Georgia

I have stood upon this platform on many occasions, and I well remember every speech I have given here since 1985. This is perhaps because, first, I cannot conceive of any loftier rostrum in the world and, secondly, because my personal political fate has always brought me here at times of great change. My most recent appearance before the General Assembly was in 1992, when I was already Head of State of my country, Georgia. That, too, was a moment filled with drama — one in which a new, independent State was going through a painful birth process. Today, I am with the Assembly at the end of a stormy century, one which I would call the century of freedom. That is not because freedom has become a universal norm of life — regrettably, that is not yet the case — but, rather, because the concept of freedom has assumed pre-eminence on the scale of political values and also because it was, indeed, in our century that the worst enemies of freedom and democracy were defeated. Perhaps the most unanticipated and important of these events was the demise of the Soviet empire, which 19 brought about the end of the cold war, the bipolar world and the post-war world order. The collapse of empires follows a more or less similar pattern. Initially, centrifugal forces triumph, but later phantom pains for the lost territories begin to be felt in the metropolis and attempts are made to recentralize the former imperial space. Yet historical experience demonstrates that designs to restore an empire inevitably remain the unfulfilled dream of imperial reactionaries. History cannot be turned back. However, in the arsenal of today’s reactionaries there remains still one chance to partially, if not completely, return to past ways — by maintaining spheres of influence over the territories of the former empire. Here I do not mean spheres of interest, including strategic interests. Harmonizing interests in a civilized way is a normal international practice. The concept of spheres of influence, however, particularly within the context of globalization, represents an anachronism. But let me return to the demise of the cold war and the bipolar world. As someone who happened to participate in this process, I think an explanation is in order since debate on how and why it all happened continues to this day. I do not deny that the reasons for the end of the cold war were many and complex. Yet I want to especially stress the role of the new thinking, which was conceived even before perestroika. I am certain that no drawn-out economic hardships, not even any “Star Wars project”, would have compelled the socialist camp to democratize within, or to take radical steps in the international arena to overcome the confrontation, if instead of Mikhail Gorbachev and his team, leaders who possessed the old mentality had remained at the helm of the Soviet ship of state. Since I have mentioned Mikhail Gorbachev, I must send to him, a man who is an outstanding figure of our time, condolences for the death of his spouse, Raisa Gorbachev. The new thinking of that period contained many elements, but we can generally describe it as a concept designed to make all spheres of political and public life more human. In international relations, this implied, first and foremost, replacing the class-based ideological approach with ethically motivated decisions, in line with universal values. Only due to this new approach were the countries of the Soviet space and Eastern Europe able to make their democratic choices with relatively little pain. Without the new thinking it would have been difficult to conceive of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan or that truly epochal event, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the subsequent reunification of Germany and the liberation of Eastern Europe. The old found it difficult to come to terms with the new. The two could not exist harmoniously together. Moreover, not everyone accepted the idea of replacing the class-based approach with the primacy of universal values. I remember that when I first expressed this concept to the Soviet diplomatic corps, it spawned aggressive clashes of opinion and upheaval across the entire Soviet space. But has not this always been the case? Historically, changes of this scale were always preceded by paradigm shifts in human thinking — that is, new thinking had to occur first. This was the case in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when a new world based on scientific thinking was emerging, and also in the epoch of the Enlightenment, during which the ideas of equality and humanism gave birth to the theory and practice of a democratic state. In the historical literature and memoirs dedicated to the end of the cold war, one often finds references to winners and losers. It is erroneous to frame this most complex event of global historical significance in such simplistic terms. For example, how can Russia be considered to have been “defeated” when it set forth the example to other peoples by creating its own independent State? One might ask the same about other States which belonged to the so-called socialist camp and today are independent democracies. Credit for the victory over the cold war equally belongs to the representatives of the former opposing camps who had in common the new thinking and a commitment to the noble idea of saving mankind from a nuclear nightmare. If we talk of any loser at all, it was the old, stagnant thinking which was defeated, and a new common sense prevailed. Shifts in thinking should occur at every stage of human development. The end of the cold war is a highly significant intellectual breakthrough of the twentieth century. 