belgium

                                                                BELGIUM

                                             55TH General Assembly of the United Nations
                                                              13 September 2000

                                                         STATEMENT BY
                                           THE DEPUTY PRIME MASTER AND
                                   MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BELGIUM
                                                   H.E. Mr. LOUIS MICHEL

Mr. President.
Mr. Secretary General,
Colleagues and Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like first of all to congratulate you, Mr. President, on your election to the chair of this 55th session of the General
Assembly of the United Nations. I wish you every success in this task, which is both difficult and inspiring. Allow me to include
in this tribute the Secretary General of the United Nations , who has a crucial role in promoting international cooperation
towards peace, security, justice and development in the world.

I fully associate myself with the speech made at this tribune by my French colleague, Hubert Vedrine, on behalf of the
European Union. His declaration has covered extensively the European concerns regarding different regions of the world and
the crises they continue to experience. I will limit myself, like my European colleagues, to repeat the encouragement of the
European Union to the Israelis and the Palestinians to seize the historic opportunity, now within reach, to conclude a
framework agreement in the coming weeks.

Mr. President,

The new century is a blank page. It depends on us and on our Organisation to give the appropriate answers to the challenges
inherited from the past century. The Heads of State and Government, gathered here last week for the Millennium Summit,
have set the objectives that will mobilise our energy for the coming years. I will only mention here three of our highest
priorities.

First, World peace. This is the primary responsibility of the Security Council. It is therefore necessary to bring the ongoing
reforms to a successful conclusion and to improve the Council's legitimacy as well as its representative character. To adapt
the Security Council to the evolution of the world is the primary condition for its ability to respond to our expectations.
Belgium coordinates a group of 10 small and medium-sized countries in the search for constructive compromise formulas.
Regarding the enlargement of the Security Council, the attribution of ten new seats, five permanent and five non-permanent,
with an equitable geographical distribution, seems to be a path worth exploring. As for the veto right, we have tabled a
number of concrete and balanced proposals, seeking a voluntary and partial limitation to this right. A reform along these
lines, well balanced and responding to the wishes of most member states, can and should make significant progress in
months to come.

Second, elimination of poverty and sustainable development. The globalisation of the economy must proceed on a par with
job creation and economic take?off in the poorest regions, as well as with universally recognised social and environmental
norms. There is no more denying that great inequalities, differences in development, the lack of good governance and
disregard for human rights, are factors of instability both within States and in international relations.

Third, defence and promotion of democracy and Human Rights. This includes the equal participation of women and men in
public life, and the fight against all forms of racism, intolerance, discrimination and xenophobia. Human Rights constitute
universal values. Serious violations must therefore never be allowed to go unpunished.

This also implies a permanent search for the conditions, modalities and terms that found common human values. Democracy
and on this at least we should all agree is much more than the statement of fact of an established balance of powers or of an
arithmetic majority. It is a political morality. It presupposes loyal electoral behaviour. It is the respect for, and encouragement
of diversity and of open debates. It is a frame of mind based on a vision, a lofty and optimistic conception of the human being.

I say this because even in our old European democracies, which one would consider safe and sheltered, reappears the vile
spectre of the refusal of differences, of exclusion, and of xenophobic or slanderous prejudice.

I say this also because we must recognise that our political systems, in theory well adapted to withstand such assaults,
unfortunately tend to give in to the temptation to minimalise them under the specious invocation of so called realpolitik

The purpose here is not to allege some moral superiority, but simply to remind ourselves that History always exacts a prize
when one refuses to learn its lessons.

Mr.President,

Regarding peace, I will focus above all, like other speakers before me, on the crucial question of peacekeeping, in view of the
document produced by the panel chaired by Mr Lakhdar Brahimi.

Over the past decade, Belgium has participated in numerous peacekeeping operations under the aegis of the United Nations,
among others in Somalia, Rwanda and in the Balkans;

Reviewing these experiences, the Belgian Senate issued a detailed report in December 1997 containing recommendations
that prefigure in some way the recommendations of the Brahimi report. I will point out some aspects on which there is a
complete convergence between the two reports.

First, United Nations forces must be prepared to confront the worst case scenario. "Blue Helmets" must be trained, equipped,
and commanded for such an eventuality.

Second, these forces must have at their disposal all relevant information as well as the capacity to analyse such information in
terms of strategy and tactics. They must hence be able to rely on a efficient intelligence capability.

Third, troop contributing countries must be closely associated with the preparation of the mandates and the
management of the operations.

