Anyone who
has spoken from this rostrum will probably understand what my feelings are at
this moment: there is both a feeling of pride in my people and my country,
which have now set out along the road of independent development a right
that does not come so easily and a sense of enormous responsibility for
every word I say, for my words will be addressed to the whole world. And I
hope they will be heard!
All of us who have gathered here in this highly respected international
forum, whatever our natural objective differences may be, have in common a
single goal, that of achieving peace and security, and a single desire, to
solve existing problems and prevent new ones from arising. Through our
understanding that the world is interdependent in all its aspects, we have
come to realize our necessary interest in overcoming difficulties, and that
common interest has become the foundation of this transitional stage on the
road towards the establishment of a new world order.
All of us, I think, have already got over the euphoria of expecting rapid
changes that were about to take possession of a world liberated from the
chains of the cold war, and we have come to understand the depth of the
problems confronting a human race which has gone to the limit in its search
for new paths to development. Nobody is expecting easy victories.
The situation in the world is undergoing fundamental and sometimes
drastic changes. The military, political and economic confrontation between
the two systems which had for a long time determined the balance of power in
the world has come to an end with the collapse of one of them. What this has
actually done is to destroy the foundation of international security, which
had until then been intimidation and deterrence through parity of forces.
A new system of world security must be created, one oriented on the new
poles of power, the new roles of the super-Powers, new threats, new ways of
waging war and new types of forces. The probability of a nuclear war has been
reduced almost to zero, but the element of chance has increased; there are no
safeguards against the occurrence of regional wars or against the unforeseen
actions of State leaders or the consequences of those actions. These are all
matters of serious concern to the Azerbaijani Republic, for no State can be
secure on its own.
Azerbaijan has no nuclear weapons on its soil and is not participating
directly in the process of nuclear disarmament. Nevertheless, the Azerbaijani
Republic is making its contribution by acceding to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We are optimistic as a result of the
implementation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, to which
Azerbaijan, along with other European States, has become a party. However,
despite the achievements and successes of the disarmament process, military
expenditures are, as before, absorbing a significant portion of State budgets
at a time when such funds could be directed towards economic development.
Arms stockpiling is, as before, a threat to security.
One of the most important elements in military security is the openness
or transparency of military programmes and activities. As a member of the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), my country is
participating in the development of this process.
The move towards direct cooperation in the form of wide-ranging and
intensive multilateral exchanges of information on military budgets and
numbers, production levels, research, development and modernization programmes
and weapons deployment and delivery plans seems to be a desirable one. Such
openness will create an atmosphere of trust, make it easier to predict
developments in the overall security situation, bolster stability and reduce
the risk of war.
During the long years of the East-West conflict it was usual for one side
to arm the other's enemies. Today, when the threat of confrontation along
East-West lines has gone, this so-called foreign-policy wisdom is likely to
prove a significant danger to us all. Weapons proliferation is a serious
challenge to international security and requires the world community to take
active steps in order to ensure that it is limited and effectively controlled.
Arms shipments, which are fraught with a fundamental potential for
danger, are becoming a real factor capable of producing destructive effects on
the situation in so-called hot spots. I hardly need explain how much trouble
Azerbaijan has been caused by the weapons, including foreign-made weapons,
being supplied, within Azerbaijani territory, by Armenian forces. We must
encourage restraint on the part of arms suppliers; this will, of course,
entail political difficulties. Limits could be placed on exports of arms to a
particular country or region.
It should be normal practice to declare arms transfers and to observe
established limits, and the political complexion of the recipient must also be
taken into account. The United Nations Register of conventional arms
transfers will undoubtedly also play an important role in this regard.
Given the attempts by certain countries to obtain weapons covertly, I
would like to emphasize the extreme importance of having access to
intelligence data on weapons proliferation and of observing suspicious regions
and carrying out unannounced inspections there. In addition to the direct
effects, these would increase States' confidence in the weapons
non-proliferation regime. I believe that it would be appropriate to make
efforts to establish subregional restraint regimes; this is particularly
urgent for the multiplicity of hot spots which are appearing against the
background of a minimal military threat on a Europe-wide scale. Subregional
restraint could include reducing military force levels in limited
geographically remote areas. Thereafter such regimes could lay the groundwork
for the demilitarization of whole regions. Azerbaijan has already proposed
this concept for the Transcaucasian region.
The vacuum left by the disappearance of the Soviet Union from the
military and political map of the world threatened to bring global disaster.
However, we have survived that difficult period. In its death throes, the
Soviet Union fortunately disintegrated; new sovereign States arose from its
ruins and declared for all to hear that they were determined to join the
community of democratic States based on law and with market economies. The
United States of America and Russia, the two super-Powers, as they are still
being called, have started to cooperate in the name of their common interests.
