Continuing commitment to UN reform
Today I want to focus attention on four aspects of reform
within the UN system: reform of the Security Council, electoral group
reconfiguration, reform of peacekeeping, and reform of the human rights treaty
committee system. It is our view that progress in each of these areas must be
achieved to enable the UN to deliver results and ensure its relevance and
effectiveness.
Security Council Reform
Reform and expansion of the Security Council is driven by
two fundamental, interrelated imperatives: the need to restore the
representative nature of the Council by reconfiguring its composition to
reflect the size and diversity of contemporary UN membership, and the need to
enhance the Council's credibility, authority and legitimacy.
The Australian Government's view has long been that expansion
in both categories of membership is needed to restore balance and equity to
the composition of the Council.
New permanent seats should be assumed by the under-represented
developing regions of the world. New permanent seats should also be allocated
to the major industrialised powers best able to contribute to the maintenance
of international peace and security. Equally importantly, other members of the
UN should be given the opportunity to contribute directly to the work of the
Council through periodic participation as elected members. Expansion of non-permanent
membership would enhance the representative nature of the Council, enabling it
to act genuinely on behalf of the whole membership.
Australia has long voiced concerns about the veto and continues
to argue that there must be limitations on its use. Of course, all permanent
members of the Council, old and new, must remain accountable for their
performance, and to this end any new arrangements for the Council should be
reviewed after ten or fifteen years.
Regrettably, discussion on Security Council reform has
failed to reach agreement on a package of reforms in the six years since the
Open Ended Working Group was established. The impasse is disappointing, and I
hope that this session will give new impetus to the reform effort. It is clear
from statements at the Millennium Summit, and during this debate, that there is
strong support for reform. Renewed commitment and flexibility is needed from
all sides.
Electoral
group reconfiguration
In the recent debate about UN reform, one key element has largely been missing. I refer to the UN electoral groups.
The electoral groups were established to ensure that
there was fair and equitable representation on UN bodies, so that all members
who wanted to make a contribution to UN decision-making would have an
opportunity to do so. Now that three decades have passed since the
formalisation of the present groups, it is timely that we focus on their
relevance to present and future geopolitical realities.
The current group system reflects the geopolitics of the
1960s. Since that time, more than sixty nations have joined the UN, leading to
significant disparities between the size of groupings and an inadequate level
of representation for some sub-regions. In addition, the original
rationale for the configuration of the electoral groups has eroded, creating
dissonance with the way many member states organise themselves politically and
electorally.
The previous realignment of groups in 1963 was a long and
difficult process impelled by significant changes in the UN system after the
entry of many newly independent states from Africa and Asia. I recognise that
group reconfiguration is no easy matter, and accept that change now will be
similarly complex. For that very reason we should delay no longer in commencing
a serious debate of these issues.
While there are many possible configurations for revised
electoral groupings, and many sensitivities around altering the status quo,
the dramatic global changes since the current system came into force have
created historic anomalies that cry out to be redressed. Australia looks forward to
working with others to achieve that goal.
Treaty committee review and treaty body reform
As part of the government's commitment to a strong and
relevant United Nations, Australia recently completed a review of the United
Nations human rights committee system, with the objective of improving its
effectiveness. The review proceeded from our Government's commitment to the
international promotion and protection of human rights, and a firm belief that
the UN has a central role to play.
Australia has a proud human rights record and we take our
international rights and obligations seriously. We are party to both Human
Rights covenants and to the four conventions. Within Australia, which has a
strong civil society, human rights are protected by a range of key civil and political
mechanisms, including a strong democratic tradition, our Constitution, an
independent judiciary, a free press, and wide-ranging anti-discrimination
legislation. Internationally,
Australia is a strong proponent of the universal application of human rights
standards, committed to continued support for international human rights
protection.
We are concerned that the committees, established to
monitor international compliance with human rights treaties, are losing
credibility and effectiveness because of the way they operate. It is important
also that the international protection system work efficiently and effectively
so that democratic countries such as Australia, which have a proud record of
extending generous humanitarian assistance, can continue to have the
confidence and support of their own domestic constituencies for such
humanitarian protection.
Australia's review found that the committees need to
adopt a more consistent approach to their role, and understand the pitfalls of
simply accepting without analysis the submissions put before them by non-government
organisations. It is important that adequate recognition be given to the role
and views of governments which are democratically elected and which take their
treaty commitments and reporting obligations seriously. The committees need
also to be more balanced and strategic about targeting key human rights
offenders and avoid unfairly focusing their criticism on countries with good
human rights records.
For some years now Australia has, together with a number
of other countries including Canada, New Zealand and Norway, been advocating
reform of the treaty committees. Most recently, the Australian Mission to the
United Nations in Geneva hosted a meeting of around 20 countries to discuss
treaty committee reform. The United Nations itself has also recognised the need
for reform of the treaty committee system, and Australia has been fully
supportive of these international reform efforts.
Australia intends now to broaden such efforts by
spearheading a high-level diplomatic initiative to garner broad support
for reforms to improve the functioning of the committees and
their operations. Reforms could include the provision of adequate resources to
the human rights treaty committees, improvements to their working methods,
standardised rules of procedure when considering states' reports, and better consultation
between the committees themselves to coordinate reporting timetables and to
facilitate cooperative work on reform issues. But Australia does not have a
monopoly on good ideas, and we want to work closely with UN officials and with
like-minded countries to make the treaty committee system work more
effectively for the good of all member states and for the protection of human
rights.
