A/59/PV.86 General Assembly

I have the sad duty to pay tribute to the late head of State of the Principality of Monaco, His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III, who passed away this morning, Wednesday, 6 April 2005. During his reign, His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III enabled the Principality of Monaco to experience prosperity and gain a reputation as a modern State in the aftermath of the Second World War through economic and social development, for the benefit of the population of Monaco, thereby earning the affection of his people and the esteem of the entire world. Prince Rainier also represented and affirmed, steadfastly and skilfully, the personality of the Principality of Monaco during his reign, which lasted for almost 56 years. We are grateful to him for his profound belief in multilateral diplomacy and for his support for the endeavours and actions of the United Nations. His political vision and determination facilitated Monaco’s evolution on the international scene, enabling it to become, in 1993, a Member of the United Nations. On behalf of the General Assembly, I request the representative of the Principality of Monaco to convey our condolences to the Government and the people of the Principality of Monaco, as well as to the bereaved family of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III. I invite representatives to stand and observe a minute of silence in tribute to the memory of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III.

I now call on the representative of Malawi, who will speak on behalf of the Group of African States.

On behalf of the African Group, I would like to make a few remarks this afternoon on the passing away of Prince Rainier III. Oceanographers, environmentalists and the scientific world at large are deeply saddened by the passing on, on Wednesday, 6 April 2005, of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III of Monaco, an important figure in international development. We all know that Prince Rainier efficiently continued the fruitful work of his grandfather, Prince Albert I, whose discoveries in the fields of oceanography and palaeontology won him a great reputation in scientific circles throughout the world. It is important to highlight that in the 1950s oceanography in the Mediterranean made rapid progress and ardently galvanized the International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea to take up its activities under the direction of Prince Rainier as President, on 15 September 1956. As President of the International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea, Prince Rainier encouraged that important body to set up a specialized committee to combat marine pollution. His deep concern about the question of the environment and marine pollution also led to the creation of the scientific centre that took part in the international movement Atoms for Peace. His accomplishments in the development of the Principality of Monaco are highly commendable, a useful contribution to humanity and international development.

I now call on the representative of Bhutan, who will speak on behalf of the Group of Asian States.

We are greatly saddened by the passing away this morning of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III of Monaco. We join the people of Monaco as they mourn this great national loss. Deeply respected by his people and the world community, His Serene Highness will be remembered for his tireless efforts and able leadership in the transformation of Monaco into a modern and dynamic State. On behalf of the Member States of the Asian Group, and on my own behalf, I would like to convey our heartfelt condolences and deepest sympathies to the members of the ruling family and the people and Government of the Principality of Monaco.

I now call on the representative of Estonia, who will speak on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States.

It is with deep sadness and sorrow that we learned about the passing away of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III of the Principality of Monaco. Prince Rainier was the leader of his people and country during the more than 55 years of his reign. He fulfilled his duties with extraordinary strength until the end. We pay great respect to his dedication in serving his country, which was admired throughout the world. Prince Rainier was an outstanding figure whose tireless work left a legacy of a prosperous and stable country. He will be truly missed. We share our profound compassion and affection with the family of Prince Rainier and the people of Monaco during this difficult time.

I now call on the representative of Trinidad and Tobago, who will speak on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States.

The countries of the Latin American and Caribbean Group join with the international community in conveying to the royal family of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III of the Principality of Monaco, to the Government and people of Monaco and to its delegation at the United Nations our heartfelt condolences on his passing away today, 6 April 2005. Monaco, one of Europe’s oldest dynasties, celebrated 700 years of Grimaldi reign in 1997. For 56 years it has been marked with the imprint of Prince Rainier, who up until today had been Europe’s longest- serving monarch. Prince Rainier is credited with modernizing the Principality and building it into a prosperous banking and financial centre. He introduced new policies that would usher in a period of renovation aimed at making the Principality a modern State looking towards the future while preserving its traditions. His work focused on expanding the Principality’s economy by continuing to attract investment and to rely less on traditional sources of income. Prince Rainier was a strong advocate of close cooperation between nations and encouraged the membership of Monaco in several international organizations, including the United Nations, of which it became a member on 28 May 1993. As we will all recall, Monaco has been the headquarters of the International Hydrographic Organization — formerly the International Hydrographic Bureau — since 1921. Prince Rainier was also responsible for promulgating the Principality’s new constitution, in 1962, which resulted in a sharing of power with a national council of 18 elected members. The countries of Latin America and the Caribbean join with the family of Prince Rainier and with the Government and people of the Principality of Monaco in celebrating the life and in mourning the passing of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III of Monaco.

I now call on the representative of Sweden, who will speak on behalf of the Group of Western European and other States.

As Chairman of the Western European and other States Group, I would like to extend my deepest condolences and sympathies to the princely family and to the people of the Principality of Monaco on the passing of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III. Prince Rainier III, who enjoyed a long and successful reign, will be remembered for the fundamental way in which he transformed his country. He launched infrastructure projects, he promoted the establishment of high-tech industries, and he contributed to the development of the tourism industry, to take just a few examples. A memorable occasion in his efforts to reinforce the role of Monaco in world affairs was the admission of the Principality as a State Member of the United Nations by this General Assembly in 1993. Therefore, the tribute we pay to him here today has a special significance. He was a true friend of the United Nations, but he will be remembered first and foremost for the love and respect he inspired in his people and across the globe. On this day of great loss, he and those he left behind will be in our thoughts.

I call on the representative of the United States, speaking on behalf of the host country.

On behalf of the United States Government and the American people, I extend my deepest sympathy to the ruling family and the people of the Principality of Monaco upon the passing of Prince Rainier III. Prince Rainier III will be remembered as a beloved leader of his people and a devoted husband and father. Single-handedly, with great vision and determination, he transformed a small principality into a dynamic business centre and a leading tourist destination. His vision for a vibrant Monaco included not just increased economic vigour, but also a greater presence on the international stage. That included his decision to seek membership for his nation in this Organization and in the Council of Europe. For that reason, we also extend our sympathy to our colleagues from Monaco. Prince Rainier was a staunch ally and valued friend of my nation. Americans remember him fondly, however, not only for his friendship and good will towards the United States, but also because of a special personal tie. His marriage to the American-born Grace Patricia Kelly — Princess Grace — helped create for him and his family a special place in our hearts. We join all those who mourn that wise man, a prince who gave selflessly of himself to his country throughout a long and distinguished reign. We share in the mourning of his family and countrymen and pray that they will find consolation in his formidable legacy.

I call on the representative of Turkey, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

It was with great sadness that we learned this morning of the passing away of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III of the Principality of Monaco. As the Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) group at the United Nations, I would like to express, on behalf of our member States, my deepest sympathies to the family of the late Prince, the people of Monaco, as well as colleagues and friends at the mission of Monaco here in New York. His Serene Highness Prince Rainer was a visionary, an exemplary statesman, a reformer and a modernizer. As a dignified representative of his country, he was always regarded with high esteem and affection within the international community. On this solemn occasion, I would like to convey once again the heartfelt condolences of the member States of the OIC to the bereaved family of His Serene Highness, as well as to the people of Monaco.

I call on the representative of the Principality of the Monaco.

On behalf of His Serene Highness Prince Albert II of Monaco, the princely family, and the Government and people of the Principality of Monaco, I thank you very warmly, Sir; the Permanent Representatives of Bhutan, Estonia, Malawi, Sweden and Trinidad and Tobago, who spoke in their capacities as Chairmen of the regional groups; the Permanent Representative of the United States of America, speaking on behalf of the host country; and the Permanent Representative of Turkey, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, for their kind tributes to the memory of our late and deeply regretted Prince Rainier III. The emotion raised by his passing is commensurate with the popularity that he earned over the 56 years of his reign, not only among the people of Monaco and residents of the Principality, but also among many heads of State and Government, the leaders of international organizations and the citizens of the world, irrespective of their position, beliefs and age. In the Principality and far beyond, Prince Rainier III was the fount of innovative and beneficial initiatives, thanks to the visionary qualities that enabled him to give a decisive impetus to the expansion of Monaco from the very first years of his reign, and tirelessly to ensure that our country has been able to adjust to the many challenges that have arisen since his accession in 1949. Furthermore and above all, he oversaw the development of the Principality in security. Aware of the importance of preserving the environment and our quality of life, the Prince was personally involved in protecting the natural environment, the Mediterranean in particular. He actively participated in the Rio Conference and its follow-ups. Finally, His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III was vigorously determined to see the Principality join all major international bodies, especially the United Nations and, more recently, the Council of Europe. We recall here the great importance that the Prince of Monaco attached to the admission of his country to our Organization. Having fought in the Second World War, he was convinced of the crucial and central role of the United Nations in the maintenance of peace throughout the world. Having established a new Constitution in 1962, the Prince sought its amendment in 2002 by strengthening all aspects underpinning the rule of law. The progress achieved in the areas of human rights, international humanitarian cooperation and universal protection of abused children is a very important aspect of the Prince’s life’s work. I cannot fail to acknowledge, either, his work to affirm solidarity with the most vulnerable. The fact that Prince Rainier III was known as the “Builder Prince” is an allusion not only to the urban transformation of Monaco, whose territory was peacefully extended by land reclamation from the sea, but also and above all to his placing his country on the lasting and solid foundations of moral values, law and justice — values which his successor, Prince Albert II, also embraces. It was therefore with great sadness but immense gratitude for his work that the people of Monaco learned of the passing of their Prince. Nevertheless, confident of their future, they fully support Prince Albert II.

