Italy

First of all, I have great pleasure in congratulating you. Sir, and your country, Bulgaria, on your election as President of the General Assembly. I should also like to express Italy's satisfaction, and my own, at seeing here present the delegations of the new States admitted to our Organization during the past year: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. May I be permitted to extend a particularly warm welcome to the delegation of San Marino, a State with which Italy has close ties of very long standing. I should particularly like to express my Government's most sincere appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who is giving the United Nations the benefit of his wealth of experience in political affairs and diplomacy. Even in his first year he has already worked tirelessly and constructively to apply the principles which we all support and which are enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The points I am about to make follow on the comments, which Italy fully endorses, made by the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, the current President of the European Community. Since the historic events of 1989, no General Assembly session has been held, or will be held in the near future, against the same international background as the session of the previous year. Since the demise of bipolarism, international society has become subject to processes of reaggregation which are made more laborious and arduous by an array of historical, cultural, ethnic, religious and nationalistic factors. There are certain groups that, wishing to assert their own specificity, are not content to be recognized and safeguarded within the State framework to which they belong, but seek to express their own identity in the form of statehood. In the East, what was once a monolithic structure has been falling apart, and, in some cases, is being fragmented into a multiplicity of separate entities, each demanding to translate its own history, culture and national identity into an international personality. In the process, they are resorting to all available means, including conflict and violence. The obstacles preventing the restoration of equilibrium are not really new: they derive from factors that have long been chafing under the heavy yoke of dictatorship. Constrained in ideological straitjackets, they have been unable to engage in an open dialectic. Denied all opportunities for natural development, they have maintained the potential for confrontation and conflict. With the fall of ideologies and the break-up of the Soviet empire, the nightmare of a nuclear holocaust has receded. But while the spectre of a world war has been banished, we are still seeing a proliferation of local wars. These and the manifold antagonisms underlying them now pose a new threat, particularly in geographical areas that have regained their freedom but find it marred by violence and conflict and are unable to build a new structure based on tolerance and peace. There are therefore hotbeds of war, signs of revolt and unresolved conflicts in areas formerly belonging to the Soviet empire, which is now divided into a number of republics united only by tenuous economic relations and very fragile political ties. In Central Europe, ancient nations which have graduated from limited to full sovereignty are endeavouring to become pluralistic democracies with a market economy.. They, too, are having their share of problems. And how can we forget the war raging in the very heart of Europe the most complex, dangerous and tragic of all these conflicts and the one thus far untouched by all international appeals? In the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, bloodshed and strife are accompanied by violations of the dignity of the human person. After the horrors of the Second World War, we had all hoped never again to witness acts of discrimination and violence against those belonging to a different ethnic group. What gives.us cause for pessimism is the fact that after the London Conference a new and original experiment, which brought together round the conference table the United Nations, represented by its Secretary-General, the 12 members of the European Community, the members of the United Nations Security Council, and representatives of Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia, and after clear commitments were entered into and undertakings were even signed on such matters as cessation of the violence, control over heavy weapons, the cessation of "ethnic cleansing" and the closure of concentration camps, nothing I say nothing - has been done apart from some occasional checks on heavy weapons. In spite of the assurances and undertakings given by Prime Minister Panic, which we consider sincere and deserving of support, shooting continues in the towns and in the mountains, and planes are being shot down, as in the case of an Italian aircraft carrying relief supplies. Four airmen died in that incident, and three French soldiers belonging to the United Nations Protection Force have been killed. Many other lives have been lost. A miserable winter lies ahead and people will suffer from hunger, cold and disease. It is now too dangerous to provide humanitarian assistance, and the threatened sanctions are not entirely watertight. Can the international community and its institutions permit this ongoing tragedy to persist in spite of the solemn promises and pledges made at high-level peace conferences? Can the perpetrators of heinous and odious crimes be allowed to escape international judgement, also at the legal level? This question must be answered by those whose duty it is to do so, including myself, in the appropriate forums. However, going beyond politics, I should like to reiterate an appeal voiced by one of the greatest writers of this century: "What we need today is a 'militant' humanism imbued with the conviction that the