Let me congratulate you. Sir, on
your election as President of the General Assembly at its forth-seventh
session. I wish you much success and promise you full support.
I thank your predecessor, Mr. Shihabi, for guiding the General Assembly
to success at its forth-sixth session.
The past year weakened further the illusion that the end of the cold war
would facilitate a speedy and effective solution of problems that built up
during the post-war period. It has been a sobering year, during which we have
been involved in the gradual process of getting acquainted with the possible.
Sometimes we see euphoria replaced by total pessimism and little faith.
While the era of bipolarity is over and democracy is winning, many
conflicts remain unresolved, and a new generation of conflicts is beginning.
In addition to conflicts with which we have dealt routinely, but
unsuccessfully, over the years, we are now witnessing a great variety of
wars. The number of zones of conflict gets larger and larger.
Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Bosnia and
Herzegovina mainly Bosnia and Herzegovina - are new symbols of violence to
which we have no answers.
The United Nations, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
(CSCE), the European Communities, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), the Western European Union (WEU) and the Council of Europe are unable,
despite all their commendable efforts, to exert sufficient pressure to secure
the desired solutions to these tragedies. In this respect, there has been
growing impatience and anxiety, as well as dissatisfaction and criticism, on
the part of the public and the mass media. It has become routine to question
the role of international institutions as instruments that are suitable for
conflict management. Let us be frank about this: we face a problem of
credibility. Much will be at stake if we fail to deal immediately with it.*
There is a risk that a very typical challenge of the 1990s the
relationship between statehood and nationhood will become a phenomenon of
world politics that defies efficient international regulation. In this
respect in particular, international institutions have a fundamental role to
play in providing a guarantee that the processes will develop on a basis of
democracy and of respect for universal and civilized human values.
However, it would be a mistake to start the search for solutions by
challenging international institutions as such. It would be a mistake to
decide to modify the United Nations radically and rebuild it by rejecting the
wisdom of its founding fathers, as embodied in the Charter. The claim that
revitalization of the United Nations requires not a change in the Charter but,
on the contrary, full implementation of the Charter is often considered to be
a cliche. I regard it not as a cliche but as a wise approach, indicating not
rigidity but, rather, a willingness to exploit fully the political potential
of the Charter.
It is true that the Charter makes no explicit reference to drugs,
organized crime, the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), indebtedness
or the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. However, it contains
fundamental political principles on the basis of which these problems can and
should be solved. To that end, the things that are lacking are sometimes
instruments, sometimes money and very often the political will. What is
needed is - in short - a change in our approach to the priorities of the
activities of the Organization.
It is in this climate that the Secretary-General's report the "Agenda
for Peace" - has come into our hands. The recommendations contained in that
report provide useful guidelines for effective exploitation of the Charter's
potential. I believe that the section dealing with the prevention of conflict
requires elaboration, as it has been demonstrated that activity in this field
will increasingly become one of the basic orientations of multilateral
diplomacy.
In summary, the Secretary-General's report deals with confidence-building
measures, fact-finding, early warning and preventive diplomacy. I am familiar
with these terms as the CSCE, at its third summit, held in Helsinki, firmly
incorporated them into the list of its instruments.
Mention of the CSCE brings me to a question that Czechoslovakia has
proposed as a new item for the General Assembly's agenda - coordination of the
activities of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe. In this connection, let me take the former Yugoslavia
as an example. Several times, in my capacity as Chairman of the CSCE Council
of Ministers, I have come across situations in which activities of the United
Nations and activities of the CSCE overlap. Naturally, such overlapping has
reduced the effectiveness of those activities.
My meetings with Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the United Nations Special
Rapporteur for Human Rights in the former Yugoslavia, clearly demonstrated a
need for, and an interest in, regular coordination of United missions with
those of the CSCE. In this connection, I should say that the United Nations
made an excellent choice when it picked Mr. Mazowiecki for its human-rights
activities in this explosive area.
However, this problem does not concern just the former Yugoslavia. Like
the CSCE, the United Nations has sent missions to Nagorno-Karabakh and
Transnistria. As the aims of all these missions have been coordinated only in
outline, it is no wonder that the parties to the conflict often fail to
understand the purpose of these foreign delegations coming to see them and
asking the same questions. It is often unclear how they differ.
The CSCE summit that took place in Helsinki in July laid the basis for
improved cooperation between the United Nations and the CSCE, as well as other
other organizations NATO, the Western European Union (WEU) and the Council
of Europe. The need for such interaction resulted in the London Conference on
the former Yugoslavia. This was the first example of systematic cooperation
between three international organizations, and it amounted to the first
interlocking action by the European Community, the United Nations and the
CSCE. As the London Conference was attended also by the Organization of the
Islamic Conference and the International Red Cross as a non-governmental
organization, I see it as the germ of a loose system of cooperation between
various institutions.
It seems to me that the time is right to consider seriously the convening
of an informal "brainstorming" meeting of the United Nations, the CSCE, the
European Community, NATO, the WEU and the Council of Europe to discuss the
idea of an interlocking system of international organizations. The purpose of
the proposed General Assembly agenda item on coordination between the United
Nations and the CSCE is not simply to secure a resolution. In my opinion,
that discussion of the issue at this session could develop at two levels - the
conceptual level, at which the fundamental political meaning of coordination,
both in the immediate future and in the light of medium-term and long-term
prospects, could be clarified; and the practical level, at which the
activities of the two institutions have already begun to overlap, making it
possible to draw conclusions.
