Protagonists: hunger, poverty, reforms and plagues of locusts

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Protagonists: hunger, poverty, reforms and plagues of locusts

Britain and the UN

“It Will Not Always Be Like This”

Statement of Palestine Liberation Organisation

Speech by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw at the UN General Debate

BY FELIX CAPOTE—Granma International staff writer — Havana. September 30, 2004

On Tuesday September 21, 80 heads of state and/or government attended the opening session of the 59th UN General Assembly at its headquarters in New York City. Two important parallel summits preceded this assembly on the Monday: the first convened by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the second by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

            The ILO meeting on globalisation discussed its social aspects and the obstacles to meeting the UN’s millennium development goals. Lula’s meeting concentrated on worldwide poverty and hunger.

            In both forums the outstanding participants were Lula himself and French President Jacques Chirac. Lula affirmed that poverty is the most lethal weapon of mass destruction humanity has ever created. The French leader confirmed that chronic hunger is still increasing, and called for everyone’s commitment to achieving a fairer distribution of the benefits of economic development.

            In his opening speech, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed his horror at the devastating effect of internal wars, ethnic cleansing, and acts of terrorism, and called for a vigorous reaffirmation of international law to fulfil the responsibility of protecting the civilian victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

            “As I warned this Assembly five years ago, history will severely judge us if we do not comply with this task, or if we think that we are exempt from international law by invoking national sovereignty,” the secretary general affirmed.

            Annan stated that the General Assembly agenda should prioritise a state of law and urged his audience to sign and ratify a series of treaties and conventions drawn up by this world forum to protect victims of armed conflicts among the civilian population.

            As this issue goes to press, more than 25 of the countries attending the Assembly had ratified or announced their intention to ratify those treaties via their heads of state or government.

            Among the 27 conventions and protocols directly or indirectly related to civilian victims of conflicts are the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, the Convention against Torture, and the Statute of Rome, which instigated the International Criminal Court.

            Other conventions include those regulating safety for UN employees, the optional protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the protocol against the illegal manufacturing and trafficking of weapons.

            From the beginning of the 20th century, the Geneva Conventions, a basic source of international humanitarian law, constituted the first attempt to regulate war.

            Before the General Assembly, Annan mentioned several examples of flagrant violations of UN treaties and conventions.

            “In Darfur, we saw entire populations displaced, their houses being destroyed, and rape utilised as a deliberate strategy. In northern Uganda, we see mutilated children forced to participate in acts of unspeakable cruelty. In Beslan, we see children taken captive to be brutally massacred,” Annan observed.

            The secretary general also mentioned civilians, including children, slaughtered in Israel and in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza.

            Annan emphasised: “Worldwide we see people prepared to commit crimes inspired by propaganda infusing hatred of Jewish, Muslim or any other groups identified by the aggressor as different.

            Annan considered the invasion of Iraq as illegal, and also criticised the growing number of deaths among civilians caused by U.S. bombardments.

AGAINST THE US BLOCKADE OF CUBA

            Gambian President Ahaji Yahya and other African leaders added their voices to those calling for an end to the U.S. blockade of Cuba, in place for more than 40 years.“

            Cuba, another great friend of Gambia, continues living under various forms of embargo and restrictions, the president affirmed in his address to the General Assembly, giving an account of the main problems of the world.

            The leader pointed out that nobody should abide by unilateral punitive measures having an adverse impact on innocent civilians.

            Earlier, in their addresses, Namibian President Sam Nujoma and Lesotho Prime Minister Pakalitha Mosisili demanded an end to the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

            Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade made an emphatic call to combat the plagues of locusts in Africa that are threatening the lives of millions of people. He also proposed the creation of a digital solidarity fund to bridge the gap between the African continent and other regions of the world.

            U.S. President George W. Bush attended the UN Assembly solely to restate that even if the UN did not approve of it, his decision to invade Iraq was right.

            On the other hand, several Latin American leaders explained their most urgent problems in the international sphere. Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo demanded that Japan extradite former president Alberto Fujimori. The Paraguayan head of state asked for an end to protectionist measures in trade, and Bolivian President Carlos Mesa emphasised his country’s need for direct access to the sea.

