Mr President,
The Secretary-General's introduction to
his report on the work of the Organization deals with the humanitarian challenge. And his
remarks at the opening of the general debate focussed on the prospects for human security
and intervention in the next century. From the outset, I want to pay a tribute, on behalf
of the Government of Sweden, for the way that Secretary-General Annan has addressed these
vital issues.
They are vital for us in this General
Assembly, as well as for the members of the Security Council, and for our entire
organization.
They are vital for all the governments
that we represent.
And, above all, they are vital for all
individuals, around the world, whose security and even survival is threatened by
humanitarian catastrophes.
We have seen many examples of such
catastrophes this past year.
The violence in East Timor, by forces who
refused to accept the rules of democracy, which led to extensive destruction in a
territory that should have been allowed to start its road to independence in peace.
The ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, which
forced close to a million people to leave their homes, their villages – and many
times also their own family members.
And another horrific example, which I
will never forget - the children in Sierra Leone, thousands of them mutilated by the
rebels, abducted from their parents, forced to use drugs, used as child soldiers, and
suffering from the worst mistreatment.
The United Nations was founded to save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war. The security of each member state was then
at the centre of attention. And the Charter established a system for collective security.
Never again would a state be attacked by another state, without the rest of the world
coming to its rescue.
But security is not only a matter for
states. Security is also a need for individuals. Far too many people on this planet are
subject to persecution and oppression and live under circumstances that threaten their
lives. As fellow human beings, we can not ignore this, even if it occurs across a border,
in another state. The principle of national sovereignty can not be used as a curtain
behind which gross violations of human rights are carried out with impunity.
It is the view of my Government that the
security of the individual must be regarded as important as the security of states. These
two objectives are intertwined. The long-term security of a state depends upon the
security and well being of its inhabitants. But much too often, in the past, the security
of the state has been used as an excuse or pretext for actions that undermine the security
of its people.
The Secretary-General spoke eloquently in
this hall, on 20 September, about the collective conscience of humanity – a
conscience that abhors cruelty, renounces injustice and seeks peace for all peoples. To
us, that conscience also implies an obligation for the international community to take
action in situations where the security of people is imperilled.
The United Nations is the obvious forum
for dealing with such situations.
Therefore, more must be done to make the
UN able to rise to that challenge, first of all in the field of preventing conflicts. My
Foreign Minister announced in the general debate that her government has adopted an action
programme that we hope can help change the focus, from crisis management to early
preventive action. And let us not forget that the UN already has at its disposal several
instruments for preventive diplomacy, which should be used more frequently.
First of all, there is a need to address
the root causes of conflict. This includes eradicating poverty, achieving sustainable
development and promoting human rights and good governance world-wide.
There is also a need to strengthen the
capacity to bring relief to victims of natural disasters and armed conflict, and to do
more to prevent emergencies from arising.
That is perhaps easy to agree on.
But the more difficult question is how
the international community should treat violent disputes if they occur entirely within a
country. How do we deal with the dilemma of wanting to respect each nation's sovereignty
while seeking to improve human security everywhere? Or more precisely: Should the fact
that a humanitarian catastrophe occurs within the borders of a state automatically hinder
this Organization from taking action? We think not.
As the Permanent Representative of
Singapore said in this debate on Wednesday, in practice, sovereignty has never been
absolute. First of all, an internal dispute may well constitute a threat to international
peace and security and therefore warrant action by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
That is why my Government thought it would have been appropriate, this past spring, to
have a Security Council decision to halt President Milosevic's actions in Kosovo, and we
regret that this was not possible.
There may also be other instances when
the UN needs to take action, including enforcement measures, to stop a humanitarian
catastrophe. This will always require a case-by-case judgement, but the decisions should
be taken within a framework on which we have all agreed. The challenge before us is to
define that common ground, to find the basis on which we will be able to take action, when
human security is threatened, in accordance with the principles and purposes of the
Charter. The Commission on Global Governance a few years ago presented an interesting
proposal on how intervention could be authorized in cases that constitute a violation of
the security of people so gross and extreme that it requires an international response.
Whatever result we achieve in this
process, one key fact must be borne in mind – the primary responsibility of the
Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. We are all aware
of the recent examples of how the Council has been paralyzed, and then bypassed by
individual states our groups of states taking action instead. I would therefore like to
conclude with a word of support for the ongoing efforts to restore the authority of the
Security Council and to strengthen its legitimacy. My Government believes that an enlarged
Security Council, better reflecting the realities of today's world, would also better
serve the interests and the security of all peoples. The time has come for turning this
widely shared belief into concrete action.
Permanent
Mission of Sweden to the United Nations