principles of liberty, tolerance and doubt must not be exploited or defeated by a fanaticism that knows no doubts. If European humanism has lost its robust capacity to review its ideas it will end in ruin, and we will have a Europe whose name is no more than a geographical term." In the third world, too, the end of bipolarism has eliminated for many States the need to "belong" and to heed the dictates of a particular bloc, even in a non-aligned context. Crises exist also in this area, as in the case of Somalia, Iraq and Mozambique, although we hope to see this latter crisis resolved, also as a result of Italy's mediation efforts. At this point we should ask ourselves a question: Now that the gulf between East and West has been bridged, are we not about to face a rift between North and South? We must counter this danger and reactivate the dialogue in all possible forums and translate the concept of assistance into a living reality. We should also oppose methods and procedures that use development cooperation to help the economic agents of donor countries; work on the basis of established programmes; ensure that assistance is not wrongfully diverted both in the countries of origin and in those of destination; and reorganize and coordinate the various sources of financing. Italy realizes that it has not yet reached, owing to its financial imbalances, the generous development assistance targets it had set for itself. A reorganization of the country's financial structures will also facilitate a renewed effort to fulfil this pledge. Now that the Rio Conference has been held, international cooperation will have to reconcile the needs of development with the equally pressing need to protect the environment. Italy, which supports the establishment of the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development, undertakes to implement the Rio recommendations in an effort involving governments as well as non-governmental organizations. Chile's proposal for a world social conference, which Italy warmly supports, opens up yet another important field of endeavour for the United Nations. In surveying this new international scene, we have no reason to lament or regret the passing of the bipolar structure of the world. We cannot forget that we paid for the containment of a global threat with a peace guaranteed by the menace of nuclear war, by the denial of freedom to millions of human beings, by violations of the fundamental rights of man and by the inaction of a society that destroyed resources, stunted the growth of its own leadership and is now posing the same old problems in a more acute form. The ideological confrontation has ended with the downfall of the largest ideological system in our history, the communist system, but now that this ideology has collapsed, problems have remained in individual nations and in the world as a whole. The names of these problems are hunger, disease, environmental degradation and political instability. It would indeed be an irreversible defeat for mankind were the world of affluence, production and consumption of our generation to confuse the downfall of ideologies with the collapse of all values and if it were to forget that in every national society, and particularly in relations between the industrialized world and the developing countries, the two concepts of solidarity and interdependence need to be translated into political action. An example of this need is provided by the problem of Somalia. This country tragically illustrates the total detachment and lack of concern shown by the affluent societies towards countries plagued by poverty and disease, but the fate of this country also exemplifies the harm caused to people by prolonged power struggles that are never resolved. The country is divided in half. The capital, Mogadishu, is also divided, and like other population centres lacks essential services. The people are suffering from malnutrition and their health is in jeopardy. Armed youths, some no older than 14, are defending the territory by violent means. They do not attend school because they are unable to do so. We must gratefully acknowledge the initiative taken by the United Nations and its Secretary-General in sending a Special Representative, Ambassador Sahnoun, who is doing outstanding work in the field of humanitarian assistance and in the service of peace. I myself paid a two-day visit to the capital and parts of the interior. I found assistance facilities deplorable, and I spoke individually with the persons who have the power to make war or peace in an effort to promote peace initiatives. Anyone, regardless of region or religious affiliation, who is able to assist in the peace process must do so, because Somalia needs guidance, partners and, in short, a government. We must therefore give urgent attention to the need for an international initiative involving organizations and countries able to contribute to the pacification and reconstruction of Somalia, with the active participation of the United Nations. At this point, I should like to emphasize one of the most delicate and problematical, but also most promising points of contact between North and South, namely, the Mediterranean. Italy is currently following, in a spirit of optimism and active support, the promising developments in the peace process designed to end the Arab-Israeli conflict and provide a solution to the Palestinian question. Italy is aware that this hoped-for solution should also lead to the removal of a burden that has jeopardized the prospects for promoting a climate of peace and collaboration in the Mediterranean. Our expectations, which, we believe, are shared by the entire international community, thus extend beyond the vital objective of achieving mutual acceptance between all the peoples of the Middle East and look forward to a future characterized by sincere commitment to the process of dialogue and cooperation in the economic as well as in other fields in order to build peace. In trying today to identify possible means of reconstituting the international order, we find that regional groupings can play a unifying role, whether they follow the path of integration or confine themselves to close cooperation in the economic field, in foreign policy or in security matters.