|
Statement by
New York, 28 January, 2005 Mr. President, Let me begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to the High-level Panel on Challenges, Threats and Changes for the comprehensive and far-reaching report it has produced. Indonesia is of the view that the report should certainly be treated as a useful basic document which merits further study and analysis. Indonesia also aligns itself with the views expressed by the distinguished delegates of Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, and Jamaica, on behalf of the G-77 and China, concerning the report. Mr. President, As the outcome of intense deliberations by a number of reputable intellectuals and experienced as well as knowledgeable dignitaries, the report definitely deserves our close attention because its implementation will fundamentally alter the character of the United Nations in the future. The report and its 101 recommendations therefore require more detailed discussions that should be inclusive, open-ended and transparent in nature. Since the general desire is for deep reform of the United Nations, an international organization which affects the life of everyone of us, it is essential that the consultation and decision-making process should be guided and determined by broad participation and consensus. We are all aware and accept that the reform process cannot be and indeed will not be an overnight undertaking. It demands patience and perseverance to build agreement among all the Member States on such a wide range of sensitive political issues. Mr. President, To be truly relevant and effective in the future, the United Nations must be strengthened on the economic and social sides as well as on the political and security sides. In that light, some of the recommendations are welcome. However, if one were to view the reform process in a comprehensive manner, the net effect of the recommendations will be an unprecedented enhancement of the activities of the United Nations for the purposes of international security. Indonesia therefore supports the perspective that, as a complete package, the recommendations disturb the delicate balance among the permanent organs of the United Nations and will have the effect of tilting the balance heavily towards the Security Council, making it the dominant organ of the organization. Turning to the two models offered by the Panel for the enlargement of the Security Council, we would like to caution that they must be seen only for what they are: proposals, not solutions. They must not be regarded as having closed the door to other options that have been considered in the past, or that may be put on the table in the future. We believe this matter should be addressed with the aim of attaining the broadest possible consensus and in so doing minimize the divergence of views among Member States. In the context of the Panel’s work on the subject of weapons of mass destruction, we can support some of the recommendations contained in the report. Taken as a whole, however, the recommendations fail to address the root causes of the problem. These include the existence of nuclear weapons and the absence of the political will to pursue disarmament with the objective of total elimination of those weapons. In our view, the Panel’s recommendations are not balanced in this regard because they devote more emphasis to the proliferation, while shying away from recommending steps toward nuclear disarmament. We also concerned about some of the recommendations that grant the Security Council more functions and roles beyond its known competence in dealing with the issue of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. While we can support some of the recommendations regarding nuclear disarmament, we are of the view that nuclear weapon states should fully implement their commitments and obligations under Article VI of the NPT, including the 13 practical steps. Mr. President, The Report’s preoccupation with the Security Council is, however, a cause for some concern. Whether by accident or design, the report appears to overlook the important role of the ECOSOC in dealing with security challenges having economic causes. It does not attempt to rescue ECOSOC from the passive role it has been forced to play in recent times, when compared with vigorous roles of the Bretton Woods Institutions and the WTO in the economic and financial fields. Such limitations on ECOSOC are not consistent with its Charter mandate. Further, outside of ECOSOC, the developing countries will not be party to major decisions taken in the economic and financial fields. Whatever its shortcomings, ECOSOC serves as a democratic safeguard for proper decision-making in these fields. Its role should therefore be expanded and centralized, not undermined. In this context, the establishment of the Peacebuilding commission should be directly linked to ECOSOC and General Assembly rather than be placed under the authority of the Security Council. We are of the view that while the recommendation on the establishment of a peacebuilding commission merit our attention, further deliberation is nevertheless necessary to ensure an effective and efficient outcome. In conclusion, let me just emphasize once again the important need for the recommendations of the report to be carefully studied and discussed at length that should be inclusive, open-ended and transparent in nature, before any action is taken to implement them. Thank you.
|
