OPENING ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF MALTA

The world has just celebrated the dawn of a new Millennium; we have heralded humankind's entry into another era marking the passage with due pomp and circumstance. Maybe the celebration was all about burying the most brutal period in the history of mankind; maybe it was just another change in dates in the Gregorian calendar; perhaps it was a celebration of mankind's natural aptitude to hope for a better future.

A month ago, I opened a conference at Wilton Park with the same title of today's Seminar. On that occasion, I focused my ideas on "A United Nations for all Nations", the United Nations as an inclusive Organisation, an international body that was designed to ensure deliverance from the scourge of war.

International developments, especially during the past decade, have demonstrated the benefits of multilateral dialogue and co-operation, as opposed to block politics. But is the United Nations Organisation ready to face and effectively address the challenges of the 21^st century posed by a changing international context?

It is of the essence that we must refer back to the Charter.

The principles enshrined therein are as valid today as they were in 1945. Yet, the United Nations has to move with the times, ahead of its times, if it is to ensure that its principles and purposes are upheld.

Like Antoni Gaud'�'s Sagrada Familia, the United Nations is an Organisation in constant mutation through the passage of time, in constant construction through the hand of man. It is a living organism, just as Gaud'� envisaged his architectural creations which grace this beautiful city.

History has bequeathed us a multi-faceted reality in the shape of a developed and prosperous world and a world struggling with the chagrin of under-development. However, we all live in the same global village which has shrunk through the interconnectivity of the media and information technology, through a major awareness of the interdependence of our natural habitat and its problems, through the emergence of the global market economy: today, everywhere is near, the whole world is our neighbourhood.

The closer we live to each other the less we can afford to hide from each other. The Cold War hampered and hid the realities of a global village. Now that we have lifted the curtain, we must strive to paint a backdrop which links us all to each other. Co-operation has supplanted confrontation both at the State level but also on the individual level. For the easing of political barriers has facilitated the movement of peoples, the exchange of ideas and the intermingling of cultures.

How does the United Nations feature in all this? Looking back on its existence for over half a century, we see an Organisation which oversaw a number of causes, some of which with beneficial results. Such was its role in the relative success of the process of de-colonisation, which was perhaps more a reflection of the political realities, of retreating empires, and of peoples crying for freedom, than a conscious act of an organisation inspired by noble ideals.

Perhaps, in no meager terms, the United Nations managed to fulfill its objective – to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Indeed, possibly the greatest achievement of the United Nations was its very ability to survive the Cold War and to save itself from the ruination suffered by its predecessor, the League of Nations. Even if paralyzed to the hilt by d'�tente logic, the existence of the Organisation was not called into question. Perhaps the universality that it encompassed was its saving grace and future hope. For the universality is not a feature of the Organisation only in terms of its composition but in terms of the values that are engrained within it, and the values it sought to project since its inception.

The Charter, with its enshrined principles and objectives, remains in many senses a dream still to be realised and lived. Its delicate balance reflects the reality of an age past, yet it is imbued with timeless values. In the space of a few pages it carries within it a vision – a unique m'�lange of the bastions of justice and the corresponding machinery to realise this vision.

Yet is this enough? Or do we expect more of an Organisation in which we have placed our hopes? Do we expect too much of an Organisation which is only as great as the sum of its parts?

Let us be clear: the United Nations is an organisation made up of member states, and it is each of these member states that bears the responsibility for the actions taken by the Organisation. Yet there is a unique twist: once States sit together and pattern paths of co-operation, the Organisation takes life, its vitality assumes an existence of its own. And therein lies the greatness of this Organisation – its ability to bring States together, sometimes in harmony and sometimes in discord; for even if we are fighting, we are doing so around a table, we do so with words and not with swords.

The great challenge we have witnessed in the recent past is that of keeping the Organisation central and engaged, central to those situations where peace is endangered and stability is thwarted, engaged in those crises where this global Organisation has not ceded its responsibility by design but where it lost its voice by default.

Thus, we must continue to guard against the risk of marginalisation. For worse than the curse of the Cold war, irrelevance of the Organisation can have more far-reaching effects. And there is no replacement for this Organisation – there is no substitute, we have practically no choice.

Yet it too must change.

To enable the United Nations to act as a catalyst for change it must adapt and undergo change. It has also to understand change. For at the United Nations, in particular after the events in the Balkans, we are finding ourselves facing important questions: will a state grossly violating human rights of its own citizens and within its own frontiers be infringing the Charter and as such through its actions give rise to the provisions contemplated in Chapter VI and VII of the Charter? Can a country or a group of countries without the intervention of the Security Council determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or an act of aggression and take measures including the use of force against a state where gross violations of human rights are taking place? Can such actions conform with Article 39 of the Charter which confers on the Security Council the right to determine the existence of any threat to or breech of the peace or act of aggression and take such action by sea or land forces as may be deemed to be necessary? These are questions which have to be put for a United Nations relevant to the 21^st century.

The Security Council requires a studied and, indeed, fundamental reform. For the security system as envisaged in the Charter has, what has been described, serious structural limitations in that no action can be taken if one of the permanent members casts its veto whatever the purpose be, not excluding the use of force by such permanent members.

The Charter makes repeated reference to the Military Staff Committee. The Military Staff Committee is there to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments and possible disarmament. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives.

With the Cold War on, the establishment of the Military Staff Committee consisting of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council was a dead letter. Is it still a dead letter?

Again, following events in the Balkans and in terms of Article 51, the use of force without authority of the Security Council can be envisaged only in the exercise of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. And this "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain peace and security."

Is this still the position or have recent events rendered this situation one overtaken by history? In actual fact, we are putting to ourselves a very important question: are we dismantling the security system envisaged under the Charter?