Let me start by expressing, on behalf of Pakistan, our deep condolences on the passing away of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and on the demise of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III of Monaco. Mr. President, I thank you for convening this important meeting. We admire the manner in which you are leading the process of preparations for the high-level event of the General Assembly in September. We also wish to thank the Secretary- General for submitting to the General Assembly his report entitled “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all” (A/59/2005). The Pakistan delegation associates itself with the statements made by the representative of Malaysia as Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement and the representative of Jamaica as the Chair of the Group of 77 and China. Today, we are starting the second stage of our preparations for September’s high-level event. We have, in the first stage, already expressed our positions on issues of peace and security and development, in response to the reports of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (A/59/565) and of the Millennium Project. We have now received the Secretary-General’s long-awaited report. In this debate, and in the subsequent meetings outlined in your road map, Sir, we shall be obliged to reiterate many of the same views and positions that have already been expressed in our previous informal discussions, specially since — as noted by the Chairmen of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and of the Group of 77 — many of our views have not found reflection in the Secretary-General’s report. Much has been said about the self-evident reality that peace and development are mutually interdependent. Let us remember that the complete quotation from the Charter, part of which is used in the title of the Secretary-General’s report, is: “social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”. Indeed, the September summit was originally designed to review mainly the implementation of internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals. For the vast majority of Member States, perhaps the most serious deficit of the Secretary-General’s report is its failure to clearly spell out a plan of action to implement the agreed development goals, beyond endorsing the welcome recommendations of the Millennium Project report — the Sachs report — for increasing official development assistance, providing debt relief and open market access for the poorest countries and implementing some quick wins. The September summit will be a failure, from our perspective, if it does not include clear commitments to at least the following. The summit must include a commitment to the creation of an equitable and development-oriented international trading system. Summit leaders cannot leave this to World Trade Organization negotiators. It must include a commitment on changes to make international financial and economic governance more equitable and more supportive of development goals. It must address the endemic problems related to commodities and promote measures for the generation of universal employment. In the area of peace and security, the Secretary- General’s report has not only endorsed but further accentuated a concept of collective security that is conceived as an instrument of coercion and intervention rather than of the universal cooperation and harmonization that are the underlying spirit of the United Nations Charter. It endorses the undue concentration of authority in the Security Council. That concept would result in legitimizing and reinforcing the pervasive inequality — in terms of security, power and wealth — that characterizes our times and which the United Nations must dedicate itself to rectifying. The report’s recommendations relating to the use of force and to Articles 42 and 51 of the Charter illustrate that point. Under the Charter, the central purpose of the United Nations is to prevent, not facilitate, the use of force and military intervention. Yet, the report spells out so-called criteria for the authorization of force that are subjective and that could be misused, mostly by powerful States against weaker States. Furthermore, going even against the High-level Panel’s caution against reinterpretation of Article 51, the report’s analysis and recommendations open the door to the pre-emptive, and even preventive, use of force. The endorsement of the so-called “responsibility to protect” would steer the United Nations along the same interventionist path. The big and powerful States, not small and weaker ones, will decide where and when to intervene to protect people at risk. International law, especially humanitarian law, already provides the basis for the international community to protect peoples subjected to gross violations of human rights and to genocide. In Rwanda, Srebrenica and elsewhere, it was the failure of political will that prevented action, not the absence of an interventionist doctrine. Pakistan is at the forefront in the war on terrorism. We would welcome the conclusion of a convention on nuclear terrorism. We agree that a comprehensive strategy is required to combat terrorism, but such a strategy must be clear, equitable and realistic. Everyone can agree that wanton violence against innocent civilians constitutes terrorism, and that must be so whether it is perpetrated by non-State actors or State actors. Of course, the category of civilians does not include armed forces suppressing or occupying peoples, and individual acts of terrorism cannot in themselves delegitimize legitimate movements for self-determination and national liberation. Nor can the root causes of terrorism, including foreign occupation, denial of self- determination and political and economic injustices, all be brushed under the carpet in any effective counter- terrorism strategy. The recommendations on weapons of mass destruction are partial and incomplete. The first priority remains to achieve nuclear disarmament and the effective prohibition and elimination of all weapons of mass destruction. Non-proliferation must be promoted in tandem with disarmament. Arms control — global and regional — is essential to offer equal security to all States. There are also some significant omissions in the report. It does not fully address the most important and existing threats to peace arising from foreign occupation, denial of self-determination, territorial disputes, interventionist policies and the excessive accumulation of increasingly lethal conventional and non-conventional armaments. Nor is the troubled relationship between Islam and the West addressed in the report. While seeking “to make the most far-reaching reforms in the history of the United Nations” — as stated in the paragraph 2 of the report — the report does not fully focus on building on the major strengths of the United Nations system: the enlargement of the treaty-making role of the General Assembly; the empowerment of the international judicial system, especially the International Court of Justice; the considerable scope for action, under Chapter VI, for the pacific settlement of disputes; and the capacity of the United Nations for coordination of international development assistance and for global humanitarian relief. We agree that it is essential to adjust and adapt the intergovernmental as well as Secretariat structures of the United Nations to the realities, challenges and opportunities of our times. The General Assembly’s authority and role under the Charter must be restored. The rationalization of the Assembly’s agenda and working methods can help in that process. But the central issue is a political decision to halt and reverse the encroachment by the Security Council on the Assembly’s functions and prerogatives. Appropriate measures to enhance the role of the Economic and Social Council — as the central policy and coordination organ in the economic and social fields — are also overdue. Some of us are working to achieve this. If Charter amendments are to be envisaged, we should consider a change — making the decisions of the Economic and Social Council binding on Member States, as are the decisions of the Security Council. We support the proposal for the creation of a new Peacebuilding Commission. It should be mandated to deal with all stages of complex conflicts: conflict prevention, conflict management and post-conflict peacebuilding. It should be created by the General Assembly and report to both the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. Its role should be advisory in nature. Its membership should include all major actors involved in addressing specific crises. The proposal to create a new Human Rights Council appears to be a counter-intuitive answer to addressing the complex and controversial problems relating to the United Nations approach to human rights. In our judgement, it will be difficult to realize this proposal. There are, however, simpler and more effective avenues by which the consideration by, and action of, the United Nations of human rights issues can be made more effective and equitable. My delegation hopes to advance some suggestions on this during our debate under the relevant cluster. It is a matter of concern that deep differences persist on the issue of Security Council reform. They threaten to overwhelm the entire reform agenda. If a partisan model reflecting the ambitions of a few large States is put to a vote, as they have indicated, it could derail the entire process of United Nations reform. It would be wise to realize a comprehensive reform of the Security Council by building a general consensus for a model that accommodates the legitimate interests and aspirations of all States, reflects current global realities and enhances the representativeness and effectiveness of the Security Council. A group of like-minded countries is seeking to unite to promote such a consensus. These efforts deserve the support of all Member States, of the Secretary-General, and of the President of the General Assembly. It is also obvious that adjustments in the policies and institutions of the United Nations will require appropriate changes in the Secretariat. Such changes must await, not precede, the intergovernmental decisions. While much of the recent media criticism against the United Nations and the Secretary-General is unfair and uninformed, there are several improvements which can and should be made to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Secretariat. My delegation will offer some concrete suggestions in the near future, including on issues such as personnel policies, staff buyouts, the hiring of consultants, accountability and efficiency. The success of the September summit will depend very substantially on clarity regarding its outcome, the preparatory process and the method of decision- making. Mr. President, Pakistan endorses your indication that we will adopt a final document which will reflect a balanced consensus on all major issues. We do not like cherry-picking. But we can only harvest fruit which is ripe and ready. Early harvests are often bitter harvests. Mr. President, we also endorse your commitment to conduct an open, transparent and inclusive process of preparations for the summit. We must underline the fact that the outcome must be an openly negotiated document, not one produced only through bilateral or plurilateral consultations. Finally, it is also evident that, if we are to produce a “new consensus” for the new global order and a revitalized United Nations, such a “new consensus” must be achieved by consensus. It is disingenuous for some to imagine that they could force votes on certain issues but insist on consensus on others. One vote will lead to a series of votes. It could produce a mixed bag of results that could further erode the image and relevance of the United Nations and create a new world order marked by controversy and conflict rather than by cooperation and collective action. Let us choose the course of wisdom. Let us not seek partisan solutions or impose arbitrary deadlines. Let us unite for consensus. Let us make a real effort to create a United Nations that responds to the interests and aspirations of all the peoples of the United Nations.