* In Western Europe, we have built and tested structures that have brought about a phenomenon quite different from the situation now prevailing in the troubled Eastern part of the continent. The need to defend democracy, the vast scope of economic development, spurred by technological progress, and the necessity of preserving the values of European culture and history, so that Europe can again play a major role in international society have led us to attach less importance to the theory and practice that nations must necessarily take the form of States. They phenomena have shown us that large areas of State sovereignty can be administered jointly in a supranational context and that such a link can also make war impossible. The process is certainly not an easy one, because it must be achieved through consensus and because obstacles, as we have seen in the last few days, crop up at every turn. European integration has repeatedly proved capable of overcoming the difficulties it has encountered. It is a mistake to speak, as some have done recently, of delays or setbacks in the process of further integration established at Maastricht. At their meeting held here in New York, the Foreign Ministers of the Community took note of the positive outcome of the French referendum and reaffirmed their determination to ratify the Treaty within the time stipulated without renegotiating it. The phenomenon of European integration can be seen as an attractive example and also as a factor for re-aggregation and stability in Central and Eastern Europe. In this context, the Commonwealth of Independent States could be a stabilizing element in so far as it can offer its former components valid prospects for association. A significant link between various components of the European continent is provided by the Central European Initiative, which Italy continues to support. In the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), nations both large and small have gained the conviction that war can never again be a means of solving problems between them. That alliance has now formed an association in the framework of the North Atlantic Council with countries that were formerly its adversaries. Since Helsinki II, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) has been setting up institutional machinery to assist it in better performing its tasks. Examples of integration are to be found not only in Europe but on every continent, and they encompass a variety of forms, ranging from the more tried and tested institutions, such as the Andean Pact and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), to more recent initiatives, such as the common market of four South American countries (MERCOSUR), or completely new developments, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Also very important are the new forms of cooperation in certain specific and highly sensitive areas, such as the nuclear sector. The recent agreement between Argentina and Brazil would appear to be very promising. The formation of regional associations is a course worth pursuing and an effective means of strengthening international society. The United Nations might find this a useful means of consolidating the peace. The problems in whose solution the United Nations will increasingly be involved deal not only with relations between States but also with their internal structure and their components in terms of minorities and ethnic groups. Italy does not have an answer, but it does have concrete experience to contribute to the international community: the solution to the Alto Adige problem. That dispute between Italy and Austria, which was brought before the United Nations in the period 1960-1961, was officially brought to a conclusion last June. That conclusion came as a result of a lengthy process involving the elaboration and application at the national level of a package of measures adopted by Italy in consultation with the representatives of the German-speaking population of Alto Adige. Those measures cover all aspects of civilian life and provide one of the most progressive examples of minority protection in Europe. We feel that the settlement of that issue proves that autonomy, when adequately guaranteed by domestic legal provisions, serves to strengthen rather than weaken harmony in a national setting, while also promoting good-neighbourly relations and international cooperation across borders. There is no doubt that in the changed conditions in which we are living the United Nations will have greater responsibility and will therefore need greater authority and more effective means of performing its mission; hence the discussions concerning a "new United Nations", that is, an Organization capable of moving in new directions to satisfy the widely felt need for some kind of world order or government. It is the members of the Assembly that, in conformity with the Charter and in fulfilment of the obligations deriving from it, must assume the status and responsibility not only of peace-loving countries, but also of States that renounce the use of force as a means of settling international disputes and consider the protection of human rights to be an inescapable duty. We welcome the appearance of a new and compelling document which should serve as a basis for discussion in the Organization. I am referring once again to "An Agenda for Peace", the Secretary-General's report on preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping. Preventive diplomacy should be a means of defusing potential conflicts before they reach the critical