Greece

Allow me to extend the warmest congratulations of my Government to the President of the General Assembly at its fifty-first session on his election. I would also like to express our deep appreciation to his predecessor, Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral, whose leadership during the fiftieth session was a valuable asset for the Organization. I also seize this opportunity to express my deep appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for his dedication to his duties since 1992. The Foreign Minister of Ireland, as President of the Council of the European Union, delivered a statement to which my Government fully subscribes, as it does to the Union’s memorandum. I would like, however, to elaborate further on some issues that are of particular interest to my country. Let us remember the message delivered by the world leaders during the special commemorative meeting of this body: the Organization needs to undergo a serious reorganization in order to be ready to confront the challenges of the years ahead. The political commitment of the Member States and the contribution of adequate resources constitute two fundamental prerequisites for the success of the United Nations. Unfortunately, few noteworthy proposals have been put forward concerning the comprehensive modernization effort to enable the Organization to become more efficient and transparent in the fulfilment of its functions while rationalizing the use of its resources. It is the Member States that have endowed the United Nations with its current features. Even if the Organization’s administrative weaknesses were fully remedied, the power of extensive correction and long-overdue reform lies not in this building, but in our own capitals. At this stage, we are faced with two alternatives: either curtail demands on the United Nations, giving it a reasonable chance of carrying out reduced policies within its existing resources, or recognize the need to improve its capacities and grant it greater functions, as well as the necessary means. Greece strongly advocates the second path, because the need for the world Organization is growing, not shrinking. Year by year, we move closer to menacing demographic, socio-economic and ecological thresholds. The only chance we have to deal with transnational problems is to work out transnational 4 responses. We need to cooperate constructively towards common ends. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the United Nations to face the current financial crisis if Member States were to deprive the world Organization of the resources and assets that they have contractually pledged of their own free will. In this context, it should be stressed yet again that no amount of savings will, by itself, permit the United Nations to be solvent, and that none of the Member States, in particular those that play a major role in the Organization’s decision-making process and in the definition of its activities, should have second thoughts when it comes to footing their part of the bill. Let us be clear: the whole reform is endangered by the looming atmosphere of imminent financial collapse. Even worse, the United Nations, and all the principles that it stands for, are exposed to the danger of being discredited, perhaps forever, even in the eyes of its warmest supporters. This is a much more fundamental issue than improvements to specific parts of the system, welcome and needed though the latter may be. Earlier this year, the European Union outlined a comprehensive package to address the financial crisis. Furthermore, Greece, on a national basis, responded positively to the Secretary-General’s appeal and decided to increase its annual contribution to the peacekeeping- operations budget, thus moving on a voluntary basis from Group C to Group B of countries that contribute to the financing of the Organization’s peacekeeping activities. As a result, our contribution will increase by 500 per cent by the year 2000, when the process of gradual reallocation will have been completed. It has become increasingly fashionable to argue that the idea of a world community is alive in the human imagination, though not yet in the world of action; that the concept of collective security has failed to take root because it does not reflect the spirit of the age; that the public multilateral approach cannot be effective in conflict resolution, because there are no collective solutions to individual crises; and that behind-the-scenes diplomacy, which pursues relatively modest goals, will always be better at keeping conflict within reasonable limits, because it will compromise between what justice demands and what circumstances permit. In the light of past and recent experience, the Greek people certainly do not have immoderate illusions in this regard. The case of Cyprus is a striking example of the inability of the international community to ensure implementation of clear-cut United Nations resolutions and to tackle the problem of the ongoing occupation of one Member State by another following an act of military aggression. To cite just one other example, Greece is threatened with war in the event it applies the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has been signed by all Member States, except for the one that made it clear that it would not hesitate to use force for the maintenance and defence of its vital interests. However, it would be totally wrong to discard multilateralism just because of the persistence of attitudes that assuage consciences without solving the problems. We have to strike a positive balance between vision and reality, because no society, and certainly not the international community, can aspire to human, economic and social development without a stable and legally appropriate framework. Throughout its existence, the United Nations has not just constituted the main, if not the only, incarnation of the global spirit of hope. The principles enshrined in its Charter have established a code of conduct for States, which have the duty