At the outset, I should like to express our deep condolences to the Observer of the Holy See on the passing of His Holiness the Pope John Paul II, a lifelong man of peace and proponent of dialogue. I should like also to express to the Permanent Representative of Monaco our most sincere condolences on the passing of Prince Rainier III, who left so deep a mark on his country’s history. While we fully subscribe to the statements made this morning by the Chairmen of the African Group, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 and China, I should like to make the following general comments on the Secretary-General’s report entitled “In larger freedom: development, security and human rights for all”. I should like first of all to note that the Organization is now at a crossroads. Since the submission of the High-level Panel’s report to the Secretary-General, the Organization’s situation has deteriorated considerably. There has been in increase in the number of scandals, underscoring grave structural weaknesses, dysfunction and serious management problems within the Secretariat. This has tarnished the image and credibility of the Organization. The Organization is therefore quite sick, and requires treatment appropriate to its illness. To all indications, the report of the Secretary-General is not the expected treatment, and certainly not the panacea that some had expected, or that some are trying to make it out to be. Presented as a coherent whole — a sort of grand bargain in which all would find a solution to their problems: development for the countries of the South, security for the countries of the North and human rights for all — the report of the Secretary-General does at times provide good solutions, but it sometimes leaves us wanting, when it does not completely disappoint us. Its section entitled “Freedom from want” no doubt contains a number of well-directed recommendations. It also includes the long-awaited proposal, on which we are all focusing, to establish a timetable for the incremental increase of official development assistance (ODA), with a view to attaining the target of 0.7 per cent by 2015. That proposal is of course welcome. However, as put forth, I fear it will above all benefit countries that have adopted strategies to reach the Millennium Development Goals at an accelerated pace, and will therefore benefit less the poorest countries that do not have the means to implement their national development strategies. Similarly, the idea of launching the International Finance Facility in 2005 on the basis of ODA is a good proposal, so long as it supports ODA and does not replace it. Lastly, as suggested by the Sachs report, the implementation of “quick wins” that are effective while not being excessively onerous is also undeniably a very good proposal that we should all support. That being said, I am not convinced about the approach adopted by the Secretary-General’s report, as it is based solely on the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. In a way, that is a sort of “minimum wage”: an attempt to meet the basic economic and social needs of the countries of the South while reducing development issues solely to the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. That is clearly a mistake. Much more serious than that, however, is the fact that in referring to sustainable development the report does so only through the perspective of the environment, thereby ignoring aspects related to development, health and education. In addition, the report is truly problematic in that it addresses superficially, or outright fails to mention, such important problems as foreign debt — which is given short shrift — access to markets, technology transfers, the strengthening of national capacity, private direct investment flows and, in particular, reform of the international financial architecture, namely, the Bretton Woods institutions. Moreover, the same observations also apply vis-à-vis Africa. The report emphasizes Africa’s importance, but it offers no more than a single concrete recommendation aimed at effectively supporting the continent’s development efforts. With regard to the report’s section entitled “Freedom from fear”, I would like to make an observation on the subject of non-proliferation and disarmament. Although the report does contain some good recommendations, we find it regrettable that the appeal to nuclear Powers addresses only reductions in non-strategic nuclear weapons and does not mention the unequivocal commitment undertaken in the General Assembly Hall at the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) by the five nuclear Powers to work towards the complete elimination of their nuclear arsenals. With regard to access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and under the pretext of “tension” (A/59/2005, para. 99) surrounding that matter, the Secretary-General proposes that the market for fissile materials be regulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — whereas, let us recall, the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change called for a reduction in the supply of fissile materials. In either case the countries concerned would nevertheless face unjustifiable restrictions incompatible with the NPT. We are even more surprised at the hasty blessing given by the Secretary-General to an initiative undertaken outside the United Nations whose legal basis and operational effectiveness have not been established: the Proliferation Security Initiative. Of course, the Secretary-General’s blessing cannot commit the Organization or its Member States. Far from it. Lastly, with regard to a concern we all fully share in connection with the widespread availability of high- precision ballistic delivery systems and portable models that could be used for terrorist purposes, and also in connection with the proposal that the Security Council adopt a resolution on the matter, we believe that, if we are truly going to take this risk seriously, entrusting the question to the Security Council would weaken the existing multilateral intergovernmental framework and would give the Security Council legislative powers not conferred upon it by the Charter. I would now like to address the issue of terrorism. In his report, the Secretary-General proposes a comprehensive strategy to address that threat, based on five pillars. We find that proposal generally acceptable. However, we believe that the rationale for the first pillar — namely, dissuading people from resorting to terrorism or supporting it — is not very concrete, given that the report of the Secretary-General has completely obscured the underlying causes of the evil of terrorism and thereby the need to eradicate them. We believe that in order to deprive those who are tempted to use terror — be they States, groups or individuals — of any political, ideological, religious or other pretext to seek to justify or legitimize their actions, we must simply find responses and solutions to such very real problems as foreign occupation, repression, social injustice, lack of freedom, extreme poverty, despair, frustration and religious and political extremism, all of which provide the breeding ground from which terrorism draws its strength. The solutions to those problems are known: ending foreign occupation; promoting social justice, democracy and respect for human rights; improving living conditions; fighting inequality; developing a culture of peace; and strengthening the dialogue among religions and civilizations. A consensus definition of terrorism would of course help to strengthen the cohesion of our common front to fight the terrorist threat. In that connection, it should be pointed out that, regardless of what the Secretary-General may have said, the Panel has not proposed a definition of terrorism, to say nothing of having addressed questions pertaining to State terrorism and the distinction to be made between terrorism and the legitimate struggle of peoples against foreign occupation. The Panel has merely proposed some elements for a definition. It seems to me that there would be less of a need for a definition of terrorism if we were, as I said just a few moments ago, to resolutely address the underlying causes of terrorism. As to sanctions, we should have liked the Secretary-General to evince greater caution. Indeed, we believe that sanctions should be considered only as a last resort once all possible peaceful means of settling conflicts have been exhausted, and that their objectives must be clearly defined. In the light of all this, we believe that this section of the Secretary-General’s report has three principal shortcomings. First, it makes no reference to legal frameworks or principles governing sanctions, including the United Nations Charter; secondly, it fails to indicate a time frame; and thirdly, it does not mention the conditions that must be met for sanctions to be lifted. We believe that the call for the implementation of Article 50 of the Charter as a mechanism to assist third countries affected by sanctions regimes is justified and should be promoted. As to the use of force, the Secretary-General clearly endorses the Panel’s logic regarding the interpretation of Article 51 of the Charter on legitimate self-defence. We do not share that reasoning. We believe that the wording of Article 51 is restrictive and that the legitimate right of self-defence can therefore be invoked and applied only in the case of armed aggression. Indeed, doctrine and jurisprudence teach us that Article 51 in no way covers imminent attacks. It seems to us that we are moving away from the prohibition of the use of force and towards a situation in which it may be legitimized under certain conditions. The principles avowed to authorize the use of force may seem highly tempting and perfectly reasonable, but we face a twofold difficulty in that respect. The first pertains to the body that would have to approve those principles. We do not believe that an organ that does not represent all Member States — the Security Council, in which I have the honour to serve — could play such a role. That would constitute normative and legislative action surpassing the strict framework of the maintenance of international peace and security. It would require the involvement of a larger body able to formulate a defined legal framework and enjoying broader support. The General Assembly, of course, is such an organ. The second difficulty relates to the implementation of those principles. Who can guarantee that, in the face of any given situation, the permanent members of the Council will agree on all four criteria and not digress, as they did in the case of Iraq? In other words, the adoption of those principles might not solve anything, because political assessments of situations by each of the permanent members could even lead to an impasse, such as that which arose in 2003. With respect to the section of the report entitled “Freedom to live in dignity”, we would express our doubts concerning the role that the High Commissioner for Human Rights could play in the Security Council in terms of the feasibility of the proposal to create a democracy fund, although the concept might be seductive; concerning the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, because they have yet to be subject to intergovernmental negotiations; and above all concerning the “responsibility to protect”, which is extremely difficult to distinguish from the idea of humanitarian intervention which the countries of the South formally rejected in 1999. In that regard, I would point out that there is no legal basis in the Charter or in international law for a right or duty to intervene. It would be overly hasty to define the “responsibility to protect” as a new norm prescribing an international collective obligation. We feel that the issue merits in-depth consideration in order to define its political and legal implications with regard to the principles of non-intervention and respect for the sovereignty of States. Moreover, it is legitimate to question whether the “responsibility to protect” would apply to all States of the world, or only to the smallest and weakest among them. As regards institutional reforms, efforts have been made to pay greater attention to General Assembly reform, which we welcome. We feel, however, that the improvements proposed are inadequate, all the more so as the Secretary-General has, unfortunately, fallen into the same trap as the Panel by proposing that issues falling within the General Assembly’s competency — disarmament, in particular, and such legal aspects as the use of force — be entrusted to the Security Council, which would immediately exacerbate the severe imbalance that already exists between those two bodies. Similarly, we welcome and are gratified by the proposed measures to improve the functioning of the Economic and Social Council. However, we believe that bolder reform is required to make the Economic and Social Council a principal organ independent of the General Assembly and not subsidiary to it, as it is today under Charter, which requires it to report to the Assembly. Such reform would enable the Economic and Social Council to play a greater role, enjoy enhanced authority and work better. We are also pleased that the Secretary-General has taken into consideration certain concerns of a number of delegations regarding the place of the proposed peacebuilding commission within the Organization. The proposal to create such a body is excellent, but many unclear aspects of it have yet to be clarified. We were surprised that, while the Panel proposed the creation of a universal human rights commission, the Secretary-General opted for a much smaller human rights council without explaining why. Granted, the Panel’s proposal had met with resistance and questions — in particular on the risks of overlap with the work of the Third Committee — but the non- aligned countries were willing to work with it. The creation of such a restricted council will probably elicit many questions, first, as to why the Secretary-General changed his mind, and secondly, as to the size, composition and role of that body and its relation to the Third Committee. The only information offered in the report in that regard is that the members of the human rights council would be elected by a two-thirds majority of members of the General Assembly and not by the Economic and Social Council. That raises new problems, because we feel that removing the council from the Economic and Social Council’s purview would further complicate matters. It would further weaken the Council at the very time when we are claiming to strengthen it. It would also and above all undermine the fundamental principle of the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. The Secretary- General’s project, it seems, would be of benefit only to civil and political rights. Finally, one important issue warrants consideration: How can we in practice identify the countries that are complying with the high standards of respect for human rights? I will conclude by discussing Security Council reform. I recall that Algeria has defended model B, which we believe to be the most democratic option and would best ensure equitable rotation within the Council. On 7 March, the African Union adopted a common position on the expansion of the Security Council, to which Algeria is committed. That position reflects a return to the Harare Declaration, with one important specification: States representing Africa would be appointed by the African Union, which would apply its own criteria in so doing. The African position must be taken fully into account in all plans to reform the Security Council. We also believe that everything must be done to ensure that the project is adopted by consensus. Our Organization, weakened and ill, does not need to be further undermined. It cannot afford to be divided on such a crucial issue. We believe that the suggestion to resort, if necessary, to a vote on that issue before the September summit is neither wise nor well considered. It could, by giving rise to precipitous action, prove highly risky for the entire reform process and for the very future of the Organization. That being the case, it is now up to Member States, under your enlightened guidance, Mr. President, to reform and shape the Organization so that it will survive us all. My delegation will do its utmost to ensure that this reform succeeds and that the Organization gets back on its feet and meets the aspirations of the billions of people who expect us to face the challenges that confront us — challenges that we will be able to meet only together and in solidarity.

