Keynote Speech at the Opening Ceremony
24th Annual Plenary Session
2 May 2006
King Hussein Bin Talal Convention Center, Dead Sea, Jordan
By Jan Eliasson, President of the 60th UN General Assembly, Foreign Minister of Sweden
Download the PDF
Your Royal Highness, Excellencies, Ladies and
Gentlemen,
I am greatly honoured to have been invited to give this
keynote address on the state of the world to such a
distinguished gathering. Having read the superb addresses
given by Jean André François-Poncet, Ingvar Carlsson,
Malcolm Fraser and Helmut Schmidt in recent years, I must
say I am also greatly intimidated.
It is a particular pleasure to be giving this address in
the Kingdom of Jordan. You are richly endowed with history
and ancient civilisation, just as you are playing an
indispensable role in the region in today’s world. I bring
you warmest wishes from all at United Nations Headquarters
in New York.
When you, the InterAction Council, invited me to address
you, I was President of the Sixtieth Session of the United
Nations General Assembly – a post that I continue to hold
until September. Neither you nor I could then have
realized that I would address you one week into my
additional role as Foreign Minister of Sweden. I cannot
think of a more prominent group to address for the first
time after my appointment. The views I express today
however are primarily based on my personal experiences as
a Swedish diplomat, as an Undersecretary-General in the
UN, and now as General Assembly President.
It is indeed fitting that we are meeting this year in
Jordan. Many of the major issues affecting the world in
2006 have particular resonance in this part of the world.
The situation in Israel and Palestine and the instability
in Iraq are two obvious examples. Sad to say, you have
also had first hand experience of the menace of terrorism
over the last year. During the last few weeks, we have
witnessed terrorist attacks not far from here, both in
Egypt and Israel. I know all others here will join me in
offering our sympathies to the families of those affected
and our condemnation of those responsible.
With this in mind, it is appropriate that I begin my
review of the last twelve months by commenting on global
terrorism. Not so many years ago, it would have been fair
to say that most terrorist activity was largely nationally
based. In the UK, for example, the Government was dealing
with the IRA. Of course many terrorist organisations had
international networks of some sort, for procuring weapons
or laundering money. But the agendas they claimed to
espouse were national, and the best responses were often
national.
But how things have changed. Terrorism today knows no
borders. There are now few countries around the world that
do not have to take the threat seriously. Over the last
year, we have seen attacks in places as far apart as
India, Indonesia, Egypt and the UK. And, though it is hard
to understand, the so-called ‘justification’ for the
attacks has an international character, just as there are
international elements in the organisation and execution
of many of the attacks.
What is most important is that we further develop our
global responses in a way which is effective but never
compromises our commitments and values in international
law and human rights. In New York, alongside the
negotiations on a comprehensive convention on
counter-terrorism, a start is about to be made on a
counter-terrorism strategy. I am doing all I can to
encourage Member States to agree on a strategy which can
deliver practical and concrete results on the ground.
Some of the debate on terrorism relates to the extent to
which perceived injustices in the world build support for
terrorist acts. That is not a debate I want to add to
today. But the very fact that there are situations in our
world which many consider unjust is a problem in itself
that we ignore at our peril.
The Israeli-Palestinian situation is clearly one of these.
The picture is currently bleak. This makes it more
important than ever that the peace process be revived,
based on achieving the two state solution. This will
require negotiations, respect for international law and a
recognition on all sides that terrorism in all its forms
must be rejected.
There were probably many reasons why the Palestinian
people voted the way they did, many of them to do with
governance and delivery of basic services – the bread and
butter issues of any democratic system. But this does not
make it any less important that the new government
responds to the fundamental points put to them by the
Quartet. Both Israelis and Palestinians now face difficult
dilemmas and will need to take bold and courageous
steps.
Meanwhile, the deteriorating humanitarian and
socio-economic situation in the West Bank and Gaza is in
nobody’s interests. Dealing with this in a humane and
effective way is a responsibility for us all.
So the world needs to redouble its efforts to help the
Israelis and Palestinians to find a way forward. We must
do this in order to enable the Israelis and Palestinians
to build a better future for themselves and to live side
by side in peace. We must also do it in the interests of
regional and world stability. For as long as we do not,
many people across the world, particularly the Islamic
world, will continue to feel an acute sense of
injustice.
Meanwhile, across Jordan’s eastern border lies Iraq.
Yesterday’s debate was over whether it was right for a
limited number of countries to go to war in Iraq. Today’s
debate is over how the international community can best
help the Iraqi people and their government rebuild a
stable and democratic Iraq, in which the rights of all –
majorities and minorities alike – are respected.