World developments of the last few years do indeed show that the
democratic sphere is expanding. More and more countries want to be
democratic, and regimes of other kinds are facing more and more difficulties.
Of course, the development of democracy is a very difficult process whose
ultimate goal, the establishment of an ideal system, is difficult to achieve;
however, we can and must move forward towards that goal, by consolidating
democratic values and institutions. And the core of the issue here is not
merely adherence to ideals but the political and socio-economic rightness of
the democratic system, whose effectiveness will very soon, I hope, become
apparent in my country as well.
There is in science a principle called dynamic evolutionary stability,
according to which the elements of a system obey the same laws and move in the
same direction. Any member of the system which tries to move in a direction
different from the general trend is thrown out. And so it is in life. One
cannot enter the world system and then follow a different programme and not
observe the same rules as everybody else. Of course, the euphoria of national
independence may prompt its own "special" path, but we know from history how
such experiments end.
What is the substance of the Azerbaijani Republic's national
independence? Today new people have taken the helm, people free of the dogmas
of the communist past, prepared to see the world as it is, without ideological
masks, and striving for cooperation on the basis of common human values.
These people have inherited the burdensome legacy of a repressive State which
governed an obedient society, but that has only made their resolve to overcome
it that much stronger. Our need for capable authorities which would see as
their principal purpose the creation of the conditions for stimulating
initiative and independence, which would act in the interests of the
individual and would be rooted in the institution of citizenship, was forged
in suffering. Our State policy is based on the interrelationship between the
freedom and well-being of the individual and the security and prosperity of
the State. Today the Government of the Azerbaijani Republic is facing the
complex task of establishing legislative, political and socio-economic
safeguards for the irreversibility of the democratic process.
Newly independent States encounter a multitude of political, economic and
social problems on their way to establishing themselves. They must face the
difficult task of overcoming those problems within a cruelly short time-limit
set by life itself. However, even that punishing pace at which the democratic
authorities chosen by the people must act is intensified by threats and
challenges of a different order which undermine States that are not yet
standing on their own feet. I have in mind here what are called inter-ethnic
conflicts, which are more political than ethnic in nature.
There are no limits to the energy of a nation, which has become one of
the driving forces of the development of mankind in the twentieth century.
The explosive power of the energy of a national ego released from the fetters
of many years of repression destroys the apparently unshakeable citadels of
totalitarian regimes and opens up new prospects for people.
However if that same power is placed at the service of an ugly, overblown
nationalistic idea, it turns a people onto the path of war and drives it to
aggression and expansion against another people chosen as its victim.
An example of the first kind of national idea is the disintegration of
that conglomeration of nations known as the USSR. An example of the
second and a most accurate one - is the aggression of Armenia against
Azerbaijan.
To any action there is an opposite reaction. An aggressor dooms himself
from the outset to failure, for he arouses against himself a people's natural
reaction of self-defence, a force many times greater than the irrational force
of aggression. Prosperity gained at another's expense cannot be long-lasting,
even if it sometimes seems so.
What is the result? Death and destruction, masses of destitute people on
both sides, relations between States made difficult or broken off these are
reflected many times in all spheres of human activity and threaten to escalate
to new and more dangerous levels, involving other States and altering the
regional or even the world balance. There is only one alternative: to end
the aggression, if not voluntarily, then under the pressure of counter-force.
Aggression must not go unpunished. Aggressors must be stopped.
The importance of the international community's position on this issue
cannot be overestimated. A timely, principled reaction by the international
organizations, first and foremost by the United Nations and CSCE, is one of
the guarantees that the required result will be achieved - that the aggression
will be eliminated and therefore thousands of lives saved and that the
conditions for States to develop peacefully will be established. The key idea
that breaches of the peace are inadmissible is based on the fact that each
State bears a high responsibility to the world community, and it presupposes a
harmonization of national interests with the interests of all mankind.
No one can dispute the right of a nation to the free choice of its path
of development, but there are no rights without duties, and this is also true
of nations, whose freedom of choice is controlled by their interrelationships
with the world, as parts of the whole. Freedom does not mean irresponsibility.
Violence of any kind, whatever its motivation or justification, is
inadmissible. In our time the kind of nationalism that has nothing in common
with national self-awareness has come close to being the greatest wellspring
of violence. Sooner or later, that kind of nationalism finds the framework
imposed on it by history constricting, and it starts to break out, violating
other peoples' borders and infringing upon other peoples' interests.