            In addition, small insular states made their voices heard in the Assembly in the context of the recent natural disasters in the Caribbean.

            The prime minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, restated the need for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to organise an international conference to aid Grenada, which has been left “without an economy.”

            He also referred to the destruction wreaked by a series of hurricanes in Jamaica, Bahamas, the Caiman Islands, Haiti and Cuba.

            His counterpart Roosevelt Skerrit of the Dominican Republic pointed out that the effect of the recent hurricanes in the region underlines the need to establish recovery programs and revitalise the economies of the area in the short term.

            The premier of Antigua and Barbuda, Baldwin Spence, emphasised that in his view, the small Caribbean states have been the target of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the U.S. superpower.

            Laisena Qarase, prime minister of Fiji, called for the preservation of the patrimony of the Pacific Ocean. She also claimed that 95% of the tuna fished in that country’s national waters are exported to faraway regions.

            Laisena requested UN help to protect the region’s natural resources and adopt a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.

            Tuvalu’s Foreign Minister Maatia Toafa emphasised that small insular states will be unable to escape the cycle of poverty and marginalisation without significant support from the international community.

            According to Fradique Bandeira, president of Sao Tome and Principe, the African countries are the first victims of climatic changes in the world, which are affecting water sources, biodiversity and sea resources.

            It was also reported that foreign ministers from the Group of Friends of UN Reform met in New York to exchange perspectives regarding their goals and to discuss future activities with the purpose of strengthening the UN system.

            This group’s members are Germany, Algeria, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Spain, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Netherlands, Pakistan, Singapore, and Sweden.

            Brazil’s attempt to become the permanent representative for Latin America and the Caribbean on the UN Security Council was immediately opposed by Mexico and Argentina and a neutral position on the part of certain other countries in the region.

            That scenario has been repeated among other UN regional groupings, given that India, Germany and Japan have proclaimed themselves “legitimate candidates” for permanent seats representing their areas as part of the reform of the Security Council.

On September 2, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, set out the government’s views on the future of the United Nations, in a speech at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in London.

            One of the main aims of Jack Straw’s speech was to argue that the UN is required to adapt to changing circumstances, in particular because “today’s threats are as likely to come from non-state groups such as terrorists and criminal as from states themselves”. For the British government, the UN must become “an effective tool” and “a flexible instrument” in the so-called war on terrorism, and in order to deal with humanitarian catastrophes and “large-scale human rights violations”, the main justifications that the US, Britain and the other big powers have adopted for their interference and intervention throughout the world.

            One of the main features of Jack Straw’s speech was his attempt to represent the British government as occupying the high moral ground and as the greatest defender of the UN and its Charter. In fact the Labour government has openly flouted the UN Charter and the norms of international law on numerous occasions, the illegal invasion of Iraq being an obvious recent example. In recent years, Britain and the other big powers have increasingly used the UN as the means to legitimise their interventions throughout the world, when this suited their purpose, whilst at other times they have flouted its norms and Charter and ignored the views of its members. It is not surprising, therefore that Jack Straw put most emphasis on developing the role of the UN Security Council, where Britain and the other big powers wield most influence, and said almost nothing about the need to make the UN in general a more democratic institution. The British government’s main concern is how to enable the big powers to more effectively use the UN as their instrument throughout the world.

            It is in this context that Jack Straw speaks of developing an international consensus on the so-called “Blair doctrine”, the Prime Minister’s notion of “humanitarian intervention”, used to justify armed intervention in Sierra Leone and elsewhere, but with no basis in international law, and little more a modern version of the concept of the “white man’s burden”. The British government is also keen to widen acceptance of a new definition of “action in self-defence”, which, Jack Straw alleges, fully justified Britain’s invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

            Amongst Jack Straw’s other proposals was the need for the UN to “develop international norms on good governance, provide practical support for their implementation and set up mechanisms for their review.”   Such a proposal is of course based on the definition of “good governance” adopted by Britain and the other big powers and would be a means for further interference and intervention in what would be defined as “failed” or “failing states”. The aim of Jack Straw’s proposal that the UN engage in “spreading practical democracy,” can be seen from the fact that the two examples he provides of UN successes are Afghanistan and Iraq.

