archived page

Lecture by the President at the ACUNS 23rd Annual Meeting

Vienna, 3.6.2010  |  speech


Alert  To view this content, JavaScript must be enabled, and you need the latest version of the Adobe Flash Player.

Download the free Flash Player now!

Adobe Flash Player


Lecture by Dr Danilo Türk, President of the Republic of Slovenia, at the ACUNS 23rd Annual Meeting: "New Security Challenges"
Vienna, 3 June 2010


President Türk attends the 23rd Annual ACUNS Meeting (photo: Daniel Novakovič/STA)Ladies and Gentlemen,

First, let me thank you for this very warm and friendly welcome. I would also like to thank Professor Georg Winckler, Rector Magnificus of the University of Vienna, especially for his explanatory words about the intrinsic link between the creation of a university and the effort to create of a better world. His words remind us that the university environment is in fact an ideal environment for a collective thinking on improvement of the world. I’d like to thank Dr Kandeh K. Yumkella, Director-General of UNIDO, for his very wise words, which in fact have already introduced some of the major security challenges of our time and I hope that they will stimulate further discussion as we proceed with our work.

I’m very happy to be at ACUNS again. When I worked in New York at the United Nations I tried to cooperate with ACUNS as much as I could and I had the pleasure of speaking at various ACUNS events. So I’m looking forward to this occasion today and also after my talk I would like to invite you to ask questions and make your own comments, so that we are engaged in an academic exercise, something that I do not always have the privilege of enjoying these days.

I would also like to pick up one of the thoughts that Professor Christer Jönsson made when he introduced the subject. He reminded us that the etymological base for the world "security" which comes from Latin and it has to do about life "sine cura", without worries. I would like to remind ourselves of a variant of this thought, which we find in Voltaire, in his Candide. When Candide comes to Venice he meets a rich Venetian nobleman by the name of "Signor Pococurante", a man who has only few worries, "poco curante", a man who worries little. And after several conversations he discovers that this is a man who lives in great effluence, who has everything he wants, who is very rich, who enjoys elegant and very pleasant life but is not happy. At the end of the day his lack of worries, the fact that he worries little, that he is a "Signor Pococurante", makes him unhappy, because he loses touch with the reality of the world. In such a state, in state of absence of touch with the reality of the world, it is difficult to be happy.

President Türk attends the 23rd Annual ACUNS Meeting (photo: Daniel Novakovič/STA)I think that this particular variation of the original meaning of security of life without worries teaches us something important in our particular moment in history. We are meeting in Vienna, which is part of the effluent world, which lives in relative security and which actually enjoys a moment in which its security environment has greatly improved in some important respects. This circumstance gives us a sense that we have to worry little about threats which have until recently dominated our thinking about security. The Cold War is long over and many security threats of the past have disappeared. But it would be very wrong and harmful to accept the style of “Signor Pococurante” and not try to understand the global security situation, which in fact may be much more dangerous than we think. Losing touch with reality might be comfortable initially, but it is inevitably harmful and may become very painful as well.

The Meaning of the Concept "Security Challenges"

When you invited me to speak about new security challenges I was wondering how to organise my remarks because I thought that one has to talk about security challenges much beyond the concept of threats to international peace and security. One has to think much beyond the specific threats to peace and security. Threats, including the new, emerging threats to international peace and security, are discussed often and it is possible to identify them with a certain degree of precision. But then the question is how do we understand them in a broader context, in the context of a more systematic understanding of the current global security situation.

Let me take one example. Three years ago the United Nations Security Council addressed the issues of energy security and climate change in a single thematic debate. That was a debate about such phenomena as reduction of water availability, which is likely to lead to border disputes and to wars for territory and to emigration from areas, which are becoming uninhabitable or characterised by reduced fresh water availability and declining agricultural capacity. It was stated in that debate that the most adverse effects will take place in those parts of developing world where poverty and related social tensions already are sources of potential armed conflict and that fragile states with weak institutional systems will face additional pressures resulting from climate change, which might pose insurmountable problems of governance.

Here we have a thought about a certain type of threats to international peace and security, which is new and which is already well perceived. What we do not have is the answer to the question of what policy approach should be taken. It is one thing to have a sense of urgency to go beyond the style of "Signor Pococurante", of too little worry but it’s another thing to try to develop a coherent policy to address the emerging threats. And finally, effective policy-making in these matters requires appropriate international cooperation. Is the UN an adequate forum for policy-making and implementation? If not, what kind of changes in the UN system are necessary?