At the outset, Mr. President, I should like to express our appreciation for your constructive and transparent approach in steering the consultations on the preparatory process for the upcoming high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly, including the consultations on the report of the Secretary-General (A/59/2005). I would also like to express Egypt’s appreciation to the Secretary-General for his efforts in drafting that report, which can be described as bold, frank and clear. Allow me here to express our sincere condolences to the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See on the sad death of Pope John Paul II and to the Permanent Mission of the Principality of Monaco on the passing of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III. We associate ourselves with the statements made by the representative of Malaysia on behalf of the Non- Aligned Movement, by the representative of Jamaica on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, and by the representative of Malawi on behalf of the Group of African States. Before commenting on the substance of the report, I wish to express our views on some procedural elements that are of special importance and that form an integral part of our joint effort to reach an agreement on a draft outcome document to be presented to our leaders for adoption in September 2005. Those elements are as follows. First, negotiations on the outcome document should not be based on one particular source, but rather should take into account a number of references, including the report of the Secretary-General and the comments and observations made by Member States and by regional and political groups. During the course of the negotiations, such comments and observations should be translated into specific decisions and recommendations. In that context, we welcomed the assurances provided by the Deputy Secretary-General that the Secretary-General’s reference to a “package” means that we should reach a number of balanced recommendations, and not that we should accept or reject the recommendations in the report as an integrated package. Secondly, it is essential to ensure that the final outcome of this negotiation process will strike a practical balance between development and security needs. We might all agree in principle on that approach, but it is of great importance that each of us guarantee the full implementation of the agreed outcome and that the outcome will enable us to attain both our development and our security goals within a short and specific time frame. There is simply no longer any room for the rosy promises that for years made us both happy and miserable. Thirdly, it is essential that our efforts focus on negotiating an agreed document that reflects the intergovernmental nature of the process. In those negotiations, each country should have the opportunity to contribute to the outcome and to participate in formulating it. I should like to emphasize that the confidence placed in the President of the General Assembly and in his facilitators entails the heavy responsibility of reflecting the various views and ideas expressed during the process and of avoiding the presentation of proposals and ideas that do not serve the purpose of reaching universal agreement. Fourthly, we must collectively recognize that addressing the causes of the frustration and despair felt by many peoples as a result of our failure to resolve their political and economic problems is key to achieving international peace and security. Therefore, the outcome document of the upcoming summit should devote a chapter to practical recommendations aimed at addressing such sentiments with a view to finding lasting solutions to the hardships that produce them. Such recommendations should be aimed at strengthening the principles of equality, democracy and justice and putting an end to double standards and to economic and political favouritism. Fifthly, our success in further deepening the principles of democracy and respect for human rights at the national level will depend to a great extent on our ability to promote and respect those principles in our conduct of international relations. It is essential that we respect the sanctity of the international legal and moral principles upon which the United Nations was established. Those principles are — and will always remain — the realistic and important foundation of a more secure and more stable world. Sixthly, our endeavour to establish an effective collective security system and to achieve integrated development in all its political, economic and social aspects should not distract us from pursuing an honest and sincere dialogue among civilizations, religions and cultures; nor should it lead us to neglect the essential diversity and the multifaceted nature of our societies. Indeed, such diversity is the key to a successful dialogue aimed at achieving global security and stability without prejudice to any culture or religion. I now turn to the development aspects in the report of the Secretary-General. I welcome the fact that the report acknowledged the symbiotic relationship between development and security. I wish to emphasize that the departure point for any international collective development effort is the sincere and effective implementation of the Millennium Development Goals and of the outcomes of the major related United Nations summits and conferences within the agreed time frames. We should be able to meet the main challenges to development, including foreign occupation, armed and civil conflict and many other challenges. To that end, we should focus on formulating practical and implementable proposals in the areas of market access, debt relief and development, including the establishment of effective mechanisms to facilitate the integration of developing countries into the international trading system and the World Trade Organization, which will promote social and economic development. In that context, I wish to stress that development efforts in Africa deserve special attention from the international community. In that regard, we emphasize the content of the statement made on behalf of the Group of African States and reaffirm the critical importance of lending full and unrestricted support to the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). Through NEPAD, the African countries have taken huge and unprecedented steps forward in the areas of good governance, democracy and human rights. Therefore, it is essential to strengthen and expand the partnership between the international community and African countries within the framework of NEPAD and on the basis of African ownership of that initiative and the priorities we on the continent have set for ourselves with a view to achieving Africa’s development goals. Our effort to revitalize the collective security system enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations will require that all Member States participate in adopting a new vision to that end and in beginning the process. Even more important is our commitment to implement that vision in the multilateral context, which will require a comprehensive and non-selective approach in addressing all threats and challenges facing the international community. In that respect, it is essential to identify a clear approach to addressing the diverse ways in which threats are perceived. The international community will be able to reach such an agreement only if we can mutually and sincerely acknowledge the significance and the sensitive nature of certain threats and if we refrain from attempting to impose unbalanced security agendas characterized by the application of different standards to similar, if not identical, situations. The notion of security — on which we are seeking to reach an agreement — should be universal, notwithstanding the diversity of visions, and of cultural and religious backgrounds. Further to the views expressed by the Egyptian delegation during discussions on the report of the High-level Panel and on the Sachs report, I would like to comment on the new elements and proposals put forward by the Secretary-General in his report contained in document A/59/2005. First, we must be extremely cautious about any attempt to confer legality on the concept of the preventive or pre-emptive use of force and to reinterpret the concept of self-defence to be applicable in the absence of an attack. Such an attempt could shake the legal and moral foundation of the Charter; it threatens to legitimize unilateral action and could provide additional leverage for the few States that are more powerful, that are capable of collecting better information and that possess larger military arsenals than the vast majority of States that do not enjoy such advantages — especially given the Security Council’s failure to take appropriate or timely action as a result of the lack of unanimity among the five permanent members or the use of the veto by one permanent member. Secondly, as the Secretary-General correctly stated, when addressing the problem of international terrorism we must focus on the protection of civilians. However, such protection must be geographically comprehensive and must adhere to unified criteria, beginning with the protection of peoples under occupation from State terrorism exercised by the occupying Power and from the repressive measures that such a Power undertakes, in addition to ensuring the exercise by peoples under occupation of their inalienable rights, in particular their right to independence, sovereignty and equality. That is the only way to address the feelings of frustration and despair that lead to the exercise of legitimate resistance through the use of force, which some wrongly seek to label as terrorism. In that context, the key is not to ignore State terrorism or to agree on a definition of terrorism, but to try to achieve, through the General Assembly, a binding convention ensuring mutual and parallel international obligations that reinforce our ability to combat terrorism and violence through the settlement of international problems. The adoption of such a convention, which the Secretary-General has also proposed, would be consistent with the call repeatedly made by President Mubarak since 1986 — a time when terrorism was not yet recognized as a global phenomenon — to embark on a negotiation process for the drafting of such an instrument. Thirdly, we support the approach taken by the Secretary-General with a view to achieving a balance with regard to conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Such a balance, particularly with regard to weapons of mass destruction, should be based on a clearer recognition of the rights and responsibilities of all States. Just as the Secretary- General appealed to Member States to accede to the various conventions on weapons of mass destruction, we, in turn, call on all Member States to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to overcome pending issues with regard to the Treaty. Indeed the de facto status of some States is prejudicial to the principles on the basis of which we agreed to an indefinite extension of the Treaty. We should insist on the implementation of the 13 practical steps agreed to at the 2000 Review Conference, with a view to achieving nuclear disarmament within a framework that ensures a much-needed balance between nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and the right to the peaceful use of atomic energy. Fourthly, respect for human rights and the spread of democracy and good governance cannot be imposed on States. They can be achieved only by increasing the conviction on the part of nations of the importance of democracy to human development, bearing in mind the social, cultural and ethnic conditions and specificities of each State. I would like to emphasize that our individual countries have made substantial progress in these fields. However, the theory of the “responsibility to protect”, advocated in the report, could become a threat to the principle of the national sovereignty of States and could usher in a new era of intervention in the internal affairs of countries, particularly given that the legal underpinnings of the theory remain unclear and that it relies on an increasing division of responsibilities among the State, the international community and the Security Council. The concept has no legal or practical basis within the international community. In this context, the proposal to establish a Human Rights Council appears to be an attempt to create a new principal organ additional to the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. In our view, the proposed new council would undermine the responsibilities assigned to the Commission on Human Rights and the Third Committee and would alter the intergovernmental nature of the international human rights review process, particularly as the mandate of the proposed council and its relation to other relevant bodies remain unclear. Fifthly, we stress that any institutional reform must ensure that a delicate balance is maintained among the functions and mandates of the various organs of the United Nations. It should essentially aim at revitalizing the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, with the objective of enabling both organs to effectively carry out their mandates without necessarily burdening the Security Council with additional responsibilities. It should also promote the role of the International Court of Justice in upholding international law. In that context, the proposal to establish a Peacebuilding Commission would be valid only if the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council were able to carry out their respective mandates during both the preventive diplomacy and post-conflict peacebuilding phases, while the responsibility of peacemaking remained with the Security Council. In this context, we believe that the reform and expansion of the Security Council in the categories of both permanent and non-permanent membership is inevitable for ensuring the transparency and credibility of the Council on the one hand, and equitable representation for the developing countries and for all cultures and civilizations on the other. I must stress that Africa was at the forefront in calling for no less than two permanent seats, with all the rights and privileges enjoyed by the current permanent members of the Council. I would also like to highlight the African consensus that institutionally opposes the right of veto, but that at the same time insists on the extension of that right to new permanent members. The philosophy behind that position is the belief that a permanent member without the right of veto is, in fact, just a non-permanent member that enjoys a longer tenure. Thus, given the enormous responsibilities that new permanent members of the Council would have, they should be elected in a manner that reflects the strongest possible support from the international community — by a majority that would confirm confidence in their ability to undertake effectively their membership responsibilities, in particular with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security. Those are some examples of fundamental issues to be considered in the course of the review of the Secretary-General’s report. In our view, they cover a small part of the comprehensive report, which is to be discussed in further detail during our deliberations on the various clusters. I assure you, Mr. President, of the full support of the delegation of Egypt as you carry out your mission, whose goals we share, with a view to achieving a satisfactory outcome.

I would like to begin by expressing, on behalf of Colombia, our great sadness at the passing of the holy father, His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the spiritual guide of our country. We would also like to offer our heartfelt condolences to the people of Monaco on the passing of Prince Rainier III, and to express our feelings of solidarity with his children and grandchildren at this difficult time. We would like to thank you, Mr. President, for having organized these meetings, which provide us with us an opportunity to express our views on the Secretary-General’s report (A/59/2005), for which we are grateful. We believe that that document merits careful study and that some of the recommendations it contains could be taken up during the intergovernmental negotiations on United Nations reform. My delegation associates itself with the statement made by the representative of Peru on behalf of the Andean Community; by the representative of Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement; and by the representative of Jamaica on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. My country believes that consensus must be central to the reform processes, with all its diverse elements. If Member States decide to redirect the mandates of the Organization, that decision must be taken by consensus if multilateralism is to be strengthened. We must begin this debate in a broad and frank manner, ensuring that all ideas, all points of view and all opinions are shared and expressed. The richness of our differences has been a source of strength for the Organization over the years. Now is not the time to stop this fruitful exchange of diversity and opinions. We are different; we are unequal; we live with those differences. The important thing is that we respect differences and be tolerant. We must not have a situation in which some dominate while others eke out a precarious existence. We must live together, with our differences, in order to create a better world for all. In this debate, which is just beginning, let us emphasize the need for respect and transparency, so that substantive issues may be dealt with openly. Such issues are the reform of the Security Council, the strengthening of structures to promote social and economic development and human rights, as well as to combat terrorism, the global illicit drug problem and transnational organized crime. Other problems, such as the use of force and the question of responsibility to protect, or humanitarian intervention, need further and careful analysis. The world of today may be different from that of 60 years ago, but great similarities still abound. Inequality among States is a constant, and the Organization still needs to commit itself to the genuine social and economic development of peoples. If there is a reform that is worth pursuing, it is one that involves a shift in focus and a commitment to cooperation for development, along with the promotion of sovereign equality. The Secretary-General’s proposals do not give priority to these aspects; rather, he proposes the creation of hierarchical councils with an exclusive membership and reduces development to a culture of assistance. The problems we face in 2005 are the same as those that existed in 1945. In the area of development, differences between North and South continue to exist. In the area of security, conflicts persist among and within States. Globalization has not benefited everyone equally. There are barriers to trade, despite the progress thus far achieved. Poverty persists, and disarmament remains the ideal of the few. The multilateralism of 60 years ago is as valid as ever, as it is a natural arena for relations among States. Throughout the years, the United Nations has welcomed new ideas and new concepts. Regardless of whose ideas they are, and regardless of the level of support initially accorded them, such ideas can be incorporated as long as a legitimate and equitable legal framework exists — one that is negotiated and accepted by all Member States. It is not appropriate to leave room for interpretations that could be used in an arbitrary way and that could foster greater inequality and polarization within the Organization. All such concepts, whatever they might be, should have a legitimate framework in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations, which remains as valid today as it was 60 years ago. The United Nations, as a forum for achieving a global consensus, has had success in the General Assembly — the only organ with universal membership. That consensus has led to the ratification of important international treaties in the areas of human rights, the environment, disarmament, terrorism, organized crime and illicit drugs, among others. We must not forget that achieving such a consensus is possible and that it is strengthened through cooperation, which must be the fundamental motivation underlying the relationships that are promoted and that develop in the Organization. That is why we believe that the General Assembly, as the most representative organ within the United Nations, must promote debate, embrace controversy and seek consensus while allowing everyone to participate equally. We regret the fact that development is being given progressively less space within the United Nations. We debate development issues in the Assembly and in the Economic and Social Council, but we do not have the capacity to implement decisions or to provide solutions. In terms of development, the United Nations is limiting itself to rhetoric. Assistance- related approaches and emergency solutions have been its responses to the need for progress and development of the majority of United Nations Members. We believe that true political will is required to eradicate poverty. Each State and the international community must work to meet the basic needs of the peoples of the world, and particularly those of the developing world. We believe that the Economic and Social Council must be more than just a forum for cooperation for development; it must become a high-level forum on development, so that its work can encompass all of the dimensions of sustainable development and the means and mechanisms aimed at achieving such development for all nations. To that end, it is important to tackle, in a coherent manner, issues such as the eradication of poverty, the asymmetrical economic order, trade distortions, the exclusionary international financial system, and the growing scientific and technological gap, among others. None of the recommendations dealing with the issue of human rights treats the question in depth or tackles the real problem. The problem is politicization, a lack of objectivity and selectivity in dealing with human rights in the world. This kind of focus has weakened the development of cooperation mechanisms, which can be very effective and advance the promotion and realization of human rights the world over. If we were to consider any of the recommendations mentioned in the report, we would favour that of a universal council and of a report on the human rights situation in all countries. Human rights relate first and foremost to the right to life, to liberty, to security and to the development of a person. Absent the right to life, there can be no other right. The commitment of the international community to fight terrorism must be unequivocal. We reaffirm that there is only one kind of terrorism; we cannot speak of first- or second-class terrorism, as their effects on societies are similar. Lack of political will cannot serve as an excuse to delay an agreement regarding the definition of terrorism. A commitment on the part of States is required in order to create the proper legal framework that is necessary to enable us to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Similarly, by fighting transnational organized crime, which encompasses the global illicit drug problem, we are also attacking the sources of the financing of terrorism. After eight years of work, the Secretary-General concludes, as he states in paragraph 191 of his report, that the United Nations requires en administrative transformation to “ensure more focused, orderly and accountable decision-making”. This indicates clearly that the Organization requires a transformation of its management to make it more effective and efficient; more communicative and transparent vis-à-vis Member States; and more professional and ethical, with mechanisms at its disposal for administrative control and accountability that would breach the gaps that currently exist. In order to achieve this, minimal institutional change is needed, as administrative issues do not require an in-depth reform of the United Nations. Before thinking about creating new divisions or departments, States must conduct en evaluation of the present status of the Secretariat and its needs. Corrective administrative measures should be implemented, and codes of conduct should be strictly applied in order to achieve excellence in terms of ethics and professionalism. With regard to the reform of the Security Council, my Government wishes to reiterate Colombia’s longstanding position. We are convinced that only a decision taken by consensus can prevent further divisions, which undoubtedly would weaken the United Nations and multilateralism. Consensus means strength and unity; it means committing ourselves to restoring the credibility and legitimacy of the principal organs of the United Nations. Consensus will ensure for the Organization at least another 60 years — not just another decade. In terms of multilateralism, regional organizations with knowledge of specific situations can play a valuable role. In this regard, it is important that our universal Organization coordinate its efforts with theirs and cooperate with them when conditions are conducive to so doing and when there is a need to involve them. Regional organizations have a fundamental role to play in the economic, social, and, in particular, political areas, as their perception of realities is unique and valuable and is therefore key to forging lasting and sustainable solutions. We believe that in this way multilateralism, both present and future, would be strengthened. What we want is multilateralism that respects the Charter of the United Nations and of the founding purposes and principles of the Organization. We believe in a multilateralism that gives priority to cooperation and that works in harmony with civil society, respecting differences in terms of responsibilities and of respective contributions to the multilateral system. In conclusion, I wish to reiterate my Government’s willingness to participate actively and constructively in this process — a process that we hope will be transparent, with ongoing open consultations with all Member States aimed at reaching consensus. We believe in the sovereign equality of States, and we believe that the Organization, and specifically this process, must work in a manner that ensures respect for this fundamental principle.

