Kyoto, 6 July 2004

Madam Chairperson,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure for me to come to Kyoto, Japan's "Thousand Year Capital", to attend this seminar. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Japan's Foreign Ministry and Mrs. Sadako Ogata for the kind invitation and I would like to wish the seminar a success.

The main item on the agenda of this seminar is "the security threats confronting the world, including civil conflicts, and the response to them". I consider it highly relevant. Since the end of World War II, although there have been tension and even confrontations between major powers, there has been no war between them. Yes, there was the "Cold War" lasting for a few decades. But it came to an end in the 1990s.

Items of regional hotspots of which the UN Security Council remains seized are over 30. Among them, internal armed conflicts and civil wars are still going on. This is most disturbing.

Civil strife, unlike that between nations, is far more complex and delicate. It has roughly the following features.

First, complicated causes. In the long course of mankind's development, peace and war have always been interwoven. Human society's advance is accompanied by wars and civil strife, big or small. Looking at modern history, one finds different causes for civil wars. Some broke out when sovereign countries sought national unity, some resulted from revolutions or coups, and others were triggered by sharpened internal ethnic and religious conflicts or scrambling for power among political factions.

Second, grave consequences. In an internal armed conflict, it is the vast number of innocent civilians who suffer most. Civil wars and disturbances have time and again torn up families and rendered civilians homeless. Lingering civil wars wreak havoc on the countries concerned, totally devastating their economy. Anarchy and chaos can be exploited for terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and cross-border organized crimes. From Afghanistan to D.R. Congo, from Haiti to Sudan, people have suffered enormously from armed conflicts.

Third, extensive implications. Globalisation has made countries more inter-dependent and their interests more intertwined. One country's internal conflict often has impact beyond its border, posing a threat to regional and even global peace and stability. The Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East has been going on for half a century now. The conflict in Kosovo almost rocked the entire Europe. The conflict in D.R. Congo turns countries in the Great Lakes Region from friends to foes. Their relations remain strained till this day.

Fourth, no easy solution. As a Chinese saying goes: it takes more than one cold day for the river to freeze deep. Many civil conflicts break out following years of contradictions and aggravation of intricate problems, and thus are by no means easy to settle. Post-conflict disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of soldiers into society are yet another arduous process which denies quick solution.

Civil conflicts are, in the final analysis, the internal affairs of sovereign countries. In dealing with armed conflicts within a country, the international community should take the UN Charter as the basis, and the international law as the guide, while seeking a case-by-case solution. It should adopt a prudent and responsible approach and avoid large-scale external involvement. In this respect, I think we should pay attention to the following point:

Firstly, conflict prevention is an important measure to forestall civil wars. Prevention is better than intervention. Sound preventive measures may yield the expected results more quickly. As the UN member states achieve more consensus and increase their cooperation after the "Cold War", the Organization is able to play its role in preventing conflicts and civil wars. The international community owes its success in Macedonia and other places to its own unity and the UN's political advantages. The international community need to further increase its input to conflict prevention and build up mediation capability of the UN.

Secondly, dialogue and negotiation are the best means to end a civil war. The final proper settlement of armed conflict lies in the political will of the parties concerned. All parties involved should set store by the interests of their countries and people, and turn hostility into friendship. Other countries should be impartial in their involvement. Dialogue and negotiation may take a longer time and more efforts, but they will bring about better results. History shows that force would not lead to peace, and war could not win popular support.

Thirdly, the UN and regional organizations are an effective channel to settle civil wars. At the request or with the cooperation of the parties concerned, the international community may help settle armed conflicts within a country, but such involvement should stick to the principle of neutrality and impartiality. Peacekeeping force authorized by the UN Security Council should refrain from getting involved in the conflict itself.

One must be aware that the UN is not omnipotent. It can only act within its power. Some regional organizations know better the countries in their regions and have their own human, material and financial resources. They may play a role of mediation. The Organization of American States, the European Union and the African Union, with their mechanisms of crisis and conflict management, should complement the UN's peace- making efforts.

Fourthly, development provides the fundamental guarantee for removing sources of conflict. Peace is the foundation of development, while development ensures peace. The key to removing sources of conflict lies in promoting development. One important task of the UN is to see to it that peacekeeping, reconstruction and development are conducted in a consistent and coordinated manner and to take effective measures to help post-conflict countries build their capacity to develop economy and cope with economic globalisation. In this way, it is possible to root out the causes of conflict.

Recently, one comes to hear more often a term of "failed states". In my view, turmoil, crisis or mismanagement in a country may have a host of complicated reasons, and therefore cannot all be blamed on the country itself. The term "failed states" could arouse resentment from the people of the target countries and lead to renewed hostility and hatred. It does not help in the ultimate settlement of the problem.

It is nearly sixty years since the UN was founded. The world has undergone huge changes. An old Chinese saying goes: "changes should arise, to copy with the evolving times". As time evolves, the UN needs to keep abreast with it by carrying out necessary and rational reform in a bid to meet the requirements of the new situation and effectively cope with fresh threats and challenges facing the world. In this regard, we should bear in mind the following two points.

Firstly, to define a general approach to institutional reform of the UN. The UN reform is a process of both "carrying forward" and "casting off". Ideas running counter to the needs of the times should be cast off while successful practices be carried forward. It has been proved that the purposes and principles of the UN Charter are not outdated, but rather remain highly relevant in guiding the contemporary international relations. In the final analysis, the ultimate goal of the reform is to retain the UN's important role in international affairs, intensify solidarity and coordination of all Member States, and enhance the UN's capacity in responding to various new threats and challenges.

Secondly, to push forward the reform of relevant agencies in a progressive manner. The UN institutional reform touches upon various aspects, including the fundamental interests of all Members States. In the course of the reform, it is important to solicit both intensively and extensively opinions from all parties. One may start from easier areas and adopt a steady and pragmatic approach. We should try to implement reform measures where consensus is found. Where there are divided opinions or fresh ideas, we may try to reach the broadest possible consensus through further in-depth discussion and exchange of views.

At the UN Millennium Summit in 2000, heads of states and governments made a solemn commitment to the world-to unite more closely, and let a powerful UN usher mankind into the 21st century featuring peace, development and prosperity.

Next year will mark the 60th anniversary of the UN. Let's act quickly to translate the Millennium Declaration into action. Concrete actions and facts speak better than anything else. I believe that with our concerted efforts the world will see less conflict, war or unrest and mankind will embrace more peace, happiness and prosperity.

Thank you.