threshold of a confrontation. This preventive approach calls also for prompt steps to guarantee through mechanisms contemplated in General Assembly resolution 46/36 L the transparency of international arms transfers and of their production. The same applies to the convention banning chemical weapons, which has finally been submitted to the Assembly for approval and which will institute a global monitoring system with unprecedented powers of on-site verification. Peace-keeping must now be approached and applied today in innovative ways so as to make more effective the linkage between action to prevent a sharpening of armed conflict and the search for negotiated solutions. It is also worth giving in-depth consideration to the possibility of using "peace-enforcement" units, not just to perform the tasks of traditional peace-keeping forces, in other words to intervene where a cease-fire exists, but in order to restore and maintain it. Lastly, a new need arises from the existing conflicts, the need to supplement peace-keeping and peacemaking instruments by providing adequate military protection for humanitarian assistance efforts. In order to cope with all these requirements we will need adequate structures and resources. Also, Italy along the lines here illustrated by the French Foreign Minister is prepared to give its own concrete contribution, as it has proved with its recent offer of men and equipment formulated in the framework of the Yugoslav crisis. The situation of former Yugoslavia also highlights the importance of the regional dimension in pursuing "An Agenda for Peace". It now seems that the option of a regional solution for regional conflicts as provided in the Charter could be effectively applied in a variety of ways in a kind of variable geometry of peace. An important example is the format of the London Conference, which I have already mentioned. Here the regional dimension is not an alternative to United Nations involvement; it also operates on the basis of a creative formula for the sharing of responsibilities. The United Nations system in any case seems destined increasingly to rely in practice on regional organizations - ranging from the Organization of American States (OAS) to the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) and communities, alliances or unions of States, as is the case for the European Community, the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the Yugoslav situation. Important new developments compel us also to rethink the limitations on the application of certain traditional concepts and principles underlying international relations. To rethink certainly does not mean to reject. It means avoiding all rigid and absolute definitions and interpreting principles in such a way as to preclude unbalanced applications that are bound to be in conflict. We may note, for example, that at the urging of a collective conscience that now knows no boundaries the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of States is being increasingly reviewed in the light of the grave dangers threatening the survival of entire population groups. It is also clear that if every ethnic, religious or language group were to claim its own State there would be endless fragmentation and, consequently, instability. From the discussions held during the first few days of the session it is becoming increasingly clear that all Members of the Organization agree in their evaluation of the central role regained by the United Nations. We all seem to realize that this strengthening of the United Nations will require not only the assignment of new roles but also the provision of adequate powers and resources. The alternative would be the anti-historical reconstitution of an oligarchy made up of those countries having the greatest capacity for unilaterally assuming the role of guarantors of international legality. We must protect the United Nations new capacity for action with greater vigilance and a keen sense of responsibility without becoming entrenched in positions that would preclude future institutional development. Italy, along other countries, has already stated that the question of revising certain parts of the Charter relating to matters such as the composition of the Security Council must be adequately debated. We still believe that the Council could be made more authoritative and representative by increasing the number of temporary and permanent members, choosing the latter on the basis of objective criteria. Italy will also assert its aspiration for a more adequate representation in the Security Council at that moment, unless institutional developments in the European Union will not allow at a certain stage the institution of a European seat in the Security Council. I should like to conclude by observing that the United Nations has the main responsibility for handling the difficult yet exciting international developments we are now witnessing. It will do so with tools of crisis management that are suitable to the world of today, a world in which it is becoming increasingly necessary to accept limitations in the area of national sovereignty, guaranteed by the objectivity of a supranational collective system, by using political instruments and procedures wherever possible, or by applying coercive measures if they are needed. What needs to be preserved are the aims of the Charter, which continue to be not only valid but indeed essential. But in a world that is now quite different from the world of 1945, the transformation of which began to accelerate in 1989, it would be unthinkable to suggest that we should avoid taking speedy and courageous action to devise new instruments, change our thinking and review the powers and composition of United Nations organs. Only by maintaining a fruitful polarity between permanent goals and new instruments, to which we must all contribute, will we be able to meet the challenges of our times.