Bulgaria

May I first congratulate you, Mr. President, on your election to this responsible position. I am sure that your vast knowledge and experience are a guarantee of the success of this session. I avail myself of this opportunity to express my most sincere congratulations also to the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for his contribution to strengthening the role of the United Nations in line with the challenges of the modern world. I am going to spare the Assembly the review of this year's international developments that it probably anticipated, because I come from a region that has generated enough bad news and is still the focus of world attention. Some of the developments in our region were not the result of human will. The earthquakes in Turkey and Greece, which claimed tens of thousands of victims, shook the world. Regrettably, man-made disasters have taken a high toll on our region. The war in Kosovo, the fourth in a row in the former Yugoslavia, has left in its wake a comparable trail of tragedies. Now that the war is over, there are two things we must do: as soon as possible, repair the damage and alleviate the trauma it has inflicted, and build an infrastructure of security and prosperity that precludes any future repetition of such tragic events. The international community has in the past set itself similar ambitious tasks. This time, I hope, the experience it has gained has reached the critical mass needed for the achievement of lasting peace settlements in conflict areas. The consequences of the Kosovo crisis have spilled over the borders of the region. That is why I find it worthwhile to share with the Assembly some conclusions about what was, hopefully, the last war in the Balkans. With the adoption of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), the world community has endorsed the political end of the system established by the cold war. That resolution reflected the new international status quo and the understanding that has grown during the past 10 years of the importance of individual security. Today, the rights and dignity of the human individual, civil freedoms and the international rule of law override even the sovereignty of States. This calls for a new responsibility on the part of the international community for their protection. The resolution also showed the commitment of Security Council members to international stability. Paradoxical as it may sound, the Kosovo crisis has served as a catalyst of post-bipolar relations and of a new type of political dialogue among States. Significantly, for the first time since the Second World War, four permanent Security Council members are participating in one force — KFOR. Furthermore, they have been involved in peacekeeping operations — something that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. The Kosovo crisis has also highlighted the need for change within the United Nations system itself. For example, the world Organization is in serious need of a mechanism for compensating neighbouring States for damage caused by international intervention or sanctions. I raise this issue not only because of the losses sustained by my country during the past eight years from the embargo against Iraq and because of the military conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, but also because this will increase the efficiency and boost the image of the United Nations. It will certainly improve the credibility of United Nations-led operations and provide better motivation for individual countries to participate. On the other hand, the crisis in Kosovo promoted a new type of relations among international organizations in respect of the protection of human rights. As a result of the crisis, a new kind of interface has been born between the United Nations and the regional organizations in Europe, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union and regional initiatives such as the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe. This has strengthened the role of the United Nations on that continent. Today, the Balkan people expect the international community to show the same commitment to the future of the region as it did during the crisis. Threats to peace and security should cease to be the only international mobilizing factor, and we must act towards this end. I am convinced that the developments in the former Yugoslavia have not been due to some peculiar Balkan mentality or to any historic predestination. Half a century ago, Western Europe was embroiled in wars that were no less bloody. The difference is that after the Second World War the nations of Western Europe were rescued at the same time from fascism and communism. This helped them attain a democratic and economic homogeneity that, in turn, enabled victors and vanquished alike to set aside their differences and build their present prosperity while respecting human rights and protecting their national identity. Unfortunately, a different lot fell to the countries of South-Eastern Europe after the Second World War. States like Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, preserved and built up their potential for liberal-democratic development and a free market, and the rest of the States in the region were forced to become a part of the Soviet communist system. Today, 10 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Balkans still lack democratic homogeneity. This has been a source of tensions, which, translated into ethnic hatred, are the favoured tool of any totalitarian regime attempting to cling to power. But I am sure it is wrong to apply a common denominator to the whole region. Today Bulgaria, as well as most of the Balkan States, is a country with a working democracy, a free market economy and the rule of law. An earlier democratic homogenization of South- Eastern Europe can be achieved only if the vision for our countries' integration with the rest of the European States is shared by both the Balkan nations and the people of Western Europe. Efforts and perseverance to this end are the safest guarantee for converting the whole of Europe into a continent of peace, stability and prosperity. This common European vision fully applies to the future Yugoslavia. There is hardly any country that has a higher stake in Yugoslavia's earliest possible integration in the family of democratic Balkan States than Bulgaria. I cannot but share here the concern of the world community at the continuing ethnic tensions in Kosovo, which distance us from the desired state of peace and ethnic tolerance. Six months ago I firmly supported NATO's operation, designed to end ethnic violence against the Albanian population in Kosovo. Today, just as firmly, I oppose ethnic violence against the Serb population in that province. The Balkans have paid a high price for peace in Kosovo. Today the region needs direct assistance for its reconstruction. The priority beneficiaries should clearly be 2 the hardest-hit countries and areas. Nonetheless, rather than discussing figures and reparations, I believe it would be more productive for both the Balkans and the world to adopt a clear vision for the future of South-Eastern Europe. This future has no alternative but the transformation of the Balkans into an integral part of a united Europe of the next century. The General Assembly is the right forum to discuss the issue of how this can be done. The path leads through the direct rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Balkans — the best form of assistance for our region being “help for self-help”. The Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe can provide the necessary framework. We are convinced that the economic prosperity of the region is a vital condition for achieving political stability. We need infrastructure and strategic investment that generate and guarantee more security than any political dialogue. We need the promotion of trade and a maximum involvement of the economic potential of our countries in the reconstruction effort. This will encourage them to cooperate with each other, while opening up the region and transforming it into a natural, organic part of Europe, rather than isolating it. The crisis in Kosovo will be long over before its effects, such as the blockage of the Danube to shipping, have been eliminated. The international waterway should not become a new line of conflict; we should help it play its natural role of a link rather than allow it to act as a dividing line across Europe. The issue I am raising at this point concerns both the economic damage that has been caused and the very principles of the European architecture since the end of the crisis in Kosovo. The location of the Balkans at a crossroads has been a curse for its people in the past; in today's globalized world, it is our greatest blessing. The Balkans should serve as a link between Western Europe and Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea. It is one of the most promising regions for the coming century. A case in point is the restoration of the historic silk road, which crosses the whole of Asia and links it to Europe. Restoration will entail huge infrastructure projects and investment which in turn could improve the quality of life of whole nations and regions. The Balkan nations have already demonstrated a willingness to adopt a new approach in their relations with one another. The various forms of aid which neighbouring States generously offered each other in response to the recent natural disasters were a positive new sign. Another significant fact is the formation of the multinational peace force for South-Eastern Europe, staffed jointly by countries that were enemies earlier this century, including during the cold war. It is an honour for my country that the first headquarters of that force is based in Bulgaria. I cannot fail to mention here the success of the trilateral initiatives between Bulgaria, Romania and Greece and between Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey for cooperation in combating organized crime and illegal drugs and arms trafficking. The Kosovo crisis calls for a contemporary rereading of the chronicles of the Balkan wars by all the Balkan peoples: the modern perspective will reveal to them that those wars have done no country in the region any good. The new task facing the political elite is to translate these lessons of history into a lasting commitment to peace and cooperation. Having paid such a high price in suffering and fear, it would be a pity if we failed to learn from our experience. In conclusion, I reiterate my country's willingness to cooperate with and contribute actively to the joint efforts of all Member States to streamline the United Nations, an Organization with a key role in maintaining international peace and security and achieving the objectives of sustainable development in the coming century.