First, I should
like to express our profound satisfaction. Sir, at your election to your high
post, and we wish you every success in carrying out your duties as President
of the United Nations General Assembly at its current session.
At the preceding session the Republic of Kazakhstan was unanimously
admitted as a Member of the United Nations. On behalf of the people of
Kazakhstan, I have the honour to express our deep gratitude for that step and
to declare that the Republic of Kazakhstan, as a peace-loving State, is fully
capable of fulfilling its obligations, as defined in the Charter of the United
Nations, and of making a constructive contribution in all the spheres of
activity of this authoritative international Organization.
The current session is no less important for us, since during this
session the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan has for the first time,
been given the opportunity to speak from this rostrum. I take this
opportunity to extend cordial greetings to all the States Members of the
United Nations. It would be difficult by now to conceive of the present world
order without the United Nations. The world community places many hopes in
this unique international organization, chief among them being the formation
of a reliable machinery, reliable stability and security.
The world has now come close to the threshold beyond which the visible
disturbing challenges of the future compel us to adopt a new quality of
coordination, a new way to organize our joint efforts.
We must clarify what is the essence of this new and as yet unknown
process, and we must master it within the context of our whole community, our
continent, our region and our own country. These are the aspects on which I
should like to focus Members' attention.
The first aspect relates to the world community itself and the role of
the United Nations in the world. At this session there has already emerged an
understanding of the new realities, which must be defined in a new agenda for
the entire world. It is no accident that this is the title of
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's well-known report. We believe that
his concept of preventive diplomacy is an extremely timely, politically
rational initiative, in the realization of which all members of the world
community should become involved.
In this connection I regard preventive diplomacy as a system of political
and socio-economic measures designed to prevent hotbeds of potential tension
from bursting into flame. An important place in it is occupied by the
conditions which are needed for maintaining social and political stability and
are visible on the surface and by those problems the detection of whose very
existence requires prognosticatory analysis in depth.
It is not difficult to understand that the question of borders is a
powder-keg that could explode at any moment, and the explosion usually hurts
not only those who are playing with fire but also many others who have only a
very remote connection with the fuse-lighters. In my view, it is obvious that
even one precedent in the revision of currently existing borders would cause a
chain reaction of geopolitical disintegration with unforeseeable consequences.
In referring to the importance of the principle of the inviolability of
State territory-, I should like to emphasize that the rights of national
minorities today are often thought to be identical with the rights of nations
to self-determination, extending even to the establishment of independent
States. If we were to hold to such an approach, then, hypothetically
speaking, thousands of economically weak sovereign States might arise all over
the world. Such a situation would be a striking demonstration of turning a
principle into a fetish, carrying it to the ultimate absurdity.
I am convinced that the world community, which today quite rightly gives
so much attention to the rights of national minorities, should define clearly
the criteria for such rights, in order to ensure that human rights and the
rights of nations will triumph on the basis of the triumph of democracy and
peace. Otherwise, under cover of a nation's right to self-determination, the
integrity of any national State will be called into question, and the
corrosive principle of separatism will go on without end.
At the same time, taking a look forward from the present day to the
twenty-first century in a search for hotbeds of potential tension, I wish to
draw the world community's attention, among other questions that give cause
for great concern, to the problem of water in the Central Asian region, which
in time might become a source of dangerous disputes in the very heart of the
oldest continent. I am convinced that we need to speed up work now, not
later, on the preparation of special United Nations projects that would
provide for a gradual and effective solution to the problem of furnishing
water resources to Central Asia.
I must point out that the decrease in geopolitical tension along
East-West lines and the increasingly dangerous confrontation between North and
South is a universally recognized fact. However, the emergence and
exacerbation of the second confrontation do not decrease the timeliness of the
first. The long-standing complexity of relations between East and West cannot
he dissipated with the breakup of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Accordingly, I believe that the proposed efforts for preventive diplomacy
in establishing, keeping and enhancing the peace should be exerted equally
along all the lines of global interaction. I stress this because some
distortions have already become visible in this connection. United Nations
efforts, to judge from the events of recent months, are predominantly
political and military-political in nature. We see more use being made of
prohibitions than of encouragement and incentives. These measures are aimed
at reducing the tensions, visible on the surface, but so far they have not had
any influence on the roots of the conflicts that have arisen and grown. The
real cause of these conflicts was recently pointed out from this rostrum. The
richest 20 per cent of the world's people, in the Northern and Western
countries, consume 83 per cent of the world's gross product, and the poorest
20 per cent of the world's people, in the countries of the South and the East,
only 1.4 per cent. As we can see, the income of the richest 20 per cent is
60 times that of the poorest 20 per cent. I would call this 60 to 1 ratio the
formula for world inequality. Until this gap begins to narrow, we shall not
have a real basis for the comprehensive prevention of conflicts.
