Hungary

Allow me to express to you my sincere congratulations on your election as President of the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly. At the same time, let me once again wish much success to the Secretary-General of our Organization. The scale of the changes that have taken place lately on the international scene is amply demonstrated by the sheer number of new delegations that have joined our ranks at the United Nations. In large areas of our globe, which were shown on the map hitherto only by single-coloured expanses representing federations held together by totalitarian power, we see today a colourful collection of independent States that have regained or are about to gain their sovereignty. There are few countries whose external relations have been affected by these changes as directly and as deeply as ours. The number of Hungary's neighbours has grown from five to seven, and five of them will be shown as independent States only on maps that are to be published in the coming months. Two years ago, when I first had the opportunity to address this forum as the representative of a Hungarian government formed following the first free elections in 45 years, I returned home convinced that the fresh breeze of history was having a reinvigorating effect on the activities of the United Nations as well. The downfall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe not only opened a new chapter in the lives of the peoples of the region, but set on a new course the whole system of international relations. The ensuing total collapse of the bipolar world system and the fading away of the paralysing effect of great-Power confrontation raised particularly high expectations. It appeared that the world Organization would be able to respond effectively in all instances to the challenges to international peace and security. These hopes and expectations, and the faith of some in a swift and radical renewal, are contrasted today by many with the present situation in the world and at the United Nations. Certain sectors of the public view the events of the last year as a dissipation of the hopes fostered by the historic turn of events in 1989 and 1990. They cite the tragedies of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Somalia, Karabakh, Abkhazia and other regions, the grave and massive violations of human rights, and the persistence of serious economic and social tensions in the world, and reproach the world Organization for not managing the crises effectively. However, we have to show that the United Nations has not retreated from the role it played and regarded as a historic milestone when the Coalition forces, on the basis of the Security Council's authorization, acted against the aggressor and liberated Kuwait. An important stage in this field was the summit meeting of the Security Council in January, which renewed the commitment of the Member States to the collective security system of the United Nations. As a result of this meeting, it seems that preventive diplomacy has now entered the minds of political decision makers as a most promising method of crisis management. We set high value on the substantive and action-oriented report entitled "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277) that the Secretary-General has prepared on the Security Council's initiative. In our view, it makes good use of the possibilities inherent in the Charter and may serve as a good point of departure for the efforts directed at enhancing the effectiveness of the crisis-prevention, peacemaking, peace-building and peace-keeping role of the United Nations. Now that the relationship between the great Powers is determined not by opposition but agreement and a consistent search for consensus, the dust can be blown off those chapters of the Charter that are related to the international collective security system and had almost become a historic relic. We also concur with the Secretary-General's recommendations concerning a stronger role for the International Court of Justice and the regional organizations. In this connection, I wish to announce that the Hungarian Government, empowered by a recent decision of the parliament, will deposit with the Secretary-General the declaration recognizing as compulsory the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. In view of the fact that the emergence of regional hotbeds of tension is often engendered by conflicts within individual States, one can rightly say in connection with the Agenda for Peace that the viability of preventive diplomacy depends to a decisive extent on how we deal with the relationship between the sovereignty of the State concerned and the preventive measures taken by the international community. Even if an internal conflict can be localized and does not transcend the borders of the country, it has a direct effect on the situation and stability of neighbouring States and, thus, on international peace and security: the strands of bilateral and multilateral political and economic cooperation are weakened, instability emerges, an atmosphere of mistrust prevails, there are massive flows of refugees, environmental damage from the conflict spills over, and so on. It must be stated that in our world today, preventive diplomacy can succeed so long as individual States, already at the early stages of the development of a problem, do make use in a responsible manner of the crisis-prevention possibilities provided by the world Organization and do not regard them as an impairment of their sovereignty. On the other hand, if such possibilities remain unexploited and the problems start festering, the Organization must be prepared to act resolutely, effectively and swiftly, making use of all means at its disposal against a State that threatens peace and security. In the course of the crisis management of recent years the Security Council has set precedents the latest being the condemnation of "ethnic cleansing" and of breaches of international humanitarian law in Bosnia and Herzegovina which make it unambiguously clear that respect for human rights, including the rights of minority communities, is an integral aspect of international peace and security and can by no means be regarded as an internal affair. