- Mr President, like some earlier speakers I too want to set aside my prepared text. It is self-evident from every contribution that we all feel that the Rwandan process and crisis is a blight on the conscience of the international community and on our conscience as players within that context.

Having listened to all of this debate, the question that still haunts me is why no real weight was applied at times when it would have made a difference. Why was no real international weight applied to stop the massacres? Why was no real weight applied to stop the destruction and the destitution as they unfolded? I recall that in late April or early May the most powerful images of shame witnessed from the early stages of this crises were when young troops wearing UN blue hats took them off in disgust and put their knives to them and tore them in shame. The shame was not the shame of the troops. The shame was that of those who had sent them with an inadequate mandate to perform the task they would have been willing to try to perform, had they had the capacity and the mandate to do so. Why was no real weight applied at that stage?

I welcome what the Commissioner said today and many colleagues have spoken about the necessity at this stage to try to put some justice retrospectively into this situation by going after war criminals. But if I heard that today and if I applaud it today, why do I also read today in the British Independent newspaper the following account: "In May of this year while organized massacres were still going on, the United Nations Commission for Human Rights, which had appointed a special rapporteur to investigate evidence of genocide and crimes against humanity in Rwanda, called for six investigators. By the end of July there was only one, by the end of last month only four. 127 monitors were promised to help, none have arrived". Why? why, if we have a decision and if we believe, as Mrs Dury said, that we should show a sense of solidarity with the agencies of the United Nations, can I hear that we are committed to this today and read today of the grave and gross failure in respect of something so specific on which

an international multilateral decision had already been made. Why, why, why? I still do not understand and, notwithstanding all I have heard, I cannot for myself reconcile how this Union or its Member States could be party to the United Nations and party to some of those decisions and not provide the minimal resources.

Before we go home tonight I want someone to explain why we failed to show even that minimal sense of solidarity.