Allow me, first of all, to express the sorrow of the Government of Morocco, headed by the King of Morocco, and the people of Morocco at the news of the passing away of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, who honoured my country with a historic visit to Casablanca, during which he reached out to Muslims throughout the world. Moroccans will never forget him. We have also just learned today of the death of Prince Rainier III of Monaco, who left an indelible mark on his country’s history of recent decades and who had friendly relations with the King of Morocco, just as our two countries were joined in friendship. I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for all your efforts to ensure that the United Nations can adapt to new times and the instability they bring. I assure you of my delegation’s support in all your undertakings. We would also like to convey our gratitude to the Secretary-General, who has presented us with a report (A/59/2005) that is based both on the various discussions that have taken place at the United Nations in recent years and on more recent exchanges of views with regard to the Sachs report and the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (A/59/565). The Secretary-General’s own vision enriched the report of the Panel and made it more ambitious, balanced and realistic. The report presented to us by the Secretary- General certainly includes many elements that meet our expectations, although we believe that some aspects will have to be considered further and clarified. We hope that the contents of that document will make it possible, in the few months remaining before the summit in September, to generate the impetus necessary to achieve concrete results that enjoy everyone’s support. Five years after the adoption of the Millennium Declaration, which reflected the mobilization of the entire international community to give new impetus to the United Nations in this time of globalization, the Secretary-General is once again rallying all of us — this time to drastically reform the universal Organization and strengthen it so that it can survive the disputes that almost tore it apart in recent years. Essentially, the main question asked of us by Mr. Kofi Annan is whether we can resolve those disputes and renew the solidarity pact drafted by our founders nearly 60 years ago. There are numerous facets to that solidarity. The first is solidarity between rich and poor in fully implementing the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. The second is solidarity in facing new threats — individually or collectively — to the security of our peoples. That of course includes the threat of terrorism, but also that of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The third, although not the least, element of that solidarity is also the source of inspiration for the title of the report of the Secretary-General: the defence of freedom, human rights and democracy for everyone, everywhere. Each of those parts of course includes normative aspects, such as the commitments of the international community, as well as institutional aspects, such as structures to provide frameworks to ensure and monitor the implementation of the commitments undertaken. Philosophically speaking, the Secretary-General reminds us that the report is part of a whole and that the various parts of that solidarity pact are interrelated, and must therefore be read and discussed in that spirit. In other words, there cannot be development without security and the guarantee of freedom and the rule of law — and vice versa. The Kingdom of Morocco is determined to work to ensure that we will be able to benefit as much as possible from the report, which is an excellent working tool. We therefore hope that, between now and 14 September, our heads of State or Government will be able to come up with comprehensive proposals ready for adoption that are aimed at preserving the United Nations as the unique centre where all the efforts of nations are harmonized towards the common goals set out in the Charter. How can we act together with regard to each of those components of solidarity I have just mentioned? That is the main question. First of all, with regard to development, solidarity is clearly the responsibility of each country, which must mobilize and maximize its resources and distribute them equitably among its citizens. Rules of the game must be put in place to that end, and they must be followed in a transparent manner. That is the reason the Secretary-General has once again reiterated in his report something that has also been the theme of his term of office: the need to promote the rule of law. That means representative institutions and a set of rules in which the rights and obligations of all are spelled out and mainstreamed. Lastly, it means an independent and credible judiciary. The rule of law is the only way to inspire confidence among domestic and foreign investors and to guarantee sustainable development. However, given the great disparities that exist among regions with regard to resources, technological advances and the accumulation of knowledge, solidarity must also be expressed beyond borders. The Secretary-General has set a timetable for goals pertaining to official development assistance (ODA). The target is to achieve a level of ODA of 0.7 per cent of gross national income by 2015, and 0.5 per cent by 2009. The Secretary-General has also asked us to place emphasis on the granting of ODA to least developed countries, most of which are in sub-Saharan Africa. In that respect, we welcome the promises made by many developed countries in the context of September’s summit, including the United Kingdom, which will be presiding simultaneously over the European Union and the Group of Eight, for which we are convinced Luxembourg will have laid the groundwork. Moreover, we hope that the efforts of other countries, including France and Brazil, to find sources of lasting development financing will be successful. In all such efforts, the Bretton Woods institutions, with the support of the United States — the supreme economic Power — must play a more dynamic role, together with the United Nations through the Economic and Social Council. That organ must be reinvigorated. We believe that the Secretary-General’s proposals on that issue are inadequate and that emphasis must be placed on the coordinating function of the Economic and Social Council to ensure better regulation of transnational economic activity for development. Of course, the Council has a role to play in facilitating the transition of countries emerging from conflict. It must play that role side by side with the peacebuilding commission proposed by the Secretary-General, which must not depend — at least, not exclusively — on the Security Council. Finally, the rule of law within countries must be accompanied by enhanced rule of law at the international level, especially with respect to the rules governing international trade and investment, as well as the procedures governing the settlement of disputes. The fight against impunity through support for international penal tribunals and the International Criminal Court is also relevant in that respect. Finally, there is a need to facilitate the pacific settlement of disputes through the referral of cases, as necessary, to the International Court of Justice, which should be consulted more often by the United Nations when the Organization encounters legal difficulties. As to security, discussions to date have been dominated by the issue of Security Council expansion. That is a shame, because, while expansion is important in order to enhance the representative nature of that organ, we must not neglect the need to improve its response functions in crises threatening international peace and security. Of course, every region of the world has its own specificities, which must be taken into account in the expansion of the Security Council and its relations with regional and subregional organizations. I would recall here that the Charter institutionalizes a balance between the Security Council and the General Assembly that we must respect. The Council must address crises, threats, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression, whereas the Assembly must be the framework for general debates and the adoption of general rules through declarations or conventions. In other words, the Council must deal with tensions, crises and the settlement of disputes, the continuation of which may threaten international peace and security, but it must leave to the General Assembly any issue that calls for discussion and legislation in the medium and long terms. The only way to revitalize the functions of the General Assembly is to reinstitute its prerogatives and to protect them. Small procedural changes are, unfortunately, insufficient to revitalize the General Assembly. The Kingdom of Morocco profoundly believes that, if the members of this organ are to become more active, the Assembly must enjoy clearly defined and respected powers. As regards norms pertaining to the use of force and collective security, we must adhere strictly to the Charter and to its interpretation by the International Court of Justice, the principal United Nations organ of justice. Furthermore, the fight against terrorism must be the focus of all United Nations organs, given that organized transnational crime is multifaceted. In that respect, we welcome the consensus adoption of the draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism in the Ad Hoc Committee of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, which I have the honour to Chair. It is the most recent and thirteenth specialized convention, and as such I hope it will be seen as a lucky number, which it sometimes is. While the thirteenth convention on international terrorism has been drafted within the United Nations system, we lack a fourteenth, the most difficult of all — a comprehensive convention that will finally provide a definition of terrorism. Once the convention on nuclear terrorism has been adopted — hopefully, soon, under the presidency of Mr. Ping — we will have to strive to adopt the final convention, reflecting the international community’s agreement on a definition of terrorism that will help us better to understand and to fight that scourge effectively. The section of the report on freedoms and human rights is crucial, given the fact that the purpose of international law and institutions is to serve humankind and to protect its fundamental freedoms. Here again, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council have pivotal roles to play in the promotion of major international conventions on the protection of human rights and in the follow-up to States’ efforts to align their legislation and action with those conventions. The various expert committees created by major international human rights conventions play an essential role in monitoring their implementation and compliance on the ground. Of course, in that respect, we can never overemphasize the need to take into account the diversity of cultures and civilizations, as well as the varied pace and history of their social evolution. Finally, the Secretary-General rightly criticizes the current functioning of the Commission on Human Rights. However, the proposal to replace it with a human rights council remains vague and unclear. The size, role and place of the council have yet to be specified. We are ready to participate in the discussion to strengthen an institution that would be entrusted with protecting and promoting human rights. It can be seen that the Kingdom of Morocco is taking a constructive approach towards this stage of determining the future of the United Nations. We do not want to limit ourselves to criticism, as criticism can be easy. We are taking a constructive approach, and we want to see the process through. In his report, Mr. Kofi Annan has outlined an ambitious work programme, which includes reforms to make the Secretariat’s functioning more effective. From now through summer, we must work methodically and effectively to separate the primary from the secondary issues and avoid becoming distracted by purely conceptual debates — that is what universities are for. The President’s great natural authority will ensure our success. However, we must help him by demonstrating the necessary political will through July, as he has requested. The only way to do that is through a skilful combination of determination to succeed and flexibility in the process — with a hand extended so that we can all reach the goal together.

