Allow me to express to you, Mr. President, and to the
free people of Bulgaria my sincere congratulations on behalf of Lithuania on
your election to such an eminent post. It is fitting that you, an active
participant in the creation of a new Europe, should preside over the
deliberations of this Assembly as it seeks to establish the foundations for a
revitalized United Nations. The task that confronts us is a result of the
many significant changes in the world.
Exactly four years ago in Lithuania, in the Cathedral Square of Vilnius,
people were beaten because they sought freedom. They had gathered to
commemorate the day in 1939 when, the Second World War having already begun,
Hitler sold to Stalin the as yet unconquered land of Lithuania with all its
people and all their rights. Almost half a century later, in 1988, no more
rights had been secured. So on that day, 28 September 1988, in Cathedral
Square, some staged hunger strikes for the release of political prisoners and
others sang songs and demanded freedom for their homeland, while still others
attacked with shields and rubber truncheons, beating those that sang.
Such was the struggle for rights and ideas a struggle that needed to be
understood and appreciated. And in the international commentary and portrayal
of this struggle, there also ensued a battle of ideas for right and truth.
Such was the non-violent struggle for liberation waged by Lithuania in the
name of independence and universally acknowledged Christian principles
unifying the ideas of truth and freedom.
A year has passed since that day in September when the Lithuanian flag
was raised at United Nations Headquarters. In that year we watched as the
Soviet Union - that great totalitarian empire stretching from the Baltic to
the Sea of Japan flickered and disappeared, and how that country was
replaced in its seat here at the United Nations by a new democratic Russia
assuming its predecessor's rights and obligations.
We also watched as parallel movements for national independence brought
down a small communist empire in the south of Central Europe on the Adriatic
coast. And we watched as both of these processes were accompanied by the
rather ambivalent sentiments and positions of the Western States that is, of
their leaders. The world order is moving in a positive direction we will
see less evil yet these changes seem to bring about a nostalgia for the old
order to which so many had grown accustomed.
Lithuania's position was not one of ambivalence. We supported
politically Armenia, Georgia and Moldova and the Muslim nations of the former
Soviet Union, proposing peaceful solutions to their problems. We were the
first to recognize the independence of Slovenia and Croatia in 1991, and this
year we recognized the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia.
Although this may not have been much, these policies nevertheless reflected a
position arising from our own experience and the principles we cherish.
And what is that experience?
The campaign against us was waged by magical means that perhaps can be
best described as communist voodoo politics, in which nothing is called by its
proper name. So we learned how to identify these phantoms and shadows and we
found that such ghosts, when called by their proper names, soon begin to fade.
The evil empire continues to fade away, but it has not vanished
altogether. Sometimes quite the opposite appears to be true its spirit is
so lively that it just may rise again among us and above us. For this reason,
when we call for the condemnation and trial of Soviet communism, when we see
and expose attempts to restore the USSR, we are in effect supporting
democratic Russia and international peace. Democratic Russia, which condemned
the 1940 Soviet annexation of Lithuania and recognized our independence,
re-established in 1990, should not refer to the Baltic countries as "newly
emerged" States. Those officials who continue to promulgate this misnomer do
a disservice to the truth and to their country, which is struggling to renew
itself, to rise above the lies of the past. This applies also to some other
labels and intentions.
We do not think, for example, that the Serbian army, operating in
neighbouring countries, could be called a "peace-keeping force", even if the
troops painted their helmets blue. We do not think that such forces,
authorized to act both on their own and on neighbouring territory, should
unilaterally establish their outposts wherever they please, without the
neighbouring country's consent.
We think that States and their armies should be called by their proper
names. "Serbia" and "Montenegro" are fine names, appropriate enough for a
federation title, so let old ghosts fade away. Defending one State's actions
against another under the guise of ethnic protection is dangerous.
specifically if the goal is to politicize what is clearly a legal matter. It
is even more dangerous to hide in this way the true nature of military
actions. When an assault is called by a more neutral term, such as
"conflict", this third-party position benefits the aggressor and that position
becomes neither objective nor neutral.
Lithuania has experienced this and I think that Lithuania's experience of
defending itself with the truth, and by avoiding political entrapments, can be
a useful example to others, including the Organization.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have a big neighbour where a variety of
political forces are vying for power in sectors of society and government.
Some elements are democratic, some less so, and others not at all. Those
media circles in neighbouring Russia that inherited the characteristic
mind-set of the old empire are at present promoting aggressive anti-Baltic
sentiments, a substitute "cold-war" policy which surfaces in the statements of
its officials time and time again.
Allow me to share some concepts and statements, emanating from the
conservative elements of the Russian Parliament and the Foreign Ministry,
which alarm Russia's smaller neighbours. Foreign countries are there divided
into two categories: the inner sphere and the outer sphere.
Similarly, Lithuanian composer Bronius Kutavicius's musical score for
four of the instruments used have the designations of near violin, distant
violin, near piano and distant piano. The stage violin is the one that the
listener can reach from the front row and thus may feel the inclination to
grab as his "vital interest". Universal musical harmony is of less concern to
him. The 30 June 1992 document of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the
Russian Parliament recommends this position. The concept is not new; it has
been around since the time of Ivan the Terrible. It was used by other States
less successfully.