I do not have a prescription today for Iraq’s future. That
is for Iraqis to decide. But I am sure that the
international community as a whole cannot take the
attitude that if a limited of countries are engaged in the
current state of affairs, the same group should be left to
resolve it. That would be a gross disservice to the Iraqi
people, who have suffered so much. And it would also leave
unhealed this major source of grievance for so many of our
fellow human beings.
There have this year been other sources of grievance. It
may be one of the downsides of our globalised world that
cartoons published in a Danish newspaper can result in
prolonged protests around the world, deplorable attacks on
Embassies, tragic loss of lives, and a lingering sense of
alienation and anger on all sides. This painful series of
events caused many in Europe to think long and hard about
the boundaries of freedom of expression in a democracy.
But what was most troubling, in my view, was the gulf in
understanding it revealed between many in the Muslim and
non-Muslim worlds. Just as some could not understand why
it was a problem to publish the cartoons – and could
understand even less the outrage it provoked – others
could not understand why the Danes and others were not
willing to prevent their publication. It is possible that
some of the protests may have been orchestrated by those
with their own agendas. But we make a great misjudgement
if we do not recognise the deep anguish felt by many
people related to these events.
It was also striking that the so-called ‘clash of
civilisations’ occurred not only between regions and
countries, but within them. Some have argued that the
sense of alienation from mainstream society felt by many
Muslims living in Europe is just as important a cause of
grievance as the situations in Israel, Palestine and Iraq.
The fact that four young British Muslims decided to blow
themselves up in London last summer is an indicator of a
serious problem we must all address.
And it needs to be addressed soon. Other events, in Europe
in particular, indicate that the instinctive reactions of
some to these events is likely only to deepen divides.
Despite a shortage of skilled labour across parts of
Europe, and despite a dramatically ageing population,
there is a desire amongst some to ‘pull up the
drawbridge’, to resist further immigration, to display
hostility toward asylum seekers, to rethink the expansion
of the European Union, and to seek to rely on the old
certainties of a bygone age.
Responding to these challenges is a great test for the
world's current political leaders. It can seem hard for
governments to reach out to their marginalised communities
when some with less noble agendas seek to persuade our
electorates that they are already treated too well. It may
seem hard to explain the benefits of European expansion
when a large part of one’s population is feeling insecure
about the future. But the costs of not doing so are
immense.
We have already seen the radicalisation of some parts of
Muslim youth on the one hand, and the increasing appeal of
far-right parties on the other. We need to stop this
downward spiral before it goes too far. This can be done
in part through initiatives such as the Global Agenda for
Dialogue of Civilisations, the Alliance of Civilisations
and the Amman Message.
Arresting the downward spiral is also a domestic policy
issue. In the north, we need greater opportunities for all
our citizens, and we need to bring hope to young people,
particularly in some of our inner-city communities. We
need also a ‘dialogue between civilizations’ within the
cities of the north, where we have too many people who
live alongside each other but are worlds apart.
In our global, interlinked world, I fear there are other
unresolved issues which can create a sense of injustice
for many. One such issue is that of trade.
One of the major tasks for the international community in
2006 will be to conclude the Doha round by the end of the
year. Thus far the world collectively has not risen to the
challenge. The crucial meeting planned for Geneva last
week had to be cancelled. Resistance to reform in
developed countries – a response to popular anxieties – is
not the only stumbling block, but it is one of them.
It is hard to defend the status quo, where – for example –
rich countries currently support their agriculture to the
tune of $279 billion a year. That is over ten times
current aid to Africa, a sum comparable to the income of
the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. In Europe, 40% of the EU
budget goes to subsidies and support to Europe's farmers
who represent 5% of Europe's population and produce less
than 2% of Europe's output. Trade barriers also attract
criticism – they were referred to last year by the
Commission for Africa as ‘absolutely unacceptable,
politically antiquated, economically illiterate,
environmentally destructive and ethically
indefensible’.
Why does progress on trade matter? For two reasons. First,
it is a matter of life and death to many in developing
countries. We fool ourselves if we see trade as an adjunct
to aid and debt in the fight against poverty. Without a
breakthrough on trade, we have little hope of achieving
the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.
Second, a deal on a fairer rules-based world trading
regime is in all our interests. It could be key to
stimulating revived economic growth across the developed
world. There is a World Bank study which claims that trade
liberalisation could increase worldwide economic growth by
$287 billion per year by 2015.