            Jack Straw wishes to present Britain as the greatest defender of international peace and security and of the UN itself. But nothing good be further from the truth than his assertion that Britain pursues a modern foreign policy “which helps to build the conditions for long-term global security and sustainable development.” Britain’s foreign policy, in Iraq, Afghanistan and in regard to the UN is one that has played a major role in creating such great instability in the world. It is a policy based on rivalry and contention with the other major powers, implemented on behalf of the big monopolies, which has led to such disasters in the world and which threatens to unleash a new world war.

Statement by HE Mr Felipe Pérez Roque, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba, at the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. New York, 24 September 2004.

Mr. President:

            Every year at the United Nations we go through the same ritual. We attend the general debate knowing beforehand that the clamour for justice and peace by our underdeveloped countries will be ignored once again. However, we persist. We know that we are right. We know that one day we will accomplish social justice and development. We also know that such assets will not be given away to us. We know that the peoples will have to seize them from those who deny us justice today, because they underpin their wealth and arrogance on the disdain for our grief. But it will not be always like this. We say so today with more conviction than ever before.

            Having said this and knowing – as we do – that some powerful ones, just a few, present here will be chagrined, and also knowing that they are shared by many, Cuba will now tell some truths:

            First: After the aggression on Iraq, there is no United Nations Organisation, understood as a useful and diverse forum, based on the respect for the rights of all and also with guarantees for the small States.

            It is living through the worst moment of its already forthcoming 60 years. It pales, it pants, it feigns, but it does not work.

            Who handcuffed the United Nations named by President Roosevelt? President Bush.

            Second: US troops will have to be withdrawn from Iraq.

            After the life of over 1,000 American youths was uselessly sacrificed to serve the spurious interests of a clique of cronies and buddies, and following the death of more than 12,000 Iraqis, it is clear that the only way out for the occupying power faced with a revolting people is to recognise the impossibility of subduing them and to withdraw. In spite of the imperial monopoly over information, the peoples always get to the truth. Someday, those responsible and their accomplices will have to deal with the consequences of their actions in the face of History and their own peoples.

            Third: For the time being, there will be no valid, real and useful reform to the United Nations.

            It would take the superpower, which inherited the immense prerogative of governing an order conceived for a bipolar world, to relinquish its privileges. And it will not do so.

            Since now, we know that the anachronistic privilege of the veto will remain; that the Security Council will not be democratised as it should or expanded to include Third World countries; that the General Assembly will continue to stand ignored and that at the United Nations there will be more actions driven by the interests imposed by the superpower and its allies. We, as non-aligned countries, will have to entrench ourselves in defending the United Nations Charter – because, otherwise, it will be redrafted with the deletion of every trace of principles such as the sovereign equality of States, non-intervention and the non-use or the threat to use force.

            Fourth: The powerful collude to divide us.

            The over 130 underdeveloped countries must build a common front for the defence of the sacred interests of our peoples, of our right to development and peace. Let us revitalise the Non-Aligned Movement. Let us strengthen the G-77.

            Fifth: The modest objectives of the Millennium Declaration will not be accomplished. We will reach the fifth anniversary of the Summit in a worse situation.

·           We endeavoured to halve by 2015 the 1.276 billion human beings in abject poverty that existed in 1990. There had to be a yearly reduction of 46 million poor people. However, excluding China, between 1990 and 2000 extreme poverty rose by 28 million people. Impoverishment does not decline, it grows.

·           We wanted to halve by 2015 the 842 million starving people recorded in the world. There had to be a yearly reduction of 28 million. However, there has barely been a reduction of 2.1 million hungry people per year. At this rate, the goal would be attained by 2215, two hundred years after what was envisaged – and only if our species survives the destruction of its environment.