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the Security Council pay close attention to grave human-rights violations in individual States. Action in this field by the international community is a legitimate manifestation of our common concern and responsibility. This constantly expanding dimension of the Security Council's activity is in accord with the Charter and should be incorporated into preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and, in particular, peace-building. With regard to the practical tasks related to these activities at the United Nations, some progress can be made in the short run, beginning with the current session of the General Assembly. For example, we can take steps with regard to the initiative concerning the establishment, within national frameworks, of standby forces for the peacemaking and peace-keeping activities of the United Nations. Those Governments that have already made specific offers to this end have demonstrated an exemplary attitude. Hungary is ready to do likewise. We are in favour of another initiative aimed at the establishment of a temporary reserve fund to meet the initial cost of peace-keeping operations. Hungary also supports the Secretary-General's proposal that, even on the request of only one of the parties to a conflict, international monitors could be deployed on the territory, including its border areas, of the requesting party. These measures could be similar to those planned for the near future, with the support of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, in connection with the Southern Slav crisis, in the form of monitoring missions to be sent to Hungary and other States. Central and Eastern Europe are the scene of one of the major changes in international relations. Here the scenario of almost euphoric expectations and of ensuing disillusionment is played out in an especially dramatic way. Following the demise of communism, it seemed that the outlines of a new and unifying Europe were appearing on the horizon. The States in the region were faced simultaneously with the tasks of returning to Europe, both symbolically and in reality, and of ending the conflicts that for centuries had plagued relations between their peoples. We had every right to hope that, this time, the past would not be repeated and that, with guidance through jointly proclaimed democratic ideals, the recognition of interdependence would prevail over confrontation. For the peoples of multinational States welded together by coercion and totalitarian methods, the spread of democracy has also become an experience of national emancipation. It is a telling fact that, following more than seven decades of existence, all three federal States bordering my country recently disintegrated with tempestuous speed or are undergoing a process of disintegration. _ In our view, it is wrong to regard such processes as an entirely retrograde phenomenon and contrasting them with modern integrationist tendencies to deplore them. Internal turmoil, efforts at secession and the breakup of existing State frameworks are most likely to occur where integration does not enjoy genuine popular endorsement and where democratic mechanisms for conflict management are lacking. Today the key issue of stability and security in Central and Eastern Europe is recognition and promotion of the endeavours of peoples for self-determination and of the endeavours of national minorities to secure adequate forms of self-government. This can be advanced only through the combined efforts of the parties concerned and the international community, in conformity with the basic norms of international law. For these peoples, endeavours towards self-determination constitute the first, and apparently unavoidable, step on the road back to Europe the road to participation in a new and voluntary integration. On the other hand and it is gratifying to be able to say this more and more people now recognize the compelling need to deal positively with the problem of national minorities, including those people who, only recently, persisted in denying the reality of such questions. However, it is a mistake for anyone to seek to achieve self-determination and self-government by resurrecting the nineteenth century concept of the nation State, and it is a crime to advance that concept by redrawing frontiers by force or "ethnic cleansing". We are all well aware that attempts to create so-called ethnically pure States have more than once in history degenerated into massive tragedy, naked aggression and crimes against humanity and against minorities. The enormous changes that are taking place in our region pose yet another pressing problem: how are we to ensure success for this unprecedented and historic transformation, which is occurring in difficult conditions? We have to cope with a hard legacy, bequeathed by the past, a legacy that is a source of complex problems to solve and of lurking dangers to avoid. The transition from dictatorship and so-called planned economies to political pluralism and market economies is an uncharted path, lacking time-tested models or examples. This process involves tension and sharp internal debate, both economic and social, just as it produces unresolved external problems. In this respect, I should like to mention the vitally important legal, ecological and navigational problems that arose along one of our fluvial frontiers as a result of the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the River Danube. Much to our regret, the bilateral talks aimed at finding a solution to the problem have so far been unproductive. We want to do everything possible to ensure that Hungary and the neighbour in question, with welcome international assistance, can find a mutually acceptable solution rather than add another source of conflict to our region, which is already ridden with tension. The transformations sweeping through Central and Eastern Europe present another question: how are the dark shadows accompanying the rebirth of freedom and democracy to be confronted? These transformations must be protected from all extremes: from the demons of totalitarianism, of whatever colour; from the revival of various brown-shirt ideologies; and from attempts to paint over communism with national colours. All these things, with their demagogic appeal and offer of temptingly simplistic solutions, can only undermine and ruin the unsparing and strenuous efforts to establish and strengthen the rule of law. Hungary is convinced that it will prove to be equal to the historic challenge and will bring about the triumph of the universal and lasting values of our civilization. However, the peoples of our region are far from being the only ones affected by this task and interested in mastering it. Therefore, their efforts to ensure that democratic values prevail require and deserve international support. In the immediate neighbourhood of my country in the former Yugoslavia the gravest crimes and violations of human rights continue to occur. The Southern Slav crisis has for more than a year gravely endangered international peace and security through aggressive nationalism, dictatorial government, the forcible acquisition of territory, "ethnic cleansing", the intimidation of minorities and the daily suffering of the 2 million people who