcountries the chance to escape the ugly misery of poverty, ignorance anddisease.

Only by multilateral action can we protect ourselves from acid rain, orglobal warming; from the spread of HIV/AIDS, the illicit trade in drugs, or theodious traffic in human beings.

That applies even more to the prevention of terrorism. Individual States maydefend themselves, by striking back at terrorist groups and the countries thatharbour or support them. But only concerted vigilance and cooperation among allStates, with constant, systematic exchange of information, offers any real hopeof denying terrorists their opportunities.

On all these matters, for any one State – large or small – choosing tofollow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of politicalconvenience. It has consequences far beyond the immediate context.

When countries work together in multilateral institutions – developing,respecting, and when necessary enforcing international law – they also developmutual trust, and more effective cooperation on other issues.

The more a country makes use of multilateral institutions – therebyrespecting shared values, and accepting the obligations and restraints inherentin those values – the more others will trust and respect it, and the strongerits chance to exercise true leadership.

And among multilateral institutions, this universal Organisation has aspecial place.

Any State, if attacked, retains the inherent right of self-defence underArticle 51 of the Charter. But beyond that, when States decide to use force todeal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is nosubstitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

Member States attach fundamental importance to such legitimacy and to theinternational rule of law. They have shown – notably in the action to liberateKuwait, twelve years ago – that they are willing to take actions under theauthority of the Security Council, which they would not be willing totake without it.

The existence of an effective international security system depends onthe Council’s authority – and therefore on the Council having the politicalwill to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seems elusive atthe outset. The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council’s agendashould not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a gravethreat to world peace.

Mr. President,

Let me now turn to four current threats to world peace, where true leadershipand effective action are badly needed.

First, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many of us have recently beenstruggling to reconcile Israel’s legitimate security concerns with Palestinianhumanitarian needs.

But these limited objectives cannot be achieved in isolation from the widerpolitical context. We must return to the search for a just and comprehensivesolution, which alone can bring security and prosperity to both peoples, andindeed to the whole region.

The ultimate shape of a Middle East peace settlement is well known. It wasdefined long ago in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and itsIsraeli-Palestinian components were spelt out even more clearly in Resolution1397: land for peace; an end to terror and to occupation; two States, Israel andPalestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders.

Both parties accept this vision. But we can reach it only if we move rapidlyand in parallel on all fronts. The so-called "sequential"approach has failed.

As we agreed at the Quartet meeting in Washington last May, an internationalpeace conference is needed without delay, to set out a roadmap of parallelsteps: steps to strengthen Israel’s security, steps to strengthen Palestinianeconomic and political institutions, and steps to settle the details of thefinal peace agreement. Meanwhile, humanitarian steps to relieve Palestiniansuffering must be intensified. The need is urgent.

Second, the leadership of Iraq continues to defy mandatoryresolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter.

I have engaged Iraq in an in-depth discussion on a range of issues, includingthe need for arms inspectors to return, in accordance with the relevant SecurityCouncil Resolutions.

Efforts to obtain Iraq’s compliance with the Council’s resolutions mustcontinue. I appeal to all who have influence with Iraq’s leaders to impress onthem the vital importance of accepting the weapons inspections. This is theindispensable first step towards assuring the world that all Iraq's weapons ofmass destruction have indeed been eliminated, and – let me stress – towardsthe suspension and eventual ending of the sanctions that are causing so manyhardships for the Iraqi people.

I urge Iraq to comply with its obligations – for the sake of its ownpeople, and for the sake of world order. If Iraq’s defiance continues, theSecurity Council must face its responsibilities.

Third, permit me to press all of you, as leaders of the internationalcommunity, to maintain your commitment to Afghanistan.

I know I speak for all in welcoming President Karzai to this Assembly, andcongratulating him on his escape from last week’s vicious assassinationattempt – a graphic reminder of how hard it is to uproot the remnants ofterrorism in any country where it has taken root. It was the internationalcommunity’s shameful neglect of Afghanistan in the 1990s that allowed thatcountry to slide into chaos, providing a fertile breeding ground for Al-Qaeda.

Today, Afghanistan urgently needs help in two areas. The government must behelped to extend its authority throughout the country. Without this, all elsemay fail. And donors must follow through on their commitments to help withrehabilitation, reconstruction and development. Otherwise the Afghan people willlose hope – and desperation, we know, breeds violence.

Fourth, and finally, in South Asia the world has recently comecloser than for many years past to a direct conflict between two nuclear weaponcapable countries. The situation may now have calmed a little, but it remainsperilous. The underlying causes must be addressed. If a fresh crisis erupts, theinternational community might have a role to play; though I gladly acknowledge -indeed, strongly welcome - the efforts made by well-placed Member States to helpthe two leaders find a solution.

Excellencies, let me conclude by reminding you of your pledge two years ago,at the Millennium Summit, "to make the United Nations a more effectiveinstrument" in the service of the world’s peoples.

Today I ask all of you to honour that pledge.

Let us all recognise, from now on – in each of our capitals, in everynation, large and small – that the global interest is our nationalinterest.

Thank you very much.