·           We proclaimed the aspiration to achieve universal primary education by 2015. However, more than 120 million children, 1 in every 5 in that school age, do not attend primary school. According to UNICEF, at the current rate the goal will be accomplished after 2100.

·           We endeavoured to reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate in children under five years of age. The reduction is symbolic: out of 86 children who died per 1,000 live births in 1998, now the figure is 82. Every year, 11 million children continue to die of diseases that can be prevented or cured, whose parents will rightfully wonder what our meetings are for.

·           We said that we would pay attention to Africa’s special needs. However, very little has been done. African nations do not need foreign advice or models, but financial resources and access to both markets and technologies. Assisting Africa would not be an act of charity, but an act of justice; it would be tantamount to settling the historical debt resulting from centuries of exploitation and pillage.

·           We undertook to put a halt to and start reverting the AIDS pandemic by 2015. However, in 2003 it claimed nearly 3 million lives. At this rate, by 2015 some 36 million people will have died of this cause.

            Sixth: Creditor countries and the international financial agencies will not seek a just and lasting solution to the foreign debt.

            They prefer to keep us in debt; that is, vulnerable. Therefore, even though we have paid off US$ 4.1 trillion in debt service over the last 13 years, our debt increased from US$ 1.4 trillion to US$ 2.6 trillion. It means that we have paid three times what we owed and now our debt is twice as much.

            Seventh: We, as underdeveloped countries, are the ones that finance the squandering and the opulence of developed countries.

            While in 2003 they gave us US$ 68.400 billion in ODA, we delivered to them US$ 436 billion as payment for the foreign debt. Who is helping whom?

            Eighth: The fight against terrorism can only be won through cooperation among all nations and with respect for International Law, and not through massive bombings or pre-emptive wars against “dark corners of the world.”

            Hypocrisy and double standards must cease. Sheltering three Cuban-born terrorists in the United States is an act of complicity to terrorism. Punishing five Cuban youths who were fighting terrorism, and punishing their families, is a crime.

            Ninth: General and complete disarmament, including nuclear disarmament, is impossible today. It is the responsibility of a group of developed countries that are the ones that most sell and buy weapons.

            However, we must continue to strive for it. We must demand that the over US$ 900 billion set aside every year for military expenditures be used on development; and

            Tenth: The financial resources to guarantee the sustainable development for all the peoples on the planet are available, but what is lacking is the political will of those who rule the world.

            A development tax of merely 0.1% on international financial transactions would generate resources amounting to almost US$ 400 billion per annum.

            The cancellation of the foreign debt incurred by underdeveloped countries would allow these to have available for their development no less than US$ 436 billion on a yearly basis – money which is currently used to pay off the debt.

            If developed countries complied with their commitment to set aside 0.7% of their Gross National Product as ODA, their contribution would increase from the current US$ 68.400 billion to US$ 160 billion per annum.

            Finally, Excellencies, I want to clearly express Cuba’s profound conviction that the 6.4 billion human beings on this planet – who have equal rights according to the United Nations Charter – urgently need a new order in which the world is not left in suspense, as is the case now, awaiting the outcome of the elections in a new Rome in which only half the voters will participate and nearly US$ 1.5 billion will be spent.

            There is no discouragement in our words, I must say so clearly. We are optimistic because we are revolutionaries. We have faith in the struggle of the peoples and we are certain that we will accomplish a new world order based on the respect for the rights of all; an order based on solidarity, justice and peace, resulting from the best of universal culture and not from mediocrity or gross force.

            About Cuba, which cannot be detoured from its course by blockades, threats, hurricanes, droughts or human or natural force, I will not say anything.

            Next 28 October, for the 13th time, this General Assembly will debate and vote on a resolution about the blockade imposed against the Cuban people. Once again, morality and principles will defeat arrogance and force.

            I would like to conclude by recalling the words spoken right here 25 years ago by President Fidel Castro:

            “The noise of weapons, of the menacing language, of the haughtiness on the international scene must cease. Enough of the illusion that the problems of the world can be solved by nuclear weapons. Bombs may kill the hungry, the sick and the ignorant, but bombs cannot kill hunger, disease and ignorance. Nor can bombs kill the righteous rebellion of the people…”

            Thank you very much.

