ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT SAYS QUESTION OF HOW MUCH AUTHORITY UNITED NATIONS SHOULD EXERCISE IN COMING DECADES NEEDS URGENT CONSIDERATION

19 December 1995

Press Release
GA/9040
UNU/168

ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT SAYS QUESTION OF HOW MUCH AUTHORITY UNITED NATIONS SHOULD EXERCISE IN COMING DECADES NEEDS URGENT CONSIDERATION

19951219 Speaks at Public Forum On `UN in 21st Century' Organized by UN University

Following is the text of the statement made on 18 December by the President of the General Assembly, Diogo Freitas do Amoral (Portugal) at the public forum on "The United Nations in the 21st Century" organized by the United Nations University:

Let me first of all commend the valuable initiative of the United Nations University in organizing the symposium on "The United Nations in the 21st Century", held in Tokyo last November in cooperation with the Academic Council on the United Nations System and the International Cooperation Research Association.

The merit of such an initiative resides not only in the subject matter of the symposium, to examine the role and functions of international organizations, and in particular the United Nations, in the 21st century, but also in the broad list of participants which together included scholars, United Nations officials and policy makers from all over the world.

The aim of the symposium in launching a five-year project on policy- oriented studies dealing with issues such as peace and security, human rights, development and governance deserves no less appraisal.

Indeed, at a time when our Organization, confronted by a growing number of major challenges, is increasingly focusing on learning ways of strengthening its overall system, becoming more effective and capable, every contribution by means of serious studies conducted by a broad range of experts is very much welcomed.

Secondly, I would like to thank Professor Gurgulino de Souza, Rector of the United Nations University, for the opportunity to participate in this

public forum. As a scholar myself, it is very gratifying to intervene in such an event organized by a University -- The University of the United Nations.

Very opportune and interesting ideas were raised at the Tokyo Symposium, some of which I will refer to briefly.

It is of common knowledge that the end of the cold war era brought with it new challenges to the United Nations. Hence the United Nations is confronted today with internal civil conflicts, massive migrations, blatant violations of human rights and a growing belief in the need to establish representative government throughout all the regions of the world.

Simultaneously some issues which were regarded as a State concern are coming to be viewed as global problems that further extend the action of international organizations. This is the case of terrorism, narcotraffic, arms trade, environmental protection and public health.

Last but not least, the United Nations increased its membership from the original 51 countries to the current figure of 185 Member States.

All these factors demand change and, indeed, reform is accepted by all as indispensable.

The conundrum, however, is to understand which reform shall we accomplish. The problem, as stressed in the symposium, seems to lie in the fact that there is no clear-cut or discernible consensus over either the role which the Organization should play, or how much authority it ought to exercise in the forthcoming decades.

This is a question that needs urgent consideration. The increasing criticism and even skepticism on the activities and capacities of the United Nations tell us that we cannot afford to sit on the question.

As I referred to in the closing of the general debate, if we do now have the opportunity to contribute decisively, and to a large extent shape the threshold of this new era, there is also the risk that the United Nations will end up being shaped by the uncertainty and unpredictability of our times.

Also referred to in Tokyo was the present imbalance regarding the extensive resources allocated to peace-keeping and emergency operations as compared to development activities. It was rightly observed that development no longer seems to be a mobilizing paradigm, and that there is in the present a lack of political will of the international community to address the continuing development problems facing third world countries.

- 3 - Press Release GA/9040 UNU/168 19 December 1995

Discussion on this matter should focus or at least should address the issue of globalization. Thus, if the gap between development needs and financial resources is to be perceived as a global problem, one will have to look for global solutions, and global solutions imply global resources and global financing.

Within this context, I support the symposium's recommendation that more theoretical analysis and empirical research be focused on issues relating to the so-called global commons, including studying innovative financial mechanisms as it has been suggested by several independent organizations and even urged by a number of Member States addressing the General Assembly.

Another imbalance underlined during the symposium was the little attention given by the United Nations to peace-building through preventive action dealing with political, economic, social and humanitarian measures to avert or de-escalate potential conflicts. It is a problem that the Secretary- General has already addressed in his Agenda for Peace and on which Member States concentrated particularly in the general debate when defending the importance of strengthening preventive diplomacy.

In this respect, still, it is very suggesting the idea expressed in Tokyo that such comprehensive preventive action could be seen as the key link between an Agenda for Peace and an Agenda for Development.

Within the four areas of the proposed five-year research project, which are the role of the State and of non-State actors, the role of regional arrangements and the role of international secretariats, I would like to refer in particular to the very stimulating reflections held in the symposium about the role of the State in the twenty-first century.

Although, as it was said in Tokyo, the breakdown of State sovereignty is still a matter of intense controversy, we have been assisting, namely through the implementation of regional arrangements, to a change in the definition parameters of the concept of sovereignty.

Under this light the question arose in Tokyo: does sovereignty entail not only States' rights but also the obligation to provide for the security and well-being of its citizens?

The answer, clearly, should be yes. My suggestion, allow me, is for submission to international jurisdiction and effective submission to the international law to be left out of any definition parameters of the modern States sovereignty.

- 4 - Press Release GA/9040 UNU/168 19 December 1995

In my inaugural statement as President of the General Assembly on 19 September last, when referring the International Court of Justice, I delivered the same message. In fact, I said then and I would like to stress again that the still existing possibility of refusing the Court's jurisdiction strikes me as an anachronism left over from the days of unlimited State sovereignty, which is inconsistent with the prevailing principle of the primacy of international law.

* *** *