A/47/PV.6 General Assembly

The Assembly will now hear an address by the President of the Republic of Djibouti. El Hadi Hassan Gouled Aptidon. President of the Republic of Djibouti, was escorted into the General Assembly Hall.

On behalf of the General Assembly I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the Republic of Djibouti, His Excellency El Hadj Hassan Gouled Aptidon, and to invite him to address the Assembly. President APTIDON (interpretation from French): First of all, let me convey to all members of the General Assembly the greetings of the people of Djibouti. I should like to take this opportunity to address to you, Mr. President, my warmest congratulations on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-seventh session. I am convinced that you will guide our deliberations in such a way as to bring them to a successful conclusion, and I wish you every success. That was the case at last year's session, at which Mr. Samir Shihabi, Ambassador of a great fraternal country, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, presided over the General Asssembly. We are indebted to him for the important achievements in the field of restructuring and revitalizing the United Nations. I should like to express to the former Permanent Representative, who is leaving us, our best wishes for the future. I should also like to pay a well-deserved tribute to the son of Africa and the Arab world, my brother and friend Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, for the dignified and enlighted way in which, for almost a year, he has been discharging his duties in the Secretariat. I wish to emphasize that my country fully appreciates the efforts Mr. Boutros-Ghali is making to find lasting solutions to the various crises and wars throughout the world, thus promoting peace and international cooperation. Moreover, in his annual report on the activities of the Organization, the Secretary-General has highlighted the many vital issues before the United Nations ranging from the Organization's financial crisis to its added responsibilities as a result of the changes under way, which are sorely testing the resources available to the Organization. In this respect, the establishment by the Secretary-General of an advisory group of eminent persons to study and formulate proposals to make the United Nations financially solvent seems to us to be an appropriate and timely initiative. Lastly, it is with great pleasure that I welcome the States which have joined the United Nations this year. The end of the cold war has brought important issues into sharp focus, namely, sovereignty, peace-keeping and democracy. National boundaries are fast collapsing and internal civil strife is growing with increasing intensity. (President Aptidon) The changing context of the international political landscape and the concomitant flareup of conflicts in many regions of the world are sufficient reason to reflect upon new ways and means to contain the evolving threats to international peace and security. In that regard, the Secretary-General's Agenda for Peace contains ideas and proposals such as the use of preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping and peace-making; it deserves the fullest attention of the General Assembly. States new and old are ravaged by ethnic and clan rivalries. The United Nations therefore needs the unwavering support of the international community in order to be able to respond urgently, effectively and substantially to these new phenomena of our time. Will the nascent democracies, in their weak and poorly equipped condition, be able to cope with urgent demands for material improvement? And if they cannot deliver, could they not lose popular support? Democracy under relatively favourable conditions is obviously far different both in theory and in practice indeed, in every respect from democracy in a country in a vicious circle of dependence, poverty and instability. The proliferation of political parties in a pluralistic system invariably leads to parties based on ethnicity. Clearly, there must be an alternative framework for these democracies suffering from dire economic conditions and from chronic problems of debt, disease, hunger and poverty. The Speaker of Namibia's National Assembly described the situation forthrightly: "We have learned that once you have acquired a constitution and achieved the goal of political independence and freedom, you will find that you cannot eat votes in a ballot box". (President Aptidon) In Africa and many countries elsewhere in the developing world, we see pressure being exerted to reduce and disperse national sovereignty. This is a dangerous precedent in the new regional and international order that is emerging. In his address to the summit of non-aligned countries at Jakarta,

The Assembly will now hear an address by the President of the Republic of Korea. Mr. Roh Tae Woo. President of the Republic of Korea, was escorted into the General Assembly Hall.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank

I am privileged to speak this morning on behalf of the European Community and its 12 member States. It is a pleasure to do so under your guidance, Mr. President under the guidance of a fellow European Foreign Minister whose country has made such great progress in recent years and whose foreign affairs, under your leadership, have also made a very substantial step forward. It is also a pleasure to speak in the presence of the Secretary-General. I do not wish to heap compliments upon you at this stage, Mr. Secretary-General, but I hope that the contents of what I have to say and what we offer you in terms of support for your practical policies you will accept as an adequate compliment. As my colleagues from other regions of the world have no doubt noticed, we in the European Community are conducting a lively discussion on how to achieve the ever closer union to which we are all committed. I am not going to speak about that subject today because I want to speak about Europe and the wider world, but I do want to emphasize on behalf of us all that so far from turning away from that wider world, we in Europe are increasingly active in it. And I want to make it clear that the European Community and its member States are determined to build up the place and the role of the Community and its 12 member States in world affairs. We intend to work together for the better world order in which we all believe and we intend to carry that work forward with greater impetus and greater effectiveness. Two years ago, when I first came to speak at the Assembly, the world was celebrating the end of the cold war, the beginnings of freedom. Everyone was optimistic, because everything had changed - it appeared for the better since I had first attended a session of the General Assembly, at the height of the cold war back in the 1950s. At the end of 1992 we see things differently. The world after the cold war is a better place, but it is also less stable. We have seen both a democratic spring and a demagogic spring, an outpouring of hope but also, in places, an outpouring of hate. International order is threatened in the short term by the unleashing of extreme nationalism, of challenges to the rule of law. In the medium term we have to reinforce the system of collective security based on the United Nations. Respect for good government, respect for human rights must move to the centre of our stage. In the long term we face the threat to international peace and security posed by poverty, posed by environmental degradation. We cannot afford to postpone action on the longer-term problems while we wrestle with the short-term problems. I should to look, very briefly, at each of these three challenges in turn. The short term the immediate. Nationalism, of course, is not a fault in itself; it is a natural instinct of man in society. We see its benign manifestations in many places in the former Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, though even there, there are problems. Yugoslavia is the worst example of the bitterness of nationalism producing intolerable results. That is why both Europe and the United Nations have to work strenuously for peace with justice, for the relief of suffering in those tortured lands of the former Yugoslavia. Since last autumn the European Community and the United Nations have indeed been working closely, the United Nations leading on peace-keeping and the European Community on peace making through Lord Carrington's Peace Conference. This cooperation has helped stop the killing in, for example, the Serb Krajina in Croatia, where the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and the European Community monitoring mission have achieved a good result. As conflict escalated, particularly in Bosnia, the United Nations and the European Community decided with wide international support to harness their efforts more closely together through the process launched by the London Conference last month. The International Conference on the former Yugoslavia is now working in Geneva under the co-chairmanship of Mr. Cyrus Vance for the United Nations and Lord Owen for the European Community. It is powered by the determination of the international community to bring an end to the violence in the former Yugoslavia. The Conference has two main objectives: humanitarian and political; to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict and to bring that conflict permanently to an end by negotiating a political settlement. This is, of course, difficult work, requiring a deep understanding of the problems, requiring the respect and cooperation of the parties, requiring the unstinting support and, when necessary, the mobilizing of pressures from the international community. In this context, I believe that Prime Minister Panic's new approach shows great courage and I salute that courage. It offers a different way forward which we believe should be supported. But while the killing and suffering continue, as they did yesterday and as they do today, we cannot relax our efforts. We have to measure progress by deeds and not promises. We have to continue to deal with other problems left by the rolling back of the cold war. In Cambodia, we must not let the peace process drift. The Khmer Rouge have not joined phase II of the cease-fire arrangements. They are delaying the implementation of the comprehensive political settlement. On the positive side, the military deployment of the United Nations TransitionaL Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) is now fully complete and the civilian component is beginning to take control of the key ministries. We have to make every effort to hold to the timetable for elections next April. Some States still show a willingness to challenge the rule of international law and, indeed, to resort to terrorism. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was the first test of the post-cold-war era, and the liberation of Kuwait was one of this Organization's great successes. Unfortunately, we have to note that Saddam Hussein continues to defy the United Nations, that his Government is failing to meet Iraq's obligations under Security Council resolution 687 (1991), that he continues to repress his own population, particularly in northern and in southern Iraq. That is why pressure must and will - continue until he implements the resolutions of the United Nations in full. The message has to be that all States must comply with Security Council resolutions. We still wait for Libya to implement Security Council resolution 731 (1992). Those are just some of the short-term challenges that we have to meet. There are long-running problems which we must not forget, and one of particular concern to the European Community is Cyprus. This year, Mr. Secretary-General, you have made an energetic effort. It is not yet decisively successful. You are renewing the effort next month. There is a need for fresh impetus, it seems to us, on the key issues of territory and displaced persons. There must be a willingness to negotiate on all sides; otherwise there will be no lasting settlement. You have our full support, Mr. Secretary-General, as you renew your effort. Not only does it deserve to succeed, but it is in the crucial interest of Europe and the international community that it should succeed. In the medium term we have to build a stronger system of collective security. And here, everybody looks, rightly, to the United Nations. But as