Statement of H.E. Mr. Farouk Assaad Kaddoumi, Head of the Political Department, Palestine Liberation Organisation, on the occasion of the General Debate of the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, September 28, 2004.

            ***

Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating you, Mr. Jean Ping, on your election as President of the 59th session of the General Assembly. We are confident that you will conduct the proceedings of this session with great competence.

            I would like to pay tribute to your predecessor, Mr. Julian Robert Hunte, who presided ably over the 58th session of the General Assembly.

            I should at this moment express my deep appreciation for the efforts of H.E. the Secretary General to harmonise international relations and ensure respect for the principles of the Charter and laws with a view to strengthening international peace and security. His statement before this Assembly marks a landmark in the quest for the prevalence of law and respect for the role of the United Nations in international conflicts.

            Mr. President, in my statement I shall focus on the turbulent situation in the Middle East and precisely on the core of the conflict in the Middle East.

            Mr. President, the situation in the region of Western Asia or the Middle East is in turmoil. To add damage to the already existing grave situation as a result of Israel's policies and practices in occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, the Occupation of Iraq was based on unfounded pretext. The total absence of law and order are the general pattern of life in occupied Iraq. The continuous occupation is wreaking havoc in the economic and social aspects of life. We urge the competent institutions namely the UN General Assembly and the Security Council to take necessary and appropriate measures to ensure Iraq's independence and sovereignty as soon as possible.

            Mr. President, Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East. It is about the fourth strongest army in the world, is a war sophisticated arms developer and dealer with no ethical or moral constraints and with no human rights concerns. The Israeli government can therefore do anything it wants, acting like a high tech military-expert rogue state which has become tremendously useful for the United States since it has located itself strategically right in the centre of the global arms industry. Counting on the support of the U.S.A Israel breaks moral and international laws with impunity.

            The daily assaults on Palestinian peaceful towns and villages, the demolishing of homes and houses, the bulldozing and uprooting of age-old fruit bearing trees - olives and citrus -, targeted killings, assassinations, closures and the imposition of a state of siege and curfews and the use of excessively disproportionate firepower that resulted, so far, in more than 3200 deaths and thousands of injuries are common knowledge. The allegation by Israel that it is self-defence is totally rejected. It is the Palestinians under occupation, with their meagre means of combat, who are the party exercising the right to self-defence. Almost 8000 Palestinians are held without trial in detention under merciless conditions and when they protest against such conditions, the Israel minister boasts "let them go on hunger strike until they die". To top all methods of obstruction to achieve peace Israel holds in confinement our democratically elected President, Yaser Arafat, and announce that they find no partner to negotiate peace with. If not with the democratically elected President then with whom are the negotiations for settlement and peace to be negotiated? Unless Israel, and others of the same mind, wish to see a continuation of the status quo or deal with an imposed non-democratically elected group or persons.

            Mr. President, a performance-based on Roadmap was unanimously adopted by the Security Council (1515). We have accepted the Roadmap as, in our opinion, it augured well.

            The Roadmap envisaged a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which solution "will be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism and when the Palestinians become able to build a practicing democracy and through Israel's readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established".

            The Palestinians through their representative, the Palestine Liberation Organisation embraced the Roadmap and considered that it offers another opportunity contributing towards the end of the conflict. We hope that the Quartet will seriously assume the noble task of realising the destination of the Roadmap.

            Acts of state-terrorism was Israel's response to the performance-based Roadmap. And to be more precise the 2000-pound bomb was dropped after the Palestinians had scrupulously observed an unannounced cease-fire. Israel still adheres to the 14 reservations it has on the Roadmap. The nebulous ideas and intentions revealed in the exchange of letters between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon on the matter of the commitments to the Roadmap are far from encouraging and holding the Roadmap and Security Council resolution 1515 in limbo if not total neglect and refusal. In his letter of assurances to Prime Minister Sharon, dated April 14, 2004, President Bush reiterates that, "The United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian State that is viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in accordance with [his] vision set forth in the Roadmap."