I emphasize that, in the final analysis, we are not talking about
redistributing the income of the wealthiest 20 per cent for the benefit of the
poor. The world inequality formula should be changed not by reducing the
income of the wealthiest 20 per cent but by increasing that of the poorest
through organized assistance to help their countries develop. It may be
worthwhile to think about redirecting United Nations efforts towards genuine
conflict prevention and finding the root causes of conflicts. What practical
steps can be taken in this regard?
I can understand the Secretary-General's concern over the main problem
that impedes United Nations peace-keeping efforts the shortage of financial
resources. It is obvious that United Nations expenditures for the
establishment, maintenance and enhancement of peace must be increased each
year. But how can this be done?
As is well known, until 1992, United Nations expenditures on
peace-keeping totalled approximately US$8.3 billion, not even 1 per cent of
total annual defence expenditures in all countries at the end of the last
decade, which was approximately 1 trillion dollars.
I propose that all countries should, as a demonstration of their good
will, begin to set up a fund for United Nations peacemaking efforts on the
basis of the "one plus one" formula. This means that each State would begin
to transfer 1 per cent of its defence budget to the fund and would increase
its transfers by the same 1 per cent each year. Thus the amount allocated to
peacemaking in 10 years would increase tenfold.
I think that the national security of every member of the world community
would be by no means harmed but, on the contrary, actually strengthened by
such an action. It is appropriate to recall here the Eastern story which
tells of some people who held a contest of strength. One showed the power of
his muscles and fists, another found strength in the hardness of his skull,
the third in his fleetness of foot, the fourth in the sharpness of his
tongue. But a wise man, remembering the heart, without which no strength is
possible, suggested that they should compete in generosity. The generosity of
each country will be what determines the degree to which my proposal is
implemented a sort of competition for the benefit of the whole world. The
Republic of Kazakhstan is ready to begin this process immediately. There are.
of course, also other ways that can be provided for States to contribute to
the fund for United Nations peacemaking efforts.
The second aspect on which I should like to dwell is the problem of peace
and security in our continent of Asia or, more broadly, in Eurasia. I am
referring to the initiative put forward by the Republic of Kazakhstan to hold
a conference on Interaction and Confidence-building Measures in Asia (CICMA).
The idea of establishing structures for security and cooperation in Asia of
the same type as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)
has long been in the air but has not yet gained wide support.
The useful experience of the activities of continental organizations in
the Americas, in Africa and in Europe should, it would seem, impel Asia as
well to establish unified bodies for interaction and cooperation. But this is
not happening, and there are quite a few real reasons for that fact.
Politicians and analysts critical of the idea of setting up structures for
security and cooperation in Asia often advance the weighty argument that the
level of geographical, historical, economic, political social and cultural
heterogeneity among Asian countries is much higher than that among the
countries of Europe, the Americas, or Africa. Such heterogeneity in economic
and political matters naturally interferes with the action of continental
structures for collective security.
This can be countered with a well-known piece of Oriental wisdom: A
journey of a thousand steps starts with the first step. It is by no means
necessary to move towards a unified Asian structure and collective security in
all these types of interaction at once. It is sufficient to start levelling
out the heterogeneity in one area - for instance, in the military-political or
economic sphere - and then look for joint approaches in other fields of
cooperation. The move towards such a continental structure could take place
in many steps and on a stage-by-stage basis. For example, it could go from
bilateral relations through regional and continental structures and coalitions
in particular types of cooperation, through the elaboration of
confidence-building measures and collective security, as well as humanitarian,
economic and cultural interaction, to common continental bodies for
cooperation on a broad spectrum of problems.
Prospects for this process and its main stages might be as follows:
The first stage would consist of preparatory work to organize and conduct
the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-building Measures in Asia
(CICMA). The approximate time-frame would be 1992 to 1994.
The second stage would involve accelerating the work of CICMA, increasing
the number of its members, adapting it to the framework of a Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Asia (CSCA) and forming pan-Asian structures of
the CSCE type. The approximate time-frame could be 1994 to 1998.
The third stage would include defining the development of CSCA,
strengthening its permanent structures, interaction between CSCE and CSCA and
the creation of transcontinental bodies in particular areas of cooperation.
The approximate time-frame would be 1998 to 2000.
The fourth stage would consist in forming a unified transcontinental
conference on security and cooperation in Eurasia and creating machinery for
permanent interaction between the continental systems of collective security
in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas, with the further prospect of setting
up a unified global system of collective security and cooperation. The
approximate time-frame would be 2000 to 2005.