I should like to inform members of the possible scenario for agenda item 8, to be considered this evening immediately following the general debate. The general debate is expected to end at around 8.30 this evening that is, if the length of speeches is what delegations have indicated to the Secretariat. Immediately afterwards we shall take up agenda item 8. The draft resolution will be introduced, and we shall proceed to hear the speakers inscribed on the list. Thus far, three speakers have inscribed their names on the list of speakers, in addition to the member State introducing the draft resolution. The Assembly can then act on the draft resolution, hearing explanations of vote, if any, before and after the vote. I hope this outline is helpful for delegations to plan their work. AGENPA ITEM 9 (continued) GENERAL DEBATE

First, I wish to congratulate you, Mr. President, on your election to this important post. The fact that a representative of Bulgaria has assumed this post at the head of the Assembly at precisely this time is a sign of the importance that the world community attaches to the peaceful democratic revolution in Eastern Europe. And we are proud that our countries, linked by ties of traditional friendship, are treading this path together. The democratic movement has prevailed in the cold war. For the first time in history unprecedented opportunities have opened up for the implementation of the principles proclaimed by the United Nations. The post-confrontational and post-communist world is not a pax Sovietica. a pax Americana, a pax Islamica or a pax Christiana, nor is it a monopolistic system of any kind, but rather the multipolar unity in diversity that the United Nations has symbolized from the very outset. For the present, such a world is only a possibility yet to be realized through our joint efforts. Realism leaves no room for euphoria. A difficult period of transition lies ahead. But realism compels us to reject any alternative to the democratic choice. Russia, which has rejected communism, has, perhaps more than any other country, learned from its own experience that there can be no alternative to democratic development; our country voted for democracy during the first nation-wide presidential election in its history, and defended it at the barricades around the Moscow White House. Neither the President, nor the Government, nor the majority of Parliament, nor the country at large will turn aside from the path of reform, no matter how difficult it may prove. Totalitarianism robbed Russia both of its unique identity and of the possibility of self-fulfilment in its relations with other nations. Through its self-imposed isolation, the richest country of Eurasia became the sick man of Europe and Asia. In contrast, only an open society and a policy of openness will enable Russia to find and play to the fullest extent its unique and historic role. This policy has its roots in an age-old Russian idea. Back in the thirteenth century Saint Alexander Nevsky, one of the founders and defenders of the Russian State, said: "God is to be found not in power but in truth". (Mr. Kozyrev. Russian Federation) Today this is the policy of the true national interests of the Russian State as a normal rather than an aggressive great Power, as one that recognizes and shoulders its responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council. The basic elements of this policy are as follows: partnership and alliance for democracy and a dynamic market economy with countries that share these values; good-neighbourly relations with all neighbouring States; comprehensive strengthening of the Commonwealth of Independent States, strategic partnership with Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and all other countries created in the place of the former Soviet Union; and solidarity and mutually advantageous cooperation with all the members of the world community. Russia intends to act in support of United Nations efforts to address the twofold task of the democratization of societies and the renewal of international relations. This is consonant with the concluding statement of the summit meeting of the Security Council, with Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's report "An Agenda for Peace" and with the first statements already made from this rostrum. Russia is ready to give practical support to the proposals made yesterday by George Bush, President of the United States. First of all, it is necessary to extinguish armed conflicts. The Russian Federation will increase its efforts to eliminate conflicts inherited from the past in the territory of the former USSR, bearing in mind the special interest and responsibility of Russia in strengthening the civilized principles of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in this part of the world. (Mr. Kozvrev. Russian Federation) Russia supports the participation of the new independent States in these two organizations and other international forums. We welcome their representatives in this Hall. We categorically reject imperialistic ambitions, diktat and