Today, having emerged from an ideologically divided world, we are facing
the danger of dismemberment based on nationalistic grounds which feed the
politics of separatism. The fact that the legal norms governing the right of
peoples to self-determination, and even the meaning of the term, have not been
fully worked out, either in domestic or in international law, has opened the
door to widespread speculation on the subject on pseudo-democratic grounds,
which are essentially a cover for forces harbouring plans to seize territory.
We must make it clear, first of all, that the right of peoples to
self-determination can be exercised solely by peaceful means; secondly, that
the possessor of that right can be only a nation, not a national minority or
an ethnic group; thirdly, that a people exercising its right to
self-determination must not violate another people's right, its sovereignty or
the integrity of its State.
Making the discussion of the foregoing more concrete by projecting these
conclusions onto the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, I am compelled to say the
following.
The Republic of Armenia, having set the dismemberment of the Azerbaijani
State and the seizure of its territories as the goal of its State policy,
initiated the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, an inseparable part of Azerbaijan,
under cover of a demand for the right to self-determination for the Armenian
population of that Azerbaijani region, whose borders, incidentally, have not
been defined. There are no internal borders in the unitary Azerbaijani
State. The region was split off administratively during the Stalin era, and
it is the Armenian side that is so fervently demanding the elimination of the
legacy of that time.
I think there is no need to comment on the ill-intentioned substitution
of the concept of "people" for that of "national minority". The Armenian
people has already exercised its historic right to self-determination within
the borders of the Republic of Armenia. With regard to the Armenian national
minority which lives in Azerbaijan and has autonomy, the Azerbaijani Republic
has repeatedly stated its readiness to guarantee that minority's rights in
accordance with international norms, while justifiably expecting the Republic
of Armenia to take suitable steps in respect of the Azerbaijani community
which has lived for centuries in the territory of the present-day Republic of
Armenia but has had no rights whatsoever and which, alas, has now been forced
out of Armenia into Azerbaijan.
The conflict, which is now a matter of concern to the world community,
began with a blatant violation of the Azerbaijani Republic's sovereignty by
Armenian separatists who, without holding any discussions with the Government
of Azerbaijan, proclaimed their secession from the Azerbaijani Republic.
They were supported by the Republic of Armenia, whose Parliament, in 1989,
issued decrees on the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, on
including the budget of Nagorno-Karabakh in the Armenian budget and on the
election of deputies from Nagorno-Karabakh to the Parliament of Armenia.
Those decrees have not been annulled to this day and are in violation of the
norms of international law. Such political infringements by the Republic of
Armenia on Azerbaijan's sovereignty have since been backed up with practical
measures aimed at implementing Armenia's declared plans to annex Azerbaijani
territory.
The use of force is, of course, unacceptable in settling disputes. Yet
the actions of the Republic of Armenia, which initially took the form of
covert aggression through the infiltration of separatists and terrorist gangs
and delivering arms into Azerbaijan and which later turned into open
aggression in the form of a direct armed incursion into Azerbaijan, the
seizure of the city of Shusha and the Lachin district and the establishment of
a land corridor joining occupied Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, have naturally
prompted a response from the armed forces of the Azerbaijani Government, which
has the right and the duty to defend the interests of its citizens and its
State, over 10 per cent of whose territory is now under Armenian occupation.
Renouncing the use of force under these conditions could not prevent
bloodshed. Inaction on the part of the Government would have provoked a
movement from below, with the formation of self-defence forces whose actions
would be spontaneous and therefore might have become uncontrollable. The
Azerbaijani Republic, which has used military force only within its own
frontiers and at a controlled level, the minimum level necessary to protect
its sovereignty, has, from the very beginning of the conflict, called on the
opposing side to cease hostilities and to settle existing problems at the
negotiating table. It is continuing today to confirm its readiness for
peaceful dialogue by taking specific measures aimed at reaching a compromise.
However, Azerbaijan's efforts were met each time with silence on the part of
the Republic of Armenia, which continues to make demands that are contrary to
international law. One can hardly expect political leaders who rose to power
on a wave of ideas of nationalism and the establishment of a Greater Armenia
to abandon those positions, because it would mean their political death. But
holding that line will lead to a catastrophe incomparably greater than the
disappearance of the politicians from the arena.
The present leadership of the Republic of Armenia should realize that the
path they have chosen is a deadly one; Armenia will never be a democratic
State while it carries the burden of this conflict. Democracy cannot be built
on a foundation of nationalism, on flouting laws, on bloodshed and suffering.
This whole train of events gives us solid grounds for viewing Armenia's
position with regard to peaceful settlement and international mediation merely
as an attempt to gain time for consolidation in the Azerbaijani territories
Armenia has forcibly seized, so that it can subsequently obtain agreement on a
political solution from a position of fait accompli.