When thinking about the question of challenges to peace and security I decided to propose a hypothesis that in fact there are in the current global security landscape two types of phenomena, which require particular attention. The first is what I would call the determinants of international security situation, some of which are actually positive developments in the international security environment. And then the second are specific threats to peace and security. A clear understanding of both is the necessary platform for adequate policy-making.

Let me speak briefly about these two types of phenomena and see whether this works as an attempt to provide a hypothetical base for a discussion of the current security challenges globally. The two determinants, which I believe are important and convey certain positive developments in the international security arena, are, first, global strategic stability, which remains relatively high, irrespective of the existing imbalance of power, and, second, an increasingly multipolar or perhaps more accurately polycentric world.

Strategic Stability in an Increasingly Multipolar World

What do I mean by global strategic stability? If the current situation is compared to the Cold War era, we can say that strategic stability among the major powers is better than it was in recent history. It appears that the authentic interest of major powers to cooperate clearly outweighs their impulse to compete. Obviously, this does not apply to every single situation, and the existing pattern may change, but it is a major feature now and one, and this calls for careful thinking and for appropriate design of future cooperation and action. Strategic stability is like fresh air. It is not noticed properly when it exists but its absence is quickly felt.

Let us just think for a moment about the fact that United States of America and Russia recently concluded a new START Treaty, which provided a degree of progress with regard to reduction of strategic nuclear weapons. This was welcome progress, especially because it came after a long period of stalemate. It proves the existing strategic stability and provides the basis for further improvement. It calls for further activity and it poses before the international community of a rather large security agenda. Further progress is needed with regard to reduction of strategic nuclear weapons and their destruction. Reduction of tactical nuclear weapons and their dismantlement should also be on the agenda. Establishing NATO-Russia partnership, in particular in the area of missile defence, is on the agenda. Review of the conventional armed forces in Europe is an agenda item for the future. Our era promises good prospects for further strengthening of global strategic, in particular military, stability.

However, this is a very large agenda and it has to be managed properly in order to provide a security environment in which cooperation among major powers and among all other actors would grow. For that reason I would say that the question of management of global strategic stability represents also one of the challenges to international peace and security. Is the world going to be able to manage this process further with the effect of making sufficient progress in these areas? Much will depend on the answer to this question. It is important to encourage the process, which President Obama has started. I think that his Nobel Prize was well deserved and that initial achievements of his global security policy are a positive sign, which must be seen as a point of departure for further positive developments.

The second feature, similar in nature, is the movement of the world towards multipolarity. The emergence of new powers in our time in history has been relatively peaceful if we compare it with the previous historic periods where emergence of new powers was characterised by great tensions and large-scale wars. This is a relatively peaceful process still but again it needs to be managed. And it has a variety of consequences, some of which are perhaps within the reach of the organised international community, including the United Nations.

In this context I’d like to suggest a thought on the question of changes in the regional security situations where the strengthening of the role of regional actors represents a new opportunity. The fact that there are important regional players in Africa, such as South Africa and to some extent Nigeria, has helped in dealing with some of the security issues in the region. The fact that Brazil has developed much stronger role internationally has helped in dealing with some security threats in Latin America. Obviously, the rise of China has had positive effects on the regional stability in particular in the region of East Asia.

So there have been positive developments and positive effects. Not all of them, however, are within the reach of organised community, like the United Nations. Therefore, one of the questions that has to be given further attention is on how does one develop the institutional framework, which would allow strengthening of the regional security and a proper interplay between the global system, the United Nations’ system and regional organisations.

There have been positive and other experiences in the past. Let us think just for a short while about the way the United Nations and Organisation of African Unity worked with regard to the situation between Ethiopia and Eritrea in the last decade or perhaps more recently with regard to Sudan. We have learnt much from that interaction between the global security system, the United Nations and the regional system, the African union (the successor of the Organisation of African Unity). And also we have learnt a lot about the role of regional actors. In general the experience has been positive, although not without difficulties. I propose for your reflection the need for further institutional development with regard to cooperation between United Nations and regional organisations. The question of whether there are appropriate techniques of management of such cooperation emerging or whether there is a need for innovation is in my opinion very much on the agenda.