On trade I believe there is a recurring paradox. The great
benefits of an international agreement are proven. The
risks for all of us in maintaining the status quo – in
terms of the sense of grievance it generates – are
manifest. Yet, and this is the paradox, at the national
level too many of us are tempted to go down the road of
short-term solutions that are in our national interest
only in the narrowest sense.
This leads me to the broader question of development,
which is a central concern for me. Though I talk today in
general terms, we must not forget what this is all about
in reality. Bringing clean water to more than a billion
people who go without it. Getting girls into school.
Stemming the tide of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
In 2006, the many commitments of 2005 need to be turned
quickly into implementation. In particular, it is vital
that the promised additional aid is delivered well and on
time. Many developing country representatives in New York
are understandably anxious that this time the rhetoric
becomes reality.
This year we have a once in a generation opportunity to
heal the scar of world poverty. Across much of the
developed world, there is heightened popular awareness of
poverty and support for work to tackle it. Meanwhile, many
lessons have been learned about what works in the delivery
of aid. We know how to support countries’ own efforts to
develop, with excellent results. Aid is far less
politicised than it once was. The mixed motives and
sometimes inappropriate targeting of the Cold War era are
largely behind us.
Most important of all, there is a renaissance underway in
many of the poorest countries themselves, particularly in
Africa. We should not forget that 2005 saw important
commitments from the African Union on good governance and
fighting corruption alongside the equally important
commitments made by the West. As Africa itself
acknowledged, further progress on these elements is a
vital component of the fight against poverty.
Fortunately, across increasing parts of Africa there are
now real reformers in charge. Most recently, we saw the
election of President Ellen Sirleaf Johnson in Liberia.
These new reformers are wise and determined and they need
our support. As you will know better than most, reform is
not easy. Things often get worse before they get better.
Imagine trying to push it through in a country without a
long democratic tradition and where the majority of the
population is already below the poverty line. Faced with
this scenario, the new generation of African leaders is
not asking our indulgence for compromises. They are asking
for our solid, long-term support to back their reform
programmes.
So if we act now, an end to poverty will be in our grasp
more firmly than ever. But if we are half-hearted, and
fail to deliver, the taxpayers of the north will lose
heart just as the reformers in the south will run out of
steam. Instead of an end to poverty, we could see an end
to development as we know it. The implications for all of
us would be too grim to contemplate.
Of course, in some places the picture is deeply troubling.
Chief amongst these is in my mind Darfur. Only last week,
we heard Osama bin Laden seeking to exploit the situation
there. Jan Egeland, the UN’s humanitarian co-ordinator,
has recently questioned how much longer the enormous
humanitarian effort can be sustained, particularly when –
most deplorably – humanitarian workers have themselves
been attacked.
There needs to be an end to the fighting in Darfur, there
needs to be a political solution, and there needs to be a
bigger international presence. United Nations troops must
be allowed in to strengthen the valiant work the AU has
been doing on peacekeeping as soon as possible. It was of
historic significance that world leaders agreed last
September at the UN World Summit that both individual
governments and the international community have a
‘responsibility to protect’. This is something for the
Government of Sudan to responsibly face.
One of the saddest statistics is that which tells us that,
in recent years, around half the countries emerging from
conflict have lapsed back into it again within five years.
But we now have an opportunity to change this. In
December, the General Assembly created a new Peacebuilding
Commission – intended to ensure that countries emerging
from conflict get the help they need from the
international community, when they need it. I am hopeful
that in the coming weeks the Commission’s Organisational
Committee will be in place and its work will get underway.
For those countries recovering from the ravages of
conflict, this cannot happen soon enough.
There have been some other trends over the past year that
I should touch on in brief. The almost unprecedented
number and scale of natural disasters over the last year
or so is further indication of the environmental threats
facing us, not least on climate change. We need to
continue looking for multilateral ways of tackling both
the underlying issue and its consequences.
We have seen progress with the establishment of the new
Central Emergency Response Fund at the UN – designed to
ensure that the international system has the funds to
respond to humanitarian crises the moment they occur. This
is a vast improvement over the previous system, which had
been likened to asking for funds to build a fire station
and buy fire engines only after a fire had broken out. It
is my fervent hope that the new Fund will also help the
world to move beyond the selective solidarity it has shown
in the recent past. Newsworthy crises were inundated with
support whilst other equally serious tragedies went
unnoticed.
A new threat over the past year has been that of Avian
flu. We still do not know if the outbreak might become
transmissible from person to person. But we do know,
looking back to the lessons from SARS, that the only way
we will tackle an outbreak is by working together. Few
realise how close we came with SARS to a much wider
outbreak, and how important it was that the countries
affected shared information in real time through the World
Health Organisation.