            But when President Bush addresses the reality on the ground he assures Israel that "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

            He admits that part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognised borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. But Mr. Bush and Mr. Sharon do not identify topographically the SECURE and RECOGNISED borders of Israel.

            Mr. President, in the said letter of assurances President Bush stresses that "the United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state."

            He does not concern himself in the security of the so-called provisional state of Palestine. He seems to be oblivious to the fact that twenty per cent (20%) of the citizens of Israel are non-Jewish and that, Israel has not as yet defined who is a Jew. This concept will inevitably lead to the creation of a racist society within the Israeli political entity.

            To ensure the success of the Roadmap and the targeted destination, that is a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israeli Palestinian conflict by 2005, the plan also requires that Israel freezes all settlement activity and withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied since September 28, 2000. Commenting on the meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, Javier Solana, EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, on 15 April 2004, announced:"The EU remains firmly committed to a negotiated settlement resulting in two VIABLE, SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT states is the only way to achieve a permanent peace and an end to the occupation that began in 1967, in the framework of comprehensive peace in the Middle East. EU Heads of State and government recently indicated that they would NOT recognise any change to the pre 1967 borders other than those arrived at by agreement between the parties. A permanent settlement must also include an agreed, just fair and realistic solution to the refugee issue."

            In order to deviate further away from the direct route to the tamed destination Sharon declared that he was absolutely determined to carry out DISENGAGEMENT in Gaza despite the political problems within his own party, Likud, because the party believes that the disengagement conflicts with the Zionist aims of creeping annexation of Palestinian territory. Sharon's plan creates a situation where Israel will have to leave the settlements BUT WILL STILL CONTROL everything that enters and exists in Gaza. It will tightly seal off Gaza and block the only outlet for the Palestinians in Gaza from crossing into and from neighbouring Egypt.

            All this aroused the concerns of the International Community as expressed in a number of meetings of the UN General Assembly. Israel did not heed to the request by the UN General Assembly which fact did, by necessity, call for an Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice on "what are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions." The General Assembly by an overwhelming majority of 150 votes acknowledged the Court's Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004. The representatives of the Governments of the U.S.A and Israel were among the 6 others who voted in the negative.

            Mr. President, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to express our great appreciation for the learned opinion of the honourable judges. Of direct relevance to this Session of the UN General Assembly, I wish to quote the following Opinions: 

            "All States are under an obligation not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction."

            "The United Nations and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion."

            Mr. President, in order to restore faith and confidence in and efficacy of the UN Organisation and its Charter, I make an appeal that the Opinion of the Court be heeded and that action-oriented resolutions, including concrete mechanisms for implementation, be adopted and carried out.

            Mr. President, the Palestinian people and leadership have demonstrated good will and accepted in good faith the provisions of the Roadmap and other proposals that lead to the termination of Israeli occupation of our Palestinian territory so that we can all live in peace and security and stability in the Middle East. What is needed is the other party, Israel, to commit itself in word and in action to respond.

            Thank you

September 23, 2004

Mr President,

            Congratulations on your election.

            Eighteen months ago, the United Nations faced divisions more serious than any since the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. We all worried whether the strength and unity which we had built up since the end of the Cold War could survive.

            Then last year we saw Kofi Annan standing at his now famous fork in the road. But in the year since, almost instinctively, we have decided to follow our Secretary-General's directions. This Organisation has not been plunged into paralysis: instead, I have felt a powerful if unspoken determination to make the United Nations work, and work more effectively, to fulfil its central task: to secure peace around the world.

            Over the last 12 months we have dealt with new crises like that in Darfur in Sudan, where we have set clear tasks for the Sudanese Government and the rebel groups. We have tackled the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Great Lakes; mobilised international support for the new Iraq; and addressed a long list of hugely important subjects which rarely receive the coverage they should in the media – Haiti, Georgia, Timor-Leste, Bougainville, Western Sahara.