We associate ourselves with the expressions of grief at the sad passing of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, who, in a memorable visit to Chile, brought us a message of peace and hope in difficult times. We also associate ourselves with the condolences expressed in connection with the sorrowful death of Prince Rainier of Monaco. We welcome the report of the Secretary-General entitled “In larger freedom”. We consider it to be a useful point of departure, not the goal. Like all proposals, obviously, it can be improved upon. We believe that the report contains many positive elements and others that need to be further refined. But all of them should be taken up in a process of constructive dialogue. We support a comprehensive reform of the United Nations that encompasses the entire system and adopts a realistic approach that reaffirms and modernizes the key principles and values enshrined in the Charter. We must urgently create a more effective institution, one in keeping with the challenges of today’s world and including the reform of the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly. It is not enough to submit a package of minor reforms or deal selectively with one aspect or another. Undoubtedly, the process will not be easy, and it will require flexibility on the part of all delegations. Of course, in the end, no delegation will be 100 per cent satisfied on every point. We must understand that this is part of the negotiation process. Our challenge, then, is to approach the entirety of measures with pragmatism and a willingness to compromise. We share the view of the Secretary-General that security, development and human rights are indivisible and mutually reinforcing concepts. We attach central importance to development. Development cannot be delayed because of a limited concept of security. Indeed, without development, security can never truly be achieved. In that context, we welcome the proposals of the Secretary-General and his call for concrete action to achieve the goals and the objectives set out in the Millennium Declaration. Accordingly, Chile was an early and enthusiastic participant in the Action against Hunger and Poverty initiative, which, among other things, envisages a series of innovative mechanisms for development financing in order to increase current levels of official development assistance in keeping with the terms of the Monterrey Consensus. We consider pertinent the measures and time frames proposed in the report of the Secretary-General for the developed countries so that they can fulfil their commitment of allocating 0.7 per cent of their gross national product to official development assistance by 2015. As well, we agree that developing countries must strive to achieve better governance and a more transparent and efficient management of their resources and must adopt a development strategy involving civil society and the private sector. We agree that the special needs of Africa deserve a tangible and sustained cooperation effort. We also attach great importance to the early and successful conclusion of the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization negotiations. That is the appropriate forum for the liberalization of trade and for agreement on a set of clear and stable rules, particularly with respect to anti-dumping measures and the regulation of agricultural and textile subsidies. With regard to the fight against terrorism, we must make an effort to find common ground, including by agreeing on a definition of terrorism, as the Secretary-General has proposed. The adoption last week of the draft of an international convention on the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism is proof that progress is possible. It demonstrates that it is possible to reach agreement on sensitive issues related to terrorism. We believe that it is necessary to have more concrete institutional proposals on how, from a multilateral perspective, to tackle that and other threats more effectively through a unified approach avoiding duplication of efforts. In particular, my delegation believes that it is necessary to have in place an entity responsible for coordination among the various organizations and institutions that collaborate in the fight against terrorism in the United Nations system. We share the view that States should ratify and implement the conventions and protocols in force related to organized terrorism and should strengthen their national criminal justice systems. We believe it is essential to take human rights and due process aspects into consideration in the fight against terrorism. Both dimensions must be approached in a balanced fashion so that they are addressed in a way that does not impair the effectiveness of the fight against terrorism. In that context, attention should be given to the Secretary-General’s proposal to appoint a special rapporteur to report to the Commission on Human Rights on the compatibility of counter- terrorism measures with international human rights laws. We support the proposal to establish a peacebuilding commission to help countries through the transition from armed conflict to the rebuilding of their national institutions, and to help them overcome the traumas that result from those conflicts. We believe that the mandate of the commission would be incomplete without a strong conflict-prevention component, including the capability of monitoring potential conflicts and their possible spread. We agree with the report’s assessment that a new security agreement is needed, and we believe that such an agreement can and should be reached within the current parameters of the Charter of the United Nations. The report touches on some aspects of the use of force. We support the attempt to define a common criterion on the use of force without having to modify the Charter. That is why we support the proposal that a resolution be adopted setting out principles governing the use of force. We believe that that proposal would help to strengthen the rule of law at the international level, because it would lend greater legal predictability to the implementation of Chapter VII of the Charter. We agree with the rejection of unilateral preventive action. The Security Council has sufficient authority under the Charter to act in a preventive manner. Naturally, we understand that preventive action does not necessarily imply the use of force. Article 41 of the Charter mentions a series of non- coercive measures that the Council may take, which could be sufficient to deal with threats to international peace and security. We particularly welcome the fact that the report accords central importance to the rule of law in its various manifestations. We agree with the Secretary- General that the rule of law is strengthened by universal participation in multilateral agreements. In that connection, we also believe that the creation of a dedicated Rule of Law Assistance Unit within the Secretariat to assist national efforts is a positive recommendation that is similar to my delegation’s earlier proposal to establish a Secretariat focal point to coordinate United Nations action in post-conflict situations in the areas of the rule of law and national reconciliation. My delegation does not fear — and indeed looks forward with interest to — a constructive debate on the international collective “responsibility to protect” in situations of massive human rights violations or genocide if national authorities are unwilling or unable to protect their citizens. It is not a question of recognizing a right of humanitarian intervention or accepting pretexts for aggression, but rather of enunciating an international obligation to be exercised by the Security Council if States are unable to do so in extreme situations. In a collective security system faced with interconnected threats, is not genocide a threat to international peace and security? We must also ask ourselves: when tens of thousands of people begin to be massacred and the affected States are unable or unwilling to protect their populations, will we do nothing? Should the United Nations remain impassive? This is an important subject. We should always place more emphasis on the responsibility to prevent genocide or massive human rights abuses than on the “responsibility to protect”. With respect to mechanisms for promoting and protecting human rights, we agree with the report’s diagnosis regarding the Commission on Human Rights. That body has lost credibility. Unfortunately, as the report states, many States become members of the Commission either to attack other countries or to defend themselves against criticism. With regard to institutional alternatives, we are open to discussing various options for reform in that area. To echo the preceding speaker, the representative of Morocco, we have a constructive attitude. We agree on the importance of democracy as a universal right. We welcome the Secretary-General’s reference to the Community of Democracies — composed of some 140 Members of the Organization — which my country chairs. It is a body that is open to building bridges with the United Nations in promoting the democratic ideal. Likewise, we support the proposal to establish a Democracy Fund at the United Nations to provide assistance to countries that request it in order to establish or strengthen their democracies. We urgently need to restore to the General Assembly its importance as the highest deliberative body of the United Nations. We must improve the Assembly’s agenda and working methods. A major current challenge is to increase the interaction between the General Assembly and the Security Council and between the Assembly and civil society. Moreover, there needs to be a better division of the work of the Organization whereby a reformed General Assembly takes up some matters currently handled by the Security Council. With respect to the Economic and Social Council, we consider the proposal to hold annual ministerial-level assessments and to transform the high-level sessions into a biennial high-level forum to be sound. Reform must also extend to the Secretariat. There is a public perception that the United Nations has serious problems of management, administration and oversight in certain areas. Although the picture conveyed is often biased or may seem exaggerated, we cannot deny that problems exist and that reforms are urgently needed. Moreover, the Secretary-General must have greater authority and resources to implement the rationalization of the Secretariat. We agree with the Secretary-General’s proposal to strengthen the relationship between the United Nations and regional organizations in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter. The Security Council undoubtedly occupies a central place in this exercise of United Nations reform. My country has emphasized the need for a more representative, more legitimate and more effective Council. With regard to the Security Council’s composition, Chile favours increasing the number of permanent and non-permanent members. That would help to enhance the Council’s effectiveness, transparency and legitimacy. Chile has expressed — and now reaffirms — its support for a permanent seat for Brazil on a reformed Security Council. In that connection, we have also expressed our support for countries of other regions. Moreover, we support the idea of a greater presence for developing regions. In that regard, we must reiterate that, in the present report, the region called “Americas” — which transcends Latin America and the Caribbean — seems to be at a disadvantage compared with other regions. Indeed, in model A, the “Americas” region is allocated only one additional permanent seat, while other regions are allocated two new permanent seats. Security Council reform must not only encompass an increase in the number of members, but also include the Council’s procedures and working methods. In any case, we believe that if we take a decision on Council reform by September, we must clearly establish a membership review mechanism that would enable us to assess new members’ contributions. A reasonable date for such a review would be 2015. I wish to conclude by asking that we not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate beneficiaries of United Nations reform will not be Member States, but the average citizen. We must heed the people’s perceptions and demands of the United Nations, with its achievements and its problems, so that we can do much better in satisfying the yearning for peace, development and security.

