STATEMENT BY THE PERMANENT
REPRESENTATIVE OF MEXICO, AMBASSADOR ENRIQUE BERRUGA, IN THE PLENARY MEETING
OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: "IN LARGER
FREEDOM: TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT, SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL". (AGENDA
ITEMS: 45 AND 55).
New York, N. Y., April 8, 2005
Mr.
President,
With the
presentation of the report of the Secretary-General, the proposals of the
High- level Panel and the Sachs report, we now have three major intellectual
and political inputs to guide our deliberations. The consultations which you
have organized, Mr. President, allow the various delegations to set out
their positions on key aspects of the United Nations. It should be borne in
mind, however, that once these consultations have been completed, the main
challenge to our Organization will remain. And that is to reach agreement on
how to implement and follow-up the measures that we adopt
Mexico
believes that we are on the threshold of extensive and complex negotiations.
The successive rounds of consultations have provided an indication of the
views and positions of Member States. Negotiations are now necessary to
reach agreements and to implement our commitments.
We must
establish without further delay the terms of these important negotiations.
The framework of reference should meet the following criteria:
-
Preserve the unity of purpose and goals which we collectively pursue in
the United Nations;
-
Strengthen the framework for action and the effectiveness of multilateral
diplomacy;
-
Be
clear that the challenges and threats we are facing are the ones that
determine the changes in the structures and the institutional architecture
and not the opposite. The reforms that we promote must be aimed at
effectively addressing the major problems of development, security and
human rights. This will be the guideline for defining the type of
structures and institutions that we need;
-
The
major problems of the world are cross-cutting. Our global organization
therefore needs a comprehensive reform The relationship between security
and development needs to be addressed simultaneously and with equal
determination;
-
To
strengthen the efficiency of the institutions, their legitimacy,
transparency and accountability;
-
The
tenor of the negotiations must instill a sense of urgency to restructure
our system and provide for collective benefits and adequate attention to
those challenges which no single country can salve on its own;
-
In
short, Mr. President, we believe that the road map ahead must take us from
the debate to the forging of agreements and from there to negotiations and
the implementation of our collective decisions.
The
countries that are members of the Group of Friends for the Reform of the
United Nations, which was convened at the initiative of President Vicente
Fox, had the opportunity to contribute to this process thorough the
presentation of 14 documents containing proposals. We are ready and willing
to continue to support the efforts of the Secretary-General and your efforts,
Mr. President. In the coming months, the Group will intensify its efforts to
promote the implementation of various proposals for reform.
Mr.
President,
Given
the increasing complexity of the challenges we face today, my country has
stressed the need for a comprehensive reform of the Organization.
We
consider that a such a reform, as set out by the Secretary-General,
comprises tour fundamental aspects: development, security, rule of law and
human rights. However, this approach requires the design of a new
institutional architecture. Indeed, the structure of our Organization has to
prove it self able to provide answers and solutions in these areas. It is
both futile and risky to lose sight of this aspect of a balanced
institutional reform like the one envisioned by the Secretary-General in his
report and which, in our opinion, deserves serious consideration.
It is
necessary to provide the organs responsible for each of these areas the
authority and resources they need to discharge their mandates. In practice,
the only main organ, hence its relevance, that shows the capacity to enforce
compliance with its resolutions is the Security Council considering that its
resolutions are obligatory under article 25 of the Charter. In the cases of
the General Assembly, ECOSOC or the Human Rights Commission we know that the
legal nature of its resolutions is different. We cannot deny this reality of
the Charter. However, the system will not work at its full capacity if these
Organs act separately and at different rhythms.
The
General Assembly is perfectly capable of remedying this lack of coordination
of the efforts of the United Nations. It is for the General Assembly to have
the overall vision, since it represents the whole of the community of
nations. However, we note that the resolutions of the General Assembly, even
though they reflect the main currents of opinion in the world, have
alarmingly little transforming capacity.
If this
trend continues, we will have a United Nations that is dominated by the
Security Council without any counterweight or alternatives. Thus, when a
humanitarian crisis arises, it is not the Commission on Human Rights that
takes the primary raje but rather the Security Council. We have the recent
example of Darfur. When crises that are rooted in poverty and poor
governance arise, it is not the Economic and Social Council that has the
resources and capacity to address them but rather the Security Council. Here
we have the recent example of Haiti.
