1 Jayantha Dhanapala is Sri Lanka’s candidate for the UN Secretary Generalship Jayantha Dhanapala, nominee of the Sri Lankan government for the post of UN Secretary General, is currently the Senior Advisor to the President of Sri Lanka. Dhanapala was invited to manage the peace process by the government in mid-2004 after a distinguished career as a national and international diplomat, peace-builder, disarmament expert and articulate champion of non-discriminatory global norms, the rule of law, the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and general concerns of developing countries in the collective interest of the international community. He functioned as Secretary General of the Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process till the end of November 2005 when he relinquished duties to devote more time to bid for the post of Secretary General of the United Nations. Further to his duties in Sri Lanka, Dhanapala continues to be active internationally through his membership of several international groups such as the International Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission; the Governing Board of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI); the International Advisory Group of the International Committee of the Red Cross; the United Nations University Council; the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces; the Advisory Council of the Stanford Institute for International Studies; the International Board of the Bonn International Center for Conversion; the International Advisory Board of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies; and as Honorary President of the International Peace Bureau. Dhanapala has had a distinguished career spanning the private sector, government, the United Nations and academia from 1962–2004 interacting with different levels of society including Heads of State and Government and a wide diversity of nationalities. Following a stint in the private sector in Sri Lanka, he ranked first in seeking entry into the Sri Lankan Foreign Service in 1965 and served thereafter in diplomatic postings in London, Beijing, Washington D.C., New Delhi and Geneva, culminating in Ambassadorial appointments in Geneva (1984–87) accredited to the UN and in Washington D.C. (1995–97). During his diplomatic career he engaged pro-actively and innovatively in political, disarmament, economic, trade, human rights and cultural matters in both bilateral and multilateral contexts. He represented Sri Lanka and chaired groups in the Non-aligned Movement and SAARC Conferences, Commonwealth meetings, the Conference on Disarmament and disarmament treaty related meetings, UNCTAD, the Commission on Human Rights and other human rights bodies, ILO, WHO, WIPO, and WMO amongst others. Dhanapala was widely acclaimed for his Presidency of the 1995 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, a landmark event in disarmament history, because of his crafting of a package of decisions balancing the twin objectives of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and the concerns of the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear weapon states which was adopted without a vote. He was later invited by the Australian government to serve as a member of the Canberra Commission together with a Group of 17 eminent international personalities publishing an influential report on nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation in 1996. Schooled and experienced in corporate management, Dhanapala has integrated these skills and experiences into successful governmental, diplomatic mission and

international organizational administration. He has an in-depth knowledge of the United Nations, gained from ten years of exposure in working in a senior management capacity in the United Nations. As an efficient and effective senior manager he gained valuable experience in human resource and budgetary management working smoothly with staff representatives and delegations of member states. First, he served as Director (D2) of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) in Geneva (1987–92) directing policy oriented research in an autonomous think-tank broadening the financial base through fund-raising with a wider group of countries and foundations. He acted to expand the area of research to include non-military threats to security, handbooks to assist delegations to the Conference on Disarmament, providing opportunities for training of researchers from developing countries, networking of research institutes in regions and increasing the volume and impact of UNIDIR publications. Later, Dhanapala was hand picked by Kofi Annan to take on the challenging job of Under-Secretary General to re-establish the Department of Disarmament after the UN reforms of 1997 (1998–2003). During his tenure he piloted the UN role in arresting the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, anti-personnel landmines, conventional weapons, and weapons of mass destruction while reinforcing existing norms and norm-building in other areas. He also broke new ground both in-house in taking managerial initiatives in gender mainstreaming and in work-life issues, as well as in the disarmament field by innovating the exchange of weapons for a development programme in Albania and other areas, and also in the cross-sectoral linking of disarmament with development, the environment and peace education programmes. Dhanapala has had a solid liberal education obtaining a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) degree from the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka and a Master of Arts (International Studies) degree from the American University of Washington D.C. in the USA. He studied Chinese at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London. He has also had work-experience in academia as Diplomat-in-Residence in 1997 with the Centre for Non-proliferation Studies of the Monterey Institute of International Studies in the USA researching and writing on a non-discriminatory global approach to disarmament. He has published four books and several articles in international journals, and has lectured in many countries. He was awarded a MacArthur Foundation grant to research and write his book on "Multilateral Diplomacy and the NPT: An Insider's account" published by UNIDIR, Geneva in 2005. His contributions towards the international community are widely recognized through the receipt of several awards including: Georgetown University, Washington D.C., the Monterey Institute of International Studies, the Ploughshares Fund and the School of International Service of American University, Washington D.C. for his work in diplomacy and disarmament, and was the Global Security Institute’s first recipient of the Alan Cranston Peace Award in 2002. Dhanapala has also received several honorary degrees including Doctor of Letters (honoris causa) by the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka (2000), Doctor of Humane Letters Honoris Causa by the Monterey Institute of International Studies, U.S.A. (2001), Doctor of Science in the Social Sciences by the University of Southampton, U.K. (2003), Doctor of Letters (honoris causa) by the Sabaragamuwa University, Sri Lanka (2003). As an effective and eloquent communicator to a wide variety of audiences, Dhanapala has been invited to deliver several keynote lectures that include the Olof Palme Memorial lecture at SIPRI in1999 and the Dorothy Hodgkin Memorial Lecture to Pugwash in 2003. He has also published op-ed articles in international newspapers such as the International Herald Tribune and the UK Financial Times.

Jayantha Dhanapala was born on 30 December 1938 and is married with two children. He speaks fluent Sinhala and English, and is proficient in both French and Chinese.

2 Career at a Glance Jayantha Dhanapala NAME Jayantha Dhanapala DATE OF BIRTH 30 December 1938 ACADEMIC Diplomat in Residence

Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA August 1997–January 1998 Master of Arts (International Studies) American University, Washington D.C., U S A 1976 Chinese Language Studies School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, UK 1966 -1967

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka (Pettah Library Prize) Secondary Education Trinity College, Kandy, Sri Lanka 1951 -1956

(Ryde Gold Medal for best all-round student 1956) PROFESSIONAL December 2005 to present

Senior Adviser to the President of Sri Lanka June 2004 -Nov. 2005 Secretary General Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) in

Sri Lanka and Senior Adviser to the President of Sri Lanka

Feb 1998 -May 2003 Under-Secretary General Department for Disarmament Affairs United Nations, New York, USA

Commissioner

United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the Head of the Special Group visiting the Presidential Sites in Iraq

1995–1997 Ambassador of Sri Lanka to the United States of America

1995–1997 (cont’d) Ambassador of Sri Lanka to Mexico (Concurrent)

July 1992 -1994 Director General and Addl. Secretary

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Colombo, Sri Lanka

July 1987 - June 1992 Director United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), Geneva, Switzerland. [D-2 level appointment by the UN Secretary-General to head this autonomous body within UN].

1984 -June 1987 Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations in Vienna (resident in Geneva), Austria

1981–1983

Deputy High Commissioner Sri Lanka High Commission, New Delhi, India 1978–1980 Director, Non-Aligned Conference Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sri Lanka (during Sri Lanka’s Chairmanship of the Non-Aligned Movement)

1974–1977 First Secretary Embassy of Sri Lanka, Washington D.C., USA 1970–1973

Assistant Secretary (East and South East Asia) Ministry of Defence and External Affairs Colombo, Sri Lanka

1968–1970 Third Secretary Embassy of Sri Lanka, Beijing, China

1966–1968 Third Secretary Sri Lanka High Commission, London, UK

1966 (March–June) Foreign Service Training at Department of External Affairs Canberra, Australia (placed first in final examination)

1965 Appointed to Sri Lanka Diplomatic Service following open competitive examination securing first place

1962–1965 Corporate Executive; and Visiting Lecturer at University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka

PRESIDENCIES OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES

April 1995 President, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference

The NPT Review and Extension Conference was convened by the United Nations in April 1995, to decide whether to continue the NPT treaty indefinitely or to extend it for an additional fixed period or periods. While the majority of parties supported indefinite extension from the outset, many Non Aligned Movement members advocated limited extension periods tied to concrete disarmament steps. US officials believed that the Treaty would be weakened unless a resounding majority for unconditional, indefinite extension was achieved, and they pressed for an overwhelming consensus in support of that outcome. The proponents of indefinite extension and of a consensus decision ultimately prevailed, but only after several obstacles had been overcome. The adroit leadership of Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala, President of the Conference, was instrumental in bringing the desired final result. http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Ch11b.pdf

April 1984 President, Conference on Disarmament

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS

Member, Governing Board, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) since 2005 (www.sipri.org) SIPRI is an independent international institute for research into problems of peace and conflict, especially those of arms control and disarmament. It was established in 1966 to commemorate Sweden's 150 years of unbroken peace. The staff and the Governing Board are international.

Member of the International Advisory Group of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) since 2004 (http://www.icrc.org/) The ICRC is an independent, neutral organization ensuring humanitarian protection and assistance for victims of war and armed violence. It has a permanent mandate under international law to take impartial action for prisoners, the wounded and sick, and civilians affected by conflict. With its

headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, the ICRC is based in around 80 countries with 12,000 staff. The ICRC is at the origin of both the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and of international humanitarian law, notably the Geneva Conventions.

Member, Advisory Council of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV) at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, since 2003 (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/intrel/research/cstpv/pages/organ.html) The Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV) aims to investigate the roots of political violence, to develop a body of theory spanning its various disparate elements, and to study the impact of violence, and responses to it, at societal, governmental, and international levels.

Member, Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission 2004-2006 (http://www.wmdcommission.org) The WMD Commission was launched by the Government of Sweden in Stockholm on December 16, 2003 to respond to the recent, profoundly worrying developments in international security, and in particular to investigate ways of mitigating the dangers from nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological weapons.

Council Member, United Nations University Council since 2004 (http://www.unu.edu/) The Council of the United Nations University, which is the Governing Council of the University, meets annually to formulate the principles and policies which govern the activities and operations of the United Nations University. The UNU Council comprising 24 members and is established on a broad geographical basis with due regard to major academic, scientific, educational and cultural trends in the world, taking into account the various fields of study.

Honorary President, International Peace Bureau since 2003 (www.ipb.org) The IPB is the world’s oldest and most comprehensive international peace federation, bringing together people working for peace in many different sectors: not only pacifists but also women, youth, labour, religious and professional bodies. The IPB received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1909. Member, Advisory Board, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) since 2003

(http://www.dcaf.ch/)

The Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces is an international foundation whose mission is to assist the international community in pursuing good governance and reform of the security sector. To this end, the Centre develops and promotes appropriate norms at the international and national levels, determines good practices and relevant policy recommendations for effective governance of the security sector, and provides in-country advisory support and practical assistance programmes.

Member, Advisory Board, CISAC, University of Stanford since 2003 (http://cisac.stanford.edu/) The Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), part of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), is a multidisciplinary community dedicated to research and training in issues of international security. The Center–formerly the Center for International Security and Arms Control–brings together scholars, policymakers, area specialists, business people, and other experts to focus on a wide range of security questions of current importance. International Advisory Board, Bonn Centre for Conversion (BICC) since 2003 (http://www.bicc.de/) BICC is an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to promoting peace and development through the efficient and effective transformation of military-related structures, assets, functions and processes. Having expanded its span of activities beyond the classical areas of conversion that focus on the reuse of military resources, BICC is now organizing its work around three main topics: arms, peace building and conflict. In doing this, BICC recognizes that the narrow concept of national security, embodied above all in the armed forces, has been surpassed by that of global security and, moreover, that global security cannot be achieved without seriously reducing poverty, improving health care and extending good governance throughout the world, in short: without human security in the broader sense.

Member, Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, 1995-1996 (http://www.dfat.gov.au/cc/cchome.html) The Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons was established as an independent commission by the Australian Government in November 1995 to propose practical

steps towards a nuclear weapons-free world (including the related problem of maintaining stability and security during the transitional period and after this goal is achieved).

Member, International Advisory Group, Monterey Strategic Group on Nuclear Non-Proliferation since 1996 (http://cns.miis.edu/cns/index.htm)

The Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) strives to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by training the next generation of nonproliferation specialists and disseminating timely information and analysis. CNS at the Monterey Institute of International Studies is the largest nongovernmental organization in the United States devoted exclusively to research and training on nonproliferation issues.

Member, Core Group, Programme for the Promotion of Nuclear Non-Proliferation, 1987-1997 (http://www.ppnn.soton.ac.uk/)

PPNN is an international non-governmental networking organisation structured around a core group of acknowledged authorities in the field of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. PPNN's aim is the strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

AWARDS AND HONOURS

Honorary Doctorates from: University of Southampton, UK (2003)

University of Sabaragamuwa, Sri Lanka (2003) Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA (2001) University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka (2000)

Awards: Mohamed Sahabdeen Award for ‘Peace and International Understanding’ (2005)

Alan Cranston Peace Award, Global Security Institute, USA (2002)

Pax Christi Ireland Peace Award (2002)

Leadership in Crisis Award, Ploughshares Fund and Fourth Freedom Forum (2000)

Lifetime Achievement Award, Centre for Non-Proliferation Studies, Monterey Institute for International Studies, USA (1998)

Jit Trainor Award, Georgetown University, USA (1995)

Winner, Herald Tribune Essay Competition (1957)

3 Writings & Statements

DIPLOMACY AND CREATIVE WRITING “A Tribute to Pablo Neruda – The Diplomat as a Creative Writer: Pablo Neruda”, Ludowyk Memorial Lecture, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 25 November 1997 (speech) MULTILATERALISM “Globalization and the Nation State”, Conference on “A Cartography of Governance: Exploring the Role of Environmental NGOs”, University of Colorado Law School, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 7 April 2001. Originally published in the Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & Policy, Volume 13, Number 1 (2002) (article/speech) “Multilateralism and the Future of the Global Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime”, The Nonproliferation Review, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Volume 8, Number 3 (Fall 2001), p. 99-106. This Viewpoint elaborates on the author’s remarks at the International Workshop on Reassessing the Challenges to the Global Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime, sponsored by the Monterey Institute of International Studies, at L’Imperial Palace Hôtel in Annecy, France, May 21, 2001, <http://www.un.org/ Depts/dda/speech/statements.htm>. The author would like to thank Dr. Randy Rydell for his research assistance in the preparation of this article. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ENFORCEMENT International Law, Security, and Weapons of Mass Destruction Keynote Address on Smart Sanctions Disarmament, Non-Proliferation, and the Rule of Law Commemoration of the Centenary of the 1899 Hague Peace Conference UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A City Upon a Hill? Multilateralism and the U.S. National Interest in Disarmament UNITED NATIONS REFORM The UN and its Future in the Twenty-First Century The United Nations Millennium Assembly UN Reform: Asian Perspectives on Collective Security DEVELOPMENT – SOCIAL & CULTURAL / ECONOMIC Sustainable Disarmament for Sustainable Development Opening Remarks at a Symposium on Disarmament and Development