violence, both in the area of the former USSR and in other parts of the world. Should political means fail, force can and should be used to separate the warring sides, to protect human rights and humanitarian missions and to restore peace in strict conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. Agreements for cease-fires and for the establishment of peace-keeping forces, concluded with Russian participation, are already in effect in Ossetia, the Dniester region and Abkhazia, where Russian soldiers are carrying out their peace-keeping duties. Together with CSCE, we will strive to end the war and bring peace to Karabakh and to secure the integrity of Tajikistan and bring national reconciliation to that country. In all those efforts we count on continued active cooperation with the United Nations. We support efforts aimed at forcing Iraq to implement the decisions of the United Nations and ensuring at the same time the territorial integrity and the peaceful nature of that State. For that purpose, Russia has sent two naval vessels to the Persian Gulf. We also must ensure that the demands of the Security Council are complied with by all the Yugoslav sides and must enable them to maintain contact with the United Nations. A Russian infantry battalion is serving honourably with the United Nations forces in Yugoslavia. I agree with the preceding speaker concerning the need to support the efforts of Mr. Panic for the practical implementation of the intentions he has declared. (Mr. Kozyrev. Russian Federation) Russia will continue to cooperate actively with the other permanent members of the Security Council and with all the parties concerned in order to seize the opportunity for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, Cambodia, Angola and other areas of conflict. We have no doubt that it is the task of the United Nations to combat violence with force based on law, with its potential for enforcing peace. The Blue Helmets should take action in response even when they are fired upon. It is time to strengthen the capacity of the Security Council to take swift and decisive action in humanitarian emergency situations arising from mass violations of human rights and inter-ethnic clashes, including those within national borders. (Mr. Kozyrev. Russian Federation) It is important to strengthen the preventive component of United Nations activities. This includes the establishment of hot lines to United Nations Headquarters, the submission of intelligence information to the Secretary-General and the further development of fact-finding. Enhanced United Nations efforts to safeguard human rights and the rights of national minorities are also a priority. In the past it was chiefly the victims of totalitarian regimes and ideologies who needed protection. What is increasingly needed now is to combat the aggressive nationalism that is emerging as the new global threat. The replacement of ideological intolerance with national and religious intolerance would threaten the world which is increasingly becoming one world - with rifts just as serious and with national, regional and global catastrophes. Democratic Russia categorically rejects any form of chauvinism, be it Russophobia or anti-Semitism. We feel special concern at the growing discriminatory practices against Russians, Ukrainians, Jews and all other non-indigenous nationalities in some of the new States that have emerged in the territory of the former USSR, particularly in Estonia and Latvia. A situation in which 42 per cent of the population of the Estonian Republic are disenfranchised is totally inconsistent with international law. We have raised and will continue to raise these issues in the United Nations and other forums. We have the right to do so, among other reasons, because the countries in question won their independence, to a substantial extent, through the triumph of the democrats in Russia. The practices I have referred to can in no way be justified by invoking the problem, inherited from the USSR, of the withdrawal of armed forces from the Baltic States. We are (Mr. Kozyrev. Russian Federation) already working together to resolve that problem, and we intend to resolve it as soon as possible; however, due regard must also be given to the rights of those who are in military uniform. It would be appropriate to give thought to a joint interpretation of the international trusteeship system set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly since one of its basic objectives is and I guote the Charter - "To encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". That system has brought many nations to independence. Today national minorities desperately need the trusteeship of the world community. The fate of former Soviet servicemen taken prisoner in Afghanistan remains one of the gravest humanitarian problems. We call upon the General Assembly to proclaim its support for the urgent resolution of this problem. The rejection of the game of "nuclear roulette" in favour of cooperation in the interests of strategic stability for all and with the participation of all States concerned is reflected in the agreements on further drastic cuts in strategic offensive arms and on a global defense system reached in Washington by the Presidents of Russia and the United States of America. Reaffirming its commitments under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Russian Federation invites all countries that have not yet done so to join the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States. It is our belief that all the former Republics of the USSR, including Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, will do so. This step should be taken as soon as possible, since the entry into force of the treaty on strategic offensive arms depends on it. We expect that a sense of high responsibility and a readiness to