At the outset, I wish to join in the condolences expressed by other speakers to the delegations of the Holy See and of Monaco. I should also like to thank the President of the General Assembly and to congratulate him on the way in which he is guiding our discussions. Switzerland commends the Secretary-General for his determination to reaffirm the role of the Organization and to equip it with more effective means and instruments to carry out its mission. The reform proposals presented on 21 March are ambitious, measured and realistic. I thank the Secretary-General for his wide-ranging vision of current challenges and take this opportunity to assure him of my country’s full support. The Secretary-General recommends that development, security and human rights be regarded as three fundamental and interdependent goals. Switzerland fully endorses that approach. Each of those goals is important in itself, but they are also interconnected and should be pursued in parallel. Switzerland particularly welcomes the importance afforded by the Secretary-General to respect for the rule of law and human rights, and his innovative proposal of establishing a human rights council. The Secretary-General has stressed on several occasions that his proposals should not be regarded as an à-la-carte menu from which to pick and choose as one pleases. Switzerland supports that approach because it believes that substantial progress needs to be made simultaneously in the four main areas of reform. As to the proposals under the heading “Freedom from want”, measures are required not only in the economic, commercial and social areas, but also to ensure environmental viability, prevent natural disasters, fight epidemics, and respond to urgent humanitarian needs. The international community must not agree on new development goals; it must implement those agreed upon at the Millennium Summit and the Monterrey International Conference on Financing for Development. In other words, we must honour our commitments. For industrialized countries, it is a matter of doing their share of the work as to the quality and volume of their public development assistance, the mobilization of additional financial resources, and the opening of their markets to developing countries. It is, however, just as crucial that developing countries formulate and implement strategies conducive to sustainable development, and that they mobilize local resources to the extent possible. As regards the attribution of development assistance, we must note that recent increases in public development assistance have primarily served to consolidate the resources of international financial institutions and to create new global funds. It is also important to make sure that appropriate resources are made available to United Nations funds and programmes in order for them to assume their tasks and responsibilities. The Secretary-General has proposed a great number of measures that we deem, on the whole, relevant, balanced and realistic. We must now examine them in detail and work together towards their implementation. With respect to the proposals under the heading “Freedom from fear”, Switzerland reaffirms its deeply held conviction that the provisions of the United Nations Charter governing the use of force do not require any adaptation or reinterpretation. The system of collective security established in the United Nations Charter is adequate and flexible enough to meet current threats and challenges. The Charter recognizes Member States’ individual right of legitimate self-defence when victim of an armed attack. Apart from cases of legitimate self-defence, it is the task of the Security Council to decide, on the basis of Chapter VII of the Charter, the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. The Secretary-General underlines the Security Council’s right to resort to armed force if necessary, including for the purpose of prevention, notably in cases of genocide or other crimes against humanity. In that context, Switzerland has noted with interest the Secretary-General’s proposal that the Security Council formulate criteria to specify the cases in which collective military intervention would be legitimate. We expect the Security Council to involve all United Nations Member States in the drafting of those criteria. A particularly interesting proposal is that of establishing a peacebuilding commission that would bridge the gap in international action that often exists between the peacekeeping phase and the development cooperation phase. Switzerland advocates that the commission report both to the Economic and Social Council and to the Security Council. In our opinion, the Secretary-General’s proposal, according to which that subordination should be sequential, does not sufficiently take into account the imperative of coordinated action by the two Councils in the area of peacebuilding, nor is it adapted to the multifaceted realities of countries in transition. The questions of subordination and the commission’s mandate require further reflection and work. My country also supports the new strategy against terrorism outlined by the Secretary-General. The possibility of access by non-State groups to weapons of mass destruction has singularly increased the risk of terrorism and compels us to consolidate our multilateral control systems for those weapons. Switzerland also believes that the fight against terrorism can achieve lasting success only if fundamental human rights are respected. In that context, we support the Secretary-General’s proposal that the Commission on Human Rights appoint a special rapporteur to examine the conformity of anti- terrorism measures with international norms for the protection of human rights. Respect for international law, the promotion of the rule of law and human rights, and the establishment of democratic structures are all important factors for peace and stability. Switzerland welcomes the importance that the Secretary-General attaches to them in his report and his willingness to make them one of his priorities for the rest of his mandate. We shall discuss our positions in further detail during the consultations specifically dedicated to that subject. As to the institutional strengthening of the United Nations, as I mentioned at the beginning of my statement, we particularly welcome the Secretary- General’s proposal of replacing the Commission on Human Rights with a human rights council that would hold several sessions throughout the year. Switzerland invites all United Nations Member States to give positive consideration to that idea and to discuss its modalities. At the institutional level, Switzerland also supports the proposals aimed at revitalizing the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. We are equally favourable to the strengthening of the multilateral environmental protection framework. That could be achieved by developing a more integrated structure, bringing together the United Nations Environment Programme, the bodies created by treaties, and the specialized agencies. Finally, Switzerland supports the Secretary- General’s proposals to delete certain obsolete provisions from the United Nations Charter. The Secretary-General’s proposals launch a new stage in the reform process. I wish to welcome once more the Secretary-General’s willingness to reform and call upon Member States to hold a constructive dialogue on the content of those proposals under the guidance of the President of the General Assembly, in whom we have full confidence.

First of all, let me join previous speakers in expressing my deepest condolences for the great losses of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III. All my sympathy goes to the members of their missions here in New York. The Government of San Marino cannot but agree with the Secretary-General when he states, in the introduction to his report “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all”, that the time has come for action, that the time for words and debates is now past, and that we must now move on to deeds. For many years, we have been discussing how we can implement a policy of reform. Now, thanks to the report of the Secretary-General and other recently issued important documents, we know exactly what needs to be done. All that remains for us to do now is to focus our efforts on how it should be done. San Marino also agrees that the approach taken should be comprehensive in order to ensure an effective response to all the closely interconnected threats facing us today. We must not give in to the temptation to establish priorities that might seem attractive at first but would ultimately prove to be uncertain. A peaceful world and the prosperity and well-being of the world’s people can be achieved only through an integrated approach founded on three essential pillars: development, security and human rights. To attempt to decide which of those three pillars is more important than the others is useless and futile. Although it is essential to ensure the implementation of a comprehensive programme of reforms, we cannot thereby sacrifice any of the principles that underlie international cooperation. The Republic of San Marino could not, therefore, accept the irreparable rift that a vote on the more important reforms, especially those involving a revision of the Charter, would cause within the international community. Those reforms, which would be opposed by a number of Member States, would be divisive and would threaten both the credibility of the Organization and the effectiveness of its actions. We therefore cannot agree with those States that want those reforms at any cost, and we oppose the Secretary-General’s idea that the reform of the Security Council might eventually be adopted without consensus. Another general comment that we feel we should make concerns the correlation between the recommendations contained in the report and their implementation by Member States. Although most of the recommendations are set out in clear and unequivocal terms, there is no mention of establishing a monitoring system that would at least inform States about the implementation of the programme of reforms. Such a mechanism would pressure Governments and encourage them to implement the recommendations adopted. A first specific comment we would make regarding the report’s recommendations concerns paragraph 6 (h) of its annex, in which the Secretary- General recommends that the Security Council adopt a resolution establishing the principles regulating the use of force by the Council itself. It is not clear to us what would be the purpose of this process, since, in our view, the Charter is fairly assiduous in defining the circumstances and limitations governing the use of force. Indeed, to the best of our knowledge, the Security Council has never been accused of having used excessive or unnecessary force but rather of not having used it when it was thought necessary. A regulation of this kind might further limit the use of force in situations where it is in fact necessary. We agree that States must assume “responsibility to protect” as the basis for action in cases of humanitarian catastrophes, but always on the understanding that, while it is the responsibility of each State individually, the exercise of that responsibility is collective and remains within the purview of the Security Council. This is the result of recommendation in paragraph 7 (b) of the annex to the report, which coincides on this point with the recommendations of the High-level Panel. With respect to the institutional reforms, we agree with the importance accorded by the Secretary-General to the revitalization of the General Assembly. Over recent years, certain reforms have been made in the Assembly’s working methods, with the result that they have been improved. However, those measures have not been sufficient to re-establish the authority that the most representative and democratic body of the United Nations should have. A drastic reduction in the agenda, aimed at focusing the Assembly’s attention on the major issues of the day, would be the first and most important step in the revitalization process. The recommendation that the Economic and Social Council should convene to assess urgent matters seems to us sensible and useful. Like the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council should be able to provide an immediate response, within the scope of its competence, to sudden threats to development that require rapid cooperation. The idea of creating a Human Rights Council to replace the Commission on Human Rights should be examined in greater detail. We agree that the Commission has lost credibility as a result of internal politicization. But why would a Human Rights Council be less vulnerable than a commission to a process of politicization? Even if the Council were composed of fewer members who would be elected directly by the General Assembly rather than by the Economic and Social Council, this does not seem to us sufficient to resolve the problems of this body. San Marino believes that the International Court of Justice has always been a critically important body, because the rule of law is the conditio sine qua non for democracy. San Marino is thus always ready to support proposals for strengthening the Court and its actions. In paragraph 7 (e) of the annex to his report, the Secretary-General mentions the possibility of strengthening the work of the Court, but he mentions no practical measures that might be adopted to that end. We would be particularly interested to know the Secretary-General’s ideas in this regard. These are our initial comments on the report. My delegation will certainly have further views during the thematic discussion to be held at a future date. In conclusion, I wish to thank the President for the manner in which he has facilitated consultations on the report. The transparency of the programme of work will enable all interested delegations to participate in the discussion of all the points raised.