A Peace Dividend for Developing Countries Would Pay Off Statement in Public Ceremony in Gramsh, Albania An Appeal to the World Summit on Sustainable Development The United Nations Millennium Declaration and South Asia TERRORISM The United Nations’ Response to 9/11 Multilateral Approaches to WMD Threats after September 11 WMD and Terrorism: Can the UN Help to Keep the Genie in the Bottle? CIVIL SOCIETY Global Security and Civil Society United Nations and Civil Society Civil Society and the United Nations Programme of Action on Small Arms GENDER Gender and Disarmament Remarks upon Launching the Publication “Gender Perspectives on Disarmament” Introduction of the Gender Action Plan of the Department for Disarmament Affairs EDUCATION Address at the Sixth Convocation of Sabaragamuwa University Launch of UN Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education THE ENVIRONMENT The Agenda: Ecology, Poverty Reduction, Disarming The Environmental Impacts of Manufacturing, Storing, Deploying, and Retiring Weapons DISARMAMENT Olof Palme Memorial Lecture A Disarming Proposition Disarmament and the New Democratic Diplomacy Communicating the Disarmament Message

Legacy of the Canberra Commission NUCLEAR WEAPONS Lecture in Dublin Hosted by Pax Christi Speech at House of Commons, London Relevance of Regimes Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones: Challenges and Opportunities De-Alerting of Nuclear Weapons CONVENTIONAL ARMS Globalization and the Arms Industry Illicit Trade in Small Arms An International Perspective on the Small Arms Problem An Asia-Pacific Perspective on the Small Arms Problem Disarmament and Development: Remarks at a Conference in Cambodia Arms Flows to Africa Conference in South Africa on Small Arms Remarks at a Small Arms Conference in Bamako, Mali Remarks at a Conference in Brazil on Small Arms PEACE BUILDING Peace Building in Sri Lanka Peace Building and Ethics

4 Key Statements Gender Jayantha Dhanapala, “Gender and Disarmament”, Keynote Address at the Fourth Annual Women Waging Peace Policy Day, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 8 November 2002 http://disarmament.un.org/speech/statements.htm UN Reform Jayantha Dhanapala, “Foreword”, in Vijay Mehta (ed.), The UN and its Future in the Twenty-First Century (Nottingham, England: Spokesman Books, 2005). (ISBN 0 85124 707 5). Not on web; text – THE UN AND ITS FUTURE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY I never had the privilege of knowing Erskine Childers. To my mind he represents a significant part of the rich Irish contribution to international peace and security in general and the United Nations (UN) in particular together with Frederick Boland, Connor Cruise O’Brien and others. It was the famous Irish UN General Assembly Resolution that formed the genesis of the Treaty for the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The reputation of Childers both within the United Nations (UN) system and in the sphere of international relations was formidable enough for me to follow his writings with close interest – especially on the UN. In view of my own commitment to multilateralism and deep convictions on the need to strengthen the UN, I had avidly read the report on “Renewing the United Nations System” which he had co-authored with another redoubtable UN veteran – the distinguished Sir Brian Urquhart. Its remarkable clarity, the holistic scope of the recommendations and the fusion of idealism and practicality stood out. On the eve of the report of the Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on “Threats, challenges and Change” and our celebration of the Sixtieth anniversary of the UN it is appropriate for us all to revisit the Childers/Urquhart report.

An Ethical Foundation for the UN It is in this context that we must reflect on how our world body can be reformed to face the challenges of the future based on the experience of the past. We must begin with a foundation of ethical values that we can share. The use of the term “Ethics” for a set of moral principles presupposes that we are all bound by a common understanding of what we mean. In a very broad sense, we are talking about the absolutely irreducible minimum of humankind’s cultural, moral and spiritual achievement over centuries of civilization. It is not only what distinguishes the human species from other living beings, but also the soul of humankind. It is the quintessence of all religious philosophies and the highest common factor among all cultures. Ethics per se would be of little value if it did not have a practical propensity to be applied to human affairs and the improvement of the human condition. It is widely, but wrongly, assumed that the realm of ethical values and the world of pragmatic politics are wide apart and that never the twain shall meet. The achievements of the UN illustrate that there can be a fusion between ethics and policy, and it is this fusion that contributes to the betterment of mankind and to peace. We are still in the early years of the first century of a new millennium in the human saga leaving behind the bloodiest century of all time. There is a unique opportunity for us to use the indisputable authority that the UN wields to shape a world order that is built more solidly on ethics than on the pursuit of individual profit or national self-

interest. In the year 2000 the largest ever gathering of Heads of State and Government met at the United Nations in New York and issued the historic Millennium Declaration. Significantly, before the Declaration embarks on setting objectives in respect of the different areas of peace, security and disarmament including the elimination of weapons of mass destruction especially nuclear weapons; development and poverty eradication; human rights, democracy and good governance including the Millennium Development Goals; protecting the vulnerable and meeting the special needs of Africa, it addresses the issue of fundamental values underpinning international relations in the twenty-first century. That demonstrates a remarkably sound judgment of priorities. If the leaders of the world cannot agree on the ethical values that bind them together, they are unlikely to agree on common goals and common strategies to overcome what Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called “problems without passports”. It is relevant for us therefore to review these shared values set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration as a common ethical base. They comprise six of the most basic aspirations of humankind – freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature, and shared responsibility. From each of these fundamental values we draw our guidance for the specific action plans that the international community committed itself to in the Millennium Declaration. It is a moral compass for us all. Individually these values represent powerful forces that have inspired and motivated humankind throughout millennia of history. They have been accelerators of human progress. Collectively they represent the benchmark against which we must judge our performance as individual nations and as the world community in taking humankind forward to a better and safer world.

• Freedom – was the spur that rid the world of slavery, colonialism and apartheid: it is the ethical value that protects men, women and children from fear, exploitation and abuse, from injustice and deprivation and from want and hunger.

• Equality – is what drove societies to abolish discrimination on the basis of

colour, creed, wealth, ethnicity, aristocratic origin and gender: it is the ethical value that empowers individuals in society and nations in the international community whether big or small, rich or poor, mighty or meek.

• Solidarity – is the sense of a common identity as one human family with

reciprocal duties and obligations that has led to social contracts and social security within countries and to the aid and assistance of the wealthy and developed countries to those who are stricken with disease, disaster and endemic poverty: it is the ethical value that must ensure the elimination of injustices, asymmetries in globalised development and absolute poverty.

• Tolerance – is the glue that has bonded us together as human beings with

mutual respect for each other despite our astonishing diversity both within nations and the international community: it is the ethical value that will prevent ethnic and religious conflict within nations and the ‘clash of civilizations’ on a global scale ensuring instead a ‘dialogue among civilizations’ and the celebration of human diversity as an endowment.

• Respect for nature – is what has preserved the available and potential

natural resources of our planet Earth and our ecological system as our common heritage to serve the genuine needs and not the greedy wants of humankind: it is the ethical value that will guide us to sustainable

development managing our consumption of resources equitably and wisely so that we pass on the world which we occupy as a trust, to generations to come in at least as healthy and wholesome a state as we received it from preceding generations. Finally,

• Shared responsibility – is the common realization that we are one brotherhood and sisterhood placed together in a world that is more integrated than ever before through the processes of globalization and that the management of public goods has to be achieved optimally through participatory, people-centred endeavours and good democratic governance at the national level and through multilateralism and international organizations – with the United Nations at its apex – in the collective response to global challenges to international peace and human security: it is the ethical value that will prevent humankind from anarchy and self-destruction through selfishness and profligacy and the insurance policy to achieve a rule based international order founded on the bedrock of international law, human rights, equity and justice.

The translation of these ethical values in the daily world of human interaction – to do the right thing for the right reason – presents all of us with an enormous challenge. No government or group can claim a monopoly over wisdom. Nor can they claim to be the sole interpreters of the national or global interest. Those with experience of working in the UN, as Erskine Childers and Sir Brian Urquhart were richly endowed with, can contribute towards the public discourse on national and international policy by emphasizing the ethical dimension. Already there are danger signals that illustrate an erosion of the ethical base we have in the world. Terrorism, nihilism and anarchism are ominous symptoms. Are they the result of perceptions that the policies pursued in the past have been divorced from ethics? Or are they the emergence of a new threat for which our collective response must not be militarism but a return to implementing our shared value base of ethics – honestly, transparently and consistently?

It would help our task if we had a barometer to measure the performance of all our leaders in the achievement of implementing ethics as policy. The world has seen the evolution of numerous indices for human progress. We have economic and social indicators ranging from Gross National Product in quantitative terms to the Human Development Index in qualitative terms. There are other more specific indices such as a Corruption Index from Transparency International, a Freedom Index from Freedom House and there is even a Happiness Index! I would hope that research organizations, think tanks and NGOs would combine their efforts to devise an Ethical Policy Index ranking countries in accordance with their adherence to a commonly accepted set of ethical values such as those enshrined in the Millennium Declaration of the United Nations. That will contribute to some pressure on Governments to be accountable to their people in adopting policies that will be of widespread and durable benefit. It is but one of many tools we can propose in the quest for a greater role for ethics in the formulation of policy to respond to the new threats to security and to the other challenges facing humankind today. It is an urgent task to preserve and develop the mainsprings of our common humanity for a new and glorious chapter of human history.

THE CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY In his statement to the United Nations General Assembly on 23 September 2003 Secretary General Kofi Annan described the situation of the UN following the controversy over the invasion of Iraq as " a fork in the road ... no less decisive than

1945 itself when the United Nations was founded." While some may disagree with this over dramatization of where the world body is today, the Secretary-General used the opportunity to appoint a sixteen member High Level Panel of eminent personalities to examine current challenges to peace and security; identify the contribution collective action can make in addressing these challenges; and recommend changes in the principal organs of the UN and elsewhere to ensure effective collective action. [Note: this report was published as a UN document in December 2004. The concept of collective security forms the bedrock of the United Nations Charter and has served the international community well for several decades. However all concepts and systems must be re-appraised from time to time and adapted to serve new realities. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's primary rationale for the appointment of the High Level Panel is that the consensus underpinning collective security, which had been recently restated in the Millennium Declaration, had broken down in the wake of sharp disagreement over military intervention in Iraq last year. Unilateral military intervention is not new in the post World War II history of global events. What is new is that, after the events of September 11, 2001 and the alarming revelations of clandestine weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation to states that had legally renounced such weapons as well as to non-state actors, pre-emptive unilateral action even with WMD is being asserted as justifiable – ostensibly in the exercise of the right of self-defense. The legitimacy conferred on armed intervention by the Security Council and, consequently, the universal support that such action enjoys is thus sacrificed for the freedom of unilateral action in pursuit of individual national interest. In the pre-UN era nations waged wars self-righteously claiming their justness whatever the circumstances. To do so today without Security Council authority undermines international law and the unity of the UN system and opens the way to an anarchic global society with no internationally accepted norms. The problem lies perhaps in the evolution of the global system from a bipolar one to a unipolar system and the exceptionalism demanded for some forms of unilateral action. It also arises from the inroads being made into the theory of state sovereignty as an absolute. The controversial 'humanitarian intervention' speech of Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 1999 led to the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty whose report was published at the end of 2001. It asserted that state sovereignty implied a responsibility to protect its citizens and that where a state was unwilling or unable to provide that protection the principle of non-intervention yielded to the international responsibility to protect. However guiding principles and criteria were carefully described in terms of international law and the circumstances warranting action and the procedure for obtaining authority set out. The obvious limitation of this approach is that in the selective application of new principles the powerful states will ensure that their state sovereignty will not be compromised thus provoking the charge of double standards. Any changes that we propose must discourage unilateral action and seek to facilitate multilateral consensus through UN mechanisms that are palpably effective. No one seriously questions the virtue of co-operative action in the defense of collective security. Empowering one state or a group of states to be the global gendarme

without Security Council authority undermines this. How do we therefore strengthen UN institutions to serve collective security in the current context? I believe it is essential that we agree on three basic principles before we proceed to consider specific institutional reforms.

• Firstly it is my deep conviction that the founders of the UN intended that there should be equilibrium among the principal organs of the UN for the purposes and principles of the world body to be implemented. Admittedly the Security Council is vested with the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security but that is a task performed on behalf of the entire membership of the UN, all of whom have citizens with equal human rights even if the principle of the sovereign equality of all its member states (laid down in Article 2:1 of the UN Charter) has become one of the more glorious myths of the UN today. Today the system is in disequilibrium not only because the Security Council is the overwhelmingly dominant organ but also because of disequilibrium within the Council. How do we restore equilibrium within the system while accepting the realities of power asymmetry in the world?

• Secondly, in the functioning of the UN system for over six decades there has

been an unhealthy compartmentalization of programmes and a lack of co-ordination even after two waves of well-intentioned reforms launched by the present Secretary General. This arises partly from major powers and major contributors to the UN budget demanding that their nationals be placed in positions of authority and that their agendas be implemented if not through the regular budget then through tied extra-budgetary resources (which are actually more than regular budget resources and finance the larger percentage of UN Secretariat posts). It also arises from the bureaucratic corrosion that accumulates in any large organization. Thus the principal organs of the UN are not adequately linked depriving the organization of valuable cross-fertilization of ideas and sharing of information that could lead to collective action. Cross cutting issues appear to be dealt with on a system wide basis through inputs from the various departments, agencies and programmes which focus on demonstrating what has been achieved individually and not on synergetic action.

• Finally, we are all aware that the concept of security has expanded vastly. It is no longer possible to regard national or international security in purely military terms. We have a wider view which embraces political elements, economic and environmental factors and social and cultural aspects. The Security Council has recognized this by considering women's rights, AIDS and other non-conventional issues as security issues. Clearly more needs to be done to link the Security Council more closely with the Economic and Social Council and other principal organs, with the work of the specialized agencies and regional economic commissions and by calling for action oriented reports on particular aspects of security related issues where the authority of the Security Council could ensure the attainment of goals such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDG).

