Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: security

  • Address on the International Criminal Court Delivered by His Excellency Arthur N.R. Robinson, President of Trinidad and Tobago

    At a Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Symposium entitled International Law and the Quest for Security held at the University of California at Santa Barbara

    Thank you, Dr. Krieger, for this exposition on the basis on which the International Criminal Court came into being. You had, I understand, a very enlightening discussion on aspects of International Law, International Criminal Law specifically, this morning and that, together with what Dr Krieger has said, will form a very informative, useful background against which I will speak.

    I will deal more with the historical aspect of the attempts at unified action by the International Community to establish rules of behavior and in saying so, I recall the words of a notorious Nazi criminal. He was Hitler’s most gifted technician who did more than anyone else to assist Hitler in his ravages and destruction of different parts of Europe and other parts of the world. He was caught along with others, both military and business (people). He was tried by the Tribunal of Nuremberg, as it has come to be known, convicted and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment in Spandau. It was after his conviction, when reality dawned upon him, Albert Speer bared his soul to the tribunal and said, among other things, that “It is necessary that rules must be devised whereby mankind can learn to live with one another because, with the advances that would take place in science and technology, a new war of this kind will result in the destruction of civilization.”

    And that is what, fundamentally, an International Criminal Court is about: the creation of rules by the International Community, establishing standards of behaviour where anyone will be held accountable for violation of such standards where the most egregious offences are involved.

    With the tremendous advances that Albert Speer foresaw in science and technology, it is clear that what is before us now, and I speak particularly to the youth in this audience, what is evolving before our very eyes and in our very presence, is a new civilization which science and technology have developed around us, the beginnings of a new civilization in which we humans are involved whether we like it or not.

    How are we going to make use of this tremendous advance in science and technology is a matter not so much for the scientists like Albert Speer, it is a matter for all of us. For the consequences of abuse of this new power that is being placed in the hands of some would have enormous results for all. So what touches all, as was said decades ago in a different context, must be approved by all. And this is how you are brought into the picture to be involved in the decision: shall we establish rules which will apply to all, rich and poor, high and low, powerful and powerless? Shall we establish rules whereby we all can abide and learn to live with one another? Or shall we allow this enormous power that is being placed in the hands of some by science and technology to run away and act in accordance with its own rules?

    I give an illustration of centuries ago: A country in the region of Alsace in Europe where a ruler by the name of Peter Von Hagen Bach got out of control and he wreaked havoc among the villagers of the region of Alsace and there were no rules and there was no established power to bring him to account. So what did they do? They made use of their numbers. That was the power that they had, numbers. They gathered together in their numbers from everywhere they could collect. They captured him. They brought him to the market place, and they executed him. After that, there were efforts towards creating such rules of behaviour. There were the Geneva Conventions of 1864 and 1865. And then, after the First World War, the victims of the war got together. There was a proposal to establish a permanent court to try Kaiser Wilhelm. That proposal, however, was rejected in favor of an ad hoc tribunal. But before the tribunal could be established, Kaiser Wilhelm escaped to a neutral country, The Netherlands. In those days you could not take action against countries. You could not bring a country to court for harboring a man who had committed the most egregious crimes against humanity. And if you managed to bring the country to court and convicted the country, you could not send the country to jail. And so the people were powerless because countries stood in the way to defend their sovereignty.

    So it was necessary to establish rules and this was done for the first time in the Tribunal of Nuremberg where one of the principles established was: Since it is individuals who commit crimes, however powerful they may be—they may be kings, they may be presidents, they may be generals, they may be field marshals—they are individuals. Therefore you do not hold their countries to account, you hold them to account.

    Individuals must be brought to account. And there must be no impunity. No one must escape. So, even if they belong to a distant country, they can still be tried, if necessary, in absentia and convicted and sentence imposed and countries may be required to impose those sentences. Wherever those individuals went they would be subject to the charges and the sentences that were imposed. So they could be forever in search of a home because wherever they went, they would be subject to the sentence of the court and imprisoned.

    That is the importance of a permanent Court. One of the great principles that would apply in the case of a permanent Court is that it is no respecter of persons. Whoever you may be, you may be President, you may be Secretary for Foreign Affairs, you may be Secretary of Defence, you may be Commander in Chief, you will still be subject to trial and sentencing. So humans wherever you may be would then be able to have a sense of security that if anyone, however powerful that person may be, invades your security or destroys your humanity or commits any of these crimes against humanity, any of these egregious crimes, the permanent Court is there for the purpose of trial, conviction and sentencing.

    Nuremberg however, was a tribunal, an ad hoc tribunal formed by the victors of the First World War to try the vanquished, and there were many persons who felt it should have been a permanent court. I was a student at that time in the University of Oxford, engaging in debates in the Students’ Union and in one debate on the United Nations, the actual subject of the debate was “The United Nations has failed”, because it was clear that the United Nations had really no power to do anything to anyone; had no power of implementation of action, sentencing and imprisonment of persons.

    And in that debate also was another young man and he was from the Boston area- the University of Boston. He had a Doctorate in History and International Law and was reading for another Doctorate in International Law. His subject was the Nuremberg Trials in International Law. We had extensive discussions and after that debate, we were both recognized as the two best debaters in the debate and became very friendly after that. We had numerous discussions on International Affairs and felt that the way forward, at a time subsequent to the Second World War, when there were doubts about the future of the world, having regard to the experiences of the Nazis, (we were discussing in what direction the world should go, as young people and I hope that young people are engaging in these discussions these days) – we came to the conclusion that we should seek to establish that the world should go in the direction of universal human rights. And since there were no established institutions for the enforcement of those rights, we felt that in the most serious cases, an institution should be developed that has enforcement powers and therefore Nuremberg was the way to go.

    But Nuremberg was ad hoc; it was for the specific purpose and when it was done, it was finished. But what we felt was that there should be a permanent court, a court establishing that everybody should know it is there and if these crimes are committed they could be brought to account to that court and that would be a means of bringing some influence on persons in refraining, some deterrent influence, on persons against the commission of those crimes.

    If, for example, we had such a permanent court they would not have had to establish a tribunal in Bosnia Herzegovina, in Rwanda, and so on and maybe those crimes not have been committed because the persons who are now before those tribunals would have known that they could be brought to account for the commission of those crimes and the people around them would have known that those persons could be brought to account. So this could be a tremendous deterrent – if one is to have a permanent court, rather than have to resort to tribunals – to doing something after the act has been done rather than having provision so that action could be taken.

    Everyone should know that action could be taken. This would be a tremendous deterrent influence. And since the rules would apply to all, there would be no impunity for persons who feel, because of their positions or some special situation that; they could commit crimes and escape. So this is the position that is placed before us in building this new civilization. Whether we like it or not, the civilization is being built for us.

    Look at the tremendous developments taking place in communications. As I speak, I could be heard in Japan or in China on in India or in any of these places, even as I speak. That is the importance of the communications revolution where every individual could use the internet and express his opinion and that opinion could be known throughout the world. An individual is no longer isolated, which is a tremendous revolution that has developed around us and the question is, shall we or shall we not establish rules for the most egregious offences, for the worst forms of behaviour, that they could be dealt with in a manner provided for in law and according to justice, that is to say, all rules of justice should prevail. They should be heard, they should have the opportunity to be heard, to put up their defence against charges against them. For example, they should be tried, and tried in accordance with the principles of a court of law and no harsh penalties be imposed because of the conviction if they are guilty. They would have to be proven guilty in a court of law where all the principles in the civilized world that apply will be applied and no one would have punishments imposed because of his or her political conviction or because of their religious convictions.

    Those matters will not apply in an International Court. The Statute of the court makes that kind of provision. It gives protection. Whereas it provides for penalties which would apply in all cases, it also makes provision for protection of individuals so that they could not be subject to arbitrary rules and penalties according to the whims and fancies of those who possess the powers.

    So this innovation of a permanent court has been described as the second most important development in International Law since the United Nations Charter.