            We have shown in these actions the unity of purpose which is one of the strongest weapons in our hands to defeat the evils which today afflict the globe. And the search for consensus has not been confined to the Security Council. I am proud that just a few months after the difficult times of early last year, France, Germany and the United Kingdom came together to work, as we continue to do, on the Iran dossier before the International Atomic Energy Agency.

            I recognise, of course, the frustrations before all of us, not least over the Israel-Palestine conflict – where the clear path to peace set out in the Roadmap and endorsed by the Security Council remains elusive. But all in all we have shown the will to make collective action work – though we know, too, that we need to go further. In particular, we need to get better at tackling threats which have changed dramatically since the UN's foundation. Today the greatest threats to our security often come not from other functioning sovereign states, but from terrorist organisations, from failing states, and from man-made shocks to our environment like climate change, which can exacerbate state failure and breed internal instability.

            The High-Level Panel appointed by the Secretary-General is preparing its recommendations for how we can address these challenges. We should remember that we have one great advantage. Though its institutions and the founding text of the Charter has hardly changed in 60 years, the United Nations is not an Organisation set in stone – but a set of living institutions based on a shared will to make collective security work. It has adapted in the past – with the development of peacekeeping, a greater focus on individual rights, or the setting of global targets for development. I am confident that it can adapt in the future.

            Of course, institutional change is part of that. We are conscious in particular of the need to widen the membership of the Security Council. At the UN's foundation, one-eighth of its members could expect to be elected members of the Security Council at any one time. Today it is less than one-eighteenth. The United Kingdom has long supported the case for expanding the Security Council to say 24 members, including amongst the permanent membership Germany and Japan – two countries which between them contribute 28 per cent of the UN's budget –; India, which represents one sixth of the world's population; and Brazil, which just missed permanent membership in 1945.

            But we should not see an expansion of the Security Council, or other institutional change, as a panacea. The bigger need is to adapt our common understanding, the UN's jurisprudence if you like, and its operational effectiveness – so that we can respond more quickly and more thoroughly to today's new threats.

            Let me highlight three areas which to me seem particularly important. First, our approach must be broader, tackling threats to the most vulnerable, such as poverty, disease and environmental degradation. Second, we must build a new consensus by expanding the scope of collective action. And third, we must deal with the threat of terrorism which menaces us all and everything for which we stand.

            Mr President,

            So, first – the need for a broader approach which addresses the complex and interdependent nature of security today.

            Here, we have to do more to meet the Millennium Development Goals and promote sustainable development, especially in Africa. And we must do so not just because of our concern for justice and our common humanity; but also to reduce the stresses on states and peoples which affect our collective security. We can't have security without development, or development without security.

            As the Secretary-General highlighted in his speech on Tuesday, we have to do more to entrench the rule of law and justice, especially in states recovering from conflict. The UK will pursue work on the Secretary-General's report during our Security Council Presidency next month.

            We could also use the UN to agree, to monitor and to help to implement globally accepted norms of good governance, helping to stop unstable states from failing and building the transparency and accountability which create the conditions for lasting security and prosperity.

            And we need to act together, quickly, on climate change – perhaps the greatest long-term threat to our world in terms of stability and security, not just the environment. We must begin by implementing Kyoto; and we must also agree emissions reductions beyond 2012.

            Mr President,

            Second is the need to build a new consensus on the scope of collective action. We all represent independent, sovereign states. But even as we founded the UN we recognised that sovereignty was a trust in the hands of a nation's government: there to be respected, not abused, either from without or within. An abuse from without could be dealt with through the inherent right of self defence recognised in Article 51 of the Charter. But an abuse from within which threatens the peace could and should be dealt with by the Security Council under the powers enshrined in the other articles of Chapter VII of the Charter, and by the many Conventions within the UN framework, including, for example, the 1948 Genocide Convention. No longer could or should the world turn away from unspeakable barbarities like the Holocaust.