The Environment Jayantha Dhanapala, “The Agenda: Ecology, Poverty Reduction, Disarming,” International Herald Tribune, 23 May 2001, p. 8 http://disarmament.un.org/speech/statements.htm

Arts & Culture Jayantha Dhanapala, “The Diplomat as a Creative Writer: Pablo Neruda,” E.F.C. Ludowyk Memorial Lecture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 25 November 1997. Professor E.F.C. Ludowyk (1906-1885) was a distinguished Sri Lankan scholar specializing in English, Shakespeare, and the history of Ceylon. Not on web; text – THE DIPLOMAT AS A CREATIVE WRITER – PABLO NERUDA I have often, in my recently concluded diplomatic career of thirty-two years, reflected on what it was in my Peradeniya undergraduate education in the Department of English, or my "formation" as the French put it more aptly, that equipped me to face diplomacy's challenges and opportunities. I have no doubt that others have asked themselves the same question on the relevance of the study of English Literature to life after Peradeniya. For myself the question is framed in terms of whether my training in literary criticism and English literature in fact built a reservoir for me to draw upon in my work of representing Sri Lanka's national interests abroad.

A training in reading with discrimination and practical criticism is an obvious asset when confronted with the subtle propaganda not only of foreign governments but also your own. Acquiring the skill of writing with clarity, cogency and concision is also an enormous advantage. Beyond that there is also a more profound impact on our approach to life and society – our world view and our values. Godfrey Gunatilleke, one of the more illustrious products of the Ludowyk era, has written in the 1984 publication of a collection of essays Honouring E. F. C. Ludowyk, that the study of English literature" became a doorway to an immensely rich body of knowledge" as we explored the milieu of the writers we read – quaintly described, in my time, by such courses as "Eighteenth Century Background". I have wondered myself what, after all, are the bonds linking the magical world of the creative imagination of poets, playwrights and novelists and the mundane world of realpolitik and diplomatic negotiation in the management of relations among independent states.

The kind invitation of the annual Ludowyk Memorial Lecture organizers to be this year's speaker provides me with a fortuitous opportunity to undertake a deeper and more serious probing for the answers to these questions – an opportunity which I grasp eagerly both as, perhaps, a self-serving exercise in introspection as well as, more extrovertly, a long overdue act of homage to Peradeniya and my teachers. Except for a memorable month in my junior year, Lyn Ludowyk was not among my teachers in the English Department in Peradeniya. He had left, reportedly because of the ill health of his European wife and in a mood of disenchantment with the political trends in the country, the year before I entered this fabulously beautiful campus with soaring adolescent aspirations. But I had read and heard enough of Ludowyk's prodigious contribution to tbe worlds of scholarship, letters and theater and bad reverentially pored over his Marginal Comments to be awestruck by this legendary Peradeniya figure. In my final year in school I had, as an aspiring Thespian, watched Ludowyk's farewell production of Androcles and the Lion spellbound – a rare theatrical experience matched a little later by another masterly Peradeniya production Sarachchandra's Maname. I also recall Ludowyk's wry sense of humour as he defused the tension surrounding the" fast unto death" of a fellow Peradeniya don with the question" But why on earth the archaism?" In 1960 Ludowyk returned to Sri Lanka on a sentimental journey and for a month he brought Macbeth to life for me as no other teacher before or after has done, teasing out bidden gems of finely nuanced interpretation through his dramatic reading and his perceptive commentary.

Years later, as a neophyte diplomat on my first posting, I carried a letter from Hector Passe to Ludowyk at his London fiat. He generously took me under his wing and, learning of my strong interest in China and Chinese culture, invited me to lectures and other cultural events on China held in London. I never met Ludowyk after I left London on my transfer to Beijing in 1968 although his books, especially those on Sri Lanka, have been my constant companions. There is an inescapably mordant tradition amongst Sri Lankans to be self-denigratory and in that spirit it has seemed to me that we are often perversely unable to recognize, and honour "prophets" in our own land. Professional rivalries and other petty considerations frequently prevent us from throwing bouquets as enthusiastically as we throw brickbats. I am, therefore, happy that another great adornment in our intellectual life, the distinguished bibliographer Ian Goonetilleke, has generously endowed this series of annual lectures to commemorate the life and work of Professor E.F.C.Ludowyk. May it survive, long after the generation that knew Ludowyk has passed on, as a shrine to the eternal values that Ludowyk represented and his deep love for this land and her people. My twin and life-long interests in literature and diplomacy have led me to a fascination with those in the diplomatic profession who have succeeded in retaining the creative spark under the carapace of protocol; to evoke through metaphor and imagery the kaleidoscope of different countries and cultural experiences they are privileged to live through forsaking the jargon of diplomatic dispatches and reportage; and, to remain sharply sensitive and emotionally responsive to the universality of the human condition unencumbered by nationalistic posturing and representational zealotry. And yet, both the diplomat and the creative writer must possess an acute sensibility and must be able to communicate. Sharp observation and the ability to register experiences and convey them are also shared virtues. But while the creative writer explores subtle shades of thoughts and emotions, the diplomat has to be precise and unambiguous in conveying situations or encounters. And so I have read with enjoyment the novels of the British diplomat Lawrence Durrell's tetralogy – The Alexandra Quartet – and its evocation of the exotic and unique atmosphere of that Egyptian city; savoured the poetry of St. John Perse (the pseudonym of one of France's greatest diplomats Alexis Saint-Leger Leger) who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1960, and the plays and symbolist poetry of his French compatriot Paul Claudel who was France's Ambassador to Japan, the USA and Belgium. Also from Europe is the Yugoslav diplomat-novelist Ivo Andric who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1961 and whose historical trilogy on Bosnia including The Bridge on the Drina which has, in the context of the ongoing tragedy fn the Balkans, acquired a special importance. From Latin America there is the haunting fusion of reality and fantasy in the fiction of the Mexican writer-diplomat Carlos Fuentes and the insightful depths in the literary work of his compatriot Octavio Paz who was concurrently accredited as Mexico’s Ambassador to Sri Lanka from New Delhi. My focus of attention will be on the poet Pablo Neruda who was Chile's Consul in Rangoon (now Yangon), Colombo, Batavia (now Jakarta), Singapore, Barcelona, Madrid, Paris and Mexico City In his early from 1927 to 1940 and who was later to be the Chilean Ambassador to France from 1970 to 1972 during which time he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. I have no doubt that there are many others who have combined creative writing of varying quality with the active pursuit of the diplomatic profession both as career and non career diplomats, including our own Ediriweera Sarachchandra from whose sojourn as our envoy in Paris we have his English novel With a Begging Bowl. The larger the canvas the broader my brush

strokes must necessarily be. And so, prudence and economy dictate that I confine myself to the work of Pablo Neruda – alas, only in its English translation – in order to discern, more clearly, the fusion between the worlds of the creative writer and the diplomat. Another compelling rationale is certainly the fact that Neruda lived in Colombo from 1929 to 1930 while in his early twenties. Chile, until recently, imported large quantities of tea from us and this explains the reason for a Chilean consulate in Colombo although Neruda also attributes the network of Chilean consular posts to" the fights of fancy and self-Importance we South Americans generally indulge in “He refers in his Memoirs to his friendship with Lionel Wendt "the central figure of a cultural life torn between the death rattles of the Empire and a human appraisal of the untapped values of Ceylon” who "got into the extravagant and generous habit or every week sending to my house, which was a good distance from the city, a cyclist loaded down with a sack of books." Lodowyk was in Cambridge during these years, which explains why, to my knowledge, there is no record of the two of them meeting. Ian Goonetilleke, in his Lanka, their Lanka provides us with a vivid and detailed account of Neruda's stay in Sri Lanka and its impact on him and on his poetry. Neruda left Colombo for Jakarta with his Sri Lankan domestic aide Bhrampy and his pet mongoose Kiria. He revisited the country in the 1950s recalling that he had "… lived a lonely life in Ceylon, writing my bitterest poetry there, surrounded by the beauty of nature's paradise … I found none of my old friends. And yet the island knocked on the door of my heart again with its sharp sound, with its immense scintillation of light." Born in 1904 in Parral in central Chile and named Neftali Ricardo Reyes Basoalto, Pablo Neruda – the name he assumed at the age of 16 – belonged to a small farming community. His father moved after Neruda's mother died, within a month of his birth, to become a railroad worker in the southern town of Temuco. Publishing his first poem at the age of 13 Neruda moved to the capital Santiago to study at the Teachers' Institute while continuing to write and publish his poetry. He came to diplomacy as a poet hoping to influence the authorities to send him to Paris – then very much the vortex of cultural currents for aspiring Latin American writers. He finally opted for the vacancy in Rangoon, which he had never heard of before. He did get to visit Paris, en route, traveling by ship from Chile to Burma finding a rather unique use for his newly acquired diplomat passport as a security deposit for an unpaid restaurant bill. So began Neruda's first phase as a diplomat. The influence of his stay In Asia was manifold. He was encountering colonial societies and although Chile had been an independent country since 1818 for Neruda the wounds of Spanish colonialism were still unhealed. His perspective was distinctly that of what we call the Third World or the developing South today. He has been described as the "conscience of a continent" and his poems often express rage against the exploitation of the indigenous Indians in Chile. As a Chilean Neruda was better equipped to empathize with the people of Asia. We see this in his Memoirs as be writes of his Rangoon days where the British boycotted him:

This boycott couldn't have pleased me more. Those intolerant Europeans were not really interesting. And after all, I had not come to the Orient to spend my life with transient colonizers but with the transient spirit of that world, with that large hapless human family.

Later in Colombo he writes of stopping off to listen fascinated by the beautiful singing and drumming in humble home on his way to a posh dinner-party and eventually telling his British dinner companions of the reason for his late arrival –

They, who had lived in Ceylon for twenty-five years, reacted with elegant disbelief. Music? The natives had musicians? No one had known about it. This was news to them. This terrible cap between the British masters and the vast world of the Asians was never closed. And it ensured an inhuman isolation, a total ignorance of the values and the life of the Asians.

Neruda was perceptive enough to recognize exceptions to this and mentions Leonard Woolf who stood out. The creative writer in Neruda recognized the universality of the human condition and the need to reach out to all segments of the society he lived in. In Michael Radford's enchanting and luminously beautiful film Il Postino or "The Postman", produced a few years ago, the relationship between Neruda and a simple Italian village postman who delivered letters to the poet in exile is sensitively explored. The professional diplomat similarly has to be able to mix with the elites and the masses if he is accurately to interpret the country of his accreditation to his government. Finely honed antennae and a wide range of contacts from all walks of life are essential also in enhancing your country’s image abroad. The occupational hazard of being in self-imposed confinement with the elites in foreign countries occurs not only in colonial and authoritarian regimes but also in democratic societies. Cosmopolitanism is not the superficial ease with which one slips into the sophisticated drawing room conversations in the capital cities of the world or the cultivation of epicurean tastes but rather the genuine appreciation and understanding of the diversity of peoples and cultures. Neruda was comfortable writing in the language of his colonial legacy. He once said “What a great language I have. It’s a fine language we inherited from the fierce Conquistadores. They carried everything off and left us everything. They left us the words.” It was those words that Neruda used magically to become the voice of his continent. Neruda’s unique contribution was to take the use of the metaphor in Spanish poetry to new heights. Critics have said that Neruda’s poems were always “spoken poems” and that one had to listen to the poet himself recite them to grasp their meaning completely. There is an anecdote illustrating the remarkable impact Neruda had in his continent. On a visit to a Latin American country Neruda was requested by a member of the audience to recite one of his more popular poems. Neruda hesitated, having momentarily forgotten the words; whereupon the entire audience rose to its feet to recite the poem in unison! How many poets in the world enjoy that kind of public acclaim? He used the Spanish language to articulate his thoughts and emotions to the entire world. As a diplomat the careful and sensitive use of language as a vehicle of communication by speech and in writing is crucially important. A fluent use of internationally spoken languages – Neruda spoke Spanish, French and English – is an undoubted asset for diplomacy. Sri Lankan diplomats are fortunate to have ready access to English and, since we regained our independence in 1948, several Sri Lankan diplomats have distinguished themselves, especially in multilateral conference diplomacy, through their mastery of the English language used in the initial drafting of conference resolutions and declarations. Like Neruda we should shed the emotional baggage or the “hang-ups" – such as the concept of English as a

" kaduwa" – in our post-colonial society. All Sri Lankans should have equal opportunities to learn and exploit the language we were left with by the British colonial administrators as a tool in our constructive engagement with the global environment for the benefit of our people while, at the same time, fostering our national languages and indigenous culture. No diplomat can succeed unless he is deeply rooted in his country and his culture. Neruda, both as a diplomat and a creative writer, remained rooted at all times in Chile where the indigenous Araucanian Indian, Chango and Friegian cultures remained distinguishable amidst the majority mestizo and Christianized population. He was proud of his Chilean origins as is evident in these lines from the poem "The XIX” in the 1969 publication World's End –

How long is it been since Verlaine rained over us? How long since the umbrellas of Baudelaire accompanied us in the glare of the sun? Where are the Araucanian pines in my Chile of yesteryear, the evergreen oaks of the twentieth century, and where are the hands, the fingers, the gloves of our century? Walt Whitman doesn't belong to us – that's called the nineteenth century! – yet he keeps tracking us down because no one else cares for our company. And now, over that desert Sputnik has scattered the red of its pollen between the stars.

The final lines refer cynically to the Soviet launched satellite. By 1940 Neruda had reached the end of his diplomatic: tether and resigned his position as Consul General of Chile in Mexico City impatient with his bureaucracy and the racism of the Chilean elite. It is a small wonder that his artistic sensibility put up with it for so long. As Sir Harold Caccia said while being the British Ambassador in Washington, "If you are to stand up for your Government, you must be able to stand up to your Government." Neruda's “diplomatic suicide", as he described it, resulted in a return to Chile which Neruda welcomed. He wrote in his Memoirs –

I believe a man should live in his own country and I think the deracination of human beings leads to frustration, in one way or another, obstructing the light of the soul. I can live only in my own country. I cannot live without having my feet and my hands on it and my ear against it, without feeling the movement of its waters and its shadows, without feeling my roots read down into its soil for maternal nourishment.

It is all too frequently assumed that the life of a diplomat abroad is a bed or roses especially If the diplomat is from a developing country posted in a developed country. Living apart from one's country for an extended period can be as harmful to a creative writer's sensibility as it is to a professional diplomat. There is ultimately the

isolation the diplomat experiences in a foreign country however gregarious he may be and, like the creative writer he must have the inner resources to fall back upon. Both need the nourishment of their soil and their cultural roots to continue their work productively. This is truer of diplomats from developing countries where the pace of political and social change is greater and where budgetary constraints prevent more generous home leave visits. The diplomat, especially when located in a foreign assignment, is very much in public life and yet must jealously retain his private persona and sensibility in the same way as a creative writer. In another context Auden speaks of "this nightmare of public solitude". Neruda's loneliness in Colombo in his period as Consul continued to be reflected in his later poetry as these lines from “That Light” in his 1964 publication Memorial de Isla Negra ("Black Island Memorial") reveals –

The light in Ceylon that was life to me was living death to me too – for to Live in a diamond's intensity is a lonely vocation for corpses.