20 The process of renovation of ideas is perennial. Stagnation is tantamount to backward motion. At the threshold of the new millennium, it is necessary that we once again develop a new thinking — new principles in the relationship between States and a new approach to common problems and threats. Today, nearly a decade after the Iron Curtain was lifted and the cold war came to an end, one often hears scepticism expressed about this great liberal democratic revolution of the twentieth century. “What has changed, after all?” some ask. Indeed, it is high time that we thoroughly assessed what has happened and surveyed the myriad new opportunities that have presented themselves as a result of this tectonic shift, as well as the far-from-simple problems that up until now one would hardly ever think about. My ancient country, Georgia, is one of those newly independent States which provide a good platform for observing both the virtues and shortcomings of the processes under way in this new, post-bipolar world. Although the history of Georgian statehood stretches back more than three millennia, the vicissitudes of history caused us to have to begin building our nation State from scratch once again in the last decade of this century. The beginning proved especially difficult. The utter incompetence and inexperience of its first post-communist leadership threw Georgia into conflict and civil war. The result was complete economic collapse and the loss of even those token signs of statehood that we had inherited from the Soviet system. Georgia in fact found itself isolated from the rest of the world. All this was accompanied by an unprecedented criminal rampage the eradication of which took several years. Georgia began to work its way out of this isolation in the spring of 1992 when it became a member of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Black Sea Economic Cooperation and began to actively forge diplomatic relations with its neighbours and more distant nations. In fact, it was during this difficult period that our country — its people and leadership — made its choice. Georgia would set forth on the way towards building a free and democratic society based on a socially oriented market economy. Despite the serious barriers that continued to emerge along the way, Georgia never once departed from the course it set for itself. The principles and practice of the construction of our democratic country did not go unnoticed by the international community. Under new conditions, when the bipolar confrontation was no more, international organizations were given the opportunity for their actions to span the entire globe, to help those States in need and to assist in their development. The United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Union and particularly the United States, Germany and Holland, as well as others, extended their help to us. The year 1995 was indeed the turning point in Georgia’s new era. With it came the adoption of a new democratic Constitution, as well as the holding of the first parliamentary and presidential elections. In the same year, we achieved financial stability and introduced a new national currency. At the end of that year, for the first time in Georgia’s democratic development, growth in gross domestic product was recorded. Very importantly also, law and order prevailed in the country, and the rampage of crime was finally curbed. It was in the same year, however, 1995, that the first blast thundered. It was a terrorist act targeting Georgia’s head of State. This barbaric act signalled to the world that not everyone found Georgia’s progress towards democracy to their liking, especially if Georgia were to succeed along the path of her choice. Recent years have demonstrated that the positive trends in Georgia have become irreversible. From 1996 to 1997, the annual economic growth was around 11 per cent, the exchange rate was stable and inflation continued to decline. No less significant was the progress made in building democratic institutions and putting in place and enforcing the legal framework for a civil society. In this respect, it is no exaggeration to say that Georgia has travelled in several short years a distance that often requires decades. I am happy to say that as Georgia continues to improve its democratic institutions and develop its economy we are becoming a partner to others rather than merely a recipient of international aid. This is largely made possible through the new function that my country has been establishing for itself over the past few years. For many decades the fuel-rich countries of the Caspian region and Central Asia were cut off from the rest of the world by impermeable walls. Now they have begun to seek alternative routes to deliver their wealth to 21 the world market. The south Caucasus, especially Georgia, with its outlets to the Black Sea, has a pivotal location on the route along which cargoes are already being shipped between east and west and between north and south. Since April this year, oil has been flowing westward across the territory of Georgia via the new Baku-Supsa pipeline. In ancient times, Georgia was part of the great Silk Road. This function is reviving along with that vast highway that in ancient times traversed the continents, bridging peoples and promoting the diffusion of cultures and the exchange of ideas. I am referring to the great Eurasian space and relevant transport routes. International organizations and individual countries have shown great interest