The other point that the Avian flu threat underlines is
that in today’s world, our health systems are only as good
as those of the weakest amongst us. If Avian flu were to
gain a foothold in a developing country without a
functioning basic health system, it might be impossible to
contain.
Another dramatic issue this year has been the high price
of oil. Opinions vary, but there are growing signs that
the current price level might not be a short-term
phenomenon. There are questions asked about whether some
countries’ long-term reserves are as big as claimed, or
can easily be exploited, whether for reasons of geology or
geopolitics. Meanwhile, there is anxiety on the markets
about the future reliability of supplies from countries
such as Iran. These anxieties about supply have gone hand
in hand with great increases in demand, particularly from
China and India, which seem set to increase.
What are the implications of this for the world? I will
not attempt to give a precise forecast of the
macroeconomic effects. Suffice to say that there will be
positives and negatives. Positives in the short-term for
oil producers, and in the sense of greater incentives for
work on alternative and more environmentally sound energy
sources. But the negatives are deeply serious and cannot
be treated lightly – neither in the developed world, nor
in the non oil-producing parts of the developing world or
the Middle East such as Jordan – where sustained high oil
prices pose a serious threat to the fight against
poverty.
In commenting on the oil price, I have indirectly touched
on the two remaining major developments over the last year
that ought to be taken into account: the rapid emergence
of Asia – China and India in particular – as a major
economic force, and the nuclear non-proliferation issue,
particularly as it manifests itself in Iran at present.
Within Asia, notwithstanding rapid growth rates in India
and elsewhere, the greatest attention this year has been
focused on China, where GDP growth is exceeding 10%.
China’s emergence is seen in many quarters as both an
opportunity and a potential threat. But first and
foremost, it is a human development success story, at
least in aggregate economic terms. Though rural-urban
inequalities are a key challenge, China is easily on track
to achieve most of the MDGs by 2015. That should be
celebrated.
There are of course matters of great concern related to
China. In the coming year, the way China engages in the
world will also be increasingly important. This will
depend on many things. China has a role in engaging fairly
in the world economy. Equally, the world needs to think
carefully about how it responds to China. Will we resort
to new protectionism in the face of everything from
Chinese exports to takeover bids from Chinese business?
Will we seek to work with China as a partner, bringing it
fully on board the main multilateral co-operation
mechanisms, or leave it to develop its own channels for
co-operation?
The impact of our decisions in this area will be great.
For everything from oil to non-proliferation to the
environment to development to Avian flu, our relationship
with China will be critical. We have a common interest in
co-operation. Africa is a case in point: in the coming
years, how will Chinese involvement affect development on
the continent? How will it affect the current incentives
for better governance and reform?
I should now also touch upon the nuclear non-proliferation
issue. It is deeply unfortunate that there is no
international consensus on the way forward on disarmament
and non-proliferation, as witnessed by the failure of the
non-proliferation meeting last May in New York and the
lack of agreement in this area at the World Summit. This
is paradoxical, given the importance of disarmament,
non-proliferation and the effective monitoring of peaceful
uses of nuclear energy for global stability, the basis of
the non-proliferation treaty.
Since the non-proliferation treaty was agreed, the risk of
WMD falling into the hands of terrorists has, at the very
least, been one of which we have become more seriously
aware. And technology has evolved, so that the step from
low to high enrichment is not as difficult as it was.
Missile development has also evolved dramatically. We now
need a truly effective international safeguard system in
which we can all have confidence.
Ensuring non-proliferation is more important than ever.
The dangers of failure would be immense. The current
situation in Iran is under serious discussion in the
Security Council and other fora. We must do all we can to
ensure that these discussions bring results. Everything
must be done, by all parties, to find a peaceful and
political solution consistent with the goal of a nuclear
weapons-free Middle East.
We have a stronger need than ever for Chapter 6, article
33, of the UN Charter - on the pacific settlement of
disputes. How often do we deplete all other means before
harsh measures are taken? Where there are threats to
global peace and security, they must be addressed
robustly. But a so-called ‘military solution’ in relation
to Iran would carry huge risks for the region and the
world, in terms of politics, economics and relationships
between religions.
Your Royal Highness, Excellencies
Looking back, I firmly believe the state of the world in
2006 is very much an opportunity. So many of the issues
facing us are global in nature, and require increasingly
global solutions. Globalisation gives us both the
opportunity and the necessity of working together to solve
our problems, in a way which was not the case even a
decade or two ago. All countries – from the biggest to the
smallest – stand to gain from an international system that
delivers on everything from Avian flu to
non-proliferation, and from counter-terrorism to
development.