The poem ends with the words – “Suckled by light / I live as I must." We all do – live, as we must. To do so, however, retaining one's individual identity as fiercely as possible, despite your representational capacity as a diplomat of your country, is not easy. Compromises in the pursuit of principle and firmly held beliefs must necessarily be internalized as diplomats conscious, of permanent national interests are constrained to defend transient government policies and rationalize the venality of their politIca1leaden. The diplomat who is a creative writer has a release – an escape valve – through his writing. Some other write their memoirs as an act of expiation for the bruising of the soul they have experienced in their working lives. Material comforts in a foreign country do not alleviate the loneliness of the soul and I am not surprised that alcoholism has been the refuge several diplomats have misguidedly sought. The strain of the nomadic life a diplomat must lead comes out in Neruda's poem “Goodbyes" –

And, newly arrived, promptly said goodbye … Left everywhere for somewhere else ... It's well known that he who returns never left. …growing used … to the great whirl of exile, to the great solitude of bells tolling.

Neruda also wrote, “poetry is an act of peace. Peace goes into the making of a poet as flour goes into the making of bread." For the diplomat committed to peace and security internationally, peace within oneself can be achieved, as Neruda did, by creative writing. Perhaps Neruda Was seeking in poetry the truth he could not find in diplomacy where national interest, as the “realist school” of international relations theorists tells us, is the only morality. One of Neruda's American translators, William O'Daly, said of the poet, "He came to see poetry as a moral act, with personal and communal responsibilities.”

Neruda joined the Chilean Communist Party in 1945 after the first phase of his diplomatic career and while being an elected Senator in his country. It is outside my purview here to explain Neruda's political philosophy. It certainly led him to persecution and even exile from Chile as a consequence with the long arm of the Chilean Government even attempting to reach him in France and India. Neruda's

Communism did not blind him to the defects of the former Soviet Union. He recognized its dogmatism in the arts and the absurdity of the personality cult. He wrote in his Memoirs – “…We know that life is stronger and more obstinate than precepts. The revolution is life; precepts prepare their own grave”. On his second visit to China be was revolted by the mindless adulation of Mao Zedong by the people waving Mao's little red book of quotations and recalled guiltily –

In Stalin's case, I had contributed my share to the personality cult … And now, here in plain sight, in the vast expanse of the new China's land and skies, once more a man was turning into a myth right before my eyes … I could not swallow that bitter pill a second time.

A mind unshackled by dogmatic beliefs provides the creative writer with the intellectual suppleness to absorb fresh ideas and new experiences. As a diplomat scrupulous objectivity is essential in approaching other ideologies. Filtering impressions of other governments and their policies through preconceived notions or beliefs would be a dereliction of the duties of diplomatic reporting. Blinkered visions and allegiance to personality cults, which can exist even in democracies, are serious impediments both for the creative writer and the diplomatic observer.

Neruda's oeuvre was as vast as it was rich and diverse. In a life of 69 years (1904 -73) he published over thirty volumes of poems beginning with the 1923 publication of Crepusculario. He died of cancer in the very week of the CIA orchestrated overthrow of his friend Salvador Allende. The range and depth of Neruda's poetry is astonishing. From the brooding melancholia of his early poems through the passion of his love poems and the Residencia en la Terra/ Residence on Earth (1925-45) written during his Asian sojourn. Neruda's is a quest for fulfillment in his relationships with women and with Nature escaping the drab mediocrity he saw himself surrounded by. It is not my intention here to "deconstruct" Neruda's poetry or to analyze his poetic achievement as I attempt to trace the links between his diplomatic persona and his identity as a creative writer.

Some critics see several Nerudas in his poetry. He approached poetry as a means of understanding the world around him and wrote --

Poetry is pure white, It emerges from water covered with drops, is wrinkled, all in a heap. It has to be spread out, the sea's whiteness... pure innocence returns out of the swirl.

Among the many Nerudas in his poetry there was also Neruda the politician. The poems of his volume Canto General are his most political in which he denounces the corrupt leaders of Latin America. Here he describes the history of his continent – a primeval paradise, where man and nature were one, destroyed by colonialism and reborn and liberated through the elemental energy of nature. An important poem in this collection, and widely regarded as perhaps his best, is “The Heights of Machu Pichu” describing the spectacular fortress city of the Incas in the Peruvian Andes and now it establishes a link between Neruda and his ancestors:

We come upon permanence; the rock that abides and the word the city upraised like a cup in our fingers, all hands together, the quick and the dead and the quiet; death’s plenitude holding us there, a bastion, the fullness of life like a blow falling, petals of flint,

and the perduring rose, abodes for the sojourner, a glacier for multitudes, breakwater in Andes.

More trenchant is his denunciation of American capitalism in his continent in the poem "The United Fruit Co.” –

When the trumpets had sounded and all was in readiness on the face of the earth, Jehovah divided his universe: Anaconda, Ford Motors, Coca-Cola Inc., and similar entities: the most succulent item of all, The United Fruit Company Incorporated reserved for itself: the heartland and coasts of my country, the delectable waist of America. They rechristened their properties: The “Banana Republics.”

The profession of diplomacy perhaps more so than any other vocation embraces a large slice of life providing the creative writer in diplomacy with unique access to a wide gamut of experience with different social and professional groups. In the interpretation of the policies of a country one to another and the filtration of cultures, the diplomat is an important conduit. The success with which this function is performed depends very much on the sensibility and professionalism of the individual. This can of course be enhanced through training and experience but an innate intelligence and sensitivity remains the irreducible basis. The diplomat who pursues cultural interests outside of his purely official duties will find the opportunities abundant apart from the obvious one of foreign travel and the fresh stimuli that every change of environment brings with it.

Neruda had his talent for poetry before he embarked on a diplomatic career that gave him the stuff of life from faraway lands to write about. Towards the end his life he published a volume Plenos poderes – the title being a pun on the plenipotentiary powers of the Ambassador. A poem in that volume is entitled "The Poet's Obligation" – where be restates his purpose of being a voice for those who have no voice:

To whoever is not listening to the sea this Friday morning, to whoever is cooped up in house or office, factory or woman or street or mine or dry prison cell to him I come, and without speaking or looking I arrive and open the door of his prison, and a vibration starts up, vague and insistent, a long rumble of thunder adds itself to the weight of the planet and the foam, the groaning rivers of the ocean rise, the star vibrates quickly in its corona and the sea beats, dies, and goes on beating. So, drawn on by my destiny, I ceaselessly must listen to an keep the sea's lamenting in my consciousness ……. So, through me, freedom and the sea will call in answer to the shrouded heart.

An equally ambitious obligation may well be set for the diplomat as he endeavours to open doors for his government and the people be represents so that we may all live in a better and safer world. The world needs both the diplomat and the creative writer. Where the two identities merge in one individual there are clearly mutual benefits. But there are tensions as well. And it is perhaps these tensions that have produced the high quality of creative writing in Neruda and other diplomat-writers.

Development Jayantha Dhanapala, “The United Nations Millennium Declaration and South Asia”, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 7 February 2001 http://disarmament.un.org/speech/statements.htm Globalization Jayantha Dhanapala, “Globalization and the Nation State,” Conference on “A Cartography of Governance: Exploring the Role of Environmental NGOs”, University of Colorado Law School, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 7 April 2001 http://disarmament.un.org/speech/statements.htm. The Rule of Law Jayantha Dhanapala, “International Law, Security, and Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Showcase Program, 2002 Spring Meeting of the Section of International Law and Practice, American Bar Association, New York, NY, 9 May 2002 http://disarmament.un.org/speech/statements.htm.

Peace Building & Ethics Jayantha Dhanapala, Mohamed Sahabdeen Awards Lecture, Galle Face Hotel, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 28 June 2005. Not on web; text – PEACE BUILDING AND ETHICS Honourable Minister, Guest of Honour Dr. Weeramantry, Deshamanya Dr. Sahabdeen, members of the A.M.M. Sahabdeen Trust Foundation, distinguished fellow recipients of the Mohamed Sahabdeen Awards, Ladies and Gentlemen. I begin by thanking the Sahabdeen Trust Foundation for this award. Honours in my own country are more warmly appreciated by me than the accolades I have been privileged to receive in foreign countries. Receiving such an honour as the Sahabdeen Award from a highly respected civil society organization, also creates in me a deep sense of humility because of the past recipients of this award and the eminent company that I am in this evening. To be honoured together with the distinguished scientist Professor Narlikar of India and with two of Sri Lanka's most prominent intellectuals and role models – Kumari Jayawardena and Godfrey Gunatilleke – has set the bar so high that I seriously doubt I have been able to vault over it. I owe Dr. Sahabdeen a special word of thanks. A brilliant student of Philosophy who succeeded in entering the prestigious and elitist Ceylon Civil Service, comparable to France's “Enarques” – or the Ecole Nationale d'Administration (ENA) alumni – he retired prematurely to devote his time to academic pursuits and, to what I can best describe as, being a good citizen. Amidst the raucous noise and violence we hear and see, it is people like Dr. Sahabdeen who leaven and dignify our society. He reminds us, silently and unostentatiously, of the basic moral decency that continues to be the cohesive glue in our country and the heights of cultured living and selfless philanthropy that we as Sri Lankans, of all ethnic and religious groups, are capable

of. As the famous Thirteenth Century Sufi poet Jalalud'din Rumi (well known to Dr Sahabdeen) once wrote -

What will our children do in the morning

if they do not see us fly? I wish Dr.Sahabdeen and the Sahabdeen Trust Foundation many more years of service to our country. Ladies and Gentlemen, the invitation card to this event indicates that I am receiving my award for “Peace and International Understanding”. My work in international affairs, in fact, is inextricably interlinked with my current task of achieving national security through a negotiated political settlement as a lasting healing process of the conflict that remains an open wound with the ceasefire agreement as a mere band-aid. For the security of all nations contributes towards international peace and security and in today's highly integrated world we are more inter-dependent than we realize. The High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which reported at the end of last year to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has stated "Today, more than ever before, threats are interrelated and a threat to one is a threat to all. The mutual vulnerability of weak and strong has never been clearer." And so, whether it is the attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001 which increased the number of people living in poverty by 10 million and cost the global economy more than $80 billion or the potential of a disease being spread from one state through any one of 700 million international airline passengers to cause millions of deaths in a number of countries, we are faced again and again with the incontrovertible fact that global security is both collective and multi-faceted. Our own insecurity and our instability have an impact on regional and global security. It is a shared responsibility, which explains the interest and concern of so many members of the international community in helping us overcome our problems. The xenophobic reaction of some sections of our community to this fails to understand that in today's world the co-operation of other states is indispensable for our security. The violence, which has torn our country apart, stems from a fundamental failure in good governance and political management throughout our post-independence history. It was not initially caused by anyone but ourselves. It is therefore we alone who bear the primary “responsibility to protect” our people of all groups from a resumption of hostilities with all the suffering, death and destruction that will surely follow.

With the memories of the genocide of Rwanda and the massacre of Srebrenica haunting the conscience of the world, the influential and far-reaching report of the Canadian-sponsored Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty of December 2001 recommended the basic principle that state sovereignty implies responsibility and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state. However where a population is suffering serious harm as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states – a long hallowed principle of international relations upheld by Non-aligned countries like ours – yields to the international responsibility to protect. The latter responsibility has to be exercised by the UN Security Council in accordance with the Charter and prescribed procedures. This concept of “responsibility to protect” has gained wide acceptance and has undoubtedly influenced the reports of the High Level Panel and the UN Secretary-General which form the basis of the discussions going on the United Nations General Assembly today. It is however a principle

viewed warily by a number of developing countries who see it as a form of neo-colonialism which will also not be implemented even-handedly as for example, with oppressed minorities in larger and more powerful countries. For us in Sri Lanka, it is still within our hands to remedy our problems through a negotiated political solution within the framework of a united, democratic and pluralist Sri Lanka where all religious and ethnic groups can live together in peace, equality, dignity and freedom. The international community and its institutions are ready to help us in this long overdue task of peace building for the cause of remaking our nation. A central truth that emerges from the UN Secretary-General’s important report of 21 March, 2005 entitled “In Larger Freedom” is this – "...we will not enjoy development without security, we will not enjoy security without development, and we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights. Unless all these causes are advanced, none will succeed." As we engage in the complex task of peace building in Sri Lanka, let us ponder on the wisdom in these words. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is not only our national peace and security that is challenged and faces many threats. International peace and security is likewise under a great strain from a host of challenges and threats. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in its latest Yearbook has noted that in 2004, 19 major armed conflicts took place in 17 locations and all of them were intra-state conflicts. Happily Sri Lanka, because of its ceasefire – however often that may be violated – is not among these conflicts. In the recent past, over 40 countries have been ravaged by conflicts displacing some 25 million people. Another alarming statistic is the fact that global military expenditure in 2004 is estimated at being US $ 1035 billion in current dollar terms. This corresponds to $162 per capita and 2.6 per cent of world GDP. The top 100 companies in the arms trade registered arms sales to the value of $236 billion in 2003. Nuclear weapons arsenals, among the 5 nuclear weapon states recognized within the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the three outside the NPT, number over 30,000 many of them on ready-to-launch alert status. The danger of terrorism has been aggravated by the possibility of terrorists gaining access to weapons of mass destruction. But the threats and challenges are not confined to the commonly known military area of security. Today they abound in the non-military area through poverty with over one billion people living below the poverty line of one dollar per day and 20,000 dying from poverty each day; pandemics like HIV/AIDS which have killed 20 million and infected 40 million more, environmental degradation, climate change, natural disasters like the tsunami that we faced in December 2004 and a host of other economic, social and even cultural dangers. An attempt was made in the Millennium Summit of the UN General Assembly of 2000 to address the urgent issues facing the global community in a collective response. That led to the adoption of the Millennium Declaration – a landmark document adopted by the largest assembly of Heads of State and Government ever to meet at the UN. Since then we have had the deeply divisive controversy over the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by a group of states led by the US without the formal sanction of a UN Security Council resolution. This affected the concept of collective security on which a consensus had existed. Seeking to restore this consensus, a High Level Panel was asked to make recommendations. These recommendations are now in. We also have the UN Secretary-General’s own report based on the report of the High Level Panel and the report of Professor Jeffrey Sachs on the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. The delegations in the UN General Assembly are discussing a draft document for adoption by the Heads of State and Government in September this year. This is a critical exercise and NGOs as well as Governments