in the idea of a rebirth of the great Silk Road. The European Union initiated the TRACECA and INOGATE projects, under which the construction of the transport infrastructure is funded and multiple alternative networks of oil and gas pipelines are being elaborated. The United States Senate recently adopted the Silk Road strategy support bill, introduced by Senator Brownbeck, which envisages providing assistance to the south Caucasus and Central Asian States to strengthen independence and democratic development, as well as to build a transport infrastructure that will include multiple oil and gas pipelines. In addition, the Japanese Government has developed a strategy for the new Silk Road. China and other States are also participating in the realization of this project. The countries of south Caucasus — Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia — signed partnership and cooperation agreements with the European Union that entered into force in June of this year. As for Georgia’s progress in building a democratic society based on the rule of law and respect for human rights, its accomplishments have been recognized by the Council of Europe, of which Georgia became a full- fledged member earlier this year. As I said earlier, the modest successes we have enjoyed on the way towards independent development — that is, our participation in projects of global significance and our aspiration to integrate with international, regional and Euro-Atlantic institutions — have irritated and continue to irritate the reactionary forces that are scattered across the entire territory of the former Soviet Union, where they pose a serious threat to democratic regimes in the new States, including Russia. The terrorist blast of 1995 was not an isolated incident. It was followed by other provocations and terrorist acts, which included another attempt on the President’s life. Will these attempts to force Georgia’s deviation from its chosen path continue? We cannot rule this out, since geopolitical shifts of this scale never proceed smoothly. The enemies of our country use the entire arsenal at their disposal, including buying politicians and even votes, in attempting to bring to power a regime that is more to their liking. In the current conditions of globalization and increased interdependence, no country is immune to the contagion of economic crisis. Last year independent Georgia experienced first hand the repercussions of the negative global economic situation, especially when the financial crisis erupted in neighbouring Russia, which continues to play a major part in Georgia’s foreign trade operations. Today we can claim with reasonable confidence that Georgia’s young market economy and banking system passed this test worthily, and international organizations and friendly countries made major contributions to our ability to survive. Unresolved conflicts and our violated territorial integrity remain Georgia’s most painful problem — in other words, the very problem which is among the series of new threats that the international community has shown itself unprepared to deal with. As a result of the campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing conducted by Abkhaz separatists, with external military support, many civilians of Georgian and other ethnic extractions have been killed, and nearly 300,000 people have been displaced. Despite the aid that our Government, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other organizations provide, these innocent victims continue to live in conditions of extreme deprivation. These severely traumatized people, who have been subjected to inhuman brutalities, demand protection of their most inalienable right: the right to live in their own homes. It is unfortunate that, unlike the confrontation in the Balkans, the Abkhaz conflict has been given no exposure on world television screens, and therefore the international community has little awareness of it. Having seen with my own eyes the brutalities committed there, I have no doubt whatsoever that people infected by the germ of hatred lose their humanity and behave in the same barbaric manner, be it in Kosovo, Rwanda or Abkhazia. It is difficult to believe what has happened. With the help of foreign regular army units and mercenaries, the Abkhaz, who originally constituted only 17 per cent of the population, expelled the majority just because they were not Abkhaz, but Georgians, Armenians, Jews, Russians, Greeks or other ethnicities. This was 22 accomplished alongside ethnically motivated summary executions and mass killings. The involvement of international entities — the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Russian Federation and the Group of Friends of the Secretary-General — has so far failed to produce tangible results. In my opinion, one of the reasons for the failure of all attempts to resolve this conflict is that what has really happened in Abkhazia has not yet been objectively assessed at the level of the highest international body — the Security Council, which the Charter mandates to act as the guarantor of security in the world. Is it not all too obvious that it is impossible to fight evil if one does not call it by its proper name — that is, if one does not assign an appropriate legal assessment to what has happened? The 21 United Nations resolutions on the conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia, do not provide such an unequivocal assessment, despite the fact that the final documents of the OSCE’s Budapest and Lisbon summits qualify the action of the leaders of the Abkhaz separatists as ethnic