We will therefore be talking widely with others to
develop concrete proposals for reform. We will raise these issues in the
General Assembly, at the Commission on Human Rights and in other appropriate
meetings. We also think that the regular meetings of states parties to the six
human rights treaties should discuss reform issues and provide guidance to the
respective committees on their working methods.
Australia wants to maximise the effectiveness of the
treaty bodies. We will not shy away from our responsibilities, but will press
for the reforms that are needed to make the system work well and achieve its
objectives. If reform doesn't occur, the committee system will increasingly be
ignored and made redundant. That would be a setback for the cause of human
rights.
Peacekeeping and international security
I turn now to the matter of peacekeeping and the
maintenance of international security.
Peacekeeping and peace operations
Australia has a long and honourable tradition as a
participant in UN peacekeeping operations, most recently in East Timor. And I
believe that the strength of our commitment is reflected in the recent
appointment by the Secretary-General of Australian Major-General
Tim Ford as his military adviser.
The experience of the 1990s has clearly shown that the
UN's ability to meet an expanding and increasingly complex range of
peacekeeping demands is under strain. The decade witnessed some important
successes in peacekeeping - notably East Timor, but also some smaller,
unheralded operations. But it also saw some tragic failures, the costs of which
were often measured in human lives.
I commend the Secretary-General's commitment to
blunt scrutiny and review of the UN's performance, including the reports on
Srebrenica and Rwanda. We particularly commend his initiative in convening the
Brahimi Panel on UN Peace Operations. The Brahimi Report is a landmark document
setting out a blueprint for modernising the UN's peacekeeping and related
functions. We must move expeditiously to consider its recommendations.
Let me highlight briefly five points that, in Australia's
view, are among the most significant lessons of recent experiences.
First, military intervention must be used only as a last
resort. All efforts must be made to find peaceful solutions. In this context,
we welcome the Brahimi Report's emphasis on preventive action and peace‑building.
Second, where the UN is deployed, there must be a peace
to keep. There are real dangers in sending troops indefinitely into harm's way
in the absence of a clear peace plan and reasonable prospects for achieving it.
Disputing parties must be committed to peace, and must be held accountable for
their actions.
Third, peace operations must have a mandate from the
Security Council that is appropriate to the job they are being asked to do. If
the environment is hostile, they must be appropriately equipped and able to project
credible force.
Fourth, deployment must take place quickly once a
decision is taken by the Security Council. Delays can lead to the further
deterioration of a situation, and can cost lives. The Brahimi Report offers a
number of useful ideas to speed deployment which merit careful consideration.
Fifth, UN peace operations must have a clear exit
strategy. This is linked in particular to the clarity of Council mandates: as
the Brahimi Report rightly stresses, mandates must be clear, credible and achievable.
It is also linked to the efficacy of accompanying peace processes and peace-building
efforts.
We welcome the attention given to these issues in the
Brahimi Report. We also support the point that the UN must be given the
resources it needs to carry out the demands that we make of it. There is no
question that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations needs to be
strengthened and reformed. Ultimately, it is our responsibility, as member
states, to support a stronger and more effective UN peacekeeping capacity. This
includes placing the financing of peacekeeping on a surer footing and paying
our assessed contributions in full and on time.
East Timor
Mr President, I can not conclude without referring to the
question of East Timor.
When I addressed this Assembly one year ago, East Timor
was in the throes of the most appalling violence at the hands of a brutal and
lawless militia. Since then important progress has been made in restoring
security and building the foundations of an independent East Timor. Australia
pays tribute to the men and women of INTERFET and of UNTAET for their
commitment and in too many cases - their sacrifice.
East Timor faces a long and difficult path to peace and
prosperity. Australia is playing a major role in the territory's reconstruction,
through the UN and other organisations as well as bilaterally. We are committed
for the long term to helping the East Timorese build their emerging nation ‑
not only for the benefit of the East Timorese but in the interests of stability
and security in our region.
Regrettably, the pro-integration militia continue
to pose a major threat to security and stability. Intimidation and violence
against Timorese refugees and humanitarian aid personnel in the camps on the
East-West Timor border must be halted. The killing of UNHCR workers
earlier this month deserves the world's strongest condemnation. Australia
reiterates its call on Indonesia to fulfil its responsibility to provide
effective security in West Timor, including by bringing an end to militia
activity, bringing to justice those responsible for crimes, creating the
necessary conditions for the return of UNHCR, and resolving the refugee
situation. We urge the Indonesian authorities to take all possible steps in
this direction, including cooperating with the proposed Security Council
mission.
Conclusion ‑ keeping the UN relevant
Mr President, if the United Nations is to remain relevant
and credible, it must work on its strengths and maintain a strong commitment to
a continuing program of reform and renewal. The challenges that face the
organisation are formidable, but not insurmountable. The need for change is
clear and urgent, but I believe that it is not beyond the ingenuity and good
will of our generation to emulate our predecessors in grasping the reform
nettle.
At the Millennium Summit, the world's leaders highlighted
the need for the United Nations to meet the challenges of the new century. Let
us heed their call, and work together with renewed determination and commitment
to make this organisation more representative, and much more effective.