are actively involved in shaping the outcome although, most regrettably, there has been very little public discussion of this in Sri Lanka. It is an opportunity in the sixtieth anniversary year of the UN to redesign a world body more suited to the challenges of the Twenty-First Century. The task ahead involves more than the reform and enlargement of the Security Council although that is certainly an important element. Specific recommendations have been made in the political, economic, human rights and institutional areas. They include the forging of a security consensus; conflict prevention; the establishment of a standby capacity for rapid deployment of UN peacekeeping; the creation of a Peace building Commission with a standing fund and a Peace building Support Office; agreement on the use of force in maintaining international peace and security; the elevation of the Commission on Human Rights into a standing Human Rights Council and a series of economic measures linked to the Millennium Development Goals and recent UN Conferences. This debate will go on in the next few weeks and the outcome will have a major impact on the UN and all our countries in the next few years. As we reflect on how our world body can be reformed to face the challenges of the future based on the experience of the past, we must begin with a foundation of ethical values and principles that we can share. The use of the term “Ethics” for a set of moral principles presupposes that we are all bound by a common understanding of what we mean. In a very broad sense, we are talking about the absolutely irreducible minimum of humankind’s cultural, moral and spiritual achievement over centuries of civilization. It is the quintessence of all religious philosophies and the highest common factor among all cultures. Ethics per se would be of little value if they did not have a practical propensity to be applied to human affairs and the improvement of the human condition. It is widely, but wrongly, assumed that the realm of ethical values and the world of pragmatic politics are wide apart and that never the twain shall meet. The achievements of the UN illustrate that there can be a fusion between ethics and policy, and it is this fusion that contributes to the betterment of mankind and to peace. We are still in the early years of the first century of a new millennium in the human saga, leaving behind the bloodiest century of all time. There is a unique opportunity for us to use the indisputable legitimacy and authority that the UN wields as a norm-building body, to shape a world order that is built more solidly on ethics than on the exclusive pursuit of individual profit or national self-interest. The shared values set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration serve as a common ethical base. They are reiterated in the draft document before the General Assembly. They comprise six of the most basic aspirations of humankind – freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared responsibility. From each of these fundamental values we draw our guidance for the specific action plans to which the international community must commit itself. It is a moral compass for us all. Individually these values represent powerful forces that have inspired and motivated humankind throughout millennia of history. They have been the accelerators of human progress. Collectively, they also represent the benchmark against which we must judge our performance as individual nations and collectively as the world community in taking humankind forward to a better and safer world. The values are, firstly,

• Freedom – the spur that rid the world of slavery, colonialism and apartheid: it is the ethical value that protects men, women and children from fear,

• exploitation and abuse, from injustice and deprivation; and from want and hunger.

Secondly,

• Equality – is what drove societies to abolish discrimination on the basis of colour, creed, wealth, ethnicity, aristocratic origin and gender; it is the ethical value that empowers individuals in society and nations in the international community whether big or small, rich or poor, mighty or meek.

Thirdly,

• Solidarity – is the sense of a common identity as one human family with reciprocal duties and obligations that has led to social contracts and social security within countries and to the aid and assistance of the wealthy and developed countries to those who are stricken with disease, disaster and endemic poverty: it is the ethical value that must ensure the elimination of injustices, asymmetries in globalised development and absolute power.

Fourthly,

• Tolerance – is the glue that has bonded us together as human beings with mutual respect for each other despite our astonishing diversity both within nations and in the international community: it is the ethical value that will prevent ethnic and religious conflict within nations and the “clash of civilizations” on a global scale ensuring instead a “dialogue among civilizations”; and the celebration of human diversity as an endowment.

Fifthly,

• Respect for nature – is what has preserved the available and potential natural resources of our planet Earth and our ecological system as our common heritage to serve the genuine needs and not the greedy wants of mankind: it is the ethical value that will guide us to sustainable development managing our consumption of resources equitably and wisely so that we pass on the world which we occupy as a trust, to generations to come in at least as healthy and wholesome a state as we received it from preceding generations.

Finally,

• Shared responsibility – is the common realization that we are one brotherhood and sisterhood placed together in a world that is more integrated than ever before through the processes of globalization and that the management of public goods has to be achieved optimally through participatory, people-centred endeavours and good democratic governance at the national level and through multilateralism and international organizations – with the United Nations as its apex – in the collective response to global challenges to international peace and human security: it is the ethical value that will prevent humankind from anarchy and self-destruction through selfishness and profligacy and the insurance policy to achieve a rule based international order founded on the bedrock of international law, human rights and justice.

The translation of these ethical values to the daily world of human interaction – to do the right thing for the right reason – presents all of us with an enormous challenge. Already, there are danger signals that illustrate the erosion of our ethical base. Terrorism, nihilism and anarchism are ominous symptoms. Are they the result of perceptions that the policies pursued in the past have been divorced from ethics? Or are they the emergence of new threats for which our collective response must not be militarism but a return to implementing our shared value base of ethics – honestly, transparently and consistently?

It would help our task of rebuilding a consensus on common security if we had a barometer to measure the performance of all our leaders in the achievement of implementing ethics as policy. The world has seen the evolution of numerous indices for human progress. We have economic and social indicators ranging from Gross National Product in quantitative terms to the Human Development Index in qualitative terms. There are other more specific indices such as Corruption Index from Transparency International and a Freedom Index from Freedom House. I would hope that research organizations, think tanks and NGOs would combine their efforts to devise an Ethical Policy Index ranking countries in accordance with their adherence to a commonly accepted set of ethical values such as those enshrined in the Millennium Declaration of the United Nations. That will contribute to some pressure on governments to be accountable to their people in adopting policies that will be of widespread and durable benefit. It is but one of many tools we can propose in the quest for a greater role for ethics in the formulation of policy to respond to the new threats to security and to the other challenges facing humankind today. It is an urgent task to preserve and develop the mainsprings of our common humanity for a new and glorious chapter of human history, which Sri Lanka can enjoy along with other members of the international community. A return to basic ethical principles and values are no more urgently needed than in our own country where advocates of exclusivism, prejudice, hate and violence stand in the way of rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous nation. Let us remember the words of Buddha, as recorded in the Dhammapada:

The others know not that in this quarrel we perish. Those of them who realize it, have their quarrels calmed thereby.

It is time we calmed the quarrels among ourselves – lest we perish as a united nation.

Disarmament Jayantha Dhanapala, “A Future Arms Control and Disarmament Agenda”, 1999 Olof Palme Memorial Lecture, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, 30 September 1999 http://disarmament.un.org/speech/statements.htm. Jayantha Dhanapala, "A Disarming Proposition: Meeting the Challenge of Sustainable Disarmament,”, Harvard International Review, Summer 2001, vol. XXIII, no. 2, p. 48-52 http://disarmament.un.org/speech/statements.htm.

Terrorism Jayantha Dhanapala, “WMD and Terrorism: Can the UN Help to Keep the Genie in the Bottle?”, in Paul Heinbecker and Patricia Goff (eds), Irrelevant or Indispensable?

The United Nations in the Twenty-First Century (Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2005), Chapter 8, p. 79-88 Not on web; text – WMD AND TERRORISM: CAN THE UN HELP TO KEEP THE GENIE IN THE BOTTLE?

On 13 April 2005, the United Nations General Assembly adopted by consensus an international treaty against nuclear terrorism. Thus the Nuclear Terrorism Convention (NTC) will open for signature on 14 September 2005 and enter into force after twenty-two states ratify it. This step coming after seven years of negotiations and less than a month after the report of the Secretary General, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development. Security and Human Rights for All, issued on 21 March, is a happy augury for more decisive action by the UN to ensure that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, i.e., weapons of mass destruction (WMD), do not fall into the hands of terrorists.

The Secretary General's report contains a warning of the dangers of "catastrophic terrorism." This warning has been repeated with increasing levels of urgency in the policy making community especially after the events of 11 September 2001, since it is well known that groups such as AI Qaeda have had plans to acquire WMD. The report recommends measures to be adopted by member states, such as the recommendation that negotiations for an international convention for the suppression of nuclear terrorism be completed. However no other specific tasks or reforms of the United Nations (UN) have been recommended to ensure that the UN is able to play a significant and effective role in the prevention of WMD terrorism.

The High-level Panel, appointed by the UN Secretary General to assess current threats to international peace and security, came out with a report that has addressed the issues of WMD and terrorism separately. While warning about WMD proliferation, making a specific identification of the threat of WMD terrorism, and recommending that the UN and specialized agencies take preventive action, the link between WMD and terrorism has been clearly established. Paragraphs 135 to 138 make the link explicitly. Paragraph 135 proposes urgent "short-term action" to defend against the "possible terrorist use" of WMD through the consolidating, securing and, when possible, eliminating of hazardous materials and implementing effective export controls. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative is welcomed by the Panel but the time line for its implementation is recommended for halving to five years. The Security Council, acting under resolution 1540, is urged to provide states with model legislation for action on WMD materials and the establishment of minimum standards by 2006 and a permanent liaison between the committee implementing Security Council resolution 1540 and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). In dealing with a definition of terrorism, the problem of WMD terrorism is clearly kept in mind. While all these are laudable recommendations they do not by themselves ensure that the UN will be at the centre of global efforts to counter the threat of WMD terrorism nor that it will be the most effective body in this task. More will have to be done to identify the actual threat and keep it under review and devise defenses against these threats. To do that we must review what the UN has said and done in the past.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly on 1 October 2001, Secretary General Kofi Annan said, "It is hard to imagine how the tragedy of 11 September could have been worse. Yet, the truth is that a single attack involving a nuclear or biological weapon could have killed millions. While the world was unable to prevent the 11 September attacks, there is much we can do to help prevent future terrorist acts

carried out with weapons of mass destruction." He went on to propose strengthening the global norms against the use or proliferation of WMD by redoubling efforts to ensure the universality, verification, and full implementation of key treaties relating to WMD; promoting cooperation among international organizations dealing with these weapons; tightening national legislation over exports of goods and technologies needed to manufacture WMD and their means of delivery; and developing new efforts to criminalize the acquisition or use of WMD by non-state groups.

More recently, on 10 March 2005, Secretary General Annan in his "five Ds" speech in Madrid said, "Nuclear terrorism is still often treated as science fiction ... That such an attack has not yet happened is not an excuse for complacency. Rather it gives us a last chance to take effective preventive action." He went on to identify biological terrorism as a threat against which state capacity had to be built up with local health systems at the front line.

In the almost three-and-a-half years between the two statements, the UN has acted to prevent WMD terrorism as the global appreciation of the extent of the problem increased. It is useful to describe this action briefly as well as the current estimates of the threat of WMD terrorism before we identify ways and means for the UN to act more effectively.

What the UN has done so far

The threat of WMD terrorism predated the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001. Events such as the 1995 use of sarin gas in the Tokyo subway had already alerted the world to the possibility of WMD terrorism, which several instances of the theft of WMD material and the likelihood of WMD technology experts being lured by non-state actors only served to underline. Many experts in the field had already written extensively on the subject and individual countries had taken measures to prevent the threat from materializing. The US Nunn-Lugar legislation, which grew into the Co-operative Threat Reduction program, was one example where US concerns about the safe custody of nuclear materials and the future of the nuclear scientists in the countries of the former USSR were translated into a practical program of action which was later supported by the G-8. The UN's Department for Disarmament Affairs kept these developments under regular review. The adoption of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) provided a broad framework within which the UN could now act under Chapter VII. Strengthening the capacity of member states was a priority and with the Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) in place and headed in its first few years by the very effective UK Permanent Representative, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the prevention of WMD terrorism was also addressed. Revitalized through Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004), the CTC established an Executive Directorate to enhance its co-coordinating function in implementing resolution 1373 and in capacity-building.

In August 2002 the Secretary General published the report of his Policy Working Group, which made several recommendations including the biennial publication of a report on WMD terrorism; development of the technical capabilities of the IAEA, the OPCW, and the WHO to provide assistance to states in the event of the threat or use of WMD; arrangements to develop and maintain adequate civil defence capabilities through the same organizations; the creation of codes of conduct for scientists aimed at preventing their involvement in terrorist activities and the restriction of public access to expertise on the development, production and stockpiling and use of WMD. There is no indication that any of the recommendations have been pursued energetically although an enhanced level of inter-agency coordination has certainly begun.

The Security Council has undoubtedly been the engine room where much of the action on combating terrorism in general and WMD terrorism in particular has been taken. The CTC has been crucial in this, but beyond making assessments of state capabilities to prevent and respond to WMD terrorism no measures had been initiated within the UN system to enhance the capacity of the organization to respond to the challenge. The major achievement which changed this has, of course, been the adoption by the Security Council on 28 April 2004, of resolution 1540 under Chapter VII of the Charter as a comprehensive ban on support to non-state actors in the development or acquisition of WMD. The resolution is a call to all states to adopt measures for the safe custody of WMD materials and more proactive measures to prevent proliferation of WMD. Most importantly a Committee of the Security Council was established to report on the implementation of the resolution and national control lists were requested from member states. This resolution greatly empowers the UN to act decisively on WMD terrorism and provides a mechanism to coordinate action within the UN system and with member states. It is too early to assess how effective the resolution and the Committee established to oversee its implementation has been.

The parameters of the problem

The need for a pragmatic balance between panic-driven reactions and smug complacency is self-evident. Deconstructing WMD terrorism is also vital because the nature of the weapons grouped under WMD varies greatly and the threat assessment of terrorist acquisition and use of these weapons also differs. All three categories of weapons have the potential of inflicting a scale of death and destruction higher and more long-lasting than conventional weapons as well as the capacity to terrify and coerce populations. Conflating nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as WMD is misleading because of the distinct physical and political effects of these weapons. Some experts add radiological weapons as a separate WMD category, despite its close link to the nuclear weapon category.

Nuclear weapons are the greatest threat because of the lethality of the weapons, their long-lasting effects on the environment, and the danger that a nuclear exchange would lead to the devastation of large areas of the world. The easy availability of the technology on how to manufacture nuclear weapons is well-known, so much so that experts have concluded that any intelligent student of physics could acquire the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon. The access to nuclear weapon material, whether enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium, in sufficient quantity to make a nuclear bomb, is also well-documented. HEU is more sought-after because of the ease of making a gun-type device. The startling revelations of the nuclear bazaar run by the Pakistani scientist Dr. A.Q. Khan and his network have proved how widespread the illicit trade in nuclear materials has been. And yet experts doubt the capacity of non-state actors to organize the elaborate infrastructure necessary to manufacture nuclear weapons in a clandestine fashion, undetected by the national technical means of major states through satellite surveillance and through intelligence agencies. This may still be possible either in a failed state or in a state that permits this kind of activity unless inspection under IAEA safeguards recently enhanced by the Additional Protocol is taking place. This conclusion refers to nuclear weapons similar to what states require, whereas non-state actors are more likely to seek more crude and improvised nuclear devices (IND). The absence of an international norm banning nuclear weapons heightens the risk of nuclear terrorism. Nuclear terrorism can also take the form of a terrorist seizure of a nuclear weapon that has been made in a nuclear weapon state or the

bombing of a nuclear installation as a deliberate attempt to disperse radioactive material.