But there is no alternative to a peaceful settlement. Decisive steps
must be taken to clear the obstacles from the road to peace. A necessary
condition for this is the withdrawal of Armenian armed formations from
Azerbaijan, since that would establish a real foundation for a stable
cease-fire under international supervision, for the return of refugees to
their homes and the normalization of life in the war-torn areas, including
safeguards for the rights of the Armenian national minority living in
Azerbaijan.
Despite all the complications and obstacles, the peaceful settlement
process initiated by CSCE and followed up by CSCE's Minsk Group under the
chairmanship of Mr. Rafaelli, for whose efforts I am sincerely grateful, both
to him personally and to the Government of Italy, must achieve the desired
result: an end to the aggression and the senseless bloodshed, the liberation
of occupied Azerbaijani areas, the development of a peaceful dialogue between
the two States and the solution of existing internal problems on a reciprocal
basis. The national minorities in Armenia and Azerbaijan must become not
pawns in a dispute but guarantees of each other's security and of respect for
each other's interests, and, in the future, a bridge for cooperation.
I hold this optimistic view because I have faith in the reasonableness of
two peoples and two States that have lived side by side for centuries and
whose history has earned them the right to peace, prosperity and
good-neighbourly relations. I hope that the Republic of Armenia will come to
realize the importance of such concepts as good neighbours, friendship and
mutual assistance, which have deep roots in our region.
The concrete example of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict enables us to
draw certain conclusions that are related and applicable to other regional
conflicts similar in nature to the one I have mentioned. The world we live in
is very fragile; thus our approach to the principles governing global
coexistence, hammered out by the experience of human civilization, should be
very cautious. Those principles include, first of all, the sovereignty of
States, their territorial integrity and the inviolability of their borders;
they also include the inadmissibility of securing one's interests at the
expense of those of others. Such a course cannot bring independence,
democracy or prosperity to any State. Everything in the world is interrelated.
The words spoken and the actions taken by some politicians in defence of
human rights, national minorities, and nationhood can sometimes threaten the
most fundamental right - the right to life. When blood is being shed, it is
pointless to talk about the rights of national minorities. I have said it
before and now say it again: The sovereignty of the State begins with the
sovereignty of the individual. Respect for human rights is not part of a
State's internal affairs but its obligation. The safeguarding of rights and
fundamental freedoms is the main guarantee of a State's prosperous
development. Returning to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, I must point out
that our approach is based precisely on this understanding and that Armenians
living in Azerbaijan are just as much citizens of this State as Azerbaijanis,
Russians, Jews, Kurds, Lezghians, Talishes or Poles. But there are no rights
without obligations. The State is the guarantor of individual freedom; the
individual is the guarantor of the State's security.
The defence of human rights - and of the rights of national minorities as
part of those rights cannot be implemented to the detriment of State
sovereignty. External influence and interference are sometimes hard to
distinguish, and crossing the fine line that separates them can lead to
disaster. Sometimes the non-use of external force can have great benefits.
Problems of this kind have various political, social, and economic causes, and
sometimes a State trying to solve the problem cannot instantly unravel the
tangle of causes and effects. It is a lengthy process requiring a delicate
approach in which the underlying principle must be: "Do no harm". In such
circumstances a State has the right to count on the assistance and experience
of the world community. Working to improve the State from within will have
more effect than pressure from without.
Every State has its share of responsibility to the outside world,
expressed as its duty to observe accepted norms and obligations. A question
of practical interest today is that of the further elaboration in
international law of the principle of sovereignty, with due regard for the
increased international responsibility of States. Bringing national
legislation into conformity with international law, a process which creates
the necessary regimes of rights and freedoms of the individual, is of the
greatest importance in this context. Such a process has already been
initiated in Azerbaijan. The priority of international legal norms over
national ones is enshrined in the constitutional act of State independence of
18 October 1991. To conclude this subject, I should like to point out that
our common progress in that direction must emphasize the harmonization of the
interests of mankind and national interests.
One of the main factors for stability in society, particularly during a
transitional period, serving in a sense as a guarantee of the irreversibility
of democratic reforms, is a healthy and developed economy. Unfortunately, I
must state that today the economy of Azerbaijan has fallen on hard times. The
legacy of the Soviet past and the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict are taking
their toll.
The failure of the centralized planning system further strengthened our
confidence in the viability of the market economy. The Parliament and
Government of the Republic, committed to rapid reform, are working hard for
the legislative and programmed introduction of economic changes that should
accelerate the process of market formation and integrating Azerbaijan into the
world economy on an equitable and mutually beneficial footing.