So, these two examples show that even where we have positive developments in the international community and on the international security scene we have a challenge of management. A meeting like this is a very appropriate occasion to think and perhaps propose new ideas about how this management should evolve and perhaps to what extent the United Nations should develop in its own techniques, in its own institutions, to develop its proper role with regard to these positive developments.

The Changing Threats to International Peace and Security

The second type of security challenges result from the changing nature of armed conflicts and new threats to international peace and security. This, of course, creates a different type of challenges.

First, let me refer to the changing nature of armed conflicts. It has been accepted for quite some time now that the number of large-scale armed conflicts, involving conventional forces or regular armies, has been on the decrease. In the period between 1992 and 2005, according to studies, the decrease of large-scale conflicts has been dramatic - the overall decrease has been about 40 %. According to the recent SIPRI report there were 16 major armed conflicts in 15 locations around the world in 2008 and the number of conflicts has stabilised at this level. The total decline according to SIPRI between 1999 and 2008, in roughly 9 years, has been from 21 to 16. However, SIPRI reminds us that this process was uneven and then there were temporary increases in the years 2005 and 2008.

I don’t wish to exaggerate the importance of these statistics. Obviously, statistics bring little consolation to victims of armed conflicts, which are mainly civilians in the mainly low intensity, intrastate armed conflicts. We have seen even some very serious developments in places like Darfur or, more recently, in Sri Lanka, places where very serious violations of humanitarian law have dominated the conflict.

Intrastate conflicts tend to be conflicts of long duration, with frequent oscillations. As we speak, the situation in Sudan, in Darfur has been described as one where the intensity of fighting has been increased again. The most recent reports (early June 2010) suggest that in Jabal Moon area in Western Darfur there has been an increased fighting and that there is large-scale displacement as a result of that fighting – both in the West and in the Southern parts of Darfur where many areas remain inaccessible to aid of international aid agencies. The international attention to this has been weak. This, obviously, is a very worrisome development and one has to think about how better to approach this type of conflicts your meetings will help us in that regard as well.

But let me return to the phenomenon of oscillations and resumptions of intra-state armed conflicts. One of the conclusions, which I believe can be clearly made, is that whenever conflicts end, there is a need to stabilise the post-conflict situation and make it sure that the situation does not descend back to war. This is a conclusion, which was suggested with great clarity in the very well known Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change in 2004 and as result of which certain institutional evolution happened in the United Nations.

I shall return to that aspect shortly. Before that I would like to say a few words about other threats to international peace and security, which exist outside the immediate armed conflicts. Again, the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change has identified 5 categories of threats, which are familiar: poverty, infectious diseases and environmental degradation; armed conflicts, both within states and between states; nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons; terrorism and organised crime. I am mentioning this quickly because I think that this list has now become generally accepted and that it cannot be overlooked in a discussion of contemporary security challenges like the one that is beginning today.

Here, obviously, if one thinks about this change, about the threats to peace, which go beyond those resulting from an immediate armed conflict, one has to think about prevention of those threats becoming a source of an open armed conflict. And if we look at the work of the United Nations and other international organisations in the past decade or so we would see that the toolbox of mechanisms to address these threats has grown and perhaps is close to complete.

New institutions were set up within the Security Council, we a have a better understanding of what kind of cooperation is needed to counter for example such threats as terrorism and organised crime. We may not have all the necessary mechanisms developed to a proper degree, but the level of understanding has improved in the last decade and that is very positive.

The Question of Timeliness of Preventive Action and the Question of Resources

The question, however, remains whether the international community is capable of a timely action. Is the international community capable of acting in a timely manner, with the right kind of response to those kinds of threats? Here I think the answer cannot be given with any clarity because the situations are different from one place to another and from one type of threat to another. There have been some successes and I think that the fact that terrorism has not been spread beyond what we have seen in the early years of this decade should be seen as a relative success.

I know that what I'm saying now may be opposed with counter-arguments and it would be interesting to hear them. But I think we have to be satisfied with the fact that the international cooperation in these matters has improved and that large-scale terrorist activities have not taken place internationally. Cooperation among security services and better sharing of information on terrorist threat have gone a long way towards successful prevention.

The question of timeliness and appropriateness of international response to threats to international peace obviously has many dimensions. In order to illustrate the diversity of those dimensions I would like to mention two examples, which are not necessarily typical, but which belong to this category.