to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, to refrain from the threat or use of force, and to settle disputes by exclusively peaceful means and in accordance with international law. Moreover, the Organization itself has often been a successful instrument for the prevention and management of conflicts. If power politics are allowed to be deployed in the pursuit of exclusive and narrow interests in a climate of confrontation, if the world’s resources are shared on the basis of military power rather than of international treaties and conventions, if priority is not given to international law and international cooperation, and if we attempt to evade the responsibilities that we have all undertaken under the Charter, however appealing and convenient that might appear in the short term, we will sow the seeds of chaos, anarchy and rapid disintegration. The United Nations offers the only framework in which to achieve the important objective of enforcing international legitimacy, provided, of course, that it improves its capacity to deal with international problems and especially to create an effective mechanism of collective security. Greek-Turkish relations illustrate the need for such an improvement. The Greek Government sincerely desires the establishment of normal good-neighbourly relations 5 based on the principles of international law and respect for international treaties, which, however, Turkey seems determined to ignore. The Turkish Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution on 8 June 1995, which empowers the Government to use military force in case Greece exercises its legal right to extend its territorial waters in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Moreover, the Turkish Government adopted the contents of this resolution in direct violation of the United Nations Charter, which forbids the use of force or the threat of the use of force in international relations. Even worse, in contravention of the Treaty of Lausanne and the Treaty of Paris, Turkey laid claim at the beginning of this year to the Imia islets in the Aegean Sea, which are Greek sovereign territory, and even supported this claim by military means. This sets a very dangerous precedent for the entire region. Turkey is attempting to subvert the territorial status quo established more than 70 years ago and is backing its claims with the use of armed force. Furthermore, the Foreign Minister, Mrs. Ciller, in her capacity as Prime Minister, claimed in February that 1,000 Greek islands and islets in the Aegean are Turkish, and that if Greece attempted to contest this “fact”, Turkey would consider it a casus belli. A few days later she raised the number to 3,000. Greece has repeatedly called on Turkey to have recourse to the International Court of Justice concerning the Imia islets. Turkey, on the contrary, has lately challenged Greek sovereignty, even over the inhabited island of Gávdhos, south-west of Crete in the Libyan Sea, and despite the outrageous nature of this claim, it has not unequivocally withdrawn it. We see that Turkey wilfully violates the most basic principles of the international legal order and far from exhibiting any self-restraint, puts forth ever more provocative claims against Greece. My country, on the other hand, not only scrupulously respects international law and treaties, but also demonstrates great self-restraint in its relations with Turkey. There is no better example of this than the fact that Greece has chosen not to react forcibly to the massive violations of Greek airspace and the constant overflying of Greek territory on the part of Turkish warplanes. This responsible stance should not, however, be misinterpreted in any way. On the contrary, and despite the absence of any real will on the part of international community to uphold the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, Greece is absolutely determined to protect its sovereign rights by all legitimate means, and the threat of force will not dissuade it from doing so. As to the Cyprus issue, it is widely admitted that the status quo is unacceptable. Nevertheless, no progress has been achieved in the course of the last 22 years. Turkey, provocatively defying consecutive Security Council resolutions is still occupying by force a considerable part of the island. At the same time, Turkey is flagrantly violating basic human rights and freedoms of the Cypriot people, while engaging in systematic plunder of the island’s cultural and religious heritage. Moreover, Turkey continues to systematically promote the illegal and condemned practice of establishing settlers on the island. The time has come to reach a just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem based on the relevant United Nations resolutions and providing for a bicommunal bizonal federation with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, while safeguarding the independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus. The prospect of Cyprus joining the European Union is indeed an important new development, which creates conditions that should facilitate a comprehensive settlement of the issue. The period until the start of the accession talks should in no way be left unexploited. At the same time, the Greek Government welcomes any new ideas and initiatives, whatever their origin may be, which would contribute to a solution within the framework of the United Nations resolutions. A basic factor for achieving a breakthrough, in our opinion, is the coordination of all initiatives by the Secretary-General and his Special Representative. Meanwhile, the tension lingering on the island involves serious risks and creates additional complications which render the efforts for a settlement more arduous. Turkey and the pseudo-state, taking advantage of a peaceful demonstration by Greek Cypriots, proceeded a few weeks ago, with the active involvement of the extremist terrorist Turkish group the Grey Wolves, to implement a meticulously prepared plan which was crowned by the murder in cold blood of two young Cypriots