    It is true that I moved the motion in the United Nations in 1989, but as I said last night, there is a great deal of substance in the utterance of the most distinguished user of the English language, the most distinguished poet and playwright who made one of his characters say, “There is a divinity that shapes our ends rough hew them how we will.” And as I stand here, I can say there is a divinity that shaped my life. That is the only explanation for the fact that I stand here before you this afternoon and I speak. For it easily could have been otherwise; that I received the award that I received last night. For in the year 1990 there was a revolt in my country. I was the Prime Minister. A fanatical group of Muslims decided that they wanted to take over the government. They invaded the Parliament in which I sat and in which other members of Parliament, Ministers of Government were. They held us, they bound us. I was bound hand and foot and as I lay bleeding on the floor of the Parliament, they called on me to instruct the troops to withdraw from their assault and to lay down their arms, that is to say the Government troops, and tell them that the Government had fallen. And as they put the microphone to my mouth to carry out their instructions, I shouted in the microphone: “These are murderers and torturers. Attack with full force.” And this of course astonished my assailants. They were in shock; they withdrew; they pulled back. But one of them who was some distance away fired the gun. It caught me in the knee. I could have been lame for life. The doctor said half an inch in a different way and the main artery would have been severed and in minutes I would have gone. This was 1990. I made reference to the event last night and this morning, I awoke to hear my wife who is somewhat ill saying, “1990, 1990, 1990.” That is all she was saying.

    That reinforces what I said. How did I escape? There is a divinity that enabled those assailants, those villains to be caught and captured and tried. So when I stood in the United Nations and moved that motion, with all the background that I had and all the preparation, I was able to do it because I was then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago. I had great assistance from some of the most experienced and learned experts in the world in the field of International Law, including Dr Woetzel himself.

    I moved the motion. I brought them together and had the motion prepared and I moved the motion. How different it could have been. I happened to be Prime Minister. I was in the place to do it—in the United Nations. I was in the position to do it. I was Prime Minister and I was able to incorporate the expertise and experience of the most learned in the world. I was able to do it and that is why I am regarded as the person who is the virtual author, the father, as it is put, of the International Criminal Court. It so easily could have been someone else, but nobody else was in the position to do it.

    So University students, I emphasise this in order to let you understand how history is made and unless historians delve into the factors that produced events, the events describing the events themselves are of little use. True knowledge has to be based on understanding and evaluation of events, surrounding events, events that have led to the conclusion that is arrived at. So one has to be careful with one’s history and with what historians say. And it is of extreme importance that one should understand the meaning of an International Criminal Court and the nature of the opposition that comes for the International Criminal Court. It is important to delve into the origin of that opposition, for unless one understands the basis of that opposition and the manner in which that opposition has evolved and the situation that has led to that opposition, one would not understand and one would not be prepared for the necessary campaign to deal with any campaign of opposition. And as the people of Alsace dealt with Peter Von Hagen Bach by a combination of numbers—their power came from numbers, they did not have the influence that he had, they brought together numbers—in the same way, dealing with any campaign against the International Criminal Court, a necessary campaign must be a mobilization of the numbers in the world. The numbers in the world must speak and you have the internet. You have the communications revolution now which makes every individual a potent actor.

    So I am happy to speak to you in this University of California in Santa Barbara. It is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so and it is an occasion I can assure you I shall never forget, for the attentiveness with which you have listened. An occasion where clearly there has been a response which I understand. For all these reasons, I shall never forget this occasion and I wish you progress and prosperity in your lives as students and hope that you will be a decisive influence in anything that involves the benefit of humanity and there is no doubt about it, the International Criminal Court is a matter for the benefit of all humanity.

    I thank you.

  • Measuring the Rule of Law Statement delivered by James Herman, President of the State Bar of California

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Symposium International Law and the Quest for Security held at the University of California at Santa Barbara

    I am honored to speak to a this group of activists dedicated not to peace in theory but peace in practice. I congratulate David Krieger on the good work of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. As a 1971 graduate of this University, it is ironic I stand here more than thirty years after that time of turmoil to address a new generation studying old problems.

    Benjamin Franklin has said “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This was brought into special focus during a Peace Foundation gathering my wife, Judge Denise deBellefeuille, and I hosted shortly after the September 11 tragedy last year.

    I am a lawyer. The lawyers of the world are dedicated to the peaceful resolution of disputes between citizens and disputes between governments.

    I have dedicated my career to the rule of law. I have been to the Hague as a civil trial lawyer practicing under the Hague convention. I was a fellow of the New York University Law School’s Criminal Law Education and Research Center affiliated with the United Nations Crime Prevention Section. When I hear of the International Criminal Court, I know we are substituting law fare for warfare. Our work will be completed not only when weapons are beaten in to plowshares but when battlefields are converted to courtrooms.

    I recently—along with my wife, Judge deBellefuille who is a strong supporter of our organization—led a group of lawyers to the Peoples Republic of China. Although known for its human rights abuses, I was gratified that the Chinese Legal Profession is hungry for the rule of law. I was gratified that the government of China has opened over 2500 legal aid offices throughout the country. I was gratified the Women’s Legal Center at Beijing University is doing impact litigation throughout China on women’s and children’s legal issues. I was gratified when a Chinese lawyer said that perhaps China needed fewer party secretaries and more lawyers.

    This reminds me of the often repeated but misunderstood line from Henry the VI, part 2, “First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Many people, many lawyers think Shakespeare was being anti-lawyer. The context of this line is much different, however. Jack Cade, a would-be revolutionary is plotting to overthrow the government and is looking for suggestions from his gang. Dick the Butcher, recognizing the importance of the rule of law to social stability, responds, “First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

    Although there are those who say California could use more party secretaries and fewer lawyers, I say trial by jury is a far superior social safety valve than trial by combat. The rule of law is the original alternative dispute resolution.

    I was unhappy when the Presidential election was decided by the Supreme Court rather than the voters. But I have realized since that the Supreme Court’s decision was a triumph of the rule of law. Although there was both grumbling and celebration over the decision, there was no violent coup, there was no overthrow of the government by the politically disappointed. There was respect for the rule of law. And as the leader of 186,000 lawyers in this state, I am proud of the role lawyers play in making this a country ruled by law rather than by force.

    But I am concerned when we exchange liberty for safety. I am concerned when we deny basic due process to the least among us, to those whom we dehumanize and label as “the other.” I am concerned when we ignore international tribunals in favor of unilateral force. Beware when any government seeks to diminish the role of lawyers in any tribunal because that signals efficiency, not justice.

    Child advocate Marian Wright Edelman has written, “the future which we hold in trust for our own children will be shaped by our fairness to other people’s children.” Our fairness to other people’s children. This, above all else, is the measure of the rule of law.

  • A Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Symposium on International Law and the Quest for Security

    As the future of the international legal order hangs in the balance in the United Nations Security Council, it is necessary for government officials, academics, activists and citizens to engage in constructive dialogue about the role that the global legal order is to play in global security. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation sponsored a symposium entitled International Law & the Quest for Security enabling such timely discussion to take place at the University of California at Santa Barbara on October 25, 2002.

    The keynote speakers were Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton and Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, his Excellency Arthur N.R. Robinson, President of Trinidad and Tobago, and John Burroughs, Executive director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. They were accompanied by a variety of panelists with varying backgrounds in international law. The resulting conversation was constructive and cutting edge as the participants proceeded to challenge one another’s assumptions about the future of the world legal order.

    Detoured or Derailed?

    Professor Falk set the tone for the first half of the symposium by expounding upon the crisis of security that the international community is currently suffering. He illustrated how US policies on Iraq challenge the very notion the territorial state and threaten to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations Security Council. Falk ended his initial remarks by posing the question of whether Sept. 11 and the events that have ensued have derailed or simply detoured the post-Cold War progress in fortifying a global legal order.

    The four members of the panel that followed, monitored by Professor Peter Haslund, Director of International and Global Studies Program, Santa Barbara City College, approached the issues addressed by Falk from a variety of perspectives. Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of Western States Legal Foundation and a nuclear weapons abolition activist, drove home the severity of the US military’s enthusiasm for nuclear weapons by quoting from various military documents and speeches. She also urged the audience to organize around a set of values that differ from this militaristic approach instead of focusing on particular issues or weapon systems.

    Cecelia Lynch, an associate professor of political science at UC Irvine, commented on historical trends of social movements and described the tensions between the environmental, peace, humanitarian, and anti-globalization movements today. Professor Lynch also emphasized the need to increase the responsibility of the state for welfare and to decrease the emphasis on militarism.

    Though many of those at the symposium concentrated on evaluating recent US policy, particularly its aggressive stance against Iraq, Professor Manou Eskandari, Chair of the Department of Political Science at Santa Barbara City College, pointed out that, “unilateralism is not just an American problem.” Eskandari also criticized the Security Council as being less than a truly a global forum, and called for democratization of the United Nations.