First, let us think about elections, which are necessary in post-conflict situations and which are aiming to establish legitimate institutions of authority in a volatile country with a view to stabilising that country. What is the right time for such elections and how many periods of elections have to take place before we can say that a situation has been stabilised to an appropriate and desired extent?

Sometimes an early election, an election, which is too early, actually creates additional material for tension, as we have seen in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1996. On the other hand, elections have helped, as happened with the local elections in Kosovo in the year 2000. So again, there is no single formula for the determination of timing and ripeness for an election, which are an important tool to contribute to stability and reduce the threats to peace. The question of timeliness requires careful political judgement.

My second point relates to the challenge, which most often accompanies political judgement. Obviously, sound political judgement will always be necessary in determining the timing for action and the choice of means to be used. But when we talk about the wisdom and timeliness we also have to keep in mind the fact that the international community also needs resources. Margaret Anstee, who I understand will speak later during this meeting, has famously remarked some 15 years ago that peacekeepers don't grow on trees. That was a remark, which resonated strongly in the United Nations and was remembered. Resources are always in short supply, which often inhibits action based on the sound political judgement.

The United Nations and other international organisations do not have resources in unlimited supply. Today, the United Nations has around 124.000 peacekeepers deployed in 16 peacekeeping operations. This is a huge investment, an investment, which shows that the international community has improved the quality and the quantity of this resource, which helps stabilising various dangerous situations. The discussions on peacekeeping today are more and more characterised by the need to strengthen the element of civilian dimension of peacekeeping operations and obviously the need for resources continues to be there.

Post-conflict Peace-Building

Let me now spend a few minutes discussing the institutional response to some of the most important security challenges. Among more interesting attempts of the international community in the recent years, the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission by the United Nations merits particular attention.

As we all know, the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change proposed a specific institutional innovation, the Peacebuilding Commission. That commission was established in the year 2005 by the Security Council and the General Assembly and established a link between the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. This in itself was a welcome institutional innovation in the United Nations system.

If one looks at the literature, which has developed in the United Nations since then, one can also see that there is a degree of crystallisation of experience in the work of that commission and I think that this is an interesting experience worthy of your attention today and in the continuation of this meeting.

There are three significant conclusions, which came as a result of the experience of the Peacebuilding Commission. They are found in the Secretary General's reports and in the presidential statements of the Security Council.

The first among these three conclusions is that the first two years after the ending of an armed conflict are critical, both because of the challenges of the immediate aftermath of the conflict and the opportunities, which exist only in that period, the period of the first two years. The question to be discussed further is, what needs to be done in such periods and what went wrong in those situations where it was clear that in the immediate aftermath of an armed conflict, which required especially intense investment, such an investment was not forthcoming.

The second conclusion is that the peacebuilding must be anchored in the national environment. Notwithstanding the usual fluidity of early post-conflict situations national ownership needs to be established as soon as possible. The question of national ownership is always there and it is always accepted in principle, but then in practice the international actors do not always follow this wisdom and it often happens that the question national ownership remains open. However, it is also true that if a local environment continues to be dominated by spoilers then failure can emerge as a result of that. In such a case, obviously, it would be unfair to criticise the international actors for failure, which may in fact have purely indigenous roots. So, the question of national environment and national ownership remains a critical issue.

And the third conclusion, which comes as a result of the experience of the Peacebuilding Commission, is that the UN has strengthened its role as an organisation with a unique experience in the field, as a convenor of the entire international community and facilitator of international and national actors. So the convening power of the United Nations has been generally understood and I hope also accepted. The question is whether it is accepted to a sufficient extent and whether there is a need for further measures to strengthen that role for the United Nations. There is an increased sensitivity for the strengthening of peacekeeping operations in the post-conflict peacebuilding. Security Council is seized with this matter and hopefully this will have some effect.

The Future Role of the UN: The Big Picture

I have addressed some of the issues of peacebuilding because this is a practical aspect of work of the United Nations and one of the areas where UN can play a very practical role, where it works at its best. But of course we should never lose sight of the larger picture. Those of you who have seen a recent article by Brian Urquhart* in the New York Review of Books about the United Nations have certainly noticed a thought in that article, according to which the large global threats to the preservation or even existence of organised life on Earth demand a much more authoritative organisation than the UN is today.

In other words, we can and we must focus on practical work of the United Nations and the practical contribution the United Nations makes with regard to specific situations of peacekeeping and post-conflict peacebuilding, where the UN is dealing with the security challenges in the most practical manner. However, we should not lose sight of the need for the UN to play its role with regard to the largest challenges of this planet, to generate ideas, proposals and perhaps be an agent of the needed changes in the largest sense.