Another issue which we have to face is the marginalisation of the General Assembly. There has been a shift in the centre of gravity in international affairs. From the General Assembly it shifted to the Security Council. From the Security Council it shifted outside the parameters of the Organisation itself.

The Secretary-General's role as such has increased but within the context of an Organisation facing marginalisation on the fundamental issue of the maintenance of international peace and security. I believe that there needs to be a shifting back of the centre of gravity to the General Assembly. It is the only organ of the United Nations where all members are permanent members. It has the right to consider questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. It may call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security. The Security Council is duty bound to make a report to the General Assembly. The General Assembly shall consider and approve the budget of the Organisation. We parliamentarians know how important this power is and that through its proper use considerable authority can be exercised.

As President of the Forty-fifth Session of the UN General Assembly, I started a reform process through open-ended informal talks and through a Presidential motion, which was unanimously approved, calling for the re-vitalisation of the General Assembly. I proposed that the Assembly meet throughout the major part of the year in three part sessions each dedicated respectively to political affairs, to economic affairs, and to human rights and social matters. Presently, apart form its Committees, the General Assembly hibernates for the greater part of the year.

Another key aspect of the United Nations in the 21^st Century will be its relationship with regional organisations. After the end of the Cold War, over the past decade we have witnessed a rise in incidence of regional conflicts, tension and strife. Regional organisations are well suited to take a leading role in such situations under the aegis of the United Nations. It was with this in mind, that the Government of Malta had proposed that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) be declared a regional arrangement in terms of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. There is today a formal agreement which has led to co-operative efforts between the two respective organisations in the field in many zones of tension. It was also a landmark decision in that it set the pace for similar agreements to be reached between the United Nations and other regional organisations.

The key for a second generation United Nations, a United Nations able to face the challenge of the 21^st century, remains our faith in collective responsibility. No longer able to look to one or the other side of an international political spectrum, we have recognised the need to look at each other - not only in terms of our generation, but also in terms of generations to come. This notion of "collectivity" is one which was sown with Malta's proposal that the seabed and ocean-floor be declared the Common Heritage of Mankind. This led to the historic adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – a landmark convention and a re-vindication of the validity of this concept which, echoing the purposes of the Charter, addresses the future and the very survival of humanity, the well-being of generations to come.

Because when we speak of preserving the common heritage of mankind, we are re-stating the objectives of the Charter, purposes and principles specifically aimed at safeguarding future generations from the claws of disaster.

Acting within these conceptual parameters, Malta also proposed that one of the main organs of the United Nations, the Trusteeship Council, reform its original mandate entrusted to it fifty years ago. Fifty years ago it was essential to create a body which took into trust the fate of countries in transition towards independence. Fifty years on, reality has changed.

Therefore, we proposed that the now moribund mission statement of the Trusteeship Council be reformed from a trusteeship of territories to a trusteeship of peoples. As I had occasion to say in my Wilton Park lecture, we have to apply the concept of trust to new realities. We believe that the United Nations holds in trust for humanity its common heritage and its common concerns: the environment, the resources of the sea and sea-bed, the rights of future generations and the safeguarding of the rights of people in situations of complete breakdown of the organs of the state.We believe that the Trusteeship Council, built on the solidarity of the human family can serve as an instrument to combat poverty, illiteracy, under-development, misery and hunger.

This can be an effective way for the United Nations to tear apart the Poverty Curtain, to reverse the trend of environmental degradation and the mass migration of peoples, to fight against drug trafficking and money laundering. Our commitment and that of the United Nations to address these issues has to be stronger.

For alone we can do nothing: history has taught us that strength lies in the action of the collective, in the commitment to the principles and purposes of the Charter by the community of nations. This is the stark reality of the new millennium. What before was hidden by the freeze of bloc politics has become the responsibility of us all. The key lies in the collective will for collective effort and collective action.

We need the expression of a Civil Forum alongside the workings of a General Assembly which in its composition underlines the inter-governmental aspect of the United Nations.This Civil Forum can be the expression of parliaments, both national and regional, with the strong active presence of NGOs which cover fields of solidarity and fundamental human rights. The emergence of this Civil Forum to influence the United Nations Organisation can have a lasting positive effect. For it will have its hand on the pulse of world affairs; a down to earth approach to issues affecting humanity and for which "we the peoples" can contribute in the exercise of tolerance and living together in peace with one another as good neighbours.

The United Nations in the 21^st Century must continue to remain at the forefront in trying to achieve these objectives. It is the organisation which has the potential and the in-built principles to do so.

But in order to succeed in its mission, it must undergo serious reform. Proposals for reform abound, but unless they are followed through with a determined political will, the forthcoming Millennium Assembly could just as well be another glamour reunion in a glamorous city.

Perhaps, it is time that serious consideration be given to put into effect Article 109 of the Charter.

"A General Conference of the Members of the Untied Nations for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any nine members of the Security Council."

This in itself was a recognition at the time after the drafting of the Charter that inevitable changes would have to be effected if the Organisation was to remain relevant in a changing international context. After fifty years, much has happened, the membership of the United Nations has grown from fifty-four to one hundred and eighty-five, we have witnessed the rise and fall of a Cold War; we have lived the anguish of many a regional conflict; we have seen the demise of empires and ideologies, the birth and resuscitation of states.

This is not the end of history.

All along, the principles of the Charter have remained valid. Its organs, however, cannot remain static. They, like history, must adapt to current realities, realities of the 21^st century.

However, achieving this entails the responsibility and engagement of us all who form part of the United Nations.

Because building a better world in the 21^st century entails building a better United Nations for the 21^st century.