THE PRIME MINISTER

1000 Brussels, 6 June 2005
Rue de la Loi 16
Tel. +32 (0)2 501 02 11

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It was with great pleasure that I accepted the organisers' invitation to open your conference here today.

Firstly because I think it's a fabulous initiative, this conference held together with our Canadian friends. And let it be underscored right at the start of this day of reflection that Canada has been - and remains - most active in contributing towards the security operations of the United Nations. Moreover, in transatlantic debates our Canadian friends are all too often unfairly neglected.

The timing of this conference is perfect. The eyes of the entire world are on the United Nations as it gears up for its special summit in New York in mid-September. So in the run-up to that meeting it is a good thing for us to once again take a close look at the aims of the United Nations. And where are they more clearly set out than in the organisation's original texts?

The preamble of the Charter of the United Nations unequivocally spells out the organisation's aims. The peoples of the United Nations were combining forces to prevent war, to assert human rights, to enforce the rule of law and international law, and to promote social progress, greater prosperity and more extensive freedom.

Today, 60 years on, we can safely say that the world has made substantial progress and that, when all is said and done, in 2005 we are living in a better world than people did in 1945. That achievement is thanks to committed efforts made by many people - not least the organisation's successive secretaries-general - to turn the United Nations into what it now is. 

Having said that, some massive challenges remain, and I don't just mean incidents like the war in Iraq. Every year 2 million people die of tuberculosis, 1 million die of malaria, 3 million die of AIDS, and 40 million people are now infected with the HIV virus. Numerous guerrilla wars and civil wars are raging, with child soldiers deployed and countless innocent citizens being killed or maimed. In addition, every day at any moment 840 million people are going hungry. 

So humankind and "we the peoples of the United Nations" still find ourselves faced with a very daunting task. However, there's no point in us trying to bear the burden of all suffering in the world on our shoulders. We have to work bit by bit, resolutely and thoroughly. And we are quite right to conclude, after 60 years, that reforms are needed. Today we're having to reform the institutions of the United Nations so that tomorrow they can regain their original strength. 

Up to now, most attention has been lavished on reforming the Security Council, and quite rightly so, for the Security Council is the linchpin of the United Nations. Yet that is not the only reform required to shore up the organisation. For if the UN is to be made into a more powerful organisation, other important institutional changes need to be implemented, such as establishing a Human Rights Council or reforming its Social and Economic Committee. 

At the same time, a great deal of effort is going into evaluating the Millennium Goals. Mid-September will be a time to look in the mirror and ascertain whether or not we are actually on track to meet the commitments we made five years ago and will be able to honour them. Belgium would certainly like to see an honest evaluation take place and fresh impulses given towards achieving our objectives.  

But today I would like to focus on the third main issue that we will discuss in September, namely collective security. International security is a key topic for the United Nations, being the initial inspiration for its existence, having arisen out of the rubble of World War Two. After all, security is a condition for prosperity, and without it there can be no freedom or democracy.  

Ensuring security is also the toughest objective of the United Nations, because whilst we all agree on what is to be achieved, namely the establishment of a safe world, our opinions differ fundamentally over how this can be achieved. Can we build a consensus on the use of force and how to deal with the serious security problem to do with the proliferation of conventional and nuclear weapons? How can failing or failed nations be shepherded back into the international fold? How can we ourselves contribute towards a stronger collective security system? Yet before we can start answering such questions, we must first reach agreement on what the concept of 'security' actually entails. So that is our first question: What do we understand by security?

The term 'security' has many different meanings and facets, starting with a feeling of being safe, a sense of being at ease and not threatened, of being free to feel what we feel. That sense is diminished by numerous factors, not just by the threat of physical safety, but also by a sense of psychological insecurity or material weakness, and the true or perceived strength of someone else.

Security is an all-encompassing concept which calls for a broad response. For example, nobody can query the intrinsic link between security and development, by which I mean both economic and democratic development. Economic failure causes frustration and creates ideal conditions for fomenting ideologies or movements that can result in the use of weapons and terrorism. Democratic failure, entailing a lack of freedom and democracy, the absence of a rule of law, and a failure to respect human rights is unacceptable and creates insecurity. It quite rightly prompts criticism from the respective country's own population as well as from the international community. Accordingly, "freedom from fear", as Kofi Annan put it, is the guiding principle behind security.

Otherwise, situations occur that give rise to threats and create dangers within these countries and vis-à-vis the outside world.  It is abundantly clear that failing or failed nations constitute a threat to international security and necessitate broader answers  that are both preventive and curative.

For this reason, I find the proposal to set up a Peacebuilding Commission extremely interesting. Such a body, given sufficient authority and set up within a coherent framework for rebuilding peace with all the respective players, could constitute a key asset, especially if it proved able to draw on the knowledge and experience of those who are familiar with specific 'real-world' situations. Our own experience in guiding the Democratic Republic of Congo away from war and towards development, has given us valuable experience as to how comprehensive a security concept can be and how challenging its tasks are.

