'UNITED NATIONS IS WORTH OUR PRAISE', SAYS GENERAL ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT IN STATEMENT TO WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL FORUM
Press Release
GA/9077
'UNITED NATIONS IS WORTH OUR PRAISE', SAYS GENERAL ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT IN STATEMENT TO WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL FORUM
19960614 Following is the text of the statement delivered by the President of the General Assembly, Diogo Freitas do Amaral (Portugal), at a meeting of the Women's International Forum held at Headquarters today:The United Nations is at a crossroads. Established 50 years ago, after a devastating world war, the United Nations is today evaluating its past and looking towards its future. And in the future, as in the past, what the United Nations will be is intimately linked to the reality of international relations. We all know the constraining effect the cold war had on the United Nations and on the assumption of its mandate in the maintenance of international peace and security. But even during those paralysing years of bipolar competition, the United Nations nevertheless succeeded in making crucial contributions to the advancement of humanity. Human rights, decolonization, disarmament, the primacy of international law, world health, the protection of children, the preservation of the international cultural heritage, and later on the protection of the environment, the promotion of sustainable development, have been the priorities and best achievements of the United Nations.
Meanwhile, the world has changed. Many historians sustain that the world has never changed so much as in the second half of the twentieth century. The number of countries has been multiplied by more than three: the United Nations had 51 members in 1945; it has 185 members today.
Both in developed and developing countries, rural societies have given way to industrial societies. As a well-known historian puts it, "for 80 per cent of humanity the middle ages ended suddenly in the 1950s". It was "the death of the peasantry". From more than 90 per cent, the population working in agriculture came down to less than 10 per cent in developed countries, to less than 50 per cent in developing countries. And to quote the same author, "when the land empties the cities fill up. The world of the second half of the twentieth century became urbanized as never before. By the mid-1980s, 42 per cent of its population were urban". And both in developing and developed countries "the multi-million city mushroomed".
From these huge structural changes many others arose as a direct consequence: food, health, environment, housing, transport, public utilities, increase in education, women at work, computer revolution, etc.
The picture and the scenario have completely changed in less than half a century.
And in 1989, a democratic revolution took place: first in Berlin where the wall fell, then in the Soviet Union where communism ended, and later in many other parts of the world where democracy won over dictatorship, freedom won over oppression, and free elections and free speech became increasingly the pillars of a new political model for the planet.
Also in international relations the fundamentals changed dramatically: the end of the cold war, the end of East-West confrontation, the end of the global nuclear threat.
Out of all these spectacular changes which no one had predicted and which almost no one believed they would witness in their lifetime, an extraordinary explosion of hope broke out.
A new era of world affairs was announced. Optimism abounded over the possibilities of a multilateral approach to international relations and particularly of implementing a system of collective security centred on the United Nations. The Organization's intervention in conflicts around the globe increased significantly. The success of the Gulf War raised expectations to unprecedented levels. A "new world order", an "era of everlasting peace", the "end of history" were announced: there were many prophets and many utopias. But more rapidly than we could have expected, the cold realities of our imperfect world shook us out of any such illusions. The Bosnian and other conflicts dealt a strong blow to these hopes. Today, insecurity, fear and pessimism have to a large extent replaced the previous hopeful visions.
In this scenario, the United Nations, the highest symbol of multilateralism, has been subjected to increasing criticism. The so-called failures of Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia are regularly called up by detractors of the United Nations as examples of its incapacity to solve conflicts. They believe the United Nations is merely a bloated bureaucracy which costs too much and does too little. Criticism of the United Nations ranges widely: from the serious, which seek to increase the Organization's efficiency and effectiveness, to the incredulous, such as "black helicopters" which are supposedly preparing to take over the United States.
Let us be serious about the United Nations.
The United Nations has no army. The only troops of the United Nations -- the "blue helmets" -- are peace-keeping forces, created by the Security
- 3 - Press Release GA/9077 14 June 1996
Council and voluntarily supplied by willing member countries. No single United Nations peace-keeper has been deployed without the positive vote of the United States, who could always, in any case, exercise its right of veto.
The bureaucracy of the United Nations is not huge: to deal with all the great problems of the world, we employ 4,800 people. The Swedish capital of Stockholm, to deal with the local problems of a city of one million, has 60,000 municipal employees.
And the costs? Are the costs too high? Is the United Nations too expensive? I dare say: no, definitely not.
The regular budget of the United Nations -- excluding peace-keeping operations, but including New York Headquarters, plus offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Vienna and five regional commissions on the five continents -- is $1.3 billion a year. This is about 4 per cent of New York City's regular annual budget, and nearly one fourth of Tokyo's Fire Department.
The total cost of all United Nations peace-keeping operations in 1995 was $3 billion. This is the equivalent of 1.1 per cent of the United States' military budget, and less than 0.3 per cent of the world-wide military spending.
So we can conclude, based on very strong evidence and beyond all reasonable doubt, that the United Nations is not guilty of excessive and unreasonable spending!