Biological weapons are the next greatest threat because pathogens or toxins can be easily made in a small area and if spread in sufficient quantities could cause widespread deaths causing harm and panic. Biological weapons are banned by the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), but the absence of effective verification measures and an organization to implement the BWC are serious inadequacies. The developments in biotechnology, easy availability of materials needed for biological weapons, and the possibility of their manufacture being undetected has heightened the fears of this category of WMD terrorism more than any other. The yet undetected perpetrator of the anthrax letters in Washington, DC, in late 2001 and the earlier 1984 contamination of salad bars in Oregon with the non-lethal salmonella pathogen are examples of how biological weapons can be used to cause panic. Biological weapons can not only be used against humans but also against crops and livestock adding to social disruption. Some microorganisms can attack physical infrastructure by degrading plastics. Biological agents -- bacterial organisms, viruses, or toxins -- have to be weaponized to cause harm. They have also, as with nuclear weapons, to be delivered. And yet the psychological consequences of the threat or actual use of biological weapons is great. Most experts believe that terrorist use of biological weapons is more likely than nuclear weapons despite problems in growing bulk quantities of biological seed stock, weaponization and delivery.

Chemical weapons have been banned through the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which entered into force in 1997 and has effective verification measures implemented by the OPCW in The Hague. This is an effective bulwark against the likelihood of terrorists using this category of WMD. Effective control and supervision of supply of precursors of chemical weapons, arrangements for assistance in the event of a threat or use of chemical weapons and provisions for notice inspections have built confidence among state parties in the CWC. Nevertheless, the CWC is not universal and has 167 parties. Moreover chemical weapon stocks have still to be destroyed in many countries and their safe custody is doubtful. The extent of damage that can be caused by chemical weapons is regarded as less than by nuclear or biological weapons.

Radiological weapons have been identified as a more likely weapon to be used by terrorists. Simple high-explosive bombs can be used to disperse radioactive material such as the cobalt used in industrial plants. This device, or "dirty bomb," would be difficult to handle safely, but it could still cause widespread deaths and damage, spreading panic. The scale of death and destruction would still be much less since the radiation would not spread beyond the blast area. The reports of thefts of nuclear material make this form of terrorism likely.

Finally, WMD terrorism would require delivery vehicles in the form of missiles or airplanes to be really effective. However, IND could be assembled on site and/or delivered in a truck or van. Small quantities can of course be smuggled in through airports and seaports or across borders. Increased surveillance, through improved technology, minimizes the risk but does not eliminate it.

Constructing UN barriers against WMD terrorism

There is no doubt that the international community regards WMD terrorism as a threat to international peace and security. It follows that the UN must be at the

centre of all efforts to combat this danger. It is a danger that can be controlled through effective cooperation by all member states if cooperative security is to be a meaningful concept. Prevention of the danger of WMD terrorism is obviously better through peaceful means than through pre-emptive action of a military nature. Military action to destroy suspected WMD-capable sites could carry greater risks to life and can create the very panic that one seeks to avoid.

A number of proposals have been made, both within the existing treaty regimes and outside, for the international control of WMD proliferation in general, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) -- which will of course; reduce the danger of WMD terrorism. Some are specific to the type of WMD involved. For example the latest report of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on "Universal Compliance -- A Strategy for Nuclear Security" recommends six obligations:

• Making non-proliferation irreversible by tightening the controls on the production of fissile material and rules for withdrawal from the NPT;

• Devaluing the political and military currency of nuclear weapons; • Securing all nuclear materials by adopting more robust standards; • Stopping Illegal Transfers with national legislation to implement UNSC

resolution 1540 etc.; • Committing to conflict resolution since non-proliferation measures alone are

not enough; and • Solving the problem of the three states with a nuclear capability outside the

NPT by persuading India, Israel, and Pakistan to accept the same non-proliferation obligations of the nuclear weapon states within the NPT.

The above recommendations, mutatis mutandis, could apply to the other categories of WMD. They could also be adopted with the active assistance of the UN and/or the respective treaty bodies involved. The Madrid Agenda of 11 March 2005 also contains specific recommendations on WMD terrorism.

It is logical that the UN, as the only universal body legitimately empowered by its 191 member states to maintain international peace and security, should be at the forefront of the global effort to combat the threat of WMD terrorism as an important component of the campaign against terrorism. This task has to be undertaken in a coherent manner without duplication of other efforts and without overlap with the work done by existing treaty regimes, multilateral groups, and Interpol.

The definition of terrorism proposed by the High-level Panel and fully endorsed by the UN Secretary General in his report has important consequences for states apart from the (now fulfilled) obligation to conclude the protracted negotiation of a convention to prevent nuclear terrorism. The reference to the Geneva Convention implies adherence to the humanitarian principles of war. The International Court of Justice's 1996 landmark Advisory Opinion ruled that the use of nuclear weapons was generally contrary to the existing humanitarian principles of war. Thus the proposed definition effectively places a legal obstacle against state use of all WMD including nuclear weapons. While this would be logical for state parties to the BWC and the CWC it would universalize the actual ban on the use of biological weapons and chemical weapons to non-state parties as well. More importantly, it would apply to nuclear weapons where there is no legal ban on the actual use of these weapons. Thus states whose defence doctrines are predicated on the use of nuclear weapons either as a weapon of last resort or for pre-emptive use even as "bunker busters" would feel restrained by this definition and may be reluctant to accept it in its present form. A comprehensive convention on terrorism is certainly

desirable in the ban on WMD terrorism but doing so without also addressing the larger issue of the elimination of all WMD, whether by states or non-state actors, would cause great difficulty. A universal norm needs to be established if WMD possession by non-state actors is to be effective. To argue that possession by some states is permissible would be difficult to sustain. Nor is it logical to regard the proliferation of WMD and their use by non-state actors as a threat to international peace and security while nuclear weapon possession by some states continues.

There are, however, many other proposals to prevent WMD terrorism, which can and must be implemented. They include the implementation of the recommendations of the UN's Policy Working Group referred to earlier. The strengthening of the NPT regime has been proposed by many through a number of measures to be implemented especially by the IAEA in respect of its responsibilities for safeguarding nuclear material and making the transition from peaceful uses of nuclear energy to nuclear weapon production more difficult.

The existing export controls of nuclear and chemical material are implemented by the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Australia Group outside the UN. They are viewed as discriminatory and a dialogue within the UN of suppliers and recipient states may help to increase understanding regarding the paramount need to prevent WMD terrorism through tighter export controls. At the same time, in line with the Trilateral Initiative, the IAEA, Russia, and the US should place more nuclear materials under controls. This initiative could be extended to other nuclear weapon states. A series of other proposals have been made for the UN to establish stronger barriers against WMD terrorism. They include those that have already been mentioned in the body of this paper, plus:

• The strengthening of the capacity to verify the leakage of materials and technology such as through the institutionalization of the existing expertise in UNMOVIC as far as biological weapons and missiles are concerned;

• The mandatory requirement for Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) state parties of signing and ratifying the IAEA’s Additional Protocol in order to qualify for supplies for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy;

• The framing of a code of ethics for scientists in the defence sectors and in research establishments ensuring the non-transfer of knowledge to non-state actors;

• Strengthening the IAEAs Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials;

• Providing all member states with stakeholder status by creating a separate Commission on Terrorism under ECOSOC or the UN General Assembly (UNGA), using Article 68 of the Charter, where WMD terrorism can be discussed. Sharing of intelligence will also be necessary; and

• Criminalizing the illegal possession of WMD material through national legislation.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Accountability by member states is finally the only means of ensuring that non-state actors are prevented from using WMD for terrorist purposes.

Civil Society Jayantha Dhanapala, “Global Security and Civil Society”, Statement before the Threshold Foundation, New York, 7 November 2002 http://disarmament.un.org/speech/statements.htm

5 Quotations from Under-Secretary General Jayantha Dhanapala DISARMAMENT On disarmament – the only certain path to durable and universal security – self-interest and the human instinct for survival will finally act as an imperative for public opinion to compel leaders to adopt restraints and reductions in military expenditures and weapons arsenals. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/13may2003.htm Though the substantive and administrative challenges ahead are formidable, the benefits that disarmament offers to overcome them are as wide as they are rich. It has contributions to make in conflict prevention, in regional confidence-building, in alleviating threats to refugees, and in promoting the most precious human right – the right to life. It serves the interests of economic development by channelling scarce human and financial resources into more productive pursuits. It helps in addressing the horrible environmental problems arising from past and ongoing weapons development and production activities. Through education, it helps in preparing a younger generation to solve its own security challenges without relying upon weapons of mass destruction or the threat or use of force. For these reasons and many more, one can see that disarmament serves literally all the most fundamental goals of the Charter of the United Nations. Everybody is a stakeholder in disarmament – a core priority of the UN since its inception. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/30sept2002.htm The goal here is not to put people in the defence business out of work, but to give them more productive and meaningful jobs for society, while continuing to enable states to practice their legitimate right of self-defence. The powerful message of defence conversion is this: disarmament pays. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/11sept2002.htm I therefore call upon all participants at the Johannesburg Summit to recognize that the twin global problems of 'overarmament and underdevelopment,' identified at the 1987 Conference, remain very much with us today. These problems can and must be addressed together – in the interests of sustainable development, sustainable disarmament, and sustainable international peace and security for all. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/25aug2002.htm The regimes stand for the premise that the world is better off getting rid of all such weapons – they reject the alternative of merely gambling on management techniques to limit the effects of such weapons, to lower their frequency of use, or to contain their geographic spread. I believe that weapons that kill large numbers of human beings indiscriminately have no moral or legal justification regardless of who is holding them. The world will be best able to keep such weapons out of the hands of terrorists only when they and their special weapons materials are in the hands of no one. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/14july2002.htm

When all is said and done – after all the alternatives of missile defence, arms control, counter-proliferation, deterrence (extended or minimal), and the quixotic pursuit of "full-spectrum dominance" are tried – nothing quite delivers the concrete security benefits that all countries would enjoy from the total elimination of nuclear weapons. This is not simply an ideal, but arguably the most truly realistic of all approaches to international peace and security at the global strategic level. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/14july2002.htm Sustainable disarmament must also be susceptible to various techniques of measurement, for society must be able to gauge the extent to which it is achieving its disarmament goals. It is also important for the public to be able to assess how well its leaders are implementing national laws and policies in this area. If we have indices of sustainable development, we can surely have indices of sustainable disarmament. If we can require results-based budgeting in our government, we can also require results-based disarmament. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/opcwmar02.pdf One caution is in order, however, in this never-ending pursuit of the ultimate first causes of chronic global problems like the continued existence of nuclear weapons and their risk of proliferation. The problem is that the very existence of these weapons surely forms one of the deepest tap roots of the problem – for stockpiles beget stockpiles. Nuclear weapons, in short, are not simply reflections of underlying conflicts that, once solved, would cause such weapons to disappear. Among the current P-5 states – the NPT's nuclear-weapon states – there is currently a very low likelihood of general war; yet the nuclear arsenals persist, and persist in all cases based on claims of security threats from the nuclear weapons of other countries. When all the many roots of nuclear armament and proliferation are finally unearthed and sorted out for systematic analysis – the bomb itself remains. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/09apr2002.htm What Sun Tsu accomplished in the 5th century BC with respect to the Art of War, we too – all of us, regardless of age, governmental rank, or nationality – must now resolve to achieve in the twenty-first century as we seek to master a new historic and urgent challenge, the Art of Disarmament. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/02apr2002.htm In his Nobel lecture of December 10 last year, Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke of three priorities of the United Nations in the century ahead: eradicating poverty, preventing conflict, and promoting democracy. This is the “triad” that will genuinely serve the interests of international peace and security. And in the realm of preventing conflict, the goals of disarmament, arms control, and the peaceful settlement of disputes must remain the triad within the triad. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_03/dhanapalamarch02.asp [To the First Committee]: It is not at all unrealistic or inappropriate for this Committee to keep its focus on the search for absolute guarantees, and the more it searches, the more it will return to disarmament – not regulation – as the solution for weapons of mass destruction. In addressing such weapons, the Committee should explore ways of bringing disarmament to the world, or of bringing the world to disarmament, but disarmament must be done. As members of this committee, ask not for whom the Peace Bell tolls. It tolls for you. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/08oct2001.htm Disarmament is much like any other goal of public policy: it is not self-sustaining. It is created and advanced by human beings who are subject to competing priorities,

limited resources, technological complexity, uncertainty, stress, risk, and ambitions. The weapons themselves are perpetuated by many of the same types of forces. For the "hardy perennial" of disarmament not only to persist but also to bear fruit, it must proceed from this most fundamental human premise. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/summer2001.htm Long ago, Edmund Burke reportedly stated that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [and presumably women] to do nothing." Armament policies can change. They do change. They will continue to change, and they must change, if a global cataclysm is to be avoided. As we work toward de-alerting of nuclear weapons – another step toward a saner world – let us not neglect the solemn responsibility of re-alerting of the public to the dangers of balancing the fate of the world on nuclear-tipped missiles. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/22mar2001.htm Disarmament, first of all, is not an end in itself; nor is disarmament just about arms. It is about what people can do with fewer arms. It is an important, though often neglected, means by which Governments can advance the security interests of their citizens, improve their social and economic well-being and promote a cleaner environment. The greater the public understands the real costs, risks and sacrifices associated with existing weapons of mass destruction – and the security, and economic and environmental benefits from their elimination – the greater will be the political will to eliminate such weapons. http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2001/issue1/0101p16.htm Disarmament pays its own dividends: it saves lives and money. Weapons that have been destroyed – or that have not been produced in the first place – do not kill. They even enhance security by removing future threats. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/30Nov2000.htm Information and education will therefore play major roles in the evolution of the institutions and policies of sustainable disarmament. … One helpful step in this direction would be the development of disarmament indices – concrete empirical measures of the progress and setbacks we are experiencing in pursuing the disarmament goal. The world community is increasingly demanding what might be called “results-based disarmament” – namely, a disarmament process whereby progress can be measured by concrete, demonstrable achievements – rather than rhetorical platitudes. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/massachusetts.htm We must not seek to create a world that is safe for nuclear armament, but a world that is free of all such weapons. We must not seek managed proliferation, nor what might be called "the game of arms control," but disarmament as the destiny for all weapons of mass destruction. More broadly, we should seek levels of armaments internationally that are sufficient to meet fundamental national defence needs with minimal costs to society, the economy, and the environment – without nuclear weapons. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/30Sept1999.htm We have heard much in recent years about the vital importance of "stockpile stewardship." We need to encourage countries that possess nuclear arms to recognize that disarmament itself requires some "stewardship." I have tried over the last year to make the case for "sustainable disarmament," which I define as a