    Marc McGinns, a senate lecturer in Environmental Studies at the UC Santa Barbara, took an environmentally-based approach to the issues of human and global security. McGinns addressed the tensions between manmade international legal systems and the law of nature claiming that “we are making war against the earth” with our consumption habits. Highlighting the stark inequalities in world consumption, and its destabilizing effects on world security, McGinns put forth the questions, “What’s it to be? Justice or just us?”

    Debating the International Criminal Court

    In the afternoon session of the Symposium the discussion focused on the International Criminal Court (ICC), the statute of the Court having come into force this past July.

    His Excellency President Robinson, who was instrumental in getting the ICC back on the U.N. agenda in 1989, started off the afternoon by delivering a powerful speech delineating his personal involvement in the struggle to establish the ICC. Identifying the Court as a means of establishing standards of behavior he stated, “it is necessary that rules must be devised whereby humankind can live with one another because, with the advances that will take place in science and technology, a new world war of this kind will result in the destruction of humanity.”

    Dr. Burroughs began his talk on opposition to the ICC by pointing out the accuracy of Professor Eskandari’s position that there are other nations besides the US the establishment of the Court. Burroughs pointed out that China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and the United States—the five most populated countries in the world—have not ratified the ICC statute. He then went through the major objections to the court that Marc Grossman, US Under secretary of State, has outlined, displaying the pitfalls of each objection.

    Burroughs’ remarks were followed by an engaging discussion of the value of the ICC as a new element of international law. While panelists such as Judge Paul Egly supported the ICC as a “wonderful document,” Professor Lisa Hajjar, assistant professor of the Law and Society Program at UC Santa Barbara, challenged the ICC approach to international criminal law. Hajjar favored the use of universal jurisdiction in national courts, such as was used in the case against ex-Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. She described this approach as being a more decentralized and democratic and suggested that the establishment of the ICC could actually impede the pursuit of universal jurisdiction in national courts.

    In his remarks, Stan Roden, a practicing attorney from the local community, described how the ICC was consistent with the rights guaranteed in the US constitution. Professor Eskandari questioned this somewhat nation-centric approach asking if the ICC would be any less legitimate if it did not adhere to US constitutional rights.

    Dr. J. Kirk Boyd, a Visiting Professor at UC Santa Barbara, spoke mainly about the Bill of Rights Project, which is working to create an international composition of human rights, consolidating existing documents. Boyd described this project as part of an effort to prevent crimes such as those to be tried under the ICC, creating an international environment where such crimes would become less likely.

    As the symposium wound down, participants enthusiastically welcomed an unexpected appearance by Daniel Ellsburg, releasing the Pentagon Papers to the press during the Vietnam War. Ellsburg voiced his opinion that we are at much risk of nuclear weapons going off in the next weeks or months than we were during the Cold War, emphasizing the need for a long-term approach to weapons proliferation.

    The symposium was wrapped up with the conclusions of David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Richard Falk who synthesized the varying points made throughout day. Falk also left the audience with the hopeful idea of “politics as the art of the impossible,” reminding participants of the importance of continuing to engage in dialogue and action to promote peaceful solutions to conflicts in the face of extreme militarism.
    * Devon Chaffee is the Research and Advocacy Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • As General Debate of 57th General Assembly Opens, Secretary-General Stresses Indispensable Necessity of Multilateralism

    United States President Bush Calls on International Community To Stand Up for Its Security, Saying Iraqi Government a ‘Grave Danger’

    Opening the general debate of the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly this morning, Secretary-General Kofi Annan strongly reaffirmed the indispensable necessity and enduring relevance of multilateralism and multilateral institutions in efforts to maintain international peace, security and freedom for all.

    “I stand before you today as a multilateralist -– by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty”, he told delegations and world leaders. Recalling the 11 September terrorist attacks on the United States, he said the sustained global response to meet that “brutal and criminal challenge” could only be successful by making use of multilateral institutions. When countries worked together in such institutions –- developing, respecting and when necessary, enforcing international law –- they also developed mutual trust and cooperation on other issues, including ensuring open markets and providing protection from acid rain, global warming or the spread of HIV/AIDS.

    The more a country made use of multilateral institutions — on matters large or small — the more others would trust and respect that country and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership. “And among multilateral institutions, this universal Organization has a special place”, he said. When States decided to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there was no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

    He said the existence of an effective international security system depended on the Security Council’s authority -– and therefore the Council must have the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seemed elusive. The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council’s agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace. Highlighting several challenges facing the international community today, he noted that the leadership of Iraq continued to defy mandatory Council resolutions and urged that country to comply with its obligations. If Iraq’s defiance continued, the Council must face its responsibilities.

    George Bush, President of the United States, said the United Nations had been born of the hope of a world moving towards justice, escaping old patterns of

    conflict and fear. The Security Council had been created so that diplomatic deliberations would be more than talk, and resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties, the international community had dedicated itself to standards of dignity shared by all and to a system of security defended by all. Today, those standards and that security were challenged.

    Iraq had answered a decade of United Nations resolutions with a decade of defiance. “All the world now faces a test”, he said, “and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.” And as the Assembly met today, it had been almost four years since last United Nations inspectors had set foot in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s actions, as well as history, logic and the facts, could lead to but one conclusion -– the Iraqi regime was a grave and gathering danger. To assume that regime’s good faith was to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. “And that is a risk we must not take.” Saddam Hussein continued to defy those efforts and to build weapons of mass destruction — a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace.

    Were Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced? he asked. Or were they to be cast aside without consequence? Would the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or would it be irrelevant? The partnership of nations could meet the test before it by making clear what was expected of the Iraqi regime. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted –- Council resolutions would be enforced and the demands of peace and security would be met, or action would be unavoidable. The international community must stand up for its security and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States would make that stand. Representatives of United Nations Member States had the power to make that stand as well.

    Explaining that the root causes of terrorism were a sense of frustration and powerlessness to redress persistent injustice, Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan said that while terrorist attacks needed to be condemned, they should not be used to justify outlawing the struggles of a people for self-determination and liberation from colonial or foreign occupation, nor used to justify State terrorism. India had misused the rationale of war against terrorism against Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, but his country would not be coerced or frightened into compromising on its principled position. The conflict in occupied Kashmir was being waged by Kashmiris, who needed to be allowed to exercise their right to determine their own future.

    He went on to say that, unfortunately, the war against terrorism had been used as a vehicle to spread hatred against Islam and Muslims. As a first step in creating a sustained dialogue between the Islamic and Western nations, he proposed the adoption of a Declaration on Religious and Cultural Understanding, Harmony and Cooperation. His own Government was focused upon restoring the traditions of a tolerant Islam, he said, and had laid the foundations for sustainable development and democracy in three short years by empowering people through the devolution of decision-making to the grass-roots level, improving human rights, rationalizing

    (page 1b follows)

    economic policies and setting up the first Human Development Fund in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

    Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, affirmed that the terrorist attacks of 11 September last year had not weakened, but rather had strengthened the resolve of its members to actively seek security and prosperity for all.

    Iraq remained a major source of concern as well, with regard to weapons of mass destruction, he said. Unconditional and unimpeded access for the weapons inspectors was needed, as well as compliance with the obligations contained in the several Security Council resolutions on the situation in Iraq. The European Union agreed with the United States position that the Security Council urgently needed to address the matter of Iraq. It also agreed with the Secretary-General’s statement that if Iraq’s defiance continued, the Security Council would need to face its responsibilities.

    He said the greatest global challenge remained the fight to rid the world of persistent poverty. Recognizing that aid alone would not eliminate poverty, he saluted the African leaders, who had taken an impressive lead with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) initiative. Strong political will and partnership was required to translate poverty eradication policies into sustainable development. He also extended the European Union’s welcome to the new United Nations Members, Switzerland and East Timor.

    Also participating in this morning’s debate were Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa; Alejandro Toledo, President of Peru; Georgi Parvanov, President of Bulgaria; Vaira Vike-Freiberga, President of Latvia; Valdas Adamkus, President of Lithuania; Rene Harris, President of Nauru and Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe. The Minister for Foreign Relations of Brazil also spoke.

    The general debate of the fifty-seventh General Assembly will continue this afternoon at 3 p.m.

    Background

    The General Assembly began its annual general debate this morning following the presentation by the Secretary-General of his annual report.

    Statement by Secretary-General

    Secretary-General KOFI ANNAN said the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 were an extreme example of a global scourge that required a broad, sustained and global response. A broad response, because terrorism could be defeated only if all nations united against it. A sustained response, because the battle would not be won easily, or overnight. A global response, because terrorism was a widespread and complex phenomenon, with many deep roots and exacerbating factors.