reach compromise solutions will prevail in the decisive phase of the approval of the Convention on the banning of chemical weapons. Russia is in favour of control, including control through the United Nations, over international arms transfers, especially over offensive and highly destructive weapons. The approach taken with respect to regimes that disregard the standards of international law should be particularly strict. There is an obvious need for the development of concrete military-industry conversion programmes, not only through the efforts of individual countries but also through the combined action of the international community. The United Nations and its specialized agencies could play a pioneering role in this endeavour. In the long run, real disarmament and the conversion of military industries to peaceful production will make it possible to release additional resources for the needs of development. But development cannot be achieved without ensuring full political and economic rights and freedoms, without releasing human creative potential in a market environment. Russia has learned this from its own experience. For a successful solution of the problems of development, it is extremely important to strengthen the interaction between the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions. Herein lies the key to the harmonization of the world community's efforts in such areas as support of macroeconomic reforms and technical assistance and the provision of help in resolving social problems. Both developing and developed countries will benefit from this. The United Nations Conference at Rio de Janeiro reinforced the consensus on the need to integrate development policies and environmental protection. The task of renewing international relations calls for the rationalization of the United Nations itself and of the United Nations system. The desire of some States to play a more active role in the United Nations is guite natural. The Charter provides ample scope for this. In particular, the Charter permits the Security Council to establish auxiliary bodies in which many States would participate. We are convinced that the United Nations and other international organizations will play a growing role in regulating international relations. In conclusion, I should like to address you, Mr. Secretary-General. Russia supports your efforts to bring about the settlement of international crises, to improve the efficiency of the United Nations Secretariat and the coordination of the activities of all international agencies. Support of the United Nations presupposes the fulfilment of financial obligations to the Organization. Despite its economic difficulties, in the period from September of this year to March 1993 Russia will pay $130 million as partial payment of our arrears to the United Nations and an additional $30 million to other agencies. Your recent statements in Moscow, Mr. Secretary-General, have confirmed the similarity of our vision of the great future of the United Nations.

It is a great pleasure to see you, Sir, a youthful symbol of a profoundly changed Bulgaria, in the Chair. I know and trust that you will steer us skilfully through this session of the General Assembly. The cold war is over. The world has heaved a sigh of relief. The United Nations now has an unprecedented opportunity to carry out the mandate contained in the Charter, even though politically the world has grown much more complex and complicated. Of course, no change has occurred in the underlying problems of a long-term nature. The threat to the very survival of the human race posed by the deterioration of the environment, overpopulation and poverty was there already, even though awareness of the threat has increased quite dramatically in recent years. It is a threat that will be with us for years to come, and it will grow more and more acute if there is a lack of appropriate action. One course of action is for the United Nations to put its house in order in these areas through a restructuring of its economic and social sectors and through a meaningful follow-up to the Rio Summit. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development has put sustainable development high on our agenda, and there it should remain. The establishment of solid machinery, including a high-level commission on sustainable development, will, we hope, be one of the major achievements of this session of the General Assembly. But in the political field, on which I will concentrate today, there has been a qualitative change. We are still thankful for the end of the cold war, with its menace of massive nuclear destruction, but in its stead a plethora of conflicts and potential conflicts has sprung up with a vehemence which nobody had foreseen. Each of these conflicts has its own characteristics, and each has to be dealt with in a particular fashion. The United Nations is, on the whole, the right organization to deal with these emergencies, whether directly or indirectly. In order to carry out that task it will need to possess all the means necessary for what I would call a flexible response, ranging from preventive diplomacy to repressive action. A number of these requirements have been set out by the Secretary-General in his impressive report "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277). This Agenda will form the basis for our discussions on the subject. Where and when should the United Nations intervene? Clearly, it cannot be everything to everyone. In order not to overstretch, it inevitably has to apply a certain degree of self-restraint. Moreover, the membership of our Organization consists of sovereign States, and respect for their sovereignty is one of its principles. Nevertheless, it would be too easy to make non-intervention and deference to domestic jurisdiction the leading guideline. Moreover, it would