Estonia

I should like to congratulate Mr. Essy on his election as President of this, the forty- ninth, session of the General Assembly. The Estonian people wish him all the best in this post. Today is a day of national mourning in my country. Late last night, amid stormy autumn winds, the passenger and car ferry Estonia, sailing from Tallinn to Stockholm, sank at high sea. Nearly 100 people have been saved, and rescue efforts are continuing. But most of the over 850 people who were aboard the Estonia are presumed to be dead. I should like to thank the President and all those who have expressed their sorrow and sent condolences. In this painful loss, we can draw some solace from the global teamwork we have seen in the rescue efforts. Last night demonstrated beyond a doubt that the Baltic Sea is a sea of cooperation. Swedish, Finnish, Danish and Estonian rescue units worked together, and we had offers of help from Russia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and countless others. On behalf of my Government, I thank all of those who helped us with the rescue effort. The spirit of international cooperation sets a fine example for all of us here today. Today my country comes before this forum for the first time in half a century unfettered by the problem of the presence of foreign troops on our soil. The role the United Nations played in helping to remove the last vestiges of the Second World War was not small. It is therefore a special privilege for me to speak here today. It is also not insignificant that this new era in the history of Estonia, Latvia and Germany coincides with the upcoming fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. These two events would seem to call for solemn reflection on the past or at least a joyous celebration of the moment. But most of all, this new era requires new approaches. Post-war security - be the war hot or cold - still hangs in a delicate balance. Because it is up to all of us, collectively, to decide which way the scales tip, I wish to focus on the future, on how we in Estonia are approaching this new era, and on some of the ideas enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations that we believe deserve special attention in the next few years. On 31 August, we marked the withdrawal of troops. The celebrations and commemorations of this event symbolized the end of one era and the beginning of another. The withdrawal of the troops has had a tremendous effect in bringing us closer to normalization of relations with the Russian Federation, and we sincerely hope that the problem of officers who were demobilized on our territory against the spirit and the letter of the troop-withdrawal treaty will be solved. The troop withdrawal was also a major step towards achieving security in the Baltic region. But the problem of Baltic security has not yet been solved - far from it. One dimension of moving towards bona fide security undoubtedly lies in trying to improve relations with the Russian Federation. The potential for good will is in the air, and it is our duty, on both sides of the 1920 Tartu Peace Treaty, to seize the moment and make that peace again. We might call this policy towards Russia one of positive engagement. This would involve, among other 24 qualities, mutual respect for sovereignty, mutual respect for national security interests, mutual refraining from verbal and other confrontation, and mutual respect for international norms of behaviour, particularly in the area of human rights. We are willing to expend considerable energy to repair a relationship that has been historically so complex. To do so is not only in our own interest and in that of Russia, but in the interest of regional, European and therefore global security as well. I would emphasize, however, that in order for this policy to be successful, it must be mutual. If, on the other hand, our efforts are not reciprocated, then we must be prepared to expend our energy in different ways. Lately, we have noted with great concern talk of creating new spheres of influence. We hear continuing use of the phrase "the near abroad". We observe similar attitudes in discussions about the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union. We are already well past the initial stages of building a European security structure. A viable framework, based on shared values, that includes Central and East European States is nearly in place. It is not only late but unacceptable to ponder the plans of architects who speak of spheres of influence and to consult contractors who wish to build on sand or, worse, on a slippery slope. There are some specific ways in which the United Nations can take advantage of the historic opportunity it faces to encourage principled behaviour. One of them is to render peace-keeping more effective by strengthening peace-keeping mechanisms, including the dissemination of better and more timely information to all Member States in order to garner the support necessary for any collective action. Rather than abdicating responsibility, whether due to benign neglect, expediency or funding problems, and allowing large States to act unilaterally, it means holding all States in all regions to the same standards. It goes without saying that in lending its name to any peacekeeping operations, the United Nations must stand by the fundamental principles of neutrality and multilateralism. The United Nations should never become a mask behind which one country tries to assert dominance over another by means of peace-keeping. Let me add that Estonia is actively developing its own peace-keeping force, to be put, perhaps next year, at the disposal of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Another area in which more effective mechanisms and more stringent standards are needed is that of human rights, as reflected in the Vienna Declaration and plan of action of last year. I would stress the importance of the newly established Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights taking on this task. We wish High Commissioner Ayala Lasso success in this most important and challenging endeavour. We believe the High Commissioner can be instrumental not only in improving the effectiveness of the United Nations human rights mechanisms, but also in holding this body to strict standards. We believe that all States should be measured according to the same human rights standards. I could not agree more with the observation made by Russian Federation President Boris Yeltsin two days ago in this forum that "neither a selective approach nor double standards are permissible." (Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-ninth Session, Plenary Meetings, 5th meeting, p. 2) Indeed, exceptions cannot be made on the basis of the size of a nation, its cultural heritage or the political delicacy of the situation. The standards that are applied to one country must be valid for all others - in other words, there should be no elastic rulers. In this regard, allow me to remind the Assembly of an open letter - an appeal, really, to morality in foreign policy - which was signed by a host of political luminaries and published in September of last year in The Wall Street Journal. I quote from the letter, entitled "What the West Must Do In Bosnia": "Even if, like Kuwait in August 1990, all Bosnia (and not just Sarajevo) were seized, it would be essential for the democracies to make clear, as they did in the case of Kuwait, that violent border changes and ethnic cleansing will not stand. If the West does not make that clear, it will have nothing persuasive to say ...". Sadly, the message in that letter remains applicable today. If the world’s democracies, led by the United Nations, do not speak out for morality in the area of human rights, we will lose our ability to influence the course of events. Democracies must be willing to stand by the principles upon which our States and societies are based. It is our sincere hope that non-selective application of human rights standards will become the rule, not the exception. 25 A third way the United Nations can take advantage of this moment is to consider the global changes that have taken place since 1945. Then, in the immediate post-war period, the composition of the Security Council was established by drawing a sharp distinction between the victors and the vanquished. Times have changed. We must now take into account the positive role that some States in particular play in the international arena. And I have in mind here Germany and Japan, States that have more than demonstrated their commitment to democracy during the last 50 years. Estonia strongly supports granting Germany and Japan permanent-member status in the Security Council as a recognition of their accomplishments and an acknowledgement of their stabilizing role in world affairs. I would turn now briefly to Estonia’s vision of its future role in the United Nations. Now that the issues which had hitherto demanded our intense attention have been more or less solved, we are freer to devote more energy to wider issues that affect all of us. I am speaking here of global phenomena such as terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking and smuggling of radioactive materials as well as health and social issues and environmental problems. These are issues that know no borders, and dealing with them requires a collective effort on our part. On this, the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, we face an enormous challenge. The war - I mean the Second World War - is finally over. But the real battle - to safeguard human and civil rights for all persons, to strengthen security for all States, to preserve a continent undivided - this battle has only just begun. With intelligence, perseverance, goodwill, and a little luck, the nations gathered here can unite in the battle to make the next 50 years more constructive than the last.