    Such a response could only succeed if full use was made of multilateral institutions. “I stand before you today as a multilateralist -– by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty”, he said.

    Any government committed to the rule of law at home must also be committed to the rule of law abroad, he said. All States had a clear interest, as well as a clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order. On almost no item on the agenda did anyone seriously contend that each nation could fend for itself. Even the most powerful countries knew that they needed to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims.

    Only by multilateral action could it be ensured that open markets offered benefits and opportunities to all; that people in the least developed countries were offered the chance to escape the ugly misery of poverty; that protections were possible from global warming, the spread of HIV/AIDS, or the odious traffic in human beings. Only concerted vigilance and cooperation among all States offered any real hope of denying terrorists their opportunities. When countries worked together in multilateral institutions –- developing, respecting, and enforcing international law, they also developed mutual trust. The more a country made use of multilateral institutions, the more others would trust and respect it. And among multilateral institutions, the universal Organization had a special place. When States decided to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there was no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

    He said the existence of an effective international security system depended on the Security Council’s authority –- and therefore the Council must have the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seemed elusive. The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council’s agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace.

    He said the limited objectives of reconciling Israel’s legitimate security concerns with Palestinian humanitarian needs could not be achieved in isolation from the wider political context. The ultimate shape of a Middle East peace settlement had been defined long ago in Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, as well as in resolution 1397: land for peace; an end to terror and to occupation; two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders. An international peace conference was needed without delay to set out a roadmap of parallel steps. Meanwhile, humanitarian steps to relieve Palestinian suffering must be intensified.

    The leadership of Iraq continued to defy mandatory resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. Efforts to obtain Iraq’s compliance with the Council’s resolutions must continue, he said, appealing to all who had influence with Iraq’s leaders to impress on them the vital importance of accepting the weapons inspections. He urged Iraq to comply with its obligations. If Iraq’s defiance continued, the Council must face its responsibilities.

    The Secretary-General also pressed leaders of the international community to maintain their commitment to Afghanistan. It had been the international community’s shameful neglect of Afghanistan in the 1990s that had allowed that country to slide into chaos, providing a fertile breeding ground for Al Qaeda. Afghanistan’s Government must be helped to extend its authority throughout the country, and donors must follow through on their commitments. Otherwise, the Afghan people would lose hope -– and desperation bred violence.

    In South Asia, the world had recently come closer than for many years to a direct conflict between two nuclear-weapon capable countries, he said. The situation, while a little calmer, remained perilous. The underlying causes must be addressed. If a fresh crisis erupted, the international community might have a role to play.

    In conclusion, he asked all to honour their pledge of two years ago, at the Millennium Summit, “to make the United Nations a more effective instrument” in the service of the world’s people.

    Statements in Debate

    CELSO LAFER, Minister for Foreign Relations of Brazil, said that Brazil had faith in the United Nations. The Organization was at a difficult juncture that called for measures sustained by the principles on which the United Nations was founded. Throughout the eight years of the Presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, certain fundamental requirements had been recurrent, including fostering democratic decision-making and overcoming the governance deficit in international relations. They also included designing a new financial architecture and providing effective solutions for volatility in capital flows; defending a fair and balanced multilateral trade regime; and affirming the value of human rights and development.

    Brazil could not face those challenges alone, he said. That was why President Cardoso had sought to strengthen the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) together with South American integration. The President had also promoted the development of partnerships in all continents, pursuing well-balanced negotiations with countries taking part in the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Brazil was committed to seeing the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol and the establishment of the International Criminal Court; to furthering the social development agenda and to moving forward on nuclear and conventional disarmament. The electoral process currently under way in Brazil would strengthen democracy in the country. Brazil’s commitment to the United Nations and to multilateralism would not waver.

    The tangled interests that formed a global Web of interdependence could only be managed through authority rooted in multilateral institutions and in respect for international law, he said. The commitment to negotiated settlements, under the aegis of multilateralism, must be upheld. Lasting solutions to terrorism, international drug trafficking and organized crime required careful and persistent efforts to set up partnerships and cooperative arrangements consistent with the United Nations multilateral system. Protectionism and all forms of barriers to trade, both tariff and non-tariff continued to suffocate development economies and to nullify the competitiveness of their exports. Liberalization of the agricultural sector had been nothing more than a promise repeatedly put off to an uncertain future. Globalization required reform of economic and financial institutions and should not be limited to the triumph of the market.

    The situation in the Middle East underscored how distant the world still was from the international order imagined by the founders of the United Nations Charter, he continued. Brazil supported the creation of a democratic, secure and economically viable Palestinian State as well as the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Brazil also defended the right of the State of Israel to exist within recognized borders and of its people to live in security. Those were essential prerequisites for lasting peace in the Middle East. The use of force at the international level was only admissible once all diplomatic alternatives had been exhausted. Force must only be exercised in accordance with the Charter and consistent with the determinations of the Security Council.

    Regarding Iraq, Brazil believed that it was incumbent on the Security Council to determine the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the relevant resolutions, he said. The exercise by the Security Council of its responsibilities was the way to reduce tensions and to avoid the unpredictable consequences of wider instability. In Angola, the international community must support recent positive developments that opened the way for rebuilding the country and consolidating peace. The Security Council needed reform so as to enhance its legitimacy and to lay the foundations for more solid international cooperation in building a just and stable international order. A central feature of reform should be the expansion of the number of members, both in the permanent and non-permanent categories. The United Nations was the crucial hinge in creating global governance focused on a more equitable distribution of the dividends of peace and progress.

    GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States, said meeting one year and one day after a terrorist attack that had brought grief to his country and the citizens of many others, it was time to turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives -– without illusion and without fear. While much had been accomplished during the past year in Afghanistan and beyond, much remained to be done –- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented in the Assembly Hall had joined in the fight against global terrorism, and the people of the United States were grateful.

    He said the United Nations had been born of the hope of a world moving towards justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding fathers had resolved that the peace of the world would never again be destroyed by the wickedness of any man. The Security Council had been created so that –- unlike the League of Nations -– diplomatic deliberations would be more than talk, and resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators, broken treaties and squandered lives, the international community had dedicated itself to standards of dignity shared by all and to a system of security defended by all. Today, those standards and that security were challenged.

    The international community’s commitment to human dignity was challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering was great, and the responsibility was clear. The United States was joining with the world to supply aid where it reached people and uplifted lives. It would also extend trade and the prosperity it brought. As a symbol of its commitment to human dignity, the United States would return to the newly reformed United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and would participate fully in its mission to advance human rights, tolerance and learning.

    He said the international community’s common security was challenged by regional conflicts -– ethnic and religious strife that was ancient but not inevitable. There could be no peace for either side in the Middle East without freedom for both sides. America stood committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserved a government that served their interests. Above all, international security was challenged by outlaw groups and regimes that accepted no law of morality and had no limit to their violent ambitions. The threat hid within many nations, including his own, he said, and the greatest fear was that terrorists would find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplied them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

    He went on to say that all those dangers, in their most aggressive and lethal forms –- the very kind of threat the United Nations was born to confront — could be found in one place and in one regime. Twelve years ago, Iraq had invaded Kuwait without provocation, and the regime’s forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Yet, that aggression had been stopped by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations. To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein had entered into a series of commitments. The terms had been clear and he had agreed to comply with all those obligations. Instead, he had proven only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -– by his deceptions and cruelties -– Saddam Hussein had made the case against himself.

    In 1991, Security Council resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities. That demand had been ignored. Through resolutions 686 and 687, the Council demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq’s regime had agreed, but subsequently had broken that promise. Further promises to comply with Council resolutions, on renouncing involvement with terrorism, and ceasing the support of terrorism, had also been broken by the Iraqi regime.

    He added that Iraq’s Government openly praised the terrorist attacks of

    11 September. Moreover, that regime had agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to comply with rigorous biological and chemical weapons inspections headed by the United Nations. It did not live up to those promises, and the inspections revealed that Iraq likely maintained stockpiles of anthrax, mustard gas and other chemical agents.

    He went on to say that today, Iraq continued to withhold important information about its nuclear weapons programme. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. He went on to say that Saddam Hussein had subverted the United Nations “oil-for-food” programme, working around the sanctions imposed in 1991 to buy missile technology and military materials. Hussein blamed the suffering of Iraq’s people on the United Nations, even as he used oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself and armed his country. As the Assembly met today, it had been almost four years since the last United Nations inspectors had set foot in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s actions, as well as history, logic and the facts, could lead to but one conclusion -– the Iraqi regime was a grave and gathering danger.