You will not be surprised to hear me plead for the recommendations formulated in the Brahimi report to benefit from a large
support from all member States. It is my sincere wish to see all stakeholders-the Member States, the Security Council and
the Secretariat, prove their determination and their will to extend reforms to all levels and all branches of this Organisation. I
pledge the full support of the Belgian government to Mrs Louise Frechette, Deputy secretary General, who assumes
responsibility for the implementation of the report.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that, in our mind, the conclusions of the Brahimi Report cannot be
dissociated from other discussions to be held during the 55`" session, specifically those on the revision of the scale of
assessment for peacekeeping budgets. In this regard as well, the member States will have to keep an open mind in order to
set up an equitable system of financial burden sharing, which is adapted to the actual world configuration.

Another sensitive question presents itself sharply in the light of recent experiences. It is the proper role of United Nations in
relation with regional organisations, even in relation to the initiatives of neighbouring states in a conflict zone. There is no
unique answer to this question. Lessons to be learned from the Yugoslav crisis are not the same as those that can be drawn
from the recent crises in Africa, among others. The purpose here is not to deny the merits of the regional approach. Belgium
supports on the contrary the creation of regional rapid reaction forces at the service of peacekeeping, as underlined by our Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt at this same tribune one week ago. But the merits of the regional approach can never justify inaction on behalf of the International community nor oratory diplomacy referring the solution to regional fora or temporary coalitions. The Security Council, as the supreme authority in matters of peace and security, must be able to play its role, allowing for the possible referral of some tasks to suitable regional institutions.

A last observation regarding preventive diplomacy and peacekeeping. The arsenal at the disposal of the United Nations is not limited to sending troops. Other means are available and, moreover, have been used repeatedly during these last years. I am referring to sanctions, in particular economic sanctions. This type of coercitive measures, if applied by the Security Council in adherence to the Charter, can indeed produce the results envisaged when their use is well targeted and limited in time or when they are inscribed in a realistic time frame. But experience shows that when they are applied without discrimination or when they serve overtly ambitious political objectives, their efficiency tends to decrease after a certain time and they may even produce results wholly opposed tot the ones envisaged. It is increasingly rare that sanctions constitute a truly useful instrument. In no case do they provide answers applicable in all circumstances or without time limits. Too often, they only penalise the population without reaching the targeted rulers, who understand frequently the "boomerang"use they can make of such sanctions.

Mr. President,

I would like now to go to a subject dear to my heart, central Africa. During the past year, my country has expressed strongly its concern to be present and to contribute to the mobilisation of the international community in support of the Lusaka peace process . It is essential that all Congolese parties engage resolutely and without precondition in a dialogue as they agreed in Lusaka. It is equally essential that our Organisation, and those of its members who have the means to do so, support the rapid deployment of the MONUC. Certain conditions or modalities of this operation may be up for review, taking into account i.a. the Brahimi report.
But without the presence of a peacekeeping force there will be no peace, that much is certain. Neither will there be a lasting peace nor even a permanent cease fire without a dialogue between the Congolese parties. Both these questions are obviously linked. As you know, the Lusaka peace process finds itself in an impasse. Its is essential to make progress where possible. Hence, the problem should not be stated in terms of a simple sequence of priorities. In any event, the responsibility of the Security Council and the international community remains part of the equation. But without a dramatic improvement in the political awareness of the parties to the conflict, and without the material support of the international community, the peace process is doomed to fail.

In Burundi, the action of neighbouring states and the remarkable facilitation undertaken by former presidents Nyerere and Mandela have started to yield promising yet still incomplete results. Timely involvement of our organisation and of the principal donor countries is required to consolidate the gains and set the country once and for all on the path of peace and development.

It's also in this spirit that Belgium will be an active partner in the preparatory meeting organized by the European Commission in
Brussels on september 15, leading up to a donor conference soon to be convened by France, as suggested by Nelson Mandela.

Well intentioned efforts to serve peace can sometimes be voided by greed and feud, fuelled by illegal exploitation of local resources.
These resources are financing conflicts which themselves become a source for profit. The problem of diamond trade in conflict areas is at the center of this question. We know that war diamonds represent only a fraction of international trade, but these illegal revenues contribute to destabilize the situation, encourage the logic of war and spread corruption and anarchy. Belgium is active in the efforts to create a global system of verification. It is high time indeed to put in place a realistic legal framework, efficient for all in order to regulate the trade of diamonds.