Furthermore, we are at risk of burdening the Security Council agenda with
added tasks that will end up undermining its functioning and efficiency. It
is thus necessary for the different organs in the system to fulfill their
functions with a comprehensive view.
Seen in
this light, any perceptive observer would conclude that reform of ECOSOC and
of the Commission on Human Rights is more urgently needed than reform of the
Security Council, which in this context seems to be enjoying relatively good
health. But we know that this is not the case: the main accent in the reform
is being placed on the Security Council and only tangentially on the other
components of our system, including the General Assembly.
Mr.
President,
The
Secretary-General proposes an Organization based on the interaction between
three Councils, a Commission and the General Assembly; a new institutional
organization that responds to the proposal of a comprehensive reform. This
vision could even get started with Mexico's proposal to create an
Institutionalized Consultative Mechanism in which the chairs of the
principal organs of the United Nations and of its subsidiary organs, would
participate where appropriate. The mechanism would help to detect in a
timely manner situations that could lead to conflicts and which need to be
addressed from different perspectives. We believe that prevention of
conflicts should be a continuous task of the Organization as a whole.
In this
connection, we support the proposal to establish a Peacebuilding Commission.
This mechanism would strengthen international peace and security, hence the
need to link it to the Security Council. But it will also be a mechanism
whose action in the economic and social fields will necessarily situate it
close to ECOSOC and the General Assembly. Faced with these choices, we
believe that it is for the General Assembly to first define the mandate of
this new structure as well as its proper place within the Organization.
With
regard to the creation of a Human Rights Council, we note the
well-intentioned proposal of the Secretary-General to elevate the status of
this important question. Yet, we consider that the Council's attributes and
composition should be defined by the General Assembly and surmount the
shortcomings and weaknesses that the Commission on Human Rights has shown.
The
Council should not ignore the important work of codification in which the
Commission on Human Rights is now engaged and should open the necessary
political spaces for it to have a plural vision of the question. This organ
should have the capacity to alert and to respond to grave humanitarian
crises. It should operate in a manner consistent with the norms of
implementation that we determine on the basis of the concept of
responsibility to protect.
Mexico
agrees with the Secretary-General that there is a close relationship between
human rights and security. In that sense, we agree on the need for the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to play a more active role
in the deliberations of the Security Council and, where necessary, of the
Peacebuilding Commission. We are convinced that it is impossible to achieve
peace and stability without an active policy to protect human rights.
Security
Council reform must be seen in the light of the new institutional
architecture that we are proposing. The Council's interaction with a
proposed future Human Rights Council or with a reformed Human Rights
Commission, a Peacebuilding Commission and with ECOSOC would define a new
structural balance and new rules.
On the
question of representation on the Security Council, Mexico, together with
other countries, has called for a negotiated and consensus formula. Only in
this way can we avoid fissures within the Organization.
We have
already stated our preference for an increase in the number of elected
members and in the length of their mandates with the possibility of
re-election for those States whose tenure has demonstrated a solid
commitment to the purposes of our Organization. This option would encourage
accountability.
Mr.
President,
In this
context, the report of the Secretary-General is a call for a major revision
of our Organization. It is a powerful appeal for convening a round of
negotiations that will lead to better utilization of the institutions that
we have all built together and perhaps for adding new structures. The new
reviewed strength of multilateralism needs to be built on a broad consensus,
as a political expression, on the role that we want to entrust to the United
Nations. It therefore seems dangerous for the functioning of our
Organization to propose partial solutions or those that are not the fruit of
broad agreement. Should we follow that course, the most likely result will
be a fragmented organization that may be potentially hurt by antagonisms.
Perhaps
it is not realistic to expect that a comprehensive reform of the United
Nations could be carried out from now until September. What we can
reasonably expect is that in short period of a few months we can lay the
foundations for a negotiation that will give rige to the institutional
architecture of the future.
Mexico
views the United Nations as a forum for cooperation and mutual and
respectful support between nations. It is not a battlefield, but a space for
seeking global solutions. To destroy that spirit is risky and probably
irreversible.
Thank
you very much.
* * *
