Mr. President,

The report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the Millennium Declaration is as crucial as it is courageous. On substance he has raised the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the threat of terrorism, the need for criteria for the use of preemptive force and the necessity to balance our response to the hard and the soft threats the world faces today. On organization he challenged us on the adequacy of the intergovernmental system - SC, ECOSOC and the GA – to tackle today’s global agenda. The Netherlands fully associates itself with the statement made by Italy. The European Union has made it clear that it is ready to engage on the full range of issues that the Secretary-General has put to us, member states. We take the floor, Mr. President, to share with you our thoughts on three specific issues: A) pitfalls, B) timing and C) sequencing

A.  Mr. President, the general debate has made clear that there is a momentum and a sense of urgency. Will this drive for reform last in the coming months? Let me cite three possible pitfalls that could derail our efforts.

• First of all, the SG has invited us to discuss a series of topics at the same time. Here we run the risk that progress in one area is made dependant on progress in other areas. We should not allow that to happen. We are invited to a game of simultaneous chess; we have to move our pieces on all the boards in the same game.

• Secondly, the importance of the matter demands innovation and expeditiousness; it requires departure from our usual patterns of behavior here in New York. If we allow old reflexes to creep in, we will find ourselves locked up in the usual exchange of arguments between groups. This would take the spirit out of the debate and gone is the sense of momentum and importance. If this scenario becomes reality, we will all lose.

• Thirdly, the panel of eminent persons can in no way present an excuse to sit back and wait. We would lose valuable time if we would wait for the SG to report on the panel. It would effectively mean an adjournment of the reform to the next GA. The panel’s work and our work in New York can happily co-exist. In fact, I expect both exercises to be complementing rather then competing.

B.   Mr. President, timing is essential; momentum has by definition limited shelf life; the window of opportunity to shape the UN to meet our present needs will not be open forever. Looking ahead September 2005 emerges as a natural deadline for our work. September 2005 can bring together development, the financing of development, security, human rights and the adequacy of the multilateral institutions. September 2005 can mean a truly comprehensive reappraisal of the multilateral system worthy of the optimistic and ambitious spirit of the Millennium Summit, by then 5 years ago.

C.  Mr. President, if timing is essential, then sequencing in our work is even more so. If we would accept September 2005 as a decisive milestone, we will have two GA’s at our disposal to do the work. Arguing backwards, starting in September 2005 it seems probable that the 59th GA will be devoted to discussions on the SG proposals with the panel’s report as one of the inputs. We will have to prepare for that, meaning that we have to probe, to discuss and to speak our minds, within and between the regional groups. To make that happen, we should consider uncommon formats for our deliberations, for example the establishment of group-crosscutting round tables. Obviously, given our charged agenda for the coming three months the main trust of this exploratory work will have to take place in the second half of this GA, the first part of 2004. Mr. President, still arguing backwards, I will now come to what we can take up now. In the coming three months three items stand out on which we can demonstrate our genuine will to improve the system: the High Level Dialogue on Financing for Development, the Budget and the Revitalization of the GA.

• On the High Level Dialogue on Financing for Development we will have to start building up towards the September 2005 event. 

• On the budget we will have to agree on a more streamlined budgetary process that channels funds to priorities and steers away from input-oriented micro-management by member states. I strongly recommend that PR’s take a personal interest in this important debate.

• On revitalization of the GA we will have to focus on specific issues where progress is possible. Our suggestions are: the strengthening of the office the President, the revitalization of the General Committee, the structuring of the agenda of the GA, the role and impact of resolutions and the organization of work of the Main Committees. We will come back on these issues at the end of this month.

Mr. President, I know that this timetable is ambitious. I am fully aware that ambition can sometimes meet cynicism; but I also happen to believe that cynicism is the lowest level of intellectual activity. Simple calculus demonstrates that - all Missions added up - we have about 3000 kilograms of brains at our disposal. Let us put those brains to work to the full, for the benefit of the UN and therefor for the benefit of “We the Peoples”, we represent.

Thank you, Mr. President.