Mr. President,

The message of our political leaders during the general debate was clear: there is a political will to reform and strengthen the UN. A window of opportunity for badly needed change presents itself more than ever. It is now our responsibility as our political leaders’ representatives to act.

I will focus my brief remarks on the General Assembly. First of all because the Netherlands mission has been actively involved in the so-called Greentree retreat earlier this year which came up with concrete ideas on how to revitalise the Assembly. Secondly because I believe that decisive steps to improve the Assembly’s functioning stands a good chance of succeeding at this session.

In brief, Mr. President, we are in dire need of concrete proposals to produce a more relevant and more attractive functioning of the General Assembly. To a large extent this boils down to re-thinking our conduct of business in New York. The high level panel will look into that, but will probably not provide us with ready-for-adoption solutions for the workings of the General Assembly. It is upon us, the stewards of the GA, to achieve revitalisation of the GA.

Italy, on behalf of the European Union, already submitted ideas, to which the Netherlands fully subscribes. Let me add a few thoughts focusing on:

A)    The Agenda of the GA  and
B)    The role and impact of Resolutions.

A.     We suggest that the Agenda of the Assembly should be regrouped around major issues of global import. We think that this would make the Agenda more coherent, more accessible and more manageable for us Member States. It will be a great help for all delegations, small and large, to better apprehend the work of the GA. Also the general public will have a better understanding of what is going on in the GA. In our view, the 8 segments of the Millennium Declaration could provide an ideal framework for such an exercise. These segments by and large represent the key concerns in today’s world, as recognised by our Heads of State just three years ago. We will share with all missions, as food for thought, an informal and indicative note, a  non-paper that explores what the result of such an exercise could be. In the course of this exercise some observations caught the eye:

• The coverage of the Millennium Declaration in the current agenda of the General Assembly is not complete. Just one telling example: there is no Agenda-item that covers the first segment of the Millennium Declaration “Values and Principles” although that segment contains fundamental issues.

• The distribution of Agenda Items between the Plenary and the Main Committees seems to disadvantage the discussion of highly relevant topics in the Plenary. For example, items such as the fight against terrorism, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, peacekeeping, and the implementation of the major conferences deserve in our view to be handled at Plenary level. It would immediately give the Plenary a more prominent role and profile.

• Items on the Agenda have quite often a “micro”-orientation, whether by subject or by country. This is especially the case in the Plenary. We could consider addressing the broader issues that cover them by organising our debate around themes of broader interest rather than on specific Agenda items. In doing so, we should of course not lose sight of specific issues of concern to some Member States.

• The distribution of work between the Main Committees indicates that there still exists too much overlap and lack of clarity in the division of responsibilities.

B.     The Assembly produces 300 resolutions per year. Very few are being read by our masters back home, let alone by the wider public. Even we tend to forget about them once they have been adopted. Their sheer number has reduced their relevance as the expression of the will of the international community. Also on this issue the Netherlands will be happy to share with Member States a  non-paperwithsome food for thought. The focus of this paper is on how to better control the number of resolutions and how to shift our debate more to their follow-up and implementation. I will highlight two more ambitious suggestions in the non-paper:

• Since there is a clear correlation between the number of items on the Agenda and the number of resolutions, consideration could be given to a suggestion in the Green Tree report to consider the longer-term Agenda of the GA as a gross list of Agenda items. Each GA could then draw upon that list to compile its program of work for that specific year’s session. The General Committee could prepare the decision of the GA on such a program of work.

• A new approach could be to agree on a review cycle as part of the adoption of a resolution. This would avoid bringing the resolution to a vote again next year, since the subsequent year would focus on review. Only if new developments or improved insights merit substantial change, the review could lead to the adoption of a substantially changed or new resolution on the item under consideration. The review could also conclude the removal of the item of the agenda.

Mr. President, on the issue of resolutions I would like to make a final remark on consensus. Consensus can be overused and even misused as a pseudo-veto right of very few. The Greentree Report points out that consensus doesn’t require absolute unanimity and that Member States should not be too reluctant to dissent from time to time. Elements for discussion could be that: (a) consensus should at least require unanimity between the majorities within the regional groupings or (b) the few singular member states opposing a consensus should have the obligation to motivate their positions and to clarify the national interests that are apparently at stake.

Mr. President let me conclude, by taking up a challenge presented to me by various colleagues. I concluded my address on the Report of the SG on the Implementation of the Millennium Declaration by making reference to the amount of brains available to us here in New York, 3000 kilograms. Some colleagues wondered if I could also present a figure on the quality of these brains. I will not venture in such a hazardous enterprise. But to stimulate these brains we need political will and experience in the UN-system. On the last variable, again simple calculus indicates that we have accumulated in our missions in New York over 6000 years of UN-experience. There is no other place in the world where the potential to produce practical and innovative ideas for revitalising the General Assembly is so high as here in New York. Let us live up to that capability.

Thank you, Mr. President