cleansing. Indeed, the sole objective of the separatist leadership, encouraged by reactionary external forces, was to change the demography of this autonomous republic. It is hard to imagine that a regime that has in fact attained its goal can be convinced through mere request and persuasion to allow the displaced to return. I do not want to be misunderstood. We do not thirst for the blood of our Abkhaz brothers, nor do we seek vengeance. No, I am sure that in time Georgians and Abkhaz will dwell together in their historic homeland: Georgia. But in order to speed up the process of the Georgian-Abkhaz reconciliation, the tragedy must be given its fair legal assessment. It is no surprise that in a century in which the concept of freedom has acquired such scope, human rights command special attention. Before Georgia was accepted into the Council of Europe, rapporteurs scrutinized our human rights profile, examining how free the media were, the conditions of prisoners — including the worst offenders — and many other aspects of human rights. We are grateful to the Council of Europe and other international bodies and non-governmental organizations for their undiminished attention to this critical aspect of life in our country, and for their unbiased assessments and recommendations. Especially against the backdrop of such keen attention to matters of human rights, I find it hard to understand the indifference of the international community to the fate of the 300,000 people currently displaced from Abkhazia and to the flagrant violation of their basic right to live in their own homes. The matter is not whether or not help is being extended to these people. Of course, they would have been in far more difficult straits had the United Nations and individual countries not provided relief. But in terms of human rights the only response proportionate to their situation would be to assist them in restoring their inalienable rights — that is, allowing them to return to their homes and holding those who have violated their rights responsible, if only by giving an appropriate assessment of the acts of the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, little has been done to this end. Although expressing personal feelings is perhaps not appropriate from this podium, I find it difficult to repress my emotions when talking of completely innocent people expelled from their homes by brutal force fuelled by simple hatred. My heart is heavy. I was involved in the complex processes that brought an end to the Cold War. I believed, as did my co-thinkers, that the future world order, liberated from the confrontations between camps, would not permit injustice; that under the new conditions, the United Nations and the Security Council, at the pinnacle of our world’s hierarchy, would be able to prevent individual assaults against civilized norms of existence. The Assembly can imagine how disillusioned I was when ethnic purging of the Georgian population occurred, and, by the way, remaining unpunished within my own country. I addressed the Security Council twice with a detailed account and explanation of what happened, but no substantial progress has yet been made, even in the formulation of its resolutions. Having experienced this disappointment, I believe it should have come as no surprise that I firmly supported the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operation in Kosovo, aimed at putting an end to ethnic cleansing, since I viewed that operation as the long-awaited manifestation of a firm stand against evil. At the same time, however, the action in Kosovo must not be interpreted by anyone as even indirect support of aggressive separatism. By no means. I have always believed that aggressive separatism and attempts to manipulate evolving democratic orders by use of force is one of the worst and most dangerous maladies of modern times. Since the end of the cold war, during which the threat of nuclear war hung over our heads like the sword of Damocles, while local conflicts, despite their true 23 causes, inevitably acquired an ideological tint, political analysts have made extensive efforts to determine the nature of the virus causing today’s aggression and the causes of possible future clashes. The theories are extremely interesting, and the debates as to how well they correspond to reality will doubtless continue for years to come. On the other hand, from even a brief glance at today’s conflicts it is clear that virtually all of them are linked to an erroneous interpretation by ethnic minorities of the principle of self-determination, and to a likewise erroneous understanding by titular nations and their central authorities of minorities’ rights with respect to that principle. In other words, either aggressive separatism or no less aggressive violation of the rights of ethnic minorities, and in some cases both, underlie these conflicts. During such confrontations, a certain segment of the population becomes undesirable to a group of political adventurists. This “foreign body” is then removed through the policy of “ethnic cleansing” and genocide. Today there are hundreds of places in the world where some groups of individuals may come to entertain an ambition towards this manner of self- determination and apply the well tried — and, regrettably, in many cases successful — method, which I would call the method of demographic engineering. It is not difficult to foresee how chaotic our world can become and what torment millions of innocent people will suffer just because they are found to be ethnically inappropriate, so to speak. Today, when