This is relevant today in a variety of ways, including in matters such as climate change, management of global economic issues and global security. Let me use a particularly telling example. I believe that many of you have noticed a discussion, which has taken place earlier this year, which was called an "Online Security Jam" - a brainstorming, which was organised in February this year by NATO and European Union on the subject of global security issues. The debate was organised through the internet with 3.815 participants, including all the major think tanks and other agents from 124 countries. The international brainstorming organised that way has focused on issues, which are of great importance to European Union and NATO. But since this was a discussion on global issues it inevitably touched upon the role of the United Nations and it produced several recommendations, which are specifically devoted to the United Nations.

The formulation of the most pertinent recommendation reads: "The UN should secure an agreement on United Nations Millennium Security Goals, comparable to the Millennium Development Goals and based on the concept for human security."

So at the level of a serious brainstorming, a security discussion, generated by the needs of the European Union and NATO, a potential global "Signor Pococurante", we can see a very obvious conclusion: one has to approach the security issues globally and the United Nations should be put in the picture in an ambitious way by developing what is called "Millennium Security Goals".

But if one looks at what is meant by those Millennium Security Goals you can see that the main emphasis is placed on such concepts as human security, good governance and responsibility to protect. This is perfect for the beginning of a debate, but is in fact insufficient or incomplete to cover the global security landscape adequately and to define the role of the UN with the sufficient ambition level.

A Concluding Proposal

Let me therefore conclude my remarks by suggesting a definition of the UN Millennium Security Goals, not in total but with the key elements, which I believe should not be missing from that picture.

First, if one accepted the idea of a discussion towards Millennium Security Goals, which, I think, is an invitation, worthy of attention, one would need to identify credible progress towards non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and their destruction as one of the fundamental Millennium Security Goals. This is needed to energise the global security debate and to create political conditions for progress in other areas. Nuclear non-proliferation must not be seen as a sectoral issue or an issue, which belongs to great powers only. Rather, it needs to be addressed as a part of a set of global security challenges, which has to be addressed in a meaningful way within the United Nations framework.

Second, the idea of Millennium Security Goals should also include credible progress in institutional change both in the sense of new forms of cooperation among the UN and regional organisations and in the sense of reform of the United Nations institutions itself. Obviously, the question of the reform of the United Nations Security Council is part of that. I know that there are many who are tired of this discussion. I know that the debate hasn't been very productive so far, but that does not mean that the problem has lost its urgency. So, if there is a debate on Millennium Security Goals that debate should include the question of institutional change, including the reform of the Security Council and a substantial improvement in the cooperation between the UN and the regional organisations.

Third, such a debate should also include strengthening and providing more resources for the United Nations peacekeeping and post-conflict peacebuilding with special priorities to human security and good governance. Human security and good governance become very practical tasks in the context of peacekeeping and post-conflict peacebuilding. Obviously, one can talk about human security in much wider sense and about good governance as well. But the United Nations can make a very specific and unique contribution with regard to these values in the situations in which UN forces and other assets are deployed either in the form of peacekeeping or post-conflict peacebuilding. Therefore strengthening of the UN in these specific areas of work needs to figure among the UN Millennium Security Goals.

And then, fourthly, there has to be a debate on specific goals related to threats to international peace and security resulting from terrorism, organised crime and other new threats, which have been identified in the debates in the United Nations so far. The UN is already playing an important role in these areas and that role can be strengthened further.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I know that what I have laid before you looks like a construction site, which consists of a variety of structures, none of which looks finished. This is a time when the global security landscape requires a comprehensive approach. The UN should be very much part of that. We should think about the UN both with regard to its immediate focus and to its potential larger role. We should not be unduly modest or lack ambition and we should take such a challenge seriously.

This of course looks like a long-term agenda, something that cannot be accomplished very soon or lead to specific results in a short period of time. But this is probably the reason why the terminology of Millennium Security Goals was used. And I believe that an academic meeting like the Annual Meeting of ACUNS is quite appropriate occasion to address them.

Thank you very much.


* Brian Urquhart, "Finding the Hidden UN", New York Review of Books, 27 May 2010
© 2008 Office of the President of the Republic  |  Legal information and Authors  |  Site map  site map