The world economy has not yet succeeded in surmounting a number of
obstacles, foremost among which, to my mind, is the disproportion in economic
development. It is believed that, in spite of all the problems of the world
economy, whose number increased sharply with the collapse of the Soviet
system, the end of the ideological confrontation between the two poles of
power has given a positive impetus to the formulation of new approaches in the
developed world towards the problems of developing countries.
Participation in international economic organizations and United Nations
economic agencies, with the concomitant opening of a wide range of
possibilities for multilateral economic cooperation, is a matter of high
priority for Azerbaijan. Definite hopes for instituting economic reforms in
Azerbaijan are being placed in financial assistance and consultative technical
assistance that could be provided under special programmes. The United
Nations, an office of which is to be opened at Baku in the near future, should
play an active role in this.
However, I should like to express my regret concerning the position of
certain States in whose policy the provision of assistance to young democratic
States is linked to particular political objectives that are, in our view, of
a subjective nature. Refusal to provide assistance may not only fail to
promote the development of the reform process but also create new problems for
the establishment of democracy in young States. The consequences of such
ill-considered steps could be far more serious than the reasons that motivated
the refusal.
The warfare initiated by the Republic of Armenia against Azerbaijan has
created a social tragedy in my country. About 500,000 Azerbaijanis have been
deprived of the basic necessities of life; 230,000 of them were expelled from
the areas of Armenia in which they had historically resided, and the rest have
become refugees as a result of Armenia's direct aggression against
Azerbaijan. Our Government has encountered enormous difficulties in meeting
their needs. I should like to express my hope that the United Nations will
not leave Azerbaijan to deal with this disaster alone and that it will provide
all possible assistance.
The ecological situation, which has been gradually deteriorating
throughout the world, is becoming the greatest threat of all. Nature is
calling attention to its problems with increasing urgency through new
environmental disasters and tragedies. The problem of structural reform of
the global economy on a basis that is environmentally sound still remains
unsolved. The contribution of the United Nations in this field - demonstrated
inter alia in the convening of the Conference on Environment and Development
deserves particular mention here. That Conference was a valuable example of
collective efforts to solve humanity's problems.
My country cannot boast of a favourable ecological situation. The
condition of the Caspian Sea is tragic, showing the effect of all the ills of
a planned economy and of its consumption-oriented attitude towards nature. We
firmly intend to make every effort to save this unique natural ecosystem, and
we hope that our efforts will be supported by assistance from the world
community.
The primary mechanism of world development at present is international
cooperation. I believe that we can solve our problems only in that context.
I am also convinced that the process of strengthening cooperation will
continue to evolve. Naturally, such evolution is directly related to the
growing importance and prestige of the United Nations. Our Organization has a
special role in international relations, which are undergoing radical
changes. The United Nations has been, is and always will be the world forum
in matters of justice and law, the stronghold of the civilized norms of life
and the highest authority in the settlement of international disputes. The
growing effectiveness of the Organization as a factor for security, stability
and cooperation illustrates that fact.
New conditions and changes in the world situation require readjustments,
including structural ones. Special attention should be given to the
development of structures and means for preventive diplomacy, early warning of
crisis situations and the improvement of means for averting acts of
aggression. The United Nations should have the capacity to protect its Member
States more decisively and effectively from violations of their sovereignty,
taking action up to and including enforcement measures against the aggressor.
Cooperation with regional organizations on the basis of mutual support will, I
believe, promote greater effectiveness of United Nations peace-keeping and
peacemaking activities. United Nations structures should be brought as close
as possible to the problems which the Organization intends to resolve.
Everything should serve to increase the efficiency of United Nations
activities as a mechanism for security and cooperation.
I am firmly convinced that the ship of the United Nations, guided by the
strong hand of its captain, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a man of wisdom and
decisiveness as befits a true captain, will keep to the necessary course, the
only true course, and, as the flagship of the world community, carry it to the
shores of peace and prosperity.
The forty-sixth session of the General Assembly was significant for the
Azerbaijani Republic, when it was admitted as a Member of the United Nations.
I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to the President of
the Assembly at its forty-sixth session, Mr. Samir Shihabi, for his
contribution to our common cause and especially for his sensitivity and warmth
towards the new Members of the Organization.
I hope that the current, forty-seventh session, under the presidency of
Mr. Stoyan Ganev, will bring us closer to our common goals. I wish Mr. Ganev
success in that position of responsibility. May every day of this session be
a day of constructive solutions of our common problems. May new difficulties
which, alas, life will always throw in our way not weaken our faith, nor
discourage us on our long and thorny path. We conquer the road as we walk
along it.