not work. Frontiers have become porous and information world-wide. Atrocities and aggression committed within a country cannot pass unnoticed, and once noticed will not be tolerated by world opinion. For the United Nations to stand idly by would be detrimental to its new-found status, which we all have an interest in protecting. With the end of the cold war, regional conflicts have proliferated, but at the same time the possibility of doing something about them has increased. This is both because the Security Council is not paralyzed by vetoes any more and because the risk of a conflict's degenerating into global war has subsided. This makes it possible to contemplate international action where it would have been impossible or unfeasible before. With the possiblity of action comes the notion that lack of action is a form of action as well, requiring a decision, just as a decision is necessary to act. A decision not to act in the case of flagrant violations of human rights or the rights of minorities, or in the case of large-scale human suffering, will now set a precedent, just as planned intervention does. It is no longer possible just to look the other way. Perhaps somewhat belatedly, this has been recognized in the case of Somalia. The international community could not afford to condone the intolerable situation in that country any longer. The short-term task consists of assuring the survival of the people. In the somewhat longer term, the whole country will have to be reconstructed. The United Nations has a major role to play on both counts. The United Nations has also become involved in former Yugoslavia. Here we see massive aggression, destruction, impending starvation and even the establishment of concentration camps, all with a view to making large areas "ethnically clean", as the ugly saying goes. Nationalism and irredentism have run wild and are threatening neighbouring States as well. Everyone knows who is mainly responsible. Concerted action can and should be taken. Effective delegation and cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations is crucial. Joint United Nations-European Community efforts to help solve the Yugoslav crisis are a clear example. Interaction between the United Nations and the European Community, in their co-chairmanship of the London Conference, has underlined the potential for coordination between the United Nations and regional organizations in the field of preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping and peacemaking. It is not only Chapter VIII that is being put into practice here. Even more important is the linkage between the quest for a diplomatic solution on the one hand and the possibility of enforcement action by the United Nations on the other hand, in the event of non-compliance by the parties concerned. The recognition of territorial and ethnical faits accomplis would be an insult to the Charter. To my mind, the Yugoslav crisis is a compelling case for action. More could be done, and I hope that more will be done soon. The Netherlands fully supports the Secretary-General's view that: "regional arrangements or agencies in many cases possess a potential that should be utilized in serving... preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping, peacemaking and post-conflict peace-building". (A/47/277, para. 64) Indeed, I am convinced that regional organizations increasingly have to take up responsibilities with regard to regional peace and security. The role of the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in the Yugoslav crisis is a clear example of this trend. So are others, such as the Organization of American States and the Organization of African Unity. The process of delegation and cooperation between the United Nations and the various regional organizations does not have to stop at this level. Organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Western European Union have specific operational contributions to make as well. Both organizations recently announced at the CSCE Summit in Helsinki their decision to make resources available to support the CSCE or the United Nations in carrying out peace-keeping activities. The CSCE can also call on others, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States, to contribute to peace-keeping activities. This development is a concrete example of an evolving network of organizations which we refer to as 'interlocking institutions'. The Security Council is rightly the focus of world attention nowadays. This new interest has provided the discussion on the Council's membership with a fresh impetus. In the last chapter of "An Agenda for Peace", the Secretary-General observes that agreement among the permanent members of the Security Council must have the deeper support of the other members of the Council. It should also have the wider support of the membership of the Assembly if the Council's decisions are to be effective and are to endure. This raises the question of the relationship between members and non-members of the Council and of the Council's composition. The achievements of the Council in terms of effective leadership and decision-making, particularly during the last two years, need not be elaborated upon. Supporters of the maintenance of its current composition can hence, with some justification, argue that there is no need to change a winning team, or, to use a colloquial expression of our host country, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The critics of the status quo argue that the Council's present composition is a reflection of the balance of power of days gone by. This leaves us with a dilemma because both sides have a point. Important changes have taken place in international relations. The number of Member States has increased enormously since the enlargement of the Council in 1963. The Charter specifies in