At the same time we have to provide for a more extensive combination and synergy of military and civilian resources. We have gathered sufficient experience in various problematic areas in recent years to understand that monitoring missions or stabilisation forces do more than fulfil military tasks. For example, in practice our troops in Kosovo are often very busily engaged in a long-term investment aimed at bringing together segments of the population, contributing towards their peaceful coexistence, and cultivating an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect, even though the scars of the destruction are still rather fresh and not yet fully healed. 

In practice we have to act in unison. Solutions have to be found and procedures improved if we are to smooth the transition from military crisis management to post- conflict reconstruction. This has been the main lesson learned from Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO's PRT formula in Afghanistan proved highly innovative in this respect. We should learn profound lessons from it.  

On the other hand, the particular nature of certain civilian operations, especially humanitarian operations, necessitates a clear distinction being drawn between such activities and military operations. The need for caution must be clearly highlighted so that the right combination of instruments is used and any military operation does not muddy the overall concept of reconstruction or aid and thereby provoke more resistance than cooperation.  

As collective security is being redefined in a changing, complex security environment in which threats are assuming a global dimension, new questions are arising. Kofi Annan believes that collective security depends on accepting that the threats perceived as being most urgent by each region of the world are in fact equally urgent for everybody. This way, collective security becomes a global issue, with the UN and its Security Council playing the leading role. Kofi Annan proposes that the United Nations should be transformed into the effective instrument for preventing conflict that it was always meant to be. The international community should embrace its responsibility to protect people against genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Belgium and the European Union support the UN Secretary General in his endeavour to strengthen the United Nations. But we must ask ourselves what chances we have of achieving this when many countries in both the South and the East prefer limiting the use of force to self-defence? What arguments can serve to bring them round to our point of view? Even in the West, we must remain aware of potential conflicts of interests that may arise and need to be managed. For instance, traditionally we identify NATO as our instrument for exerting collective security. Article 5 of the NATO Charter provides for arrangements for collective self-defence in the event of an armed attack against the territory of an ally. As NATO adapts to a changing security situation, the concept of collective defence is shifting towards the Allies' readiness to consult each other, based on article 4, and if necessary take appropriate action against threats to their vital interests, regardless of where they may come from. These fundamental issues are being raised at both the regional and global level, which goes to show that similar questions apply at both these levels.

But, ladies and gentlemen, even though our understanding of collective security may differ, there's one thing we all agree on: we need to cooperate more under the leadership of the United Nations.

After all, however well equipped the EU may be, it does not operate in a vacuum. Legitimacy and coherence are essential for crisis prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. There simply is no alternative. The European Security Strategy is very clear about this: Our security and prosperity depend on an effective multilateral system, so we are committed to upholding and developing international law. The fundamental framework for international relations is and remains the United Nations Charter. Consequently, strengthening the United Nations and equipping it to fulfil its responsibilities and act effectively, is a European priority.

This brings us back to the prime role played by the United Nations in our collective security and the need for effective multilateralism. It is reassuring that from their very inception, all relevant international and regional organisations have their legitimacy vested in the UN Charter, or at least UN principles. We must make sure that this arrangement works in practice.

This brings me to the point that I believe to be crucial to the future operation of the United Nations. If we intend to work together efficiently at the global level, then there has to be greater synergy between the United Nations and regional organisations. For this will undoubtedly be the model for world politics in the future. It is something that we in Europe have learned, by trial and error, over the past half a century. In this respect I should mention the important contribution the OSCE has made in the past and, as I am sure, will make in the future.

From a European perspective, transparency and adequate coordination between the EU, NATO, OSCE and the United Nations should help to avoid unnecessary duplication and prevent any wastage of resources or unhealthy competition. The present cooperation in Bosnia is an example in this respect. We have to ensure that when the EU, the United Nations and NATO lend their support to the African Union's peace mission in Darfur, each organisation makes a contribution based on real needs and on the added value that each of them has to offer. Setting out merely to occupy the area would be counterproductive and confusing, and would unduly challenge the AU's absorption capacity. Faced with the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, such a situation would be irresponsible. We feel confident that cooperation and coordination regarding Darfur will be fruitful and efficient, which is good because we have no time to waste. As you Canadians, involved as you are, know very well. And let's be honest, there's no alternative to success there. Nobody must be excluded, and all we can try to do is enhance coordination and cooperation.

In the same vein, we must also continue to invest in the capacities of other regional organisations, which is what the EU is trying to do with the African Union. The issue of ownership is of paramount importance and necessitates continued investment - from the EU, G8 and others. Regional organisations can be useful multipliers and convey a sense of responsibility for implementing globally agreed norms and standards in areas such as human rights, the rule of law and good governance.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I sincerely hope - and the entire Belgian government backs me up on this - that the September summit will provide the fresh impetus we need and build the consensus required to further strengthen the UN. We must not shrink back from the prospect of increasing effective multilateralism, enhancing UN credibility and bolstering cooperation in a bid to defeat the pervasive sense of collective vulnerability. We must all assume our responsibilities. I hope that the proceedings of this conference will help us all rise to the challenge.

Thank you for your attention.