The "inner sphere" is designated as an extraordinary or special-interest
zone. This concept having been defined - and, if necessary a
Molotov-Ribbentrop-type pact may be signed military force may be used and
the former inner sphere is no longer a foreign land. Then the outer sphere
becomes the inner sphere and subsequently a special-interest zone.
Territorial expansion continues, and will continue, if resources permit, until
no foreign countries at all remain.
For those who believe this process of territorial expansionism to be
natural the opposite process is quite painful. For this reason attempts are
made to block it, to stop the withdrawal of troops from the neighbour's
territory; for this reason one must find someone to protect with this army as
a pretext not to remove troops. Those politicians like President Yeltsin who
think democratically and have a broader perspective, who want to withdraw the
army and to normalize relations, are called traitors who do not defend the
State's imperial interests. "Your interests are our interests", and "Your
rights are our rights", is said to fellow nationals abroad, especially to
those who think that their prime interest and right is the restoration of the
order and traditions of the former empire.
I take a different view. For example, in my opinion the best interest
and natural right of the Russian community in Estonia is to learn a little of
the Estonian language and after a few months to acquire Estonian citizenship,
according to the law about which there is so much outcry at present. We hear
no protest from Lithuanians living in Estonia, and Lithuania does not plan any
sanctions against that country. We will not suspend any of our treaties with
Estonia and we will not ask the United Nations to impose any sanctions against
it. I have not heard that similar actions have been demanded by Israel or
Ukraine, although the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation in his
statement to the Assembly at this session was also concerned about other
nationalities residing in Estonia.
We disagree with the opinion expressed in the Russian periodical
Diplomatic Bulletin that a referendum or other type of vote in one State may
be regarded as an act of force against another State, with a presumed right of
that State to resort to
"reactive measures, and not necessarily ones of an equivalent character".
Such diplomacy is based on the hope that:
"Russia will not be condemned, at least by those nations which at that
moment will be directing their planes towards a Libya or an Iraq".
These are words uttered in August 1992, but they sound as if they were uttered
in January 1991.
When we hear from this very rostrum that it is necessary to use force to
protect human rights we immediately begin asking ourselves who is this
policeman-defender who comes, let us say, from Russia to Moldova or from
Serbia to Bosnia. In Dubrovnik and in Sarajevo he defends his minority rights
in very strange ways. It reminds me of an old and macabre dissident joke from
the days of Stalin. The first man asks "Will there be a third world war?"
The second answers "No, there will not, but there will be such a battle for
peace that not one stone will be left on another."
For this reason we would not want to see Russian peace-keeping forces
transforming themselves into forces that would impose a Russian peace, a "Pax
Ruthenia", in the inner sphere of foreign countries. We wish that somebody
would remember the human rights of the hundreds of thousands of people
deported from the Baltic countries, including the right to compensation, and
that someone, possibly the United Nations, would help to raise from the bottom
of the Baltic Sea the poisons of the Second World War that were dropped off
our shores by the Soviet army. The right of anyone to live on the shores of
the Baltic Sea is now in danger.
We would like to see the world community help all nations rising from the
Red plague and to see the family of nations assist Russia economically and
also in its search for democracy and justice. It should be a matter of
universal concern that the dead hand of communism should not drag down into
its marble mausoleum the entire nation and possibly all mankind. We should
resist this danger by upholding other values, not those from the realm of
ghosts of the past.
Lithuania and the other Baltic States again present a challenge to
Russia, and the world will see how it responds. Maybe the economic pressure
and measures of an undeclared blockade directed against us are not direct
punishment for destruction of the empire or help to our leftist opposition in
Lithuania. Maybe these are just the difficulties of Russia itself, although
probably not exclusively of an economic nature. We also have these
difficulties and thus we know them well.
Recently signed bilateral agreements on the withdrawal of the Russian
armed forces from Lithuania give us hope. These agreements were welcomed by
the democratic world and a multitude of people of good will. I do not doubt
that the United Nations will urge that such agreements should also be signed
between Latvia and Russia as well as between Russia and Estonia. Moreover,
the process of withdrawal of the armed forces should be carefully monitored in
order that the four States may as soon as possible achieve normalization of
their relations under conditions of security, prosperity and friendship
between all the nations of the region.
I thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to express that hope.
In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about United Nations
structural reforms. These reforms are also tied to our experience.
When a large State pressures and accuses a small neighbour, the latter
should find support here, at the United Nations, which is duty-bound to defend
small States. Changes in representation could be made, such as establishing a
Group of Small European States at the United Nations with its specific vision
of global problems and shared concern for preserving national identity.
Perhaps that "Little Europe" could initiate a solidarity movement in behalf of
small States around the globe.
The Security Council could be expanded to include three new permanent
members - Japan, Germany and India and the exercise of the right to veto
from that day forward could require not one but at least two permanent
members' invoking that right at the same time.
I respectfully request that these ideas be included in the ongoing debate
of ideas being considered at the United Nations.