The fundamentalprinciples of Luxembourg's policy towards the UN are largely determined by the geographical location of the country, situated as it is between two large neighbours who have historically often found themselves at loggerheads, especially so during the first half of the 20th century. This explains Luxembourg’s deep attachment to the European unification process since its birth in 1950 as the best guarantor of the security of the country’s immediate vicinity, and, more generally, its strong commitment to the UN and international law.
As is to be expected from a very small country, Luxembourg believes in the respect for the sovereign equality of all states, while at the same time being fully aware of inequalities in size and power. Greater size and power should not, however, engender more rights or, worse, arrogance in these countries, but rather a greater sense of responsibility. Adherence to all important international treaties is an important test by which such a sense of duty and responsibility may be evaluated. The same applies to the respect for the mission conferred upon the UN Security Council to safeguard world peace, especially when it comes to use of force under Chapter VII of the Charter.
These tenets mean that Luxembourg is a full participant in current efforts to reform the UN. Are the results achieved so far satisfactory? One could say that the reform process must be implemented on a continuous basis in order to adapt the UN constantly to new realities and new missions. This sentiment, however, should in no way be used as a pretext for sidestepping the system as it functions now.
Obviously the issue of permanent membership of the Security Council, one which has proved to be most intractable for the EU, will continue in one form or another. Luxembourg can see this from a rather neutral vantage point because it has never been a member and does not plan to become one.
Two EU members have permanent seats and several others aspire to permanent or semi-permanent membership, most of whom have been sitting in the Council in rotating positions and will continue to do so until the system changes. Would a single EU seat be an improvement? It would be a logical consequence of the European integration process and, more specifically, of a common foreign and security policy. It should therefore be fully approved in principle.
However, there are serious drawbacks. The first and most obvious is the consequent reduction of the number of votes at the EU’s disposal; instead of two or three there would be only one. This problem may have a straightforward solution : one single EU seat would be in the same league as those of the US, China and Russia, who all have only one vote, including the all-important veto power. The fundamental and much more difficult problem would be to determine how the occupant of this single EU seat would receive its instructions. In other words, a single EU seat would require as a precondition a common decision-making process which would ensure that in each case a substantive and binding position be reached. Such a process implies abandoning the cherished principle of unanimity and would oblige those states that might be party to a dispute to remain neutral. This principle might seem evident, but it is one that the EU has never had the courage to impose in its own internal operation. Hopefully the situation will change, but at present such change does not seem likely to occur in the foreseeable future.
The squabbles in the Security Council about Iraq in 2002-2003 are preferable to the inability of the EU to agree on any common position at all. Unsatisfactory as this may be, the Security Council remains the only body legally capable of imposing force under Chapter VII. Self-defence is always possible but should not be stretched too far. The necessary proportionality must in any case be safeguarded. Helmut Schmidt once said that those who talk constantly of war against this or that have absolutely no idea of what war is.
So-called "collateral damage" might sometimes be inevitable, but it should never be assumed so in anyone’s calculations. The deliberately targeting of civilian areas, whether by political, religious or ideological movements, is nothing other than terrorism. There is no justification for giving it a different name if it is committed by a state.
It is important for the EU to have at its disposal intervention forces which are well equipped and ready for action. These should be prudently deployed, without provoking unnecessary disputes with NATO, but also without the need for NATO approval. It is important to stick to the rules but equally the EU should not pander to the authority of other international organisations. The best protection for small countries is, and has always been, the respect for rules. This remains valid especially in times of crisis. There is no sense in a society fighting those who disregard the rule of law and the basic standards of humanity without adhering absolutely to those standards itself.
This is especially important in the field of human rights. Luxembourg thinks all countries ought to adhere to all recognised human rights conventions, apply them honestly and submit themselves to verification procedures.
The recent reform of the Human Rights Commission is certainly not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. One should not simply criticise the efforts of others, but should instead concentrate on trying to work within the system. Luxembourg was a member of the former Human Rights Commission and will probably in due time try to sit in the new body – even if that means working with countries which may not conform to our standards of human rights. The aim of promoting human rights all over the world will certainly be better served by a body fully representative of all sensibilities coexisting in the UN than by a "politically correct" institution.