Statement by
H.E. Mrs. Adiyatwidi Adiwoso Asmady
Deputy Permanent Representative
of the Republic of Indonesia
to the United Nations
at
The Informal Consultations
of the General Assembly

 

New York, 22 February 2005

Mr. President,

Indonesia is pleased to take part in these ongoing deliberations of the General Assembly on the Report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, and the Millennium Project Report. We expect that these consultations will enrich the forthcoming Report of the Secretary-General. In making its contribution, Indonesia wishes to align itself with the statements already made here by Malaysia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), and Jamaica, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

In addition to the very clear positions that those statements have detailed, I would like to emphasize the principles, including multilateralism, respect for human rights, non-intervention in the affairs of states, and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States, that shape Indonesia’s views on international affairs. Indonesia also believes in the principle of collective security for protecting human civilization. Given this context, the rest of my remarks will deal briefly with a few general issues that deserve emphasis, and about which there may exist some disagreement.

Mr. President,

At this point in the evolution of the United Nations, the challenge before the international community today is to reach a multilateral accommodation between the concepts of security and development. In our view, the critical task is to agree that neither of these issues is superior to the other; in the interest of realism and progress, they must be addressed in a balanced and even manner.

Regrettably, although the Report of the High-Level Panel acknowledges the balance between security and development, it lacked this generosity of spirit. Its energies were devoted considerably more to the subject of security than they were to development and allied issues. Indeed, the latter only suspiciously constitute an appendage of the battle against terror and crime.

Security in today’s world must rest upon the sure and stabilizing foundation of development. As stated by the Secretary-General, “Development and security are inextricably linked. A more secure world is only possible if poor countries are given a real chance to develop”. More than mere economic growth, such development involves the satisfaction of the social needs of human beings. With all of their vision, knowledge, industry, good health and expertise, people constitute indispensable capital for successful global development.

Mr. President,

Certainly, the Millennium Project Report (MPR) seeks to advance the United Nations’ thrust in the promising direction of global development, in effect making the nations of the world stakeholders in its stability and security. The fact that the report is presented as a practical plan for the accomplishment of the universally accepted MDGs underscores its utility and importance for change, especially in the developing world. Without the report’s emphatic insistence that the MDGs can be achieved, once the global community puts into effect the necessary measures, then the world of yesterday and today will also be the world of tomorrow.

In the report’s view, one of the necessary measures for development is for donor countries to live up to their ODA commitments. Though we understand that it is the primary responsibility of the developing countries to ensure their own development, we recognize that without international support, particularly support for highly-indebted countries, they would lack sufficient resources to pursue their development goals. Donor resources must therefore be added to national resources to enable poor countries to overcome extreme poverty and achieve real self-sustaining economic growth.

Even as we welcome the positive response of some European Union countries in fulfilling their ODA pledge, we call on the rest of the donor community to join their ranks in order to empower developing countries to effectively engage the challenges of development. In addition to ODA support, we urge that proposed quick win actions, recommended in the report, be implemented immediately to bring the MDGs within reach of developing countries.

Valuable as the MDGs are, we believe it is equally important that the economic sovereignty of developing countries be respected, particularly in policy-making and setting development priorities. It should not happen that the MDGs become the ordained path to development for all countries, given the variations in material circumstances and the availability of capable human resources. Indeed, the report acknowledges this.

But perhaps, even more necessary for the economic sovereignty of developing countries, would be the systemic changes such as the implementation of the Doha Development Agenda and the democratization of the Bretton Woods Institutions. These must be made to the current international economic and financial order to allow developing countries to be effectively integrated into the world economy and benefit equitably from the process of globalization, and are imperatives for global transformation.

Even in the absence of such changes, however, South-South cooperation, a significant tool acknowledged by the MPR, has allowed developing countries to gain benefits from globalization through increased trade and investment, transfer of appropriate technologies and sharing of best practices. The Asia-Africa Sub-Regional Conference (AASROC), activated in 2003, seeks to enhance South-South cooperation for development through its New Strategic Partnership initiative, which will be formally launched in 2005. This Partnership will work through the media of such regional institutions as NEPAD and ASEAN and with the support of the international community this initiative should spur dramatic changes in the quality of life on both continents.