Let me turn now to non proliferation and disarmament. Last April , during the Conference on NPT, Belgium intervened vigorously to express our concerns regarding a certain number of facts which could lead to the weakening, if not the complete rethinking of the NPT regime negotiated throughout these years. We are welcoming the conclusions of the Conference, and the reflection that it triggered. A favorable climate has been created in order to implement the plan of action. This being said, a certain number of Sates still refuse to adhere to the NPT, and others have not yet ratified the Nuclear Test ban Treaty.

We have followed closely, and with some concerns, the discussion around the anti ballistic defense system in the United States. Belgium is not opposed in principle to the notion of antimissile defense. We are only stating that the political perception, the analysis of the threat and the means to counter it vary greatly from regions to regions. There is no unique response, nor universal, but it is of paramount importance to make sure that an antimissile system , whatever it may be, contributes to general stability and the consolidation of confidence building. In other words, the decisions will have to be taken not only on the basis of a strategic and technical analysis, but also on a consensual basis which builds upon political and strategic balances. We welcome the decision by the American administration to postpone the decision on the launching of a program. Besides the question of technical feasibility, this program, taken on a unilateral basis, would have had a negative impact on our common objectives of disarmament. We are hoping now that this decision will encourage negotiation of a START III agreement between the US and Russia. Rapid progress on a new substantial reduction of nuclear arms could lead to a new round of negotiations in Geneva regarding the cut?off Treaty banning the production of nuclear fissile materials.

Belgium welcomes the adhesion by 138 States to the Convention on the prohibition of antipersonnel mines. Further efforts have to be made in order to implement it and mobilize the necessary funding to eliminate landmines for ever.

I have dwelled mainly on peace and international security. I would like to come back on two other themes that are considered a priority for Belgium in the action program of the Millennium Summit Declaration. Without these priorities, our efforts in the field of security would be lost. I am referring to the respect of human rights, and development on the global scale.

The protection of human rights is a leading feature of the foreign policy of my country. Our active participation in the Commission on Human Rights will give us the possibility to further enlarge our initiatives and our political action. We will be able to act more directly in the field where we have a particular interest, namely the fight against racism, xenophobia, or the rights of the Child. Belgium was actively involved in the negotiation of the additional protocol to the Convention of the Rights of the Child aiming at sparing them from the suffering of an armed conflict. The signature of this protocol, on the occasion of the Millennium Summit, as well as the signature by our country of the second protocol on sexual exploitation of children, are evident signs of our common endeavor to reinforce the protection of the rights of the child. I would like to restate here the wish of my country to permanently abolish the death penalty all over the world. I will also make an appeal to countries that are not in the position to do so , to adopt a moratorium as a transition towards abolishment. We certainly cannot accept the death penalty being still implemented in cases of young adults, pregnant women and mentally disordered people.

We are following very closely the evolution of international law and the jurisprudence aiming at condemning persons convicted of crimes against humanity. My country has been in the forefront of national legislation in this context and hope that these measures can serve as a deterrent , and as an example for other States. We have just ratified the status of the International Criminal Court and we are encouraging other States to do the same and support this important commitment.

M. Chairman,

Let me say a few words on Globalisation and the challenges involved. Globalisation is the expression of a technological revolution that is unavoidable. It makes little sense to condemn this evolution but it is necessary to streamline its dynamics in the direction of a real economic and social progress for the well?being of a larger number of people. Globalisation of the economy and trade cannot simply imply the renouncement of our political and institutional responsibilities. The risk is very real.

We are already witnessing a form of abandon of responsibilities in case of Governments and Parliaments confronted to the gigantic challenges of Globalisation, and the impossibility to deal with them at the national level. In the absence of a real global authority, recognized as such, and efficient, the dynamics of globalisatio.n will lead us to a political vacuum. There will be no new economical world order without a new political world order in which national democratic institutions, representative and accountable in the political sense, can play a role. This is another challenge facing our organization and its member States. We will have to provide an answer in this new millennium.

The United Nations system is at the heart of the issue of globalisation, and its effect are more and more evident. The questions have been raised, now it is the time to find the answers, but we are already convinced that only the UN system , with all its ramification, is in a position to harmonize economical with human development. Here, more than anywhere else, we realize that human beings, wherever they come from, are sharing a high degree of common values and expectations, sharing also the same fears, the same needs, and the same dreams. This belief has to guide us in all our actions, here, and at home.

I thank you Mister President