It will certainly be in the interests of the United Nations and of the
CSCE to have the meaning of "preventive diplomacy" and "early warning"
clarified. These terms have already taken on a very definite meaning at the
CSCE, and the majority of United Nations Member States, as they do not
participate in the CSCE, will probably want to become acquainted with them.
The conceptual discussion might focus also on the relationship between
the United Nations and the CSCE as institutions each of which has the task of
looking after the security of its members. This is especially so as the CSCE
now covers an area stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok.
For the purpose of getting the discussion under way, I should like, in my
national capacity, to put forward some ideas. Whenever the Security Council
wishes to discuss a security issue within the competence of the CSCE, a
representative of the CSCE should be invited to provide the Council with the
necessary information on any CSCE activities in respect of that issue or
otherwise to contribute to the work of the Council. The Council and its
President, as well as the United Nations Secretary-General, should be kept
constantly informed of the main activities of the CSCE, and the reverse should
apply.
Coordination of the human-rights activities of the United Nations and of
the CSCE could be improved by, for example, regular CSCE participation at
meetings of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and its committees,
the Economic and Social Council and the Third Committee of the General
Assembly. And is there any reason why we should not establish working
contacts between the United Nations Centre for Human Rights in Geneva and the
CSCE's Warsaw Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights?
In addition, one of the main elements of the CSCE's early-warning
system the High Commissioner on National Minorities might have some link
with the United Nations. Indeed, at the appropriate time, that might even be
turned into an institutional link. In the long term, the CSCE human-rights
institutions, structures and mechanisms could become tools of both the United
Nations and the Council of Europe.
Such discussion as I have suggested could dispel the fear of United
Nations Member States which do not participate in the CSCE that the Helsinki
process is an elite club that institutionalizes the gap between the rich North
and the poor South.
We must also ensure that there is a proper understanding of the
peace-keeping role of the CSCE vis-a-vis that of the United Nations. The most
recent reason for this comparison is to be found in President Bush's statement
to the General Assembly on Monday, in which he suggested that the
peace-keeping function of the United Nations should be expanded considerably.
The peace-keeping concept of the United Nations is not identical to that of
the CSCE, and I believe that there is a good prospect of their becoming
complementary. It should be remembered that, in this respect, the North
Atlantic Alliance and the Western European Union have made important offers.
It is unlikely that we shall be able to avoid having a debate on
peacemaking and peace-keeping. The crisis in the former Yugoslavia
necessitates a really serious discussion of this question. It is unnecessary
for me to reiterate my country's full support for the United Nations
peace-keeping operations, as there are Czech and Slovak "blue helmets" in the
former Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia has contributed to the United Nations
operations in Angola, Somalia and Iraq. To be of practical benefit,
discussion of the interaction between the United Nations and the CSCE should
take place annually.
In today's world the United Nations can play an even more important role
in arms control and disarmament. I am thinking especially of the Convention
on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. When
the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms becomes operational, it will
have a substantial role to play.
The Secretary-General's report, "An Agenda for Peace", says, "globalism
and nationalism need not be viewed as opposing trends" (para. 19). These
words attracted my attention as they reflect one of the peculiarities of our
times. They embody the historical experience of the two nations of
Czechoslovakia experience that I should like to share with members.
The idea of the right of nations to self-determination advanced by
President Wilson facilitated the disintegration of the former Austro-Hungarian
monarchy, thus opening up the way for the creation of Czechoslovakia. That
was 74 years ago.
Czechoslovakia emerged, however, under the influence of the notion that
there was a Czechoslovak nation, whereas it should have been admitted that
there were two distinct nations the Czechs and the Slovaks. But the idea of
Czechoslovakism, which resulted in the creation of a common State for the
world's two closest Slavic nations, impeded relations between those nations.
Thus a specific Czecho-Slovak problem was born, and it remains unresolved.
At about the same time, communism tied nations together by means of the
false idea of proletarian internationalism. This was bound to affect
relations between the Czechs and the Slovaks. However, our experience
indicates that communism was not the root of these problems; it simply gave
them a new dimension. Many nations are now searching for a new role in Europe
and in the world by seeking integration into larger economic entities and
political groups.
I believe that, so far as Czechoslovakia is concerned, one possible
solution lies in the replacement of the existing federalist pattern by new
ties. Understanding and viable coexistence between nations cannot be based on
false and outdated ideas. Czechoslovakia is therefore preparing to establish
two closely connected sovereign States by creating a common economy space and
retaining intact the close contacts between the peoples of the two republics.
We want to introduce elements of European integration into the relations
between the republics.
What is now taking place in Czechoslovakia is a process aimed at the
creation of a solid basis for a model of integration such as has been
developing democratically in Western Europe and has led to the creation and
development of the European Communities.
minim
Globalism and nationalism are not necessarily opposing trends, provided
that the right to self-determination is accompanied by the desire for closer
cooperation with other nations and by efficient participation in international
systems of guaranteeing the basic values upon which the world and especially
the fragile structure of peace are built. We live in an era of global
integration comprising different subsystems, among which the United Nations
has an irreplaceable role to play.
I should like, in conclusion, to say that this statement is a sort of
farewell speech of the Czechoslovak federation to the United Nations. It is
highly probable that by January of next year the federation will have ceased
to exist. Thus one of the founding members of the United Nations will give
its place in international politics to the two new independent States. It is
my hope that all the current Members of the United Nations will extend to the
Czech republic and the Slovak republic the understanding that they have always
shown to Czechoslovakia, by admitting them to membership as soon as possible.