    To suggest otherwise was to hope against the evidence, President Bush continued. To assume that regime’s good faith was to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. “And that is a risk we must not take.” The international community had been more than patient, trying sanctions, the “carrot” of oil for food and the “stick” of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein continued to defy those efforts and to build weapons of mass destruction. That regime’s conduct was a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace.

    Iraq had answered a decade of United Nations resolutions with a decade of defiance. “All the world now faces a test”, he said, “and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.” Were Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced? Or were they to be cast aside without consequence? Would the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or would it be irrelevant?

    He said that as a founding Member of the United Nations, the United States wanted the Organization to be effective, respected and successful. It wanted the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced. The partnership of nations could meet the test before it by making clear what was expected of the Iraqi regime. If the Iraqi regime wished peace it must, among other things, immediately and unconditionally disclose, remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and other materials. It must also release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fates remained unaccounted for. It must cease persecution of its civilian populations, and immediately end all illicit trade outside the “oil-for-food” programme. If those steps were taken, it would signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it would open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represented all Iraqis -– based on human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.

    The United States had no quarrel with the people of Iraq, for they had suffered too long, he continued. Liberty for the Iraqi people was a great moral cause and strategic objective. They deserved it, and the security of all nations required it. The United States supported political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. The United States would work with the Security Council on a new resolution to meet the international community’s common challenge. If the Iraqi regime defied the international community again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold it in account. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted -– Security Council resolutions would be enforced and the demands of peace and security would be met or action would be unavoidable. “And a regime that had lost its legitimacy will also lose its power”, he said.

    Events could turn in one of two ways. If the international community failed to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq would continue to live in brutal submission, and the people of the wider region would continue to be bullied. Perhaps horrors even worse than 11 September would be wrought. But if the international community met its responsibilities, the people of Iraq could shake off their captivity and one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reform throughout the Muslim world. The international community must stand up for its security and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States would make that stand. And representatives of United Nations Member States had the power to make that stand as well.

    THABO MBEKI, President of South Africa, called on the United Nations to assist Africa in realizing its long-deferred dreams. He said the African Union, the successor to the Organization of African Unity, was the continent’s practical and determined response to its past and present, and the Union’s programme for its revitalization was the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).

    He called on the African Union, working with United Nations agencies, to give priority to such matters as human resources development and capacity-building, modernizing Africa’s economy and dealing with the intolerable debt burden, the emancipation and empowerment of women, AIDS and environmental degradation, among other things.

    He expressed approval for the peace processes taking place in such troubled areas as Angola, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Sudan and noted that elections had been successfully held in the Comoros. This would bring about the rebuilding of these countries with a better life for all.

    Mr. Mbeki also urged a concrete programme of action to implement the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and was equally emphatic about the obligation to give real meaning to the message of hope proclaimed in the Millennium Declaration, as an answer to the murderous attack of 11 September 2001.

    The Millennium Declaration, he said, recognized that the central challenge of the world today was to make globalization a positive force for he world’s people. This had to be ensured so that sustainable development and prosperity for all would take place.

    ALEJANDRO TOLEDO, President of Peru, reaffirmed his country’s commitment to the international community to fight for democracy and international security. He also condemned the terrorist attacks perpetrated against the people of the United States on 11 September 2001. Peru was committed to continued collaboration with the Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee. Nations must weave a vast network of commitments to cooperate in all areas to defeat terrorism. Decisive steps should be taken to eradicate terrorism, which threatened peace, security and democracy.

    Peace was an essential condition for human development, he said. Peru promoted limiting defence spending at the regional level with the goal of freeing resources for social investment and the fight against poverty. Today, more than ever, the international community must commit to the construction of a participatory and efficient system of collective security. Peru had promoted the Andean Charter for Peace and Security, approved last June by the Andean community. In the same spirit, Peru had reaffirmed its commitment to creating a South American Zone of Peace and Cooperation and proposed the inclusion of the topic in the agenda of the Assembly’s fifty-eighth session.

    The construction of peace and good governance was an indispensable prerequisite for the preservation of liberty, he said. Peru was aware of the urgent need to develop multilateral efforts to strengthen democracies. He reiterated Peru’s proposal to create a Mechanism of Financial Solidarity for the Defence of Democracy and Good Governance. The time had come to be creative. Emerging democracies urgently required new resources that would allow them to increase levels of public investment within their regions in order to generate employment and protect them from adverse financial shocks. Peruvian democracy was not an island in Latin America and the world. Peru was committed to facing great problems and challenges through the construction of democracy in a more just world. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, international democracy had a name: the United Nations.

    PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, President of Pakistan, said that his country was at the forefront of the fight against terrorism. Determined to prevent its being used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks, Pakistan had interdicted the infiltration of Al Qaeda into its territory and had arrested and deported foreign suspects. Unfortunately, however, the war against terrorism had been used as a vehicle to spread hatred against Islam and Muslims. As a first step in creating a sustained dialogue between the Islamic and Western nations, he proposed the adoption of a Declaration on Religious and Cultural Understanding, Harmony and Cooperation.

    Explaining that the root causes of terrorism were a sense of frustration and powerlessness to redress persistent injustice, he said that while terrorist attacks needed to be condemned, they should not be used to justify outlawing the struggles of a people for self-determination and liberation from colonial or foreign occupation, nor used to justify State terrorism. India had misused the rationale of war against terrorism against Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, but his country would not be coerced or frightened into compromising on its principled position. The conflict in occupied Kashmir was being waged by Kashmiris, who needed to be allowed to exercise their right to determine their own future.

    President Musharraf pledged that Pakistan would not start a conflict with India, but would fully exercise its right to self-defence if attacked. Achieving peace in South Asia required the following steps: mutual withdrawal of forward-deployed forces by both States; observance of a ceasefire along the Line of Control in Kashmir; and cessation of India’s State terrorism against the Kashmiri people. In addition, the two parties needed to resume a dialogue that included the people of Kashmir and to agree upon measures for nuclear restraint and a conventional arms balance. Hindu extremism also needed to be opposed by the international community.

    His own Government was focused upon restoring the traditions of a tolerant Islam, he said, and had laid the foundations for sustainable development and democracy in three short years by empowering people through the devolution of decision-making to the grassroots level, improving human rights, rationalizing economic policies and setting up the first Human Development Fund in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme. National and provincial elections were to be held in 30 days.

    Furthermore, Pakistan fully supported the positive changes in Afghanistan and that country’s President Hamid Karzai. The attempt last week to assassinate him underlined the need for an expanded international presence in Afghanistan. Also of concern were the urgent need to revive the Middle East peace process, the importance of the war against poverty and the pernicious aspects of the international banking system, which allowed corrupt elites to stash away money illegally acquired from developing and developed countries.

    GEORGI PARVANOV, President of Bulgaria, outlined what the main tasks of the fifty-seventh session should be. Attention had to be paid to the Millennium Declaration, the fight against terrorism and the persistent problems of underdevelopment and poverty. Unfortunately, the United Nations continued to focus instead on regional conflicts.

    In that regard, he called for assistance to the people of Afghanistan, especially relief from their foreign debt, and identified as urgent the implementation of Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq. Firm action had to be undertaken to win compliance.

    As a member of the Security Council and a party to all universal conventions against terrorism, Bulgaria commended the work being done to counteract the phenomenon. But he warned that “the fight against terrorism should not lead to persecution on religious or ethnic grounds or infringe on human rights”.
    Turning his attention to developments in South-Eastern Europe, he recommended the strengthening of democratic institutions and human rights along with economic development as the means to prevent conflicts. He ended his address by expressing support for the reform measures initiated by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in order to make the United Nations more effective.

    VAIRA VIKE-FREIBERGA, President of Latvia, welcomed Switzerland as the newest Member of the United Nations and recognized the concerted efforts of the United Nations and the international community towards creating a climate of peace and security, in which East Timor had become master of its own destiny and would soon join the United Nations. She also expressed Latvia’s continued solidarity and sympathy with the people of the United States, upon the anniversary of

    11 September. That contemptible act of aggression against the United States was a direct and frontal assault against the civilized world as a whole.