But let us go even deeper and investigate whether some members of the United States Congress are right when they say that the United States is paying too much to the United Nations and receiving too little. I wish to state here very clearly that, in my opinion, this is simply not true: the United States' contribution to the United Nations regular budget is 25 per cent, but the United States' part in the world's gross national product (GNP) is 27 per cent; so the United States' contribution is lower, not higher, than it should be in principle. On the other hand, of the $396 million in procurements approved by the United Nations in New York in 1995, American companies got 47 per cent of the business, against a 25 per cent assessed annual contribution of the United States. And for every dollar that the United States contributed in 1995 to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), American companies got back more than two dollars in UNDP procurement orders.
So, you see, the critics of the United Nations are wrong. They are grossly misinformed. I would like to ask you to help the United Nations and explain the correct figures and facts, setting the record straight.
- 4 - Press Release GA/9077 14 June 1996
Some people in the United States Congress believe the United Nations needs reforming, which I think is correct. But they believe it so strongly that they have withheld payment of the United States' contributions to the Organization and in so doing have precipitated a serious financial crisis. I think we must not forget that it is the duty of all Member States, from the biggest to the smallest, from the most powerful to the weakest, to pay their annual assessments in full, on time and without conditions. We all hope, at the United Nations, that the United States will begin soon to pay, as promised, their arrears and their regular annual contributions.
In an increased climate of doubt as to the value of multilateralism, and as a result of the strong will of Member States in the United Nations, the reform of the Organization has been seriously addressed by all delegations. Five working groups are currently seized with various aspects of adapting the United Nations to the new international realities: improving the capacity of the Organization in the field of peace-keeping and conflict resolution; increasing its responsiveness to the challenges of economic and social development; securing a sound financial basis for the United Nations; enlarging the Security Council; and strengthening and revitalizing the overall structure of the United Nations system as a whole.
This process of reform is being undertaken because the United Nations has a future. This was resoundingly and unequivocally affirmed by the world's leaders meeting last October in New York on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. This universal forum continues to be the principal frame of reference for our international relations; it continues to set important standards for social, economic and civil conduct; it continues to be a unifying assembly of the world's nations; and, now and in the future, it must continue to be the catalyst for the further progress of humanity.
The new challenges to international security and prosperity require a multilateral approach through close international cooperation. Increased local and regional conflict, humanitarian disasters, environmental deterioration, economic pressures and social change all call for a global effort in their solution, since they are problems which cross the borders of individual States.
The United Nations has a primary role to play in the maintenance of peace and security. But the greater focus of the work of the United Nations system is on economic and social development. Eighty per cent of the work of the Organization is devoted to helping developing countries build the capacity to help themselves. This includes promoting and protecting democracy and human rights; saving children from starvation and disease; providing relief assistance to refugees and disaster victims; countering global crime, drugs and terrorism; and assisting countries devastated by war and the long-term threat of land-mines.
- 5 - Press Release GA/9077 14 June 1996
The United Nations has reached a unique and critical moment in its history. In the new world of international relations, where dialogue and cooperation have an opportunity to prevail, greater than at any other time in the past, we must ensure that the United Nations is well equipped and more efficient to face the challenges of this hopeful state of human history. But it is up to States themselves to make the United Nations work for the international community. After all, the Organization is no more than the sum of its Members. Its successes are the successes of its Member States; and its failures are the failures of the Member States. Should we let the United Nations end up being shaped by the uncertainty and unpredictability so characteristic of our times?
I don't think we should.
Because the United Nations is very important and we do now have the opportunity to contribute decisively to cross the threshold of this new era of hope.
I will be honest with you.
Were the United Nations an organization dedicated to promoting war, regional conflicts, ethnic persecution, genocide, violation of human rights, enlarging the differences between North and South, forget about the children, and the poor, and the sick, ignore democracy and support dictatorship around the world -- were these to be the main goals of the United Nations, then I would understand perfectly well and could join my voice to those who attack the United Nations, who criticize its goals and achievements, who accuse its leaders, members and officers of doing a bad job.
But can democracies criticize the United Nations for promoting democracy? Can peace-lovers criticize the United Nations for working for peace? Can welfare States criticize the United Nations for aiding the poor, the sick, the needy? Can freedom-lovers criticize the United Nations for promoting human rights? Can true believers in the equality of all human beings criticize the United Nations for fighting racism and ethnic persecution or for having fought apartheid?
Where are our priorities? Do we want to build a world for the rich and powerful, or do we want to build a civilization of love, caring for those most in need? Do we want to promote egotism or do we want to serve our brothers who suffer and cry for help? Do we live for promoting self-interest or do we work for a better world for everyone? Do we care for ourselves only or do we care for our neighbour?
The world has become a global village. All human beings have become our neighbours. Do we want to help them, or do we want to let them die in war, in political repression or in extreme poverty?
- 6 - Press Release GA/9077 14 June 1996
The United Nations is a more serious matter than it seems when you first hear about it. I warmly invite you all to acknowledge that our attitude towards the United Nations has much less to do with money, or good administration, or modernization than with our own concept of people, life, morals and justice.
If we consider ourselves true humanists and if our main concern is with everything human, then we must draw from it the inevitable conclusion that the United Nations is worth our praise and we must support its humanitarian activities with all our heart and soul. Otherwise, it will succumb at the hands of its enemies and for lack of support from its friends.
* *** *