            We have not however always lived up to all that – as the tragedies of Rwanda and Bosnia ten years ago remind us. But today we must resolve to do so and to engage – both in situations of humanitarian catastrophe or grave violations of international humanitarian law, and in the face of other threats to international peace and security. The principle of non-interference has to be accompanied by an expectation that governments will respect the rights of their citizens. Where they do not, the international community will need to consider how to react.

            So we need for example to be ready to support greater use by the Secretary-General of his powers under Article 99 to bring threats to the peace to the Security Council's attention; and we must act quickly and effectively in response, because prevention is better than cure. We should look to work more closely with regional organisations, as we are doing with the African Union in Darfur. We need more discussion on the criteria for when the international community might have to intervene with military force in the most extreme circumstances. And we must get better at engaging for the long term in countries recovering from conflict, co-ordinating our efforts in response to locally-agreed priorities.

            Mr President,

            My third point is the urgent need to combat global terrorism – a menace directed at all of us. If we have learnt anything in the three years since 11 September 2001 it is that international terrorism is indiscriminate in its targets, and merciless in its hatred. Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Muslim, people of no religion or any religion, and of every or no shade of political opinion – all have died through the terrorists' bullet or bomb.

            Today, in Iraq, we are seeing again the depths which the terrorists plumb. Of course, the vast majority of the victims of terrorism in Iraq are Iraqis – and our thoughts and condolences are with the Government and people of Iraq, and with their families. But some are foreigners who are helping Iraqis to build a more stable and prosperous country. One is Ken Bigley, a British engineer, held hostage by terrorists who have barbarically murdered his two American comrades. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families; and we continue to do all we can to secure Mr Bigley's release.

            Yes, I know – how could I forget – that opinions have differed over the rightness of the military action taken in Iraq 18 months ago. But I warrant that no nation is in favour of the terrorist insurgency now occurring there. For we all recognise that what is being attempted by the terrorists in Iraq is an attack both on the Iraqi people and on everything for which this organisation stands: safety, security, human rights. We must come together to defeat the terrorists and their despicable aims.

            Mr President,

            The threat of terrorism confronts democratic, properly-functioning states with an acute dilemma: to fight those who recognise none of the values for which we stand, while remaining true to those values.

            Our commitments under international conventions express many of those values and the importance which we attach to them. But equally, those Conventions cannot be allowed to shelter those involved in terrorism. They were designed to protect citizens from abuse by states, not by terrorists.

            The 1951 Convention on Refugees protects those with a well-founded fear of persecution. I am proud that Britain and so many other nations have offered that protection where it was required. But as the 1951 Convention itself sets out, asylum is not an unqualified right: it does not apply to anyone who has committed a war crime, a crime against humanity, or other serious crime, or who is guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

            We must never stoop to the level of the terrorist: to torture, mistreatment, unjustified incarceration, and nor will any country in the EU be party to the return of suspects to such conditions or to face the death penalty. But we cannot let terrorists exploit a protection designed for the persecuted, not the persecutors. We shall therefore be working closely with Russia on its important draft Security Council Resolution, to see how best we can prevent those who commit, support and finance terrorism from sheltering behind a refugee status to which they are not entitled, and to look at ways to ensure the speedier extradition of such individuals.

            Mr President,

            We, the United Nations, have over the last year begun to show a new determination to come together and make collective action work.

            A year from now, we will meet again here to review the High-Level Panel's recommendations and the Millennium Development Goals, and to set the UN's agenda for the next decade. The coming year, as we prepare for that Summit, will be vital for building consensus, understanding, and resolve.

            The UK's Chairmanship of the G8 next year will focus on tackling climate change; and on Africa, on which the independent Commission for Africa will be producing recommendations for how best we can support the radical agenda for change and development designed by Africa itself through NEPAD and the African Union. And our Presidency of the European Union will help us to lead efforts for a successful outcome in the Doha Development Round, and for building the EU's crisis-management capabilities.

            Mr President,

            More than ever, global security is our shared responsibility. In the year ahead, as we continue to adapt to today's threats and challenges, we must find renewed determination and political will to make collective security work. The United Kingdom is determined to play its full part in that.