    The deep-seated respect for the sanctity of human life was the foundation of civilized society, she said. Determined to do everything in its power to stem the growing threat of international terrorism, Latvia intended to ratify all international antiterrorist conventions and increase the capacity of its administrative, security, law enforcement and military structures. Latvia continued to harmonize its national legislation with international and European Union standards, to tighten its control of immigration and the flow of strategic goods, to improve its air and border surveillance capabilities, emergency response procedures and public preparedness in emergency situations.

    She noted that Iraq continued to ignore repeated calls to allow United Nations weapons inspectors on its territory, which reinforced credible suspicions that it had sought to produce nuclear, chemical, bacteriological and other weapons of mass destruction. Among other pressing global issues facing the United Nations were organized crime and illegal trafficking, the abuse and exploitation of women and children, endemic poverty and unemployment, drug addiction, disease and environmental pollution. Continued work was needed on the reduction of poverty and increasing administrative capacity and financial discipline at the United Nations. However, progress had been made on the reform of peacekeeping operations and collaboration among United Nations institutions.

    Committed to sustainable development, Latvia had ratified the Kyoto Protocol and had established a Sustainable Development Council. She also noted Latvia’s success in changing its status with the United Nations Development Programme from recipient to net contributor. Now providing technical assistance and expertise to Ukraine, Georgia and Croatia, Latvia had one of the fastest growing economies in Europe and hoped to receive official invitations to join the European Union and the NATO Alliance soon. Her country had provided humanitarian aid to war-torn areas in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and was committed to the reduction of disparities in income and standards of living essential for the consolidation of peace and security. Each nation had its own contribution to make to humanity, whose benefit the United Nations was created to serve.

    VALDAS ADAMKUS, President of Lithuania, welcomed Switzerland and East Timor to the United Nations family. Expansion of United Nations membership was very important, and was taking place at a time when the need for global solidarity and partnership was greater than ever. Terrorism threatened global stability and the very basis of our lives. Countries must stand united and act together to avert threats to our existence and secure the future of our children.

    He said his country knew the power of solidarity. Some years ago, Lithuania and eight other countries from Central and Eastern Europe had formed an informal Vilnius Group, which had now grown to 10, to facilitate their accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Solidarity and mutual support were helping to make that happen. Hopefully, those countries would soon join the European Union and NATO, thus reinforcing common values in the region as well as common positions and actions in the face of future challenges and threats.

    Political stability, however, was not enough, he stressed. Those countries had also launched regional initiatives and taken other concrete steps to increase contributions to the global campaign against terrorism. The conference against terrorism was held at the Polish initiative of Poland in Warsaw last November; participating countries were determined to act and cooperate further, thus strengthening European and global security. In the face of common threats, solidarity must emerge as a consolidating driving force in global diplomacy.

    The tragedy of 11 September reinforced and strengthened the common resolve to combat and counter terrorism, he said. That should motivate the international community to work together to address the roots of terrorism; respond decisively to non-compliance with Security Council resolutions and gross violations of internationally recognized norms of behaviour; and fight terror worldwide and keep the weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. Regrettably, a Member of the United Nations did not uphold its commitments and the underlying principles of the Organization. The Iraqi regime must allow unrestricted access for the United Nations inspectors to resume their work. All pressure should be exerted to ensure that objective. Indeed, that was a test case of the international community’s solidarity and unity.

    RENE HARRIS, President of Nauru, conveying condolences to the United States because of the terrorist attacks of last year, expressed full support for anti-terrorism measures contained in Security Council resolution 1373. He also wished the best future for the International Criminal Court. Commending the United Nations operations in East Timor, he supported that country’s entry into the Organization.

    Turning to issues facing the Pacific islands, he called for a universal campaign to address climate change and for the United States and Australia to ratify the protocol. The health of oceans was another major concern, and he said all users of that resource must work to prevent pollution and unsustainable use. He expressed concern over transshipment of nuclear waste through Pacific waters, and supported the United Nations action to make the Pacific a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

    In other areas, he reiterated his strong objection to the creation of tax “black lists” by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), preferring the development of a cooperative framework for that issue. He said that Nauru also had done all it could to combat money laundering, yet it was still subject to adverse criticism. Nonetheless, it had provided relevant information and would continue to work on satisfying key players on the issue.

    Finally, he said the most pressing issues currently facing Nauru were energy, freshwater supply and the economy in general, and he hoped for international partnerships in those areas. He supported reform of the Security Council and further budgetary reform in the United Nations. He announced the honouring of Nauru’s pledge to the Global Health Fund and called on all States to follow suit, underlining the reliance of small States on the United Nations in the post 9/11 world.

    ROBERT MUGABE, President of Zimbabwe, informed delegates that his country had completed its fast-track land redistribution programme which began in July 2000. He said the programme had been undertaken to redress the colonial injustice of dispossession perpetrated by a minority of British settlers in 1890.

    “By assuming its independence in 1980, Zimbabwe had discarded the colonial yoke for all time and, therefore, will never brook any interference in its domestic affairs by any foreign Power”, he stressed. He added that Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, needed to be informed of this. Having already waged a revolutionary struggle to secure its independence, Zimbabwe stood ready to defend it in the same way.

    A similar problem of outside interference also affected the Palestinian question, one that should be resolved without further delay. “We note with some concern that some countries wish to arrogate to themselves the right to choose and/or impose leadership in developing countries by sidelining and/or overthrowing democratically elected governments.” That must be resisted, he said.

    Even as he acknowledged terrorism as a threat, he also warned, “The adoption of unilateral measures by some countries to combat terrorism is not only counterproductive but also undermines the mandate and effectiveness of the United Nations.”

    He was fully supportive of the emergence of peace in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, adding his country was withdrawing its remaining forces there.

    In the economic arena, Zimbabwe wanted the decisions of the Monterrey International Conference on Financing for Development and the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg, South Africa, to result in meaningful cooperation among development partners. The World Trade Organization (WTO) should also create a level playing field so that exports from developing countries could have access to developed markets. And, because of the drought in southern Africa, the region was in urgent need of food and other aid.

    ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN, Prime Minister of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, affirmed that the terrorist attacks of 11 September last year had not weakened, but rather strengthened the resolve of its members to actively seek security and prosperity for all. For its part, the European Union did not hesitate to support the initiatives of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee and remained committed to finalizing and adopting the Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism.

    The Millennium Declaration, he said, had given the United Nations renewed impetus to deal globally with conflict prevention, crisis management, humanitarian assistance, post-conflict rehabilitation and development, and disarmament and arms control. The European Union had worked tirelessly with the United Nations to find solutions in the Middle East and Cyprus, to rebuild Afghanistan, to hold in check the civil war in Sierra Leone and to rebuild Kosovo.

    Iraq remained a major source of concern as well, with regard to weapons of mass destruction, he said. Unconditional and unimpeded access for the weapons inspectors was needed, as well as compliance with the obligations contained in the several Security Council resolutions on the situation in Iraq. The European Union agreed with the United States position that the Security Council urgently needed to address the matter of Iraq. It also agreed with the Secretary-General’s statement that if Iraq’s defiance continued, the Security Council would need to face its responsibilities.

    On the subject of human rights, he urged the adoption of the draft protocol of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as the universal abolition of the death penalty. Sustainable development would not be achieved until women gained full possession of their human rights, including protection from murder and mutilation through a misguided sense of honour. Hailing the International Criminal Court as an important historic milestone, he commented that people did not need revenge or impunity, but justice and accountability.

    He concluded that the greatest global challenge remained the fight to rid the world of persistent poverty. Recognizing that aid alone would not eliminate poverty, he saluted the African leaders, who had taken an impressive lead with the NEPAD initiative. Strong political will and partnership was required to translate poverty eradication policies into sustainable development. He also extended the European Union’s welcome to the new United Nations Members, Switzerland and East Timor.

  • Force Above Law: The New International Disorder?

    The US has historically been one of the most resolute advocates of the Rule of Law. However, current trends indicate that it is moving dangerously towards completely shunning this approach, resulting in US reliance on Rule of Force as the principal means for solving global conflicts. While on the one hand the US disavows current obligations under international law and refuses to participate in new international legal mechanisms, it expects other countries to adhere to such laws and to US directives. Continued US attempts to increase its military domination combined with its withdrawal from international legal processes are eroding national and international security in an already unstable and unbalanced international environment.