dynamic process – sustained by deliberate action on the part of leaders throughout the world community and from civil society – to address the combined needs of development and security through the reduction and elimination of arms. Progress in achieving disarmament depends on human will – and human will is magnified many times over when it becomes institutionalized. If we truly wish to remedy what Alva Myrdal once called the "institutionalization of the arms race," we need to consider measures that will strengthen the institutional infrastructure of disarmament, both nationally and internationally. In short, we need a global compact to institutionalize disarmament. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/30Sept1999.htm We have all heard quite a bit about the "military-industrial complex" and all of its allegedly conspiratorial intrigues, but perhaps not enough about a new player in this game, namely that diverse coalition of individuals and groups who have committed themselves to converting disarmament from a dream into a reality. If we wish to take on the "nuclear weapons complex" or any other institutional bastion of support for weapons that jeopardize international peace and security, we will need to mobilize what might be called a "disarmament complex." We will need to find some enlightened leaders who can operate on the basis of sustained political and institutional support from throughout society, and who recognize that disarmament is both an efficient and an effective means to advance national security interests. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/30Sept1999.htm Many of us have also heard about the new leaps that have been made in the growing lethality and accuracy of modern conventional weapons and their various support systems, the so-called "revolution in military affairs" (RMA). Technology is not, however, evolving only in the direction of accelerating arms races. There is now underway, I believe, a "revolution in disarmament affairs" involving dramatic improvements in the technology of verifying arms control and disarmament agreements. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/30Sept1999.htm … the costliest disarmament is cheaper than the cheapest arms build-up … http://disarmament.un.org/speech/9Dec99.htm and http://disarmament.un.org/speech/30Sept1999.htm A "sustainable disarmament" concept has … become the urgent need of our time. In a sentence, it is a dynamic process – sustained by deliberate action on the part of leaders throughout the world community – to address the needs of development through the reduction and elimination of arms. It is an evolving security concept for the 21st Century – when elaborated and forged into a global consensus, it will offer a prescription for peaceful change in an increasingly violent and over-armed world. … A key to the success of sustainable development is thus to be found in sustainable disarmament. Sustainable disarmament can persist as a security concept if it becomes institutionalized, at both the national and international levels – its success will require sustained efforts that only organizations can orchestrate. Sustainable disarmament cannot implement itself – it requires an infrastructure. Sustainable disarmament is therefore a logical objective of good governance. … In conclusion, what ultimately makes disarmament sustainable are the benefits it brings to people throughout society, the constituencies that develop a stake in maintaining such benefits, and the consistency of such a policy with public ideals. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/27Nov1998.htm

NGOs AND CIVIL SOCIETY … the NGOs have been the wind under my wings – especially during the last five years when some may have wanted to clip those wings! http://disarmament.un.org/speech/13may2003.htm Like the United Nations, civil society transcends the parochialism of narrow national interests. And like the Pope, in Stalin's famous riposte, civil society has no armed divisions. As a former resident of Geneva I recall the seductive advertisement of a Swiss bank at the Geneva Airport, which read "Money talks, but wealth whispers". In a realpolitik-soaked United Nations power speaks but influence lingers. And so, long after the headlines of wars and crises fade away and the short attention span of Governments and the media move on to other issues, what the value-based NGOs have said and done will linger in the consciences of us all. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/13may2003.htm Like the United Nations, the NGOs do not represent the national interest of any one country or group of countries, however powerful, rich, or indispensable they may consider themselves to be. They represent the collective, non-sectarian global interests of the peoples of the world, which is more, much more, than the sum total of the national interests of the nation states of the world. That cannot please the jingoists and the proponents of civilizational supremacy. Civil society challenges the monopoly claim of governments – especially the unelected and undemocratic ones – to be the sole interpreters of the national interests of their people. NGOs support the transcendental values of global society. They represent civil society and express global public opinion, which both Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the New York Times have described as the other super-power. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/13may2003.htm Let me use this platform to urge once again for the NGOs in the disarmament field the same rights and privileges that are extended, for example, to those in the human rights field. This includes participation in debates and full access to delegations and documents. The voice of NGOs must be heard in all disarmament fora however inconvenient and awkward it may be to some governments. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/13may2003.htm How appropriate it is that here in Geneva – once home to Jean-Jacques Rousseau – we would be reaffirming the role of civil society in promoting collective interests. He would have recognized the 1995 package – if not the NPT itself – as a form of "social contract" intended to serve the general will – something far more than just the sum of the particular wills of the members of international society. He would have appreciated Secretary-General Kofi Annan's repeated references to civil society as "the new superpower" – for even as the power of states continues to grow, so too do the underlying forces of popular sovereignty that provide the foundation for all political authority. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/29april2003.htm It is an historical fact that the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference reaffirmed that "the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons." I believe that an informed, united, and determined public offers the only absolute guarantee of actually achieving this goal. Where does the future of the NPT lie? It lies most of all in the support it enjoys among the people and its leaders.

http://disarmament.un.org/speech/29april2003.htm Needed perhaps most of all is progress in constructing an institutional infrastructure of a “disarmament complex,” a network of individuals, groups, and institutions focused on the promotion and achievement of weapons reduction and elimination objectives. This will require strong support from civil society. Progress is needed, in short, above, within, and below the level of national governments. Popular support is the stable foundation upon which all sustainable disarmament policies must lie. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/massachusetts.htm … disarmament will become sustainable as a process and as a policy when it is institutionalized at the state and international level, when people are given the facts, when leaders are held accountable, and when technology is dedicated to the cause of peace. We must ensure that people everywhere understand the enormous benefits of disarmament – its value to human security, its potential for the more efficient and effective use of economic resources to meet compelling human needs, while protecting the environment in the process of addressing those needs. Now more than ever, we must redouble our efforts to restore, reinforce, and sustain indefinitely basic global norms relating to disarmament and the peaceful settlement of disputes. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/Hague_13May.htm Finally, I would like to urge all who care about disarmament and nonproliferation – the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in particular – to hold firm on global standards. Spread the word about the many benefits for all countries from accomplishing these goals. And oppose proposals that would only spread the diseases that the regime is designed to prevent. The building of societal resistance to nuclear weapons will be, in the final analysis, the ultimate bulwark protecting the world from nuclear anarchy. http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Periodicals/Bulletin/Bull414/article2.pdf NUCLEAR WEAPONS … the nuclear weapon by virtue of its massive lethality, like other weapons of mass destruction, is, in my personal view, totally illegitimate and immoral. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/16apr2002.htm The truth is, of course, that these weapons leave a horrible, lasting legacy even if they are not used. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/31Aug2000.htm Because of its urgency and complexity, the challenge of global nuclear disarmament demands immediate attention. It cannot be consigned to the never-never land of “ultimate goals.” Nor can it be conditioned by the prior achievement of general and complete disarmament, a linkage that fails to acknowledge any strategic – let alone moral – distinction between a nuclear warhead and an AK-47. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/undc2000.htm Is it realistic to assume that such [nuclear] weapons can be safely managed and will promote stability? Such a claim is not easily defended in the face of the hundreds of mishaps and near catastrophes in handling nuclear weapons during the last half century. And just as "good luck" is an unacceptable basis for world order, nor will it suffice to protect domestic societies against the growing risks of nuclear terrorism. In

the face of such harsh realities, it is apparent that it is not nuclear weapons – but opposition to such weapons – that is a growing fact of international life. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/19Feb1999.htm THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY If the States parties are ever going to exorcise the ghost of "nuclear apartheid" from this treaty, this can only be achieved through the full implementation of the 1995 package and the nuclear disarmament commitments made at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. This will also require some substantial progress in establishing highly-credible and legally-binding security assurances. The road ahead for this treaty will be influenced greatly by the road behind. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/29april2003.htm The NPT is of course much more than just a "non-proliferation" treaty. It also obligates all its parties to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament, a duty unanimously reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in its historic advisory opinion of 1996. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/29april2003.htm The house of the NPT will survive and prosper only if it ceases to be a theatre for playing out an "upstairs/downstairs" drama. A decent respect for the opinions of humanity requires a somewhat fairer standard of public accountability – something that might pass for "good governance" in the implementation of one of the world's most indispensable treaties. The tools are there to achieve this goal – the challenge is to ensure that they are used. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/14july2002.htm The full promise of the NPT, however, will be achieved only if the promises of its parties are fully kept. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/29oct2001.htm The NPT … stands today at a crossroads. One road leads in the direction of nuclear weapons proliferation. This is the direction that has been chosen by two non-NPT states in South Asia that have tested nuclear explosive devices, one non-NPT state in the Middle East that is widely believed to possess a nuclear weapons capability, and the five nuclear-weapon States. … The other road leads to disarmament. There is no middle path of partial nuclear disarmament – a world in which some countries will perpetually retain some nuclear weapons at lower levels, while other countries must forever give up that option. That route intersects back with the road to a nuclear world, for if there is partial nuclear disarmament for some, there will be partial nuclear disarmament for all. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/6Nov1998.htm TREATIES AND THE RULE OF LAW Treaties can say many significant things, but if there is no political will to implement them – or to defend them when they are challenged by contradictory policies – they risk becoming mere ornamental offerings to dead or dying concepts, ready to be cast aside by the course of events. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/29april2003.htm

… the global nuclear regime is but one branch of a wider universe of norms that together is known as the "rule of law." The fundamental legal norm of pacta sunt servanda is particularly vital in the field of disarmament, given that states will not readily relinquish devastating weapons that may reappear in their neighbour's arsenals after a simple change of national policy. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/14july2002.htm In either context – domestic or international – when members of a society choose to place their relations within a system of laws and rules, they do so because they understand that the alternative of order based upon superior force is dangerous and – as history has so often and tragically demonstrated – unsustainable. This preference for legal orders as an alternative to the twin evils of unbridled anarchy or World Empire is probably grounded in basic human nature. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, "… there must be a higher law than that of destruction. Only under that law would a well-ordered society be intelligible and life worth living." http://disarmament.un.org/speech/09may2002.htm I have spent the greater part of my professional career in disarmament. Coming from a region and a culture deeply imbued with the non-violent ideals of the Buddha and Mahathma Gandhi, I have watched with anguish increasing levels of violence in my own country and the advent of the nuclear weapon in my own region. I was once described, by a well-intentioned colleague, as a maximalist. I make no apologies for being that. I cannot be otherwise when it comes to nuclear weapons. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/16apr2002.htm The task for national leaders and diplomats, therefore, is to use all available national and international resources to weave these ideals and self interests into a program of action for the future benefit of the world community. The task for international organizations is to assist this process along, by providing forums for debate and negotiation, by mobilizing public opinion, and by subjecting the process of disarmament to constant review and assessment. And the task of international law is to register the new consensus into permanent form and to provide the juridical basis both for enforcement and for peaceful change. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/19Feb1999.htm GENDER AND DISARMAMENT What women do is extremely important in the field of international peace and security, and their efforts will in particular have tremendous effects on the future of some of the world's most deadly weaponry. Women vote, they organize, they network even across national borders, they donate, they investigate, they publish, they win elections and they write laws. In short, they have the capacity to do all that is needed to convert the goals of disarmament and arms control into concrete realities. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/08nov2002.htm … what office or department of the United Nations does not stand to gain by progress in gender equality or disarmament? When women move forward, and when disarmament moves forward, the world moves forward. Unfortunately, the same applies in reverse: setbacks in these areas impose costs for all. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/08nov2002.htm

Shortly before she died, Nobel Peace Laureate Emily Greene Balch wrote a poem she addressed to the "Dear People of China." The last stanza read as follows:

Let us be patient with one another, And even patient with ourselves. We have a long, long way to go. So let us hasten along the road, The road of human tenderness and generosity. Groping, we may find one another's hands in the dark.

Today I would like to re-address this message to you and all who understand that genuine human security will not be achieved at the point of a gun. Let us continue our journey together. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/08nov2002.htm We seek as much to integrate gender perspectives into the global process of disarmament as we seek to integrate disarmament into contemporary efforts on behalf of gender equality. Viewed in a broader perspective, our common cause is to mainstream both gender and disarmament – to serve all the peoples of the United Nations. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/14mar2001.htm CONVENTIONAL AND SMALL ARMS A strong civil society – this newly-awakening superpower with a conscience – will play a crucial role in ensuring the full sustainability of long-term governmental and inter-governmental efforts to curb small arms threats. With civil society, governments, and strong support at the international level – and with a clear blueprint for action that is both firm and susceptible to improvements – there is every reason to hope for brighter days ahead in fulfilling the UN Charter's promise of leaving succeeding generations a world free from the scourge of war, and the proliferation of the tools of war. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/20mar2002.htm My theme today is thus very simple and brief – the world community's ability to succeed in solving the chronic problems associated with the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, and the excess production or stockpiling of such arms, requires in effect a "revolution in arms control affairs." Just as the revolution in military affairs has carefully avoided focusing exclusively on weapons, so too must participants in the revolution in arms control affairs devote greater attention to improving coordination, communication, and technical cooperation between the many diverse entities that are working for peace not through the perfection or accumulation of weapons – but by strengthening controls over some weapons (like small arms) or the working for the total elimination of others (namely, weapons of mass destruction). These are the truly revolutionary challenges all of us face who work in this difficult field. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/18mar2002.htm An international community willing to try out new approaches to involve civil societies in promoting societal resistance to violence has provided generous assistance in implementing an innovative experiment. The underlying message of the experiment is simple. Give a community a better chance for development and it would be willing to discard weapons. Raise a community's stakes in peace and it would be more determined to shun violence.http://disarmament.un.org/speech/17Sept99.htm