First, I wish to express deepest sorrow on behalf of the people and Government of Brazil at the recent passing of His Holiness Pope John Paul II. I also take this opportunity to express our condolences at the demise of His Serene Highness, Prince Rainier III of Monaco. I wish to associate our delegation with the statement by the Permanent Representative of Jamaica on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, and that of the Permanent Representative of Argentina, to be delivered on behalf of the Rio Group. The plenary meeting today, under the guidance of the President, inaugurates a time for action and decision with regard to the future of the United Nations. The resolve to address threats and challenges facing the Organization and the international community will be put to test. I would like to commend the President and the facilitators for preparing for a debate that responds to the imperatives of urgency, a balance of priorities and broad consultation among Member States. I wish to congratulate the Secretary-General, as well as his staff, for the wide-ranging, exceptional document we begin considering today. Brazil shares the Secretary-General’s view that larger freedom — freedom from want, freedom from fear and freedom to live in dignity, for all peoples all around the globe — depends on our individual and collective capacity to advance the ideals of development, security and human rights in a concerted, forward-looking manner. As the Secretary-General underlines in paragraph 17 of his report, “Unless all these causes are advanced, none will succeed.” Brazil has consistently affirmed, throughout the years, the interdependence of these causes. As President Lula stressed last September in the Assembly’s 3rd plenary meeting, peace will never rise from poverty and hunger. If peace is our goal, it is our task to build it. We must address the deep-rooted origins of violence with the same resolve employed against the agents of hatred. In the coming weeks, according to the schedule we have adopted, the delegation of Brazil will be addressing in detail every aspect of the multifaceted reform we should no longer delay. At this stage, I will spell out our general views regarding many aspects contained in the report of the Secretary-General. As the report points out, achieving the Millennium Development Goals is an urgent task. As we prepare for the September summit, we fully endorse the recommendations related to the enhancement of official development assistance (ODA), as well as those to debt alleviation and trade. We acknowledge the reference made to the work undertaken by Brazil, Chile, France, Germany and Spain in the identification of innovative sources of finance. We fully support the call for the launching of an international finance facility (IFF) to support an immediate “front-loading” of ODA. The IFF is one of the mechanisms identified by the technical group’s first report issued in September 2004 and served as the basis for the discussions held at the world leaders meeting on “Action Against Hunger and Poverty”. Let me stress that the technical group is actively working with a view to refining its analyses as to other possible innovative sources of finance. We hope that, as a result of the work undertaken by the group, as well as in other forums, such as the World Bank/International Monetary Fund Development Committee and the G-8, useful ideas may be considered at the September summit. The Secretary-General’s report acknowledges the role being played by Brazil and other developing countries in the provision of cooperation. Brazil remains firmly committed to assisting other developing countries to the full extent of its capabilities. Yet, in order for South-South cooperation to be scaled up so as to have an impact on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals at the global level, international financial resources will have to be mobilized. Still, there is a need to deter environmental degradation and natural resource depletion. Brazil remains firmly committed to the successful implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol. My delegation intends to continue to contribute to international efforts within that framework, taking into account the principles contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Changes in the governance mechanisms of the international financial system are long overdue. We need a more democratic, stable and purposive international financial environment to lead us to development. Developing countries must obtain greater participation in the decision-making process of the international financial institutions. The Doha round must be completed no later than 2006 and in a manner that fulfils its development focus. From our standpoint, that can be achieved only by substantially reducing trade barriers, enhancing market access and eliminating all forms of trade distortion, especially subsidies to production and export. Technological research and development are key to achieving long-term sustained growth and changing living conditions in the developing world. Official development assistance is of crucial importance for building technological capacity, especially in least developed countries. South-South cooperation can also play an important role in disseminating knowledge and innovation that can be directly applied to fundamental development problems and constraints. In addition to that, the United Nations must implement specific policies that facilitate access to technology, technological development and technology transfer at the international level. Debt reduction and debt sustainability are other key elements for a successful global development strategy. In the case of heavily indebted poor countries, Brazil concurs on the need for exclusively grant-based financing and 100 per cent debt cancellation. Careful attention should be paid to middle-income countries — countries that suffer a severe debt burden, sometimes leading to serious financial crises. That is the case of a number of countries in Latin America, including Brazil. Our countries have undertaken major institutional and legal reforms and are committed to sound financial and macroeconomic policies. The international financial community is called upon to support such efforts by providing comprehensive debt relief that would allow us better conditions in which to pursue the Millennium Development Goals. In the human rights field, we believe that there is space for improvement. Brazil has argued in favour of the elaboration of an annual global report on human rights, which would build on objective information gathered by human rights mechanisms and special procedures. Our aim should be to reduce the politicization for which the United Nations treatment of human rights, both in the Commission on Human Rights and in the General Assembly, is known. The strengthening of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could better capacitate it for the elaboration of such a report. Human rights are a central matter in the process of reform. Careful consideration should be given to proposals, such as the creation of a human rights council, that could confer on the promotion and protection of human rights a priority compatible with present-day needs. On humanitarian assistance, we welcome the specific references to funding and access, which may shed light on how to overcome some of the obstacles we now face, and to the need for more reliable and predictable resources to provide assistance to people affected by complex emergencies or natural disasters. A global sum for humanitarian assistance should be raised on the basis of existing needs and allocated in a non-discriminatory, balanced and proportionate manner. On access, States have the primary responsibility to deliver assistance to their population. If they are unable to do so, however, they must ensure the safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel to those in need. Threats to peace and security include not only international war and conflict, but also civil violence, organized crime, terrorism, poverty and deadly infectious diseases. That new concept of collective security can help to provide the tools needed to meet the most compelling contemporary threats to the international community. The United Nations must be more effective in preventing conflict and reducing the risk and prevalence of war by addressing their root causes. Prevention must be central in our efforts and would necessarily include combating poverty and promoting sustainable development. The proposed establishment of a peacebuilding commission is a concrete expression of such a vision. Brazil has long affirmed the need for due consideration to be paid to transitional processes, from post-conflict to sustainable peace. We view positively the functions foreseen by the Secretary-General for such a commission, as set out in paragraph 115 of his report. We believe that the Commission, in order to bring together the objectives of peace, security and development, should answer to both the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council in a sequential manner, depending on the phase of the conflict considered. The same preventive reasoning should also apply to one of the most pressing issues of our times: terrorism. Given the urgency and high visibility of that issue, the General Assembly, which recently concluded the draft convention on nuclear terrorism, should redouble its efforts to adopt a comprehensive international instrument to combat terrorism. The threat posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons — a problem that seems carried over from another era — is today complemented by new ones: the proliferation of nuclear weapons in contravention of international law, and the risk of non- State actors, especially terrorists, having access to them. Brazil is of the view that collective measures are needed to ban all weapons of mass destruction. We therefore attach equal importance to efforts aimed at disarmament and to those aimed at non-proliferation while preserving the legitimate right of States to the peaceful use of the technologies involved. In that context, Brazil favours action on the basis of multilateral negotiations and agreements grounded in the established and universal treaty-making process, rather than simple recourse by the Security Council to improvisation and to coercive measures. The role of the Security Council should not be overemphasized in these matters. We support the Secretary-General’s proposals on restoring the balance among the principal organs of the United Nations. As far as reform of the Secretariat is concerned, we agree with the understanding that a capable and effective Secretariat is indispensable to the work of the United Nations. We also agree that the transparency and accountability of the Secretariat must be improved. We are therefore willing to review all mandates older than five years as well as the budget and human resource rules under which the United Nations operates. The General Assembly’s prestige as the Organization’s chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ must be restored. We support bold measures by which the General Assembly would rationalize its work, speed up and focus its deliberative processes and strengthen the authority of its President. The Assembly must also concentrate on addressing the major contemporary political issues. The Economic and Social Council too must be strengthened so that it can play a relevant role in policy coordination and implementation, and in the monitoring and follow-up of commitments in the economic and social fields, especially those to be agreed by next September. We fully agree that means for a high-level dialogue with the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization should be further explored. As to the Security Council, discussions since the inauguration of the present session of the General Assembly have demonstrated that there is general agreement on the need and urgency of reforming that body in order to make it more legitimate, representative, democratic and transparent. No reform of the United Nations will be complete without reform of the Security Council. As the Secretary-General has stated in his report, a decision on that important issue should be taken before the summit in September 2005, and although it would be far preferable for Member States to take such a vital decision by consensus, “if they are unable to reach consensus this must not become an excuse for postponing action” (A/59/2005, para. 170). During the present session, a very large majority of States have expressed their support for reform that contemplates the creation of new permanent and non- permanent seats in an expanded Security Council, in line with the description put forward in the High-Level Panel report as model A (see A/59/565, para. 252). As is widely known, Brazil favours an expansion based on model A. We believe that only an expansion in both membership categories will make the Council more representative of the present-day international community as a whole and hence more legitimate. Such reform should also encompass the Security Council’s working methods and should be subject to review after a number of years. Together with Germany, India and Japan, Brazil was encouraged by the interest and turnout at last week’s informal outreach meeting with regard to the Security Council reform process. We look forward to further exchanges of views in that respect in the conviction that such efforts may help and complement the President’s indispensable endeavours in guiding the membership to a decision. There is no doubt that we live in a world that has been transformed from that of 1945. We must now also transform the universal institution created then. The United Nations is the common, universal framework in which development, security and human rights will best be realized in the twenty-first century.

Allow me at the outset to convey our condolences to the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See on the passing away of Pope John Paul II, and to express our sympathy to the Principality of Monaco on the loss of His Serene Highness Prince Rainier III. We wish to thank the President of the General Assembly for organizing these meetings to hear initial reactions to the report of the Secretary-General entitled “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all” (A/59/2005). We also wish to thank the Secretary-General for the report, which provides guidance on the many important issues that will be considered at the summit to review the Millennium Declaration and the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which is scheduled for September 2005. At the same time, we wish to associate ourselves with the statements made by the delegation of Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the delegation of Jamaica on behalf of the Group of 77 and China and the delegation of Malawi on behalf of the African Group. We come to this meeting strengthened by the collective and detailed decisions that the African Union has taken on many of the issues reflected in the Secretary-General’s report. Those decisions are set out in the Ezulwini Consensus adopted at the meeting of the Executive Council of the African Union held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on 7 and 8 March 2005. Prior to the release of the Secretary-General’s report, a delegation made up of the Foreign Minister of Ghana, the Foreign Minister of Nigeria and former President Konare of Mali, Chairman of the African Union Commission, came to New York to present the Secretary-General with a copy of the Ezulwini Consensus. The Ezulwini Consensus is comprehensive in its response, which makes our task easy in reiterating and recommitting ourselves to the position that Africa has already taken on the issues before us. However, for the purposes of this meeting, we would like to comment on some issues that are of special interest to my delegation. We are pleased that the Secretary-General’s report has recognized the importance of development as one of the pillars of a new collective security system. We concur with the report’s statement that the world has the resources to reduce dramatically the divide that persists between the rich and the poor. In fact, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, in the Millennium Project report, showed that if donor countries would disburse the pledges already made at the major international conferences and summits of the past decade towards supporting development, the Millennium Development Goals could be achieved. The Secretary-General has also come out in support of the development agenda, for which we are highly appreciative. In the Millennium Declaration it is recognized that the international financial and trading institutions and systems are central in the creation of an environment that is conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty. Those international financial and trading institutions occupy an important place, as they provide resources for development and as they are also important actors in policy formulation. Together with the rest of the United Nations system, they will also need to provide assistance to developing countries that seek to elaborate the proposed MDG- based development strategies. We believe that those institutions should enhance their support for all efforts by developing countries aimed at achieving the MDGs. As we seek to strengthen development cooperation, we also wish to emphasize the importance of the reform of those international financial and trading institutions with a view to ensuring transparency and to giving developing countries a bigger role in policy formulation and rule making. A global breakthrough on international trade is important for the achievement of the MDGs, and this requires that progress be made in the Doha development round. Market access, particularly with respect to agriculture, would provide critical resources needed by developing countries to support development. Addressing supply-side constraints, including capacity-building, would also enable developing countries to earn improvement of their competitiveness and of their productive capacities. As we have stated before, we would expect the Millennium review summit to focus on the special needs of Africa that were recognized in the Millennium Declaration. In the Millennium Declaration, the international community resolved to take special measures to address the challenges in Africa of poverty eradication and sustainable development, including debt cancellation, improved market access, enhanced official development assistance and increased flows of foreign direct investment and transfers of technology. In his report, the Secretary-General recognizes that sub-Saharan Africa continues to be the epicentre of the development crisis and that it is falling seriously short of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. We wish to urge the international community to support the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, which is the sustainable development framework for Africa and which has already been adopted by this body as the framework for the Organization’s engagement with the continent. We wish also to highlight the importance of direct support for regional cooperation, in particular for regional infrastructure projects, as proposed by the Millennium Project. We also welcome the Secretary-General’s focus on HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. In addressing those diseases the international community should support a comprehensive approach that also focuses on the development of the overall health infrastructures of developing countries. We are also pleased that the report has highlighted the importance of gender equality and access to sexual and reproductive health services as a critical component of women’s empowerment. We welcome the expanded proposals of the Secretary-General regarding the establishment of a peacebuilding commission and a peacebuilding support office to assist countries emerging from conflict. We believe that the new details on the peacebuilding commission contained in the Secretary-General’s report will enrich further discussions with other delegations on the modalities for the establishment of that body. We appreciate the fact that the Secretary- General will provide even more details on the commission in the coming days. We have always believed that the peacebuilding commission has an important role to play in assisting countries emerging from conflict to develop a comprehensive and long- term approach to building conditions for peaceful existence. We also support the Secretary-General’s call for a stronger relationship between the United Nations and regional organizations. In conclusion, we wish to recall that in the Ezulwini Consensus, the African Union highlighted the strengthening of the principal organs of the United Nations. Regarding the General Assembly, the African Union believes that it must be strengthened to play its proper role as the most representative and democratic body within the United Nations system. The intergovernmental nature of the General Assembly should be preserved to ensure that it remains essentially a forum of intergovernmental dialogue. The African Union further believes that there is a need to improve the balance of competencies and the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council. We believe that the Economic and Social Council should be strengthened so that it can fulfil its role as the central mechanism for the coordination of the activities of the United Nations system and its specialized agencies and so that it can play a pivotal role in furthering the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. On the matter of the reform and enlargement of the Security Council, Africa has expressed its preference that it have not less than two permanent seats and five rotating non-permanent seats. The African Union has clearly stated that its seeks permanent seats that are truly permanent, that is, no different from the existing five permanent seats and enjoying the same prerogatives and privileges, including the right of veto. We are encouraged that the Secretary-General has implored Member States to take a decision on the important issue of reform of the Security Council before September. We in Africa are ready to engage with other delegations on this matter.