    Security in the Post-September 11th World

    President Bush has used September 11th to define a new dichotomy dividing states—the states with the US and the states for terror—an overly simplistic dichotomy that had been missing since the dissolution of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. In the aftermath of September 11th, the US made an appeal to the international community to join in the fight against terrorism. On the surface, the anti-terrorism campaign initially offered a chance for many countries, including countries subsequently labeled by the Bush administration as part of an “axis of evil,” to realign themselves to be on more friendly terms with the US.

    As a result, many countries have changed their political priorities, diverting large amounts of resources and attention to the US-led war on terrorism. Furthermore, many countries in critical regions such as the Middle East, South Asia and North East Asia are following the US example, countering domestic and regional disputes with force and rejecting multilateral diplomacy and arms control. In fact, the war on terrorism has only added fuel to fire in escalating regional crises.

    September 11th also reinvigorated concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. There are legitimate fears regarding terrorists acquiring or making nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons. However, the US-led response to these fears has been to offer solutions that would counter rather than prevent proliferation.

    Manifest Destiny: Divine Right to Use Force?

    The term Manifest Destiny was first coined in the 19th century. US leaders and politicians used the phrase in the1800s to justify US continental expansion. People in the US felt it was their mission and Divine right from God to extend the boundaries of freedom, idealism and democratic institutions to Native Americans and other non-Europeans on the North American continent. The Manifest Destiny of the 19th century was in reality a means to rationalize an imperialistic policy of expansion because of political, economic and social pressures to acquire more land, a highly valued commodity then and now.

    Manifest Destiny continues in the 21st century. Today it is evidenced as US neo-imperialistic policies driven by a highly technological military- corporate economy. Rationalized as “protecting” American freedom and economic interests, the goal of the new Manifest Destiny is complete dominance by force, even at the expense of individual, community, national and international security.

    For decades, the US has been actively researching and developing missile defenses. The US is now moving forward with plans to deploy missile defenses, regardless of whether or not they will work and regardless of costs to international security and its own security. While the stated purpose of missile defense systems is to defend against incoming missile attacks, it is apparent that such systems are really a Trojan horse for the US to “control and dominate” both the Earth and Outer Space. The US military and government view Outer Space as the new arena of expansion and the Pentagon is pursuing development and deployment of US warfighting capabilities in and through outer space.

    New Nuclear Policy: First Strike

    Serious concerns about US plans were raised this year when portions of the classified US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that was released to Congress in January 2002 leaked to the media in March. Despite treaty commitments to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons, the NPR reaffirms the role of nuclear weapons in US national security policy. In the past, nuclear weapons have been viewed as a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. However, the NPR reveals that the US intends to integrate nuclear weapons into a full spectrum of war-fighting capabilities, including missile defenses. The NPR unveils that nuclear weapons are no longer weapons of last resort, but instruments that could be used in fighting wars. The NPR also raises the possible resumption by the US of full-scale nuclear testing and plans to develop and deploy new “earth-penetrating” nuclear weapons.

    Furthermore, the NPR calls for the development of contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against seven states—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Russia and China—constituting a disturbing threat in particular to the named states and in general to international peace and security. Contrary to long-standing US assurances not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear States, five of these named states are non-nuclear states.

    The Bush administration announced in June that it will release a document outlining a strategy of striking first. The doctrine will be incorporated into the National Security Strategy that will be released in Fall 2002. President George W. Bush argues that the US needs such a strategy in order to counter “terrorists and tyrants,” a phrase that encompasses both states and non-state actors, because Cold War policies of deterrence and containment do not fit the post-September 11th world. The argument also extends a justification for developing new low-yield, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons that could be used preemptively to destroy deeply buried targets and bunkers. While there remains an opportunity to address the prospect of terrorism from weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and legitimate concerns about WMD and missile proliferation, this opportunity is being rapidly squandered. When the US reserves to itself the right to strike first with nuclear weapons, it relinquishes the moral high ground and the right to tell other nations to give up their weapons of mass destruction.

    Arms Control: Significant Nuclear Reductions or Maximum Nuclear Flexibility?

    Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty between the US and the Russia during a summit in Moscow on 23 May. The treaty calls for the reduction of strategic forces of each country’s arsenal to 1,700 to 2,200 by 2012, the year in which the treaty expires. It also does not require the destruction of a single missile launcher or warhead and each side can carry out the reductions at its own pace and even reverse them to temporarily build up its forces. In other words, the treaty allows either side to worry more about protecting their own nuclear options than constraining the options of the other country. A senior US administration official stated, “What we have now agreed to do under the treaty is what we wanted to do anyway. That’s our kind of treaty.”

    Under the terms of the treaty, either side can temporarily suspend reductions or even build up forces without violating the treaty. This will allow maximum flexibility to the US, which insists on continuing to rely on nuclear weapons in its national security policy. The US Nuclear Posture Review, released in January 2002, stated, “In the event that US relations with Russia significantly worsen in the future, the US may need to revise its nuclear force level and posture.” The new treaty will allow the US to do so. Rather than completely destroying the strategic weapons, the US has repeatedly stated that it will shelve or stockpile the warheads.

    Retreat from Law

    The alternative to a rule-by-force policy is the Rule of Law. Since its founding, the US has historically sought to create a legal framework to foster national and international security. Under Article VI of the US constitution, “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” A treaty becomes US law when two-thirds of the US Senate give “advice and consent” to its ratification. Although treaties may not be perfect, they are critical to articulating and codifying global norms and standards. Among other things, treaties contribute to national and international security by establishing mechanisms to enforce articulated norms, measure progress, and promote accountability, transparency, and confidence building measures between countries.

    Although US support for international law and institutions slowly began to decline as the 20th century progressed, since the Clinton administration, the US has been more hostile toward international law and international legal mechanisms. And the trend has only accelerated during the Bush administration. Under the Clinton administration, the US refused to sign the Treaty Banning Anti-Personnel Mines (Landmines Treaty); the Senate failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); and the US attempted to obstruct completion of the Rome Statute to create an International Criminal Court (ICC), although Clinton did sign this Treaty at the final moment. Since President Bush took office, among other actions demonstrating its disdain for international law, the US has:

    • withdrawn from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty;
    • resisted the idea of a standardized procedure for reporting on nuclear disarmament obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and, in fact, increased the role of nuclear weapons in US national security policy;
    • sought to terminate the process to promote compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC);
    • spurned proposals from Russia and China to ban weapons in Outer Space and Space-based weapons;
    • withdrawn its signature from the International Criminal Court Treaty;
    • withdrawn its support for the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, even though it played a key role in its creation.

    Conclusions

    The shift in US policy to rely on force first and consider itself above law is detrimental to its own security as well as to international insecurity. Unless this process is reversed and unless the US begins to cooperate with other countries to ensure a global Rule of Law above the Rule of Force, international disorder will gain ground.

  • U.S. Needs a Contigency Plan For Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal

    There is growing concern, and evidence for concern, that the instability in Afghanistan could quickly spread to neighboring Pakistan and undermine the security of that country’s nuclear arsenal. Of all of the negative consequences this turn of events might bring, none would be more dangerous and catastrophic than nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

    Until Sept. 11, the Pakistani regime and the Taliban were very close, and there have been reports out of Pakistan that military officers assisted the Taliban in preparing for U.S. airstrikes—counter to direct orders from Pakistan’s leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Top military officers, including the head of Pakistan’s intelligence services, recently have been sacked, reportedly for their pro-Taliban views.

    Violence in the streets, while not widespread beyond the border area with Afghanistan, speaks to the tensions inside Pakistan. A Newsweek poll this week found that 83% of Pakistanis polled sympathized with the Taliban in the current conflict. It is possible, therefore, that Pakistani forces assigned to protect Pakistan’s nuclear forces could be compromised.

    This is surely the nightmare scenario, and immediate steps should be taken to prevent such a turn of events from coming to pass.

    Pakistan possesses enough nuclear material for close to 40 nuclear weapons, if not more. The U.S., however, knows very little about how this material is stored, what security measures are applied to its protection, how personnel with access to nuclear weapons and materials are screened and where the material is located.

    Pakistan has a responsibility to ensure that its assets are adequately protected and to convince other countries that this responsibility is taken seriously. Other countries and organizations have a responsibility to help Pakistan keep these materials secure, without in any way assisting that country in modernizing or deploying its nuclear capability.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, a U.N.-affiliated organization, has decades of experience in developing and verifying security measures associated with nuclear weapons-usable materials. The agency routinely assists countries in ensuring that their peaceful nuclear programs are adequately protected. Despite its lack of membership in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Pakistan could receive advice and assistance from the IAEA.