We are in essence facing a test of multilateralism. The
challenge is whether we have the collective will to work
together, and whether the multilateral system can rise to
the new challenges. Whether our leaders and peoples are
willing to acknowledge that while democracy and government
are largely national, the problems we face are
increasingly international, and thus, good international
co-operation is in the national interest.
I referred earlier to a paradox that I see recurring
throughout the major issues on the world agenda. While our
problems in this world of so much suspicion and mistrust
are so clearly international, there is a growing tendency
to look inward. This reflects in part an insecurity at
home, and in part a need for greater confidence in the
ability of our multilateral system to deliver results.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan saw this early on. His
report ‘In Larger Freedom’, published last year, was
designed to address this very question: how does the
United Nations need to be reformed to be effective in
addressing the needs of the 21st Century? Not all, but
most of the package of reforms was endorsed by world
leaders at their Summit last September. It has been my
responsibility, within the General Assembly, to ensure
that the mandate for reform our leaders gave us is carried
through.
The World Summit reaffirmed the three fundamental pillars
of the UN’s work: development, peace and security and
human rights. And it recognised that the three are
increasingly interlinked. So there is an acknowledgement
that security is as much about social cohesion, economic
strength, and environmental balance as it is about
military strength. Strength at home is an increasing
element of strength abroad.
I have already spoken about development, but have thus far
not touched on human rights. I wanted to save one of the
real advances in multilateralism this year for the
concluding part of my remarks. It has been said that human
rights are the soul of the United Nations. At the very
least they are a vital pillar – without strength in human
rights, the UN is weaker in the rest of its work. And it
is hard to conceive of any other Organisation that would
have the unique authority derived from universality to
advance the cause of human rights.
As you will know, in March this year the General Assembly
voted by an overwhelming majority to create the new Human
Rights Council. Though I regret that we were unable to
reach consensus, I am confident that all Member States
will co-operate with the Council. It is my firm conviction
that we have created a Council that will take concrete
steps forward in the protection and promotion of human
rights around the globe, in accordance with all that the
Universal Declaration espouses.
For the first time ever, all Member States will be subject
to peer review of their human rights records. There are
powerful disincentives against countries with the poorest
human rights records even standing for election. The
establishment of the Council is forging ahead fast; my
first task on returning to New York next week will be to
oversee the election of members to the first Council. The
new Council will meet for the first time in Geneva on 19
June.
But as you may have seen, the current headlines at the UN
are not about human rights, development or peace and
security but about the UN’s work to reform itself. An
Organisation set up in the late 1940’s inevitably needs to
take a close look at what it does and the way it does it.
But the mistrust and suspicion in the world is not left
behind by delegates as they enter UN Headquarters. It
permeates the negotiations, on this as much as any issue.
What seems like sensible management practice to some seems
like an underhand way of advancing particular agendas to
others.
The current negotiations are as important as they are
difficult. But ultimately, it is Member States who will
decide how the UN is reformed, not the institution itself.
Here, I believe we all have a role to play in advancing an
informed discussion in New York and in our capitals.
Let me end by recalling that it is imperative that in all
we do we keep in mind the realities of the world. One
reality is the crushing poverty and insecurity which marks
the lives of so many of our fellow human beings, and takes
away what the UN Charter calls the ‘dignity and worth of
the human person’. A second reality is that of our
peoples’ aspirations, expectations and dreams for the kind
of world they want to see.
I also did not want to convey the impression that the
United Nations is the only vehicle for effective
multilateralism. There is a vital role for civil society,
the private sector, parliamentarians and local
authorities. And, in a marvellous piece of foresight, the
authors of the UN Charter in Chapter 8 noted that ‘nothing
in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional
arrangements or agencies for dealing with such
matters... as are appropriate for regional action.’
An effective UN and effective regional organisations
should be mutually reinforcing. I support and encourage
the EU, AU and others to continue taking a proactive role
both within their home regions and beyond.
But ultimately, it is up to us, ‘we, the Peoples’ to
determine whether and how we want the world, the United
Nations and broader multilateralism to be shaped. As Dag
Hammarskjöld, the legendary former Secretary-General, said
in 1960: ‘we have too much in common, too great a sharing
of interests and too much that we might lose together, for
ourselves and succeeding generations, ever to weaken in
our efforts to turn simple human values into the firm
foundation on which we may live together in peace’.