We in Asia live in a remarkable land. All the major religions of the
world Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam were born in the sacred
soil of our continent. All the spiritual teachers of mankind, ranging from
Lao-tse and Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ and Muhammad to the greatest of
contemporary thinkers, of the calibre of Mahatma Gandhi, were born in our part
of the world. Is it not possible for Asia to absorb everything that has been
accumulated over the ages and synthesize a new concept of continental
cooperation and collective security?
This position by no means presupposes any regional autarky. We are not
going to lock ourselves within continental borders. On the contrary, in the
interests of Asian countries and peoples, we shall collect the best of what
was born in other parts of the world.
I am convinced that we must make a collective search for the best way to
meet the challenges of the future and lay new foundations for mankind's
existence in a world more integrated than ever before. Accordingly, I suggest
that we should convene a special session or a United Nations conference to
discuss the problems of the post-confrontation era, for it is the mission of
the United Nations to play a decisive role in confirming new levels of
organization in the international community. The United Nations itself should
probably be reorganized to a certain extent, and this includes the question of
the membership of the Security Council.
The third aspect, which we cannot fail to mention, concerns the events
that are taking place in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
The fragile structure of our Commonwealth, set up at the end of last
year, does not yet fully take into account the age-old traditions of
interaction between States and peoples in this part of Eurasia. As a result,
the processes of transition to free-market economics and democracy in the CIS
are accompanied by increasing socio-economic and political instability, the
exacerbation of existing conflicts and the emergence of new ones.
Kazakhstan is making every possible effort to re-establish a common
customs and economic area in a new capacity within the framework of a unified
free-trade zone.
Realists in the CIS have no illusions as far as the $24 billion of
assistance promised to Russia is concerned. We take a calm view of the
neo-isolationist policy that some of the world's countries are pursuing
towards the CIS. We realize that only we ourselves, through our own efforts,
can stop industrial decline, the severing of economic ties, hyperinflation and
other destructive processes. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that
despite efforts to strengthen the principles of coordination and the process
of integration, contradictory trends may prevail in the CIS in the immediate
future, so that the entire territory of the Commonwealth could turn into an
area of instability and disintegration. I am certain that such a tragic
outcome would not be in the interest of anyone in the world.
In this connection, I believe that the concept of early conflict
detection and preventive diplomacy might find direct practical implementation
in the former Soviet federation. I am referring primarily to strengthening
the areas of stability that exist in the CIS and then gradually expanding
their borders by reducing tensions in the areas of conflict. To that end, I
propose setting up a regional centre, or a United Nations commission, on
preventive diplomacy in Central Asia. The headquarters of the centre could be
located at Alma-Ata, the capital of our State.
Lastly, I should like to discuss the vitally important issues of ecology
and environmental protection. For Kazakhstan, these issues are embodied in at
least two areas, the Aral Sea and Semipalatinsk.
The Aral Sea drying up; it is a zone of ecological catastrophe that
demands large-scale international emergency assistance. The desertification
of its basin, accompanied by the dissemination of 150 million tons of salty
dust, is causing drastic deterioration of the environment and increasing the
negative effects on the economy and the health of a vast region with a
population of more than 300 million inhabitants. If today this means tragedy
for tens of thousands of people, tomorrow, without emergency intervention by
the United Nations, it could mean tragedy for millions.
Kazakhstan is grateful for the decision by the leadership of the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to set up an assistance project for
developing a plan to save the Aral Sea and also grateful for the suggestion by
a group of UNEP experts that the Aral Sea basin should be declared a zone of
global ecological disaster.
The other severe ecological problem we are suffering from involves the
Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, which was built on Kazakh land against the
will of our people. The total power of the nuclear warheads that were set off
here in the atmosphere, on the ground and underground brought suffering to
more than half a million people; it is hundreds of times as large as the power
of the devices that brought tragedy to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
By a decision of our Government, we have closed down this source of
death, but tremendous amounts of resources will be needed to clean up this
region, to cure those who have suffered and to ensure the safety of the
children who will again be born here. The people of Kazakhstan will therefore
need active international assistance.
Today, on 5 October, we celebrate the anniversary of the creation of the
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat). Recognizing its
unquestionable importance, Kazakhstan hopes for effective technical and
advisory assistance from the Centre to our programmes of governmental
development for urban and rural construction.
The Kazakh people has a proverb, "Elu zhylda el zhana," which literally
means, "The world becomes new every 50 years". The first half-century of the
existence of the United Nations has been marked by confrontation between
super-Powers and the burden of opposing military blocs. Now the world
community has a historic opportunity to find in the form of the United Nations
the means to bring about effective cooperation in the name of peace and
progress. We must do our utmost to take full advantage of it.