    In addition, the U.S. and other IAEA members have extensive experience—publicly available—on how to protect nuclear materials and on how to ensure that weapons-usable uranium or plutonium cannot be diverted without being detected. States could make equipment available to Pakistan that did not directly assist in its development or control of nuclear weapons, such as alarm systems and polygraph equipment for personnel screening. In addition, corporations and nongovernmental organizations with significant expertise in nuclear matters could provide Pakistan with assistance on security.

    Pakistan has resisted any outside attempts to help secure its nuclear materials. There is the risk that receiving assistance for its nuclear program from outside powers might further destabilize the current situation. Yet Pakistan has already made its strategic decision to throw in with the West against terrorism. Taking this additional step, while difficult, may be part of the price it pays to reestablish itself as a responsible global partner.

    If Pakistan does not agree to these types of programs, the U.S. should begin to work immediately on contingency plans should the Islamabad regime lose control over its nuclear arsenal. These plans should include the ability to rapidly deploy forces to Pakistan to find and regain control of any lost nuclear materials and, only as a last option in a crisis, remove them from Pakistan to a secure location.

    These steps might seem extreme. Yet when faced with the real possibility of losing control of nuclear weapons to the types of organizations capable of the destruction seen Sept. 11, they could be considered realistic and even prudent. The consequences of not being prepared to act are too great for us to imagine, even with our new ability to imagine the horrible.

    *Jon B. Wolfsthal is an associate in the Carnegie Endowment’s nonproliferation program and a former nonproliferation policy advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy.

  • Security and Sustainability in a Nuclear Weapons Free World

    There is a danger that the contemplation of security and sustainability in a nuclear weapons free world will imply to some readers that nuclear weapons have in some way provided security and even sustainability. It is not my intention to imply this. I believe that nuclear weapons have never at any time provided security for their possessors, and that they make no contribution to sustainability.

    The world that we currently live in — a world divided between a small number of states possessing nuclear weapons and a large number of states that do not — is neither secure nor sustainable. If nuclear weapons in fact provided security, logic would suggest that an effort be made to spread these weapons to other states. In fact, the opposite viewpoint has prevailed. Most states, including those currently in possession of nuclear weapons, support policies of non-proliferation.

    The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has been in force since 1970, requires a trade-off from the nuclear weapons states. In exchange for the non-nuclear weapons states agreeing not to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons states agreed in Article VI to negotiate in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament. When the NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995, the nuclear weapons states promised the determined pursuit of “systematic and progressive efforts” to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    The failure of the nuclear weapons states to make significant progress toward nuclear disarmament may result in undermining the NPT, and in the proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states beyond the five declared and three undeclared nuclear weapons states. Such proliferation would further bolster the insecurity and unsustainability of the current international system.

    Security

    Security has two critical dimensions: protection from physical harm, and access to resources to meet basic needs. It also has a third dimension, an illusory psychological dimension, that operates at the level of belief systems. Nuclear arsenals do not provide security from physical harm. The only security they provide is in this psychological dimension, rooted in a belief in the efficacy of deterrence. The threat of retaliation with nuclear weapons is not physical protection; the protection provided is only psychological. An opponent’s fear of retaliation may or may not prevent that opponent from launching a nuclear attack based upon irrationality, faulty information, human error, or mechanical or computer malfunction.

    A world without nuclear weapons would be one in which the threat of cataclysmic nuclear holocaust would be removed. Achieving such a world will require careful planning to assure that some states do not secretly retain nuclear weapons or clandestinely reassemble them. As states reduce their nuclear arsenals toward zero, an agreed upon plan will be required to assure transparency, accurate accounting of nuclear weapons and weapons-grade materials, effective procedures for verification of dismantlement and the controlled and safeguarded immobilization of nuclear materials and the production facilities to create them. The process of reducing nuclear arsenals to zero will be challenging both technically and politically, but it is a challenge that can be accomplished with determination and political will.

    The process of nuclear weapons abolition will demand the creation of stronger systems of international security. Thus, achieving abolition will, by the nature of the process, coincide with strengthened international security arrangements. In order to have a security system that assures maximum protection against physical harm and access to resources to meet basic needs, it will be necessary to go even further in system design than the elements required to maintain security in a world without nuclear weapons. The main components of this security system would be:

    • All states would be allowed to maintain only weapons for defence against territorial invasion, and no weapons with offensive capabilities.
    • Each state would be subject to regular and challenge inspections by international teams to assure that it is neither maintaining nor creating any offensive weapons systems, particularly weapons of mass destruction.
    • All states would be required to make periodic public reports of the types and numbers of weapons in their arsenals.
    • An International Criminal Court would be responsible for holding individual leaders responsible for the most serious crimes under international law (crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and international aggression), and for violations of the conditions specified in points 1 to 3 above.
    • A United Nations Inspection Force would be created to conduct inspections and monitor states for violations of points 1 to 3 above.
    • The United Nations Security Council would be responsible for enforcement of points 1 to 3 above, for apprehending serious violators of international law, and for assuring cooperation with the United Nations Inspection Force.
    • The United Nations system — including the General Assembly, the World Bank, the UN Development Programme and other specialized agencies, and a UN Disaster Relief Force — would be charged with assuring that all peoples of all states have access to the necessary resources to meet their basic needs.

    Sustainability

    Sustainability is the protection of the resources required to meet basic needs for present and future generations, and the upholding of the quality of these resources. Sustainability requires environmental protection to ensure the quality of the air, the water, and the earth. It is no longer possible to ensure sustainability in any state anywhere in the world if all states do not cooperate in protecting the Earth’s resources and the common heritage of the planet — the atmosphere, the oceans and the land. Clean air and water and unpolluted topsoil to grow healthy crops must be maintained if we are to have a sustainable future.

    Over 1000 nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere and a roughly equal number of underground tests have already made a heavy assault upon the environment, as have thousands of tons of nuclear wastes, large quantities of which have already leaked into the earth, air and water. Sustainability will require not only a nuclear weapons free future, but a future in which nuclear wastes are also not generated by civilian nuclear reactors. Present and future generations are already burdened with enormous problems from the nuclear wastes created by both military and civilian nuclear reactors. Some of this waste will be a threat to life for tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of years.

    It is unfair to burden future generations with still more dangerous radioactive wastes. What has been produced to date has been the product of ignorance, arrogance, and blind faith, sadly, by some of the best minds of our time. Sustainability requires having an answer to the problem of dangerous wastes before they are produced rather than burdening future generations with these problems.

    Beginning the Process

    A world that is divided between nuclear “haves” and “have nots” is neither secure nor sustainable. Nuclear weapons pose a threat to humanity and to all forms of life. If they continue to be relied upon, at some point in the future they will again be used. It is a strong lesson of history that weapons once created will be used — as indeed nuclear weapons have already been used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The challenge of the highest magnitude before humanity today is to ban forever these weapons which constitute such a serious threat to humanity’s future. The opportunity is before us with the Cold War ended. The nuclear weapons states have promised to negotiate in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice has stated its opinion that the nuclear weapons states are obligated to complete negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. In fulfilling this mandate, these states must consider the issues of security and sustainability in a nuclear weapons free world.

    A secure and sustainable world order without nuclear weapons is achievable. It cannot occur, however, so long as the nuclear weapons states are wedded to their nuclear arsenals. The first step in breaking their addiction is to begin negotiations in good faith to achieve their elimination. If they are to complete the journey, they must first begin and thus far serious negotiations to eliminate nuclear arsenals have not begun.

    An international consortium of lawyers, scientists and disarmament experts led by the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) with technical assistance from the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP) has prepared a draft Nuclear Weapons Convention that has been introduced by Costa Rica to the United Nations General Assembly. This Convention — which draws upon previous international treaties including the Chemical Weapons Convention — provides indicators of the issues that the nuclear weapons states will have to resolve to achieve a treaty they can support. It provides a good starting point for the nuclear weapons states to begin the process of negotiations for abolishing their nuclear arsenals.

    What is missing now is the political will to begin the process. Many actions of the nuclear weapons states suggest that they are more interested in “systematic and progressive efforts” to impede rather than achieve nuclear disarmament. There is only one way that this can change, and that is by the people making their voices heard. When the people of the world understand the extent to which their security and a sustainable future for their children and grandchildren is threatened by the continued reliance of the governments of the nuclear weapons states upon nuclear arsenals, they will demand that the promises of nuclear disarmament be kept. It is our job to bring about that understanding.