and the injuries sustained by many others, United Nations peacekeepers included. The aim was undoubtedly to demonstrate the existence of an alleged international boundary on the island. It was also to support the Turkish claim that the two communities cannot live peacefully side by side and that the presence of the Turkish occupation forces is therefore necessary for the protection of the Turkish Cypriot community. But the truth is that both 6 communities can indeed coexist peacefully. So it was felt necessary to call in extremist elements from mainland Turkey in order to implement this scenario and to try to create mistrust between the communities. In the wake of those recent tragic developments we steadfastly believe that the adoption of President Clerides’ proposal for the demilitarization of Cyprus, a proposal whose importance has already been widely acknowledged, will decisively contribute to defusing tension and will at the same time meet the security requirements of all communities living on the island. In a broader context, the search for a just and viable solution to this complex international problem requires decisiveness and perseverance. If the bicommunal dialogue is to have any chance of success, a minimum common ground is indispensable, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions. But if the other party does not show the necessary political will, the international community should at last live up to its political and moral responsibilities. It should take action without delay and try to convince Turkey to abide by international law and withdraw its troops from the island. With regard to the Balkans, Greece’s policy in the area is guided by the principles of the maintenance of stability, peace and security, the inviolability of internationally recognized borders and full respect for human rights, including those relating to national minorities, in accordance with the relevant principles of the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Greece supports the establishment of good- neighbourly relations and the development of close economic ties with and among all Balkan countries. At the same time, our systematic cooperation with the countries of the Balkan peninsula contributes to the achievement of their long-term goals of economic and political rapprochement with the European Union and its institutions. We fully support and actively promote the European orientation of these countries. Moreover, Greece has supported all international initiatives aimed at further promoting Balkan regional cooperation, such as the conference of ministers of southeastern Europe — which convened this year in Sofia and which will meet again in Thessaloniki in June of next year — the European Royaumont initiative and the United States southeast European cooperative initiative. We believe that in their complementarity, these efforts contribute to the stability, security and prosperity of the area. In the context of regional cooperation I should also mention the Greek initiative for trilateral meetings of the ministers for foreign affairs of Greece, Bulgaria and Romania, which took place at Ioannina, Greece in 1995, and, after that, in Varna, Bulgaria, on 16 and 17 March 1996. The aim of these meetings is to bolster subregional cooperation, mainly in the fields of transport, telecommunications and energy, as well as in the development of infrastructure. Greece was one of the founding members of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) organization. Greece recently became a member of the Parliamentarian Assembly of the BSEC and participates actively in this initiative that encompasses countries from both the Balkans and the Black Sea area and which can make an important contribution to the development and stability of the wider region. One important achievement among others is the establishment in Thessaloniki of the BSEC Bank of Trade and Development which, is expected to start functioning soon and contribute to the implementation of specific projects of great interest to the region. I will now try to give a brief assessment of my country’s bilateral relations with each individual Balkan country. In its relations with Albania, Greece actively pursues the development of good-neighbourliness and cooperation in all fields, based on the respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as full respect for human rights, including those relating to national minorities, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Greek minority in Albania constitutes a bridge of friendship and cooperation between the two countries. To this end, encouraging steps are being undertaken by the Albanian Government. Greece has actively supported Albania in its efforts for reconstruction and development and has backed its association with international organizations. The visit last March of the President of the Hellenic Republic to Tirana and the signing of a treaty of friendship and cooperation between the two countries opened a new chapter in their relations for the benefit of the two peoples. Greek-Bulgarian relations have continued their fruitful and constructive development marked by exchanges of visits at all levels. Recent crucially important agreements — among them one concerning the 7 opening of three new border check-points and another on the waters of the Nestos river — give true meaning to their cooperation in the field of infrastructure, while being of decisive significance for the future development of the region's European orientation. Greece’s relations with Romania have reached a high level during the last years. Visits at all levels, including one by the President of the Hellenic Republic, have taken place frequently and close and broad cooperation in the economic and cultural fields has been achieved. Greece’s goal is the establishment of close and friendly relations with all countries that have emerged from the former Yugoslavia. The traditionally close relations of Greece with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will be further