have been chased from their homes. Grave responsibility for the outbreak of the crisis and the spread of the conflict to successive new areas rests with Serbian nationalism and its regular and irregular armed forces. The value judgement of the international community in that respect was expressed again as recently as last week in the relevant General Assembly resolution. We believe that the Security Council too must take further concrete measures to promote a comprehensive, lasting and equitable settlement of the crisis. It is indispensable to expand the international presence in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and to increase its effectiveness. The peace-keeping forces of the United Nations, which have earned all our recognition, should have their mandate extended, with their preventive deployment in areas where such action is warranted and has not been taken so far. The brutality raging almost undisturbed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia is a telling signal that the world has not yet done everything possible to enforce, with all the means at its disposal, the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter. The aggressor must be made aware that the international community, including the States of Europe, will under no circumstances acquiesce in situations brought about as a result of violent conquests and inhumane actions, and is prepared to cast out from among its ranks all those who would want to pull our continent back to the age of barbarism. On the threshold of a new world full of great opportunities, the United Nations must take a firm stand against aggressions and breaches of law. It is no exaggeration to say that the peace and tranquillity of present and future generations will depend on that choice. It is with deep concern that our public opinion is following the developments of the situation of the Hungarian minority in Serbian Vojvodina and other areas under Serbian control, where a Hungarian community close to half a million lives in increasing danger and under threat. Serbian policy not only has chased tens of thousands of Hungarians from their ancestral homes, but is now intent on settling several thousand Serbian refugees in territories of Vojvodina and Croatia inhabited by Hungarians and others, thereby forcibly changing the ethnic composition of whole areas. This is a grave violation of resolutions of the Security Council and of the decisions of the London Conference, which demands an adequate response. Recently, Hungary has given shelter to over 80,000 refugees from the former Yugoslavia, in addition to the more than 50,000 who had arrived earlier from another neighbouring country. I know from personal experience that these refugees are eager to return, but the conditions that would enable them to do so are, unfortunately, not yet ripe. In order to create such conditions as soon as possible, we consider it necessary for the United Nations forces in the former Yugoslavia to assume an active role in conformity with the Vance plan to assist the safe return of the refugees, to create conditions under which the right of the returnees can be guaranteed and the prosecution of those responsible for violations of law can take place. The Hungarian side offers its full cooperation to this end. We cannot speak of freedom, democracy, justice and, consequently, of the rule of law when the rights of national, ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities are not respected. The legitimate aspirations of the minorities to preserve their identity, language, culture and religion, as well as to foster relations with their mother nations, do not at all call into question their loyalty as citizens. These aspirations, therefore, cannot be regarded as a threat to the unity of the State. The various concepts of autonomy arising out of a particular minority situation do not call into question the framework of the State concerned. Their purpose is to create the proper conditions for the self-government of minorities and for the exercise of their rights in a way that fits into the constitutional and legal order. Life demonstrates that orderly minorities do not weaken, on the contrary, they unequivocally strengthen the stability of the State and its internal social peace. In this connection, we sincerely welcome the settlement by Austria and Italy of the issue of Alto Adige-Sud Tirol. This example may be worth following as a democratic solution for minority problems and may serve as a credible counterargument in the face of those forces that do not tire of suggesting, by way of whispered propaganda or spectacular and noisy demonstrations, that the raising of such questions is meant only to conceal territorial demands. The United Nations, as the most comprehensive multilateral organization, has a major role to play in the promotion of the rights of minorities. We attach particularly great significance to the completion of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. We see this as an important initial stage of a process. However, the effective protection of minorities also requires the drawing up of binding international norms. Consequently, we consider it desirable to start the relevant codification process as soon as possible. In the field of minority protection, it is essential to introduce an institutional system of international guarantees and to create suitable fact-finding, monitoring, conciliation and counselling mechanisms, such as a complaints mechanism with the competent international forums. These forums would be empowered to investigate infringements of minority rights, identify those responsible, eliminate the consequences of the infringement of rights and compensate the injured party. In this context, mention must be made of the important step forward taken by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe with the establishment of the Office of High Commissioner on National Minorities. We must all trust that the conflicts inevitably arising out of the radical transformations in our world will be solved through dialogue, compromise and, when necessary, recourse to international forums. Even crises and difficulties cannot eclipse the fact that since the end of the cold war the international community has become capable of taking incomparably more efficient measures than previously to deal with threats to international peace and security. Hungary is convinced that our rejuvenating world Organization will overcome the "too-little-too-late" syndrome, will also have the necessary financial resources and as a result of the reforms already under way will be in a better position to meet the requirements of our times. In this field, as in so many others, we must be ready to leave behind an old era that should never return.