I believe that, as a strategic sector of the global economy, the arms manufacturing industry is in an excellent position to assist the UN in promoting greater transparency and in curbing wrongful uses of weapons acquired to serve legitimate national security needs. I use this forum today, therefore, to call upon this industrial sector to join us in pursuing these important tasks – working together, we can all the better serve the fundamental principles of international peace and security that remain at the heart of the Charter. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/ebert.htm There cannot be a more reassuring guarantee to control the arms trade than through voluntarily assumed commitments by affected governments to ban their import, export and manufacture. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/01apr1998.htm Available in abundance, cheap to buy, requiring little training to use, small arms have become the weapons of choice for the present day conflicts fought mostly in the streets and back lanes by irregular troops in violation of accepted standards of humanitarian law. Over 90% of the victims of the use of small arms are civilians with women and children accounting for 80% of the casualties. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/01apr1998.htm THE DISARMAMENT FELLOWS I am sure that the knowledge and expertise gained during the United Nations Fellowship Programme – in the company of representatives from different countries – will motivate you even more to pursue the collective goals of arms limitation and disarmament and will allow you to meet new challenges with determination and perseverance. I am sure that the web of friendships forged during your joint studies – the true "worldwide web" of disarmament – as well as your many discussions and interesting travels will advance your future work in this field and in other multilateral fora. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/31oct2001a.htm THE MIDDLE EAST The sooner the world community can verify Iraq's compliance with its disarmament and other obligations under these resolutions, the sooner efforts can proceed to implement another goal found in those resolutions – the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, a goal that all states of the region have explicitly or implicitly endorsed. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/30sept2002.htm … amid new daily horrors from the Middle East, it is timely to recall that the future of the NPT will in many ways depend upon the fate of the Middle East resolution agreed at the last NPT Review Conference, in particular with respect to efforts to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in that troubled region. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/09apr2002.htm Yet the creation of new zones simply cannot await any new shocks on this order of magnitude. Must a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, South Asia, Europe or East Asia await a tragic nuclear accident or nuclear attack? The shock therapy of actual nuclear detonations is not what is needed. Terror, death, and

environmental catastrophes are not the path to achieve freedom from fear. The creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones is preventive action. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/2Sept2000.htm THE ENVIRONMENT The easiest way for countries to manage the costs of disarming themselves of weapons of mass destruction is simply not to acquire such weapons in the first place. It is high time that due credit is given to the enormous savings that countries have reaped from what might be called the "non-armament dividend" – that is, the savings in human, environmental, and financial resources from not having pursued weapons of mass destruction. Fortunately, most countries have not only chosen this path to their national security, but have registered such commitments in terms that are binding under international law. And despite many rumors to the contrary that are exploited for familiar purposes – a few of which are admittedly true – the overwhelming majority is in full compliance with those obligations. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/9Dec99.htm Problems also arise when the economic and environmental costs of disarmament become convenient excuses not to disarm. And even more problems arise when these costs are examined in isolation of the costs of getting into a war involving the use of those weapons. The environmental consequences of disarmament must, therefore, be assessed not in isolation but relative to the alternatives, including the alternative of catastrophic events that may arise from the failure to disarm. There are always costs to measure from actions, but there are also costs to measure from inaction. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/9Dec99.htm The task of harmonizing disarmament and environmental goals will require extensive interdisciplinary co-operation both inside countries and between them. To the extent that the UN can become a "centre for harmonizing the actions of nations" in the attainment their common ends – an official purpose of the organization found in the Charter – the United Nations will have its part to play in the new millennium, particularly with respect to the disarmament and the environment. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/9Dec99.htm OTHER THEMES The central challenge of our time is not to achieve the end of the nation state, but to rehabilitate the ends of the nation state. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/07apr2001.htm No review of nuclear disarmament – or the meaning of the NPT pledge – would be complete without mention of the special roles played by the legislatures in this process. The parliaments of the world are the bridges between government and civil society. They provide the funds to pay for national initiatives. Through their deliberations, they help to shape policy, and through their investigative and oversight powers they build public accountability. They provide a bulwark to ensure that governments comply with their international commitments and pledges – a role that at times requires the enactment of domestic legislation. These functions are absolutely vital to the future of nuclear disarmament. They help to give disarmament not only vision, but also some backbone, muscle, and teeth. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/uk_commons_speech.htm

… technology should best be seen not as the culprit but a constructive partner. We have heard too much about the proverbial “revolution in military affairs” involving all kinds of advancements in modern weaponry, and not enough about a “revolution in disarmament affairs.” Let us focus more on what benefits technology can bring – through the use of satellites, computers, and advanced telecommunication capabilities – in expediting global nuclear disarmament, rather than in perfecting the technology of death and destruction. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/12Jan2000.htm It was Gandhi who once said that "the personality of a man changes when he acquires a weapon." I think it is similarly true that the character of a people changes when it learns to solve its most fundamental problems without the resort to threats or the use of apocalyptic weapons. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/30Sept1999.htm Though norm-building is a common goal of all of these proposals, so must be the goals of norm-maintenance, norm-fulfillment, and norm-enforcement. If it is truly one of our collective goals to take the profits out of proliferation – another requirement of sustainable disarmament – then surely the illicit suppliers must face some credible disincentives for engaging in such activities. Whether the world community will ever be able to work out a system of multilateral sanctions against such suppliers is a difficult diplomatic and political challenge, but one that I hope will receive the attention it deserves. http://disarmament.un.org/speech/12oct1998.htm

6 Asia’s Turn: Why Sri Lanka? Asia is the most populous continent with 60% of the world’s population, 30% of global land mass and 25% of global economic output. It is a continent which is rich in human resources and it is home to expanding economic powerhouses. However, since the inception of the United Nations in 1945, Asia has had only one opportunity of holding the position of Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is accordingly the collective view of the Asian member States of the United Nations that the well-established convention of regional rotation should be observed and that the continent of Asia should offer the next Secretary-General after a lapse of 35 years. The Group of Asian States at the United Nations in New York unanimously decided to uphold this principle and has conveyed this position to the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Agreement was also reached at the Ministerial Meeting of the Asian-African Conference held in Jakarta in April 2005 that the next Secretary-General should be from Asia. SRI LANKA – A REPUTATION OF ADOPTING MODERATE STANCES IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Democracy began to take root in Sri Lanka over a century ago, with the rudimentary mechanisms of participatory democracy being put in place long before the British left Sri Lanka’s shores. An epoch making event occurred in 1931 when the people of Sri Lanka received universal adult franchise. Since independence, Sri Lanka, a practising democracy has been following a policy of developing friendly and cordial relations with all States irrespective of political and socio-economic structures. As a result, Sri Lanka enjoys excellent relations with all countries, and has a reputation of adopting moderate stances in international affairs. As a founder member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 1961, Sri Lanka has, whilst upholding the fundamental NAM principles, sought to infuse into the NAM process a sense of moderation and balance, especially in the economic context. In 1976, Sri Lanka hosted the NAM Summit in Colombo. Sri Lanka continues to be an active NAM member supporting and facilitating an effective NAM-G77 negotiating platform based on common interests and current global realities. Sri Lanka has also been an active member of the Commonwealth since its inception and has been playing a constructive and dynamic role in its multi-disciplinary activities. At the regional level, Sri Lanka has attached the greatest importance to strengthening relations with her neighbours and in playing a lead role in fostering greater regional cooperation through SAARC. Within the SAARC forum, Sri Lanka has played an important role in urging greater momentum, particularly in enhancing economic cooperation, combating terrorism, and in facilitating greater people-to-people contact within the region. Sri Lanka has also played an instrumental role in urging SAARC’s stronger bonding with other regional groups like ASEAN and the EU.

Sri Lanka remains actively engaged in the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC) and in the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). In the context of the UN, Sri Lanka, since becoming a member of the Organization in 1955, has played an active role in translating the ideals of the UN into practical inter-governmental policy. Sri Lanka has played a proactive role in combating terrorism and the recruitment of child soldiers. Sri Lanka has also contributed to consensus building in areas ranging from the Law of the Sea, to disarmament and human rights. It is in this same spirit of contributing to international consensus building that the Sri Lankan government has nominated Sri Lanka’s eminent diplomat of international repute, Jayantha Dhanapala, as a nominee for the post of UN Secretary-General.

7 The Role of the UN Secretary-General Equal parts diplomat and advocate, civil servant and CEO, the Secretary-General is a symbol of United Nations ideals and a spokesman for the interests of the world's peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them. The current Secretary-General, and the seventh occupant of the post, is Mr. Kofi A. Annan of Ghana, who took office on 1 January 1997.

The Charter describes the Secretary-General as "chief administrative officer" of the Organization, who shall act in that capacity and perform "such other functions as are entrusted" to him or her by the Security Council, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and other United Nations organs. The Charter also empowers the Secretary-General to "bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security". These guidelines both define the powers of the office and grant it considerable scope for action. The Secretary-General would fail if he did not take careful account of the concerns of Member States, but he must also uphold the values and moral authority of the United Nations, and speak and act for peace, even at the risk, from time to time, of challenging or disagreeing with those same Member States.

That creative tension accompanies the Secretary-General through day-to-day work that includes attendance at sessions of United Nations bodies; consultations with world leaders, government officials, and others; and worldwide travel intended to keep him in touch with the peoples of the Organization's Member States and informed about the vast array of issues of international concern that are on the Organization's agenda. Each year, the Secretary-General issues a report on the work of the United Nations that appraises its activities and outlines future priorities. The Secretary-General is also Chairman of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), which brings together the Executive Heads of all UN funds, programmes and specialized agencies twice a year in order to further coordination and cooperation in the entire range of substantive and management issues facing the United Nations System.

One of the most vital roles played by the Secretary-General is the use of his "good offices" -- steps taken publicly and in private, drawing upon his independence, impartiality and integrity, to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating or spreading. Since becoming Secretary-General, Mr. Annan has made use of his good offices in a range of situations, including Cyprus, East Timor, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria and Western Sahara.

Each Secretary-General also defines his role within the context of his particular time in office. Mr. Annan's efforts have focused on:

REFORM

Shortly after taking office, the Secretary-General presented a sweeping reform package aimed at helping the United Nations to change with the times and adapt to a new era of global affairs. Reform measures falling under the authority of the Secretary-General have been largely implemented or set in motion; they have been administrative -- such as a zero-growth budget and rigorous efforts to upgrade management practices -- as well as organizational, with the emphasis on enabling the Organization to respond more effectively to the growing demands placed on it,

particularly in the areas of development and peacekeeping. A new post of Deputy Secretary-General was created to assist the Secretary-General in the array of

responsibilities assigned to his office; the first holder of this position is Louise FrÈchette, who was Canada's Deputy Minister of National Defence before her appointment in 1998. The General Assembly, meanwhile, continues to consider several key questions of institutional change that fall under its authority, including the size and composition of the Security Council, methods of financing the organization and bringing greater coherence to the wider UN system of specialized agencies.

AFRICA

The Secretary-General has sought to maintain a focus on Africa and to mobilize international support for Africa's efforts to chart a path to peace and higher levels of development. His approach is encapsulated in a report issued in April 1998, "The causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa", which contains a comprehensive set of "realistic and achievable" measures designed to reduce political tensions and violence within and between African states, and to address such key questions of development as debt, governance and the spread of diseases such as AIDS.

PEACE OPERATIONS

The 1990s saw an upsurge in United Nations peacekeeping and peacemaking activities and dramatic changes in the nature of conflict itself -- primarily a decline in inter-state conflict and a rise in the frequency and brutality of conflicts within states. Difficult experiences in responding to these complex humanitarian emergencies have led the Secretary-General to place great emphasis on ensuring that the United Nations, when asked to undertake a peace operation, is fully equipped to do so -- militarily, financially, and politically. In addition to measures contained in the reform plan, three key reports have contributed to this effort. The first, requested by the General Assembly and submitted by the Secretary-General in November 1999, was a report of the Secretary-General that examined the atrocities committed against the Bosnian Muslim population in July 1995 in the United Nations-designated "safe area" of Srebrenica. The second, commissioned by the Secretary-General and released in December 1999, was an independent inquiry led by Mr. Ingvar Carlsson (the former Prime Minister of Sweden) into the actions of the United Nations during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The third, released in August 2000, was a comprehensive review of United Nations peace and security activities by a high-level panel appointed by the Secretary-General and chaired by Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi (former Foreign Minister of Algeria). This third report, intended to draw conclusions for the future from the other two, contains wide-ranging recommendations for the United Nations Secretariat and the Member States, particularly those serving on the Security Council. The Secretary-General has begun implementing those which fall within his purview, while others need the approval and support of the legislative bodies of the United Nations.

GLOBAL COMPACT

In January 1999 [at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland], the Secretary-General proposed a "Global Compact" between the United Nations and the world business community. The Compact is aimed at enabling all the world's people to share the benefits of globalization and embedding the global market in values and practices that are fundamental to meeting socio-economic needs. The

Compact is based on nine key principles drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labour Organization fundamental principles on rights at work, and the Rio Principles on environment and development, which enjoy universal consensus among the world's governments. The Secretary-General has asked private sector enterprises to embrace these principles and translate them into corporate practice. He is also encouraging leaders of labour and civil society organizations to participate in the Compact and use it as a forum for dialogue on various contentious issues linked to globalization and development. The first meeting attended by leaders from all three sectors was held in July 2000.

MILLENNIUM REPORT

In April 2000, in preparation for the September 2000 Millennium Summit, the largest-ever gathering of heads of State or Government, the Secretary-General issued his Millennium Report, entitled "We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century". The report is the most comprehensive presentation of the UN's mission in its 55-year history, and calls on Member States to commit themselves to an action plan for ending poverty and inequality, improving education, reducing HIV/AIDS, safeguarding the environment and protecting peoples from deadly conflict and violence. Central to the Secretary-General's proposals is the view that globalization is a powerful force offering both opportunities and challenges for nations and people, and must be made to work for all people. The Secretary-General also strongly embraces new information technology and sees a major role for it in fighting poverty, promoting human development and improving United Nations operations. He also proposes an ambitious series of changes for the United Nations itself.

PREVIOUS SECRETARY GENERALS

Under the Charter, the Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. Mr. Annan's predecessors as Secretary-General were: Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), who held office from January 1992 to December 1996; Javier PÈrez de CuÈllar (Peru), who served from January 1982 to December 1991; Kurt Waldheim (Austria), who held office from January 1972 to December 1981; U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), who served from November 1961, when he was appointed acting Secretary-General (he was formally appointed Secretary-General in November 1962) to December 1971; Dag Hammarskjold (Sweden), who served from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Africa in September 1961; and Trygve Lie (Norway), who held office from February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952. Maintained by the Department of Public Information © United Nations, 2000–2006 HOW IS THE SECRETARY GENERAL APPOINTED?

The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Security Council. The Secretary-General's selection is therefore subject to the veto of any of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Mr. Kofi Annan, the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, took office on 1 January 1997. His predecessors were:

o Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), who held office from January 1992 to December 1996;

o Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru), who served from January 1982 to December 1991;

o Kurt Waldheim (Austria), who held office from January 1972 to December 1981;

o U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), who served from November 1961, when he was appointed acting Secretary-General (he was formally appointed Secretary-General in November 1962) to December 1971;

o Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), who served from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Africa in September 1961; and

o Trygve Lie (Norway), who held office from February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952.

Although there is technically no limit to number of five-year terms a Secretary-General may serve, none so far has held office for more than two terms.