Article 24 that the Council acts on behalf of all Members. This implies that the Council should be, to a certain degree, representative of the international community. Were the Council to become an exclusive club disconnected from the United Nations membership as a whole, this might tend to undermine its authority and diminish its effectiveness. So what are we to do when faced with the question of the Council's effectiveness on the one hand and its representativeness on the other? A possible solution to this question might be found in severing the automatic link between permanent membership of the Council and the right of veto. A number of concrete options can be considered in this respect. One would be to consider the adoption of a double veto: two negative votes by permanent members being required to hold up a decision instead of one. Another suggestion put forward is the creation of semi-permanent membership of the Security Council. This membership would apply to a certain category of important States for a period of, say, five to seven years, possibly without the right of veto. (Mr. Van Pen Broek. Netherlands) To determine which countries would be eligible for this type of membership, it seems that two criteria are relevant: both the political weight of the country concerned and the degree to which its membership would contribute to a more eguitable geographical distribution of the Council's composition. In view of the Council's responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, it would appear to me that those two elements should be carefully balanced against each other. Clearly, the creation of semi-permanent membership is only one of a number of options that can be considered. A broad international discussion on this issue has already begun. The basis of this discussion should be in the agreement that any change envisaged should first and foremost seek to ensure the continued effectiveness of the Council for the United Nations as a whole. In recent years we have seen some very encouraging developments all over the world in the field of human rights. Many nations have taken the difficult but promising road to democracy. Their success will undoubtedly contribute to a further spread of respect for fundamental human rights. It was our hope that the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights, to be held next year in Vienna, would contribute to this positive trend. The Netherlands welcomed the process from the start. We are, for instance, a major donor to the fund that allows delegations from the least privileged countries to participate. However, the preparatory process has thus far failed to produce an agenda for the Conference. The Chairperson of the preparatory process rightly concluded that most States will be disappointed at the lack of results. The Netherlands shares this feeling of disappointment. Curiously enough, the results thus far have lagged behind the constructive and relatively harmonious results achieved in other United Nations forums such as the United Nations (Mr. Van Pen Broek. Netherlands) Commission on Human Rights. The perfect example of this was the recent unanimity displayed by this Commission when it met for its first emergency session, which was devoted to the human rights situation in former Yugoslavia. In view of this sharp contrast, one cannot but wonder what causes the World Conference process to be so polarized and, subsequently, what positive contribution the Conference can make in these circumstances to the United Nations work in the field of human rights. Meanwhile, human rights are still, in practice, being violated in numerous countries. I have already mentioned former Yugoslavia, where outrage at the massive violation of human rights and international humanitarian law in Bosnia-Herzegovina, confirmed by the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mazowiecki, has increased the calls for measures against the perpetrators of such acts. Personal accountability under international law and the appropriate machinery to deal with the individuals responsible are still lacking, but Security Council resolution 771 (1992) paves the way for follow-up action by Member States. My country favours the establishment of machinery for the systematic gathering of data concerning criminal acts committed by individuals with regard to the Geneva conventions and the human rights conventions. I believe that such an approach can be expected to have a deterrent effect. For the longer term. Member States could consider the establishment of an international criminal court, taking into account work already undertaken by, among others, the United Nations International Law Commission. Although it is clear that the establishment of such a court will not come about overnight, it is certainly worthy of careful consideration by the 'Assembly. The Assembly might give the International Law Commission the task of developing this idea further. (Mr. Van Den Broek. Netherlands) The United Nations involvement in conflict settlement has led to a wide array of peace-keeping operations. The number of Blue-Beret military has reached an all-time record. The Netherlands contributes sizeably to United Nations operations worldwide and will continue to do so: taking into account other obligations and practical limitations, all units of the Netherlands armed forces can in principle be assigned for peace-keeping. We support the concept of making available contingents to the United Nations at short notice and have included this in our standing offer to the Organization. The Preamble to the Charter clearly states the United Nations determination to promote social progress and better standards of living. Many countries are confronted with a lack of social stability, mass migration, rapid urbanization and other problems which affect the fabric of society. The world summit