the epoch of colonial empires has been relegated to the past, the issue of the integrity of the State and the self-determination of peoples demands new, clearer formulations to ensure that each side in a potential conflict fully realizes the limits of international legitimacy of its claims. In democratic States, with Governments equally representing the interests of all its citizens, self- determination must be regarded as the right to express oneself in a very broad sense, but only within the boundaries of a State which, on its part, respects these rights. There should be no talk of separation by the use of force and violation of territorial integrity. Let me also add that the rationale provided by opposing sides to justify forcible redrawing of borders always centres around an alleged necessity to restore historical justice. History, which is hardly an exact science, is interpreted according to the respective interests of the sides involved. I believe that new thinking should have a say with regard to this matter as well. In international relations, perhaps, one must not overemphasize, or, to be more precise, blow out of proportion the role of historical precedence. That was precisely the intent of the Helsinki Accords, regarding norms for the inviolability of existing borders. At the same time, there is nothing more fundamental to the formation of a national consciousness than the citizens’ knowledge of their own history. And this acquires special significance in the present era of vigorous globalization. The efforts of individual peoples, particularly small ones, will not be enough to sustain world diversity. The contribution of each nation, large or small, to the development of world civilization and culture is unique and special. So is that of my small country. The culture of every nationality is a singular phenomenon. Although the economy, the environment, the elimination of poverty, the management of demographic processes and sustainable development are the main challenges for us all, the time is also ripe to protect and preserve the national cultural heritage, which remains an ever present fountain to enrich and ennoble the human spirit. The Georgians say “Let us save culture, and culture will save us”. Universal homogenization, which endangers the identity of small nations, should be entered in the register of modern threats. I suggest that we develop a collective mechanism for their cultural protection. Developments in recent years have clearly shown that the existing system of collective responsibility for global security is still far from perfect. Certainly, since bipolarity has been overcome we have significantly improved the prospects for the successful activities of international organizations, especially the United Nations, whose decisions were often not enforced because of the rivalry between the two ideological blocs. Yet they are not always able to effectively address new perils. Order cannot be ensured unless negative sanctions are applied, and this is exactly what the United Nations is avoiding in every way. Although the United Nations Charter does provide for fairly strong mechanisms for ensuring security, such awesome word combinations as Chapter VII and the Military Staff Committee exist most often merely on paper. Surely the founders of the United Nations deserve praise for their wisdom and vision, but we should not forget that the mechanism they created for our collective responsibility for the world’s fate was framed for a different time. 24 It must be admitted that, despite attempts to establish order in the world, the planet continues to live in a state of anarchy. On the other hand, the need for a tougher and more just order becomes increasingly more obvious. Most of today’s threats go way beyond the scope of the competence of the nation-State. They are global in nature. No individual country can cope with them alone. Much as is the case within individual nations, the international community primarily needs the unanimity of its subjects in terms of their commitment to a set of fundamental principles. This seems to be expressed in many charters and conventions. In reality, however, it is not the case. The attitude towards terrorism can be cited as an example. Despite public statements condemning terrorism, it appears that many still allow it as an acceptable means for achieving political and other ends. How else can one explain that terrorists whose identities are known to all are not hiding in the woods, but, rather, are able to find shelter in different States? Of course, it is true that the world does respond to some extent to threats as they occur. Individual States and alliances of States do make serious efforts to fight global ailments. Sometimes, as has just happened in Kosovo, they undertake such tasks as a coercion to peace. It is my position that no one has a moral right to denounce NATO for that operation, particularly those who, through their inaction, play into the hands of those who disturb the peace. Yet this is not precisely what one would call a demonstration of collective responsibility. In such a case several democratic and developed — and therefore powerful — States undertake the stewardship of the rest of the world. Of course, we can only thank them for this. But it would be better for all if those who have undertaken responsibility for the fate of the world carried out their mission within the framework of a mechanism established by the international organizations. We have already proposed to expand the membership of the Security Council and address the issue of veto rights in