strengthened through enhanced economic cooperation, especially following the suspension of the United Nations embargo, which inflicted heavy losses on the Greek economy also. A multi-faceted development of their cooperation will help to redress the past. Greece’s relations with Croatia and Slovenia have followed a steady upward trend. Greece has a great interest in the dynamic development of its relations with those two countries in all fields, and I am glad to acknowledge their positive response as well. With regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece fully supported the Dayton Peace Agreement and has actively participated in the efforts to implement it fully. Timely and full respect of this Agreement is the best guarantee of the preservation of the integrity, sovereignty and multiethnic character of that Republic. The efforts of the international community to achieve peace in Bosnia must succeed. First must come the constitution and proper functioning of the joint organs of the Republic in order to expedite the return to full normalization of life in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Greece has established diplomatic relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina and participates in reconstruction plans with substantial economic aid. Greece expresses the wish that negotiations taking place with The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under the auspices of Mr. Vance on the issue of the name of that Republic will finally meet with success, so as to open the way for a full normalization and the dynamic development of relations between our two countries. The Middle East peace process is currently at a critical crossroads. It is with shock and dismay that my Government is following the latest dramatic developments in the West Bank and Gaza. We express our deepest sorrow at the deaths that have occurred and our grave concern about the future of the peace process. Greece urges all parties to demonstrate the utmost restraint and to refrain from any action which might lead to a further escalation of violence in the occupied territories. In particular, they must step back from any action that is bound to rekindle deep-rooted sentiments of mistrust and enmity on both sides. There is no alternative for the peoples in the region other than a peace based on the principle of land for peace. There is no alternative to the peace process. If this process stagnates, there is a danger that it will unravel. There is an urgency for both parties to resume efforts to fulfil earnestly their agreed obligations. Greece calls on the parties to resume negotiations immediately on the basis of the principles already accepted by them in the Madrid and Oslo agreements. We consider it of the utmost importance that the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement be fully implemented, and that the talks on the final status of the Palestinian territories — including Jerusalem — are speedily concluded together with the solution of the two outstanding problems, namely, security for all and social and economic development. Failure to proceed could lead to grave consequences as far as peace and stability in the whole region are concerned. Peoples of the region should be guaranteed a secure life within internationally recognized and safe boundaries. In this context, Greece believes that the international community must spare no effort to create a solid basis for the political and economic survival of the Palestinian National Authority, thereby providing a source of hope for the Palestinian people. Greece will continue to support this effort actively. We are of the view that the peace process could be substantially promoted if those States of the region which are directly concerned would join forces with those actively participating in it. We urge the implementation of Security Council resolution 425 (1978) on Lebanon. Greece, who has actively participated in the Middle East peace process since its beginnings in Madrid, will continue to offer every possible support and assistance to the bilateral and multilateral negotiations towards a comprehensive, final and just peace. The expansion and improvement of the representative character of the Security Council constitutes one of the most urgent needs for reform in the United Nations system. While ongoing discussions have been focusing on adding to the permanent membership in 8 order to reflect changes in the global balance since 1945, as well as on the right of veto and its use, we should not disregard the long-term beneficial effects of allowing more nations to participate in the decision-making process of this critically important body. In this context, the Greek Government has decided to present its candidature for one of the two non-permanent seats allocated to the Group of Western European and other States in the Security Council for the period 1999-2000. It should be noted that Greece, a founding member of the United Nations, is one of the very few Western countries that have served only once as a non-permanent member of the Council, and that was more than 40 years ago. Greece is located at a crossroads in the Balkans and southeastern Europe, a region that should be given the opportunity to be represented on and to participate actively in the Council. My country’s firm and unconditional commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes, in accordance with the fundamental principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, offers all the necessary guarantees that its election will indeed serve the cause of international peace and security. On the eve of the third millennium, an affirmation of peace and cohesion among peoples must, more than ever before, constitute the primary legacy to bequeath to future generations. It befits the United Nations to be the depository and guarantor of this legacy. It rests with Member States to make solidarity, security and development their watchwords for concrete action and their battle cry in the fight against discord and injustice.