Mr. President,

Allow me to turn to the report of the High-level Panel, and make a few specific observations about its recommendations to enhance global security. We are of the view that the Panel’s response to the so-called new threats of today’s international situation, categorized under six clusters, is perceived from a narrow security perspective. It is not surprising, therefore, that the recommendations in the Report made for collective security ignore the imperative of maintaining a balance in the distribution of power and authority among the various UN organs pursuant to the Charter.

With reference to specific issues in the High-Level Panel’s report, our first comment concerns the proposal for a Peacebuilding Commission. In our view, the role and functions of the Commission are neither sufficiently clear, nor is its justification under the aegis of the Security Council. As a concept, it is much more related to issues of development than it is to the maintenance of peace and security. In view of the fact that other major organs of the United Nations, such as the General Assembly or the Economic and Social Council, have institutional responsibility for development issues, we would be far more comfortable placing the Commission in one of them.

Second, we have similar concerns with the Panel’s endorsement of the “emerging norm” regarding the responsibility to protect their citizens, and the right of the international community should states fail in discharging this “responsibility.” Although there are moral and political justifications for this, it is legally wrong. It is a proposition that poses all kinds of dangers and temptations, because it is the developing nations that are certain to be in violation under terms that are determined by the developed.

Third, on the subject of the Commission on Human Rights, we are doubtful that the concept of universal membership will adequately address the problem of "eroding credibility and professionalism" advanced by the Panel. We do not think that this diagnosis, which is an indictment of the present membership structure, is correct, as it ignores the other problems within the Commission. In any case, a universalized CHR would immediately raise the question of duplication of work with the General Assembly’s Third Committee, which also has responsibility for human rights. My delegation can not accept to the proposal that the Commission report to the Security Council, a notion that needlessly strengthens and extends the authority of the Security Council.

Fourth, with regards to weapons of mass destruction, the panel’s focus on the threat posed by nuclear proliferation is imbalanced. The fundamental threat is the existence of nuclear weapons in the first place, and the response to this which the Panel should have focused on is disarmament. The problem here is the narrow definition of “proliferation” in which the Panel’s attention is on the general spread of nuclear weapons while avoiding the more critical issue of “vertical” proliferation and qualitative development.

Fifth, on the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), my delegation stresses that it lacks multilateral justification and the support of international law. PSI is erroneously anchored on the argument of nuclear proliferation, rather than the imperative of nuclear disarmament. It has never been discussed or negotiated within the UN framework. We are, therefore, concerned about Member States being encouraged to join it.

Sixth, while we endorse the Panel's recommendation for sanctions monitoring mechanisms, we would like to see an appropriate time-framework for such mechanisms that would guarantee equity and transparency in their implementation and mode of operation.

Seventh, my delegation reiterates that the reform of the United Nations must be implemented not as a selective, segmented exercise, but as a package that includes all of the principal organs of the Organization. In this package, none of these organs should diminish another. Although we are open to, and have continued to participate in debates about the reform of the Security Council, we are of the view that the reform of the United Nations must not assume the form of the reform of the Security Council. Even though, Indonesia is an aspirant to membership of Security Council, we would like to point out the importance of undertaking the reform process with the broadest possible consensus among Member States. Indonesia will support proposals that take this point into consideration.

Eighth, we feel that the recommendations on certain important issues tended to introduce interpretations that are inconsistent with preceding explanations, such as on the issue of the “pre-emptive” right to self-defense. We do believe Article 51 shall be carefully considered, and that it would avoid any rewriting and reinterpretation.

Ninth, my delegation believes that the definition of terrorism offered by the Panel lacks sensitivity and balance. While this definition appropriately protects civilians and non-combatants, it fails to recognize the legitimate struggle of peoples who are under colonialism or foreign occupation. Permit me also to draw attention to the problems concerning the Security Council's Consolidated List of individuals and entities established and being maintained by the 1267 Committee. We encourage the Committee to continue to improve its methodology of listing and de-listing. We are also of the view that innocent individuals or entities that have been wrongly listed be appropriately addressed.

Mr. President,

In closing let me thank the Assembly for its insightful approach in considering the two reports simultaneously. Taken together, they provide guidance for multilateral action, not only among States but also among regional and international institutions, within broadly interconnected frameworks, to achieve global security and development.
I thank you.