Individualism vs collective action: is there a future for the United Nations?

When we see situations where the country concerned or its neighbours are not able to help, I think the international community, the wider community, has the responsibility to assist, particularly where innocent civilians are trapped in the middle…

…Has the time come to rewrite the rules of intervention? I am not sure if I would put it that way, but let me say that since Iraq, governments have been asking many questions. We are told that we face new threats, that there are new risks, new challenges that we have to confront, and that one should be prepared to take pre-emptive action if necessary. Did what happen in Iraq constitute an exception, a precedent that others can exploit? If not, and indeed we are going to make preventive action, or war, part of our response to these new threats, what are the rules? Who decides? Under what circumstances?

On Reform

I think that, given the half year that we have just lived through, I would be surprised if most of the heads of State who are coming here in September do not say something about strengthening multilateral institutions - strengthening the United Nations in its capacity to respond to new challenges, looking at the re-alignment, hopefully, between the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Security Council. I am confident that the question of Security Council reform will also gain new attention, because when we were going through the Iraqi crisis and holding discussions, I had contacts with many heads of State who felt that, given the way we are structured and the way the Council is constituted at the moment, many important regions and countries are not able to make their voices heard. In fact, some even suggested that we should maybe have a summit outside the Security Council - a summit of leaders who were not necessarily in the Council - to see what contribution they could make to the debate. So I am sure that we will hear quite a lot about them, and I think that many issues will be opened.

On Multilateralism

I think that the message that comes through loud and clear, given the reactions of other Member States, is that multilateralism is important for many States around the world, that for many States the United Nations is important, that the imprimatur of the United Nations - the legitimacy the United Nations offers - is important. I think that this is a very clear message, particularly for those who thought that the United Nations was dead and had no influence. I must admit to you that I did warn those who were bashing the United Nations that they had to be careful, because they might need the United Nations soon. This was some months ago…

…I think there is a real practical reason why we sometimes resort to the use of a multinational force. As you know, the United Nations does not have an army. We approach governments to lend us troops once the Security Council has given us a mandate. While the Council prepares a resolution, we have already started talking to governments that may be ready to join us in Liberia. Normally, it takes about three to four months to deploy peacekeeping troops. When the situation is urgent, therefore, we tend to look to countries with lift capacity and well-trained troops to be able to go in very quickly. The French went to Bunia (Democratic Republic of the Congo ) in about two weeks. That has given us time to prepare a follow-on force, which is going to go in this summer. Once the force is on the ground, the French will leave. There are, therefore, very practical reasons for taking the route we take.

In situations where we do not have the emergency we are seeing in Liberia, we have time to plan and get the peacekeepers in without sending in a multinational force ahead. That is a supportive and reinforcing arrangement that can work if one gets the response…

…This is the only organization where all the governments can come to discuss these issues. In our earlier discussions, I also made it clear that I am not the only one saying this. Governments are telling us, the world and their people that the United Nations is important for them and that they take its decisions seriously. Those governments are also saying, for example, "If you want us to become involved in Iraq, go to the United Nations and get what we perceive as a United Nations mandate". So it is an important place not just for convening power; it also brings governments together to discuss common and mutually important issues. And many governments stand by the Charter; they stand by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is important to them, so we need to listen to what the other governments are saying…

…I think the Charter is very clear. Where there is a broader threat to international peace and security the Council can authorise collective action for the use of force. The Charter foresees that, but there are clear conditions, and the collective nature of the action is also emphasised.

On Human Rights

I think that this is an issue that Sergio Vieira de Mello has paid attention not only in his previous capacity as High Commissioner for Human Rights but also in his current position and on the ground in Iraq. He is trying to help sensitise the people and giving training courses. He is going to start a whole series of activities to help in this area, and he is also stressing with the coalition that prisoners of war in Iraq must be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and The Hague Regulation. I think that they themselves have undertaken to do that, both in the resolutions and in their own statements. I have my position; it has been very clear - in fact, yesterday that was one of the issues we discussed with the regional organisation, that we have to be careful not to believe that there is a trade-off between human rights and our efforts to contain and fight terrorism, and that people should not be asked to give up their civil liberties and freedom for security. If you do that, do you, in the end, have security? So we believe that there has to be fundamental respect for the rights of individuals and for human rights.

We are concerned that, under the guise of terrorism, governments all around the world are using the "T" word - and tagging people with it - to abuse their rights and lock them up in jail and to deal with political opposition. We are seeing an erosion in respect for human rights, which is of concern to all of us.