order to adapt it to present-day requirements. In my view, the almost automatic use of the veto is unacceptable. In the bipolar world this practice largely cancelled out the possibility of conducting peace enforcement operations, because in those years any force represented, to some extent, one pole or the other. With the end of the cold war, the possibility of using collective decisions to bring about peace reappeared. The decision taken against the aggression in Kuwait gave many the hope that from then on the Security Council would be bound by shared principles and that an ethical approach would prevail. There were other encouraging episodes as well. But in the case of Kosovo, a new cold breeze seemed to have begun to blow from the Security Council. Despite its humane motivations, the operation carried out by NATO — like any ethical action today — also contained a pragmatic component. Had NATO not intervened in Kosovo, the influx of refugees would inevitably have upset the fragile balance in that extremely important part of Europe. Perhaps a number of States would have been drawn into the conflict. We might even have witnessed a big Balkan war. In today’s world an ethical approach in international politics is justified from a pragmatic standpoint as well. It is from a position of morality that we should act if we want to do good for mankind. Morality should be the basis of our policy, and it should become the pillar of the new thinking of the twenty-first century. We are encouraged by the Secretary-General’s statement that measures to reform the Security Council will be taking place shortly and that the reform will enable us to act in accordance with the norms of international law when addressing regional conflicts in the future. Regardless of the serious threats existing today, it would not be an overstatement to say that mankind has never in the course of history had a more singular opportunity to create a just world order and a more harmonious community of nations. True, occasionally confrontational rhetoric can still be heard, but I am convinced that today’s controversies between East and West are ghosts of the past, artificially grafted onto the present. One may argue that this is done mostly to camouflage the acute internal problems of individual States. The generation that ended the cold war, the most dangerous conflict in the history of mankind, without spilling blood, can find a common language between continents, States and individual people and, through civilized dialogue, shorten the route leading to the resolution of global problems today and in the future. Now that we have overcome the dividing lines of the ideological confrontation, we must learn how to erase other lines that divide the peoples of our world into rich and poor, educated and uneducated. In this process too, a new approach and new thinking are critical. Those who spoke before me have already mentioned that globalization should not mean only access to markets, free trade across borders, free movement of capital and financial interdependence. All this should be paralleled by the globalization of responsibility for the fate of the 25 planet and the realization that today’s world is too small to allow for the painless coexistence of affluence and poverty. We must find ways to alleviate the burden of debt on the poorest developing States. Otherwise, the perpetual pressure of a shortage in financial resources will render them unable to emerge from poverty and, certainly, unequipped to build a free society. Assisting them in building free societies is a pragmatic objective, not merely an ethical cause. In today’s interdependent world the poverty of States will produce echoes of terrorism, drugs and crime in others. In order to be secure, the future world must consist of at least moderately well-off, free nations that will pursue transparent and predictable domestic and foreign policies. I recall appeals made by the leaders of many developed States at different international forums, including President Clinton’s reassuring remarks at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, where he underlined the critical importance of relieving the debt burden on poor nations. There are also appeals to the effect that we should enter the twenty-first century with developing and economically weak nations freed of the heavy burden of debt. We could, in fact, think of a 10-year programme designed to resolve the problem of debts right at the outset of the twenty-first century. This would be a most fair decision which, at the threshold of a new century and a new millennium, would become a kind of beacon guiding many a nation to a brighter future. I have said many times that I am generally optimistic about the future of mankind. This optimism is grounded in the belief that we are slowly acquiring experience; we can learn and we can be transformed. The Marshall Plan and post-war Europe, which have vanquished the chimera of antagonisms and showed new ways of integration, are good examples of this. In 1985, when many from this platform spoke of “star wars” and the end of humanity, I declared that the new thinking offered to the world not “star wars”, but a “star peace”. I thank God that this declaration did not remain simply a dream, and that mankind is gradually emerging from the nightmare of nuclear war, both on the ground and in the sky. This gives me reason to hope that humankind, equipped with the capacity for constant intellectual renewal, will live its next century with a single mind which will make it an epoch of peace and freedom, justice and universal harmony.