Director-General's remarks at the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the 1907 Hague Conference (en anglais seulement)

Mr. Secretary-General of the Academy
Excellencies
Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is a great pleasure to be with you to mark the 100th anniversary of the 1907 Hague Conference. It is a distinct privilege to join such eminent personalities and distinguished legal experts at the podium. Esteemed colleagues from the United Nations will speak to the historical trajectory leading from the Hague Conferences, via the League of Nations, to the present-day United Nations and the ideas that underpin our Organization.

For my part, I should like to touch on an area where there were high hopes that the Second Peace Conference would significantly advance international peace and security, but it was unable to do so: namely, a reduction in armaments. The 1907 Hague Conference may not have produced substantive arms control measures, but it nevertheless remains important as one of the first conferences on what we today call disarmament, and in this sense it laid down the ground rules for subsequent initiatives on arms limitation. In my capacity as Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament – the world’s only multilateral negotiating body dedicated to strategic disarmament and non-proliferation – I should like to share with you a few thoughts on this longer-term impact of the 1907 Hague Conference, and on the lessons that I believe we may apply in today’s disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.

The United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, has highlighted disarmament and non-proliferation as essential dimensions of the maintenance of international peace and security, and he has placed emphasis on the connection between disarmament and development. He has done so against a background of rising global military spending and decreasing development aid. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, world military expenditure reached 1.2 trillion US dollars in 2006. The same year – as calculated by the United Nations – developed countries spent only 103 billion US dollars on official overseas development assistance. Global military expenditure has gone up – in real terms – by 37% over the past ten years. Official overseas development assistance – by comparison – declined by 1.8% from 2005 to 2006. Both trends are likely to continue, unless addressed more resolutely.

Apart from a vague declaration to the effect that it was “eminently desirable that the Governments should resume the serious examination” of the issue of limitation of arms expenditure, references to specific arms control measures were most conspicuous by their absence in the Final Act of the 1907 Hague Conference. Paradoxically, maybe, but this is not all too different from the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit, where the Member States of the United Nations could not agree to devote a single sentence to disarmament and non-proliferation. What compounds this paradox is that both events took place in a context of growing military spending. Similarly, both meetings were set at a historical juncture of intensifying interaction among the nations of the world. Already in 1899, Baron de Staal – a fellow countryman of mine – who presided over the First Hague Peace Conference stressed that:

“The ties, which bind the various branches of the great human family, are ever drawing them closer to each other. If a nation wished to remain isolated, it could not. […] The effects of an international conflict in any quarter of the globe echo far and wide in every direction. These truths are not new, but they claim our attention more than ever at the present time”.

These words may just as well have been spoken today in our age of globalization.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

As we debate the topicality of the Second Hague Conference – and without over-emphasizing the parallels between the geopolitical realities then and now – what lessons can we draw for our continued disarmament and non-proliferation efforts?

First, we must recognize that despite their uncontested benefits, disarmament and non-proliferation remain highly sensitive issues, and closely connected with individual countries’ wider security agendas and priorities. We must be realistic about what can be achieved, and pursue a pragmatic approach that balances carefully the legitimate, but differing – and sometimes maybe even conflicting – interests of States.

Second, despite the difficulties and the – at times – limited progress, we must persevere, and not allow disarmament and non-proliferation to become detached from wider peace, security and development efforts. We must pursue a long-term strategy. Building on the principles and norms agreed to at The Hague in 1907, countries have later put in place significant arms control and disarmament measures, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention – to mention only a few developments in the weapons of mass destruction area. It is instructive to note that the word “disarmament” itself was not used in 1907 – and not even specified in the United Nations Charter from 1945 – but has entered and become entrenched in our peace and security vocabulary since then. Progress may have been slower, more acrimonious and more restricted than could have been wished for, but these instruments all represent incremental steps forward.

Third, disarmament and non-proliferation undertaken in multilateral frameworks is more credible and more effective. The 1907 Hague Conference stood out because of its relatively comprehensive participation of 44 countries, including representatives from South America and Asia. And while these States did not agree on concrete arms limitation initiatives, they did commit to the importance of pursuing arms control.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In 1907, the leaders of the day drew the conclusion from the Second Peace Conference that multilateral forums could not generate reliable and realistic arms control measures, and that in their absence, enhancing existing armaments were the only option. US President Theodore Roosevelt, who had in the first instance proposed the Second Hague Conference and had strongly supported the inclusion of arms limitation items, summarized in his State of the Union address in December of 1907 this prevailing sentiment following the conclusion of the conference:

“It is evident, therefore, that it is folly for this Nation to base any hope of securing peace on any international agreement as to the limitations of armaments. Such being the fact it would be most unwise for us to stop the upbuilding of our Navy”.

President Roosevelt was not alone in his disillusionment and his subsequent policy prescriptions. The result of this continuing, collective arms build-up – fed by, and in turn, exacerbating deep-seated political tensions – helped to lead the world further down the path towards the First World War.

Our shared challenge today is to confront the negative trends in the global security environment as a result of the ongoing stalemate in multilateral and bilateral disarmament and non-proliferation efforts, so as to not allow us to follow down that same path. We must continue our work based on a multilateral approach, with persistence and patience, with a long-term perspective, and in pursuit of a balanced agenda that takes into consideration the legitimate security concerns of all countries. Individually and collectively, States must show leadership to bring disarmament and non-proliferation into the international spotlight. I hope that this – together with an ever-more refined international legal and institutional framework – will be yet another part of the legacy of The Hague conferences. The disarmament challenge is as urgent today as it was then – and just as in 1907, it requires a robust response.

Let us rise to that challenge.

Thank you.