for social development, in principle to be held in 1995, will allow us to address these issues at the highest levels of government. This will help the United Nations to carry out the tasks inherent in its important social mandate. The Security Council has rightly qualified the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction as a threat to international peace and security. This underlines the importance of combating their proliferation. Arms control and regional, political and security arrangements have their role to play. So have export control regimes. (Mr. Van Den Broek. Netherlands) The Netherlands attaches particular value to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, and it is heartening to see before the Assembly the concrete elaboration of technical procedures for this Register, agreed to by consensus by a representative panel of governmental experts. The time has come to render the Register fully operational starting next spring, in 1993, and we look forward to a universal implementation of its provisions. A convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons will be put before this session of the Assembly. It is a magnificent achievement for all the members of the Geneva Conference on Disarmament. My country hopes that many countries will be amongst the original signatories of the chemical weapons convention, so that it can be strictly implemented. The Netherlands, as host country for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), has a special role to play, and we shall endeavour to live up to expectations. With the chemical weapons convention achieved, it becomes all the more important to reflect upon ways and means to strengthen the biological weapons Convention, in particular in matters of verification. Securing compliance with the Convention could involve more than just voluntary measures, important though these may be. As to the third category of weapons of mass destruction, we have to bear in mind that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is up for extension in 1995. My country strongly advocates such an extension for an indefinite period. We welcome the progress made recently to strengthen the non-proliferation regime by both further accessions to the NPT and modifications of the Tlatelolco Treaty, opening the way for the entry into force of that Treaty for all Latin American and Caribbean States. (Mr. Van Den Broek. Netherlands) We are are placing ever-increasing demands upon the United Nations. Cambodia, Yugoslavia and Somalia are only a few examples of its increasing involvement. This is not without severe financial consequences for the Organization. Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that, at a time when ue expect the United Nations to play its demanding role, an important number of Member States is not paying its contributions on time and in full. We believe it is essential for the proper functioning of the United Nations that all Member States, not just 5 per cent, meet the condition of full and timely payment. The United Nations will not be able to fulfil its task unless everyone picks up his share of the bill. Financial discipline on the part of Member States is as important as it is on the part of the Organization. With regard to peace-keeping especially, if regional responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security is to acquire real meaning, we would strongly favour Member States looking at the concept of burden-sharing on a regional basis. In any case, the present short-term solutions of ad hoc financing are neither satisfactory nor equitable. If we want a healthy United Nations to deal with tomorrow's problems, this issue needs to be addressed today. It would be an illusion to think that the current stopgaps, creative as they may be, will eventually suffice. As I have already stated, the opportunities for the United Nations to carry out its mandate are unprecedented. This is true for a number of conflicts which until recently seemed intractable. Cambodia is the clearest case where a United Nations peace plan is being implemented. Angola is another example of what the United Nations can do. The continuing dialogue by (Mr. Van Den Broek. Netherlands) South African parties provide us with a spark hope for the establishment of a non-racial democracy. There is an initial involvement on the part of the United Nations. Negotiations within the framework of the Madrid Conference have carried the Middle East peace process further after a long period of standstill. I hope that in this area, too, the United Nations can at some stage become closely involved. My friend and colleague Douglas Hurd, speaking on behalf of the European Community and its member States, rightly observed that the challenge facing us in this turbulent time is to reinforce the system of collective security based on the United Nations. As I said earlierf, the United Nations cannot be everything to everybody. Nevertheless it is clear that, because of the success our Organization has achieved over the last few years, enormous expectations have been raised. It is our duty to see to it that the United Nations is equipped in terms both of personnel and financing to face the tasks with which it will of necessity be confronted. That brings me, logically and finally, to the Secretary-General. It is a source of the greatest satisfaction to me to see Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali in this august position. His profound international experience, his keen intelligence and the determination which he has already shown in tackling a number of issues make him very much the right man in the right place. I wish to assure Mr. Boutros-Ghali of the co-operation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the discharge of his arduous task. The meeting rose at 1 p.m. (Mr. Van Den Broek. Netherlands)