Georgia

Allow me at the outset to warmly congratulate the President on his election to his post at the fifty-first session of the General Assembly. I am deeply honoured to speak from this rostrum for the first time, and would like to take this opportunity to thank all our friends in the world community for the valuable assistance given to us in the construction of a new, democratic Georgia. In recent years, Georgia has undergone every possible trial in the transition from the old and obsolete to the new and progressive. Overcoming the totalitarian past has been very painful, demanding many sacrifices. In conditions of post-communist chaos, ongoing ethno- political conflicts and a precipitous decline in the economy, Georgia has managed, with the help of the international community, to stabilize the situation. Over the past two years, democratic institutions have been established, economic stability has been achieved, a national currency has been introduced, the process of privatization is being completed and favourable conditions for foreign investment are being created. The presidential and parliamentary elections held last year confirmed the strong determination of the Georgian people to continue on the path of democratic development. All this has been done in order to further the gradual integration of Georgia, and indeed the whole of Transcaucasia, into the international economic system. Georgia has had to overcome a number of obstacles on this course, both subjective and objective in nature. Today I would like to draw the Assembly’s attention to the phenomenon that has become the main obstacle in Georgia’s path to recovery: aggressive separatism, which can completely nullify the beginnings of peace and stability not only in Georgia, but in the entire region. Aggressive separatism is not a new phenomenon, but it has only recently come to the attention of the world 15 community, due to its global nature and its destructive impact on international security. I can say with certainty that the world community has no right to take the position of an outside observer on this question, because countries and entire regions are subjected to separatism, regardless of their geographic location and level of development. Despite differences in the underlying reasons for the emergence of separatist movements, in their nature and in their scale they have one thing in common: they establish regimes on the ideological basis of terrorism under the banner of “the self-determination of suppressed people”. We are certain that everyone present in this Hall considers the principle of self-determination for nations and peoples one of the most important basic principles of international law. Contemporary international law has established a clear framework for the implementation of this principle. Yet it is unacceptable for the principle of self-determination to be exploited by national minorities or small nations that have historically constituted a single society with other nations, within the framework of sovereign States that today are Members of the United Nations. There is good reason for us to have singled out the problem of aggressive separatism, as we consider it to be the main threat to international peace and security at this stage. Georgia has made enormous efforts to introduce the notion of aggressive separatism into the agenda of the world. Aggressive separatism uses “ethnic cleansing” as the main tool of vengeance against other nations and ethnic groups. Here I must bring up the example of Abkhazia: 300,000 peaceful Georgian citizens have been expelled from the territory of Abkhazia. Thousands more have been shot, burned, hanged or tortured to death. Furthermore, the persecution of the Georgian population on the basis of ethnic origin was raised by the separatist regime to the level of state policy. This is a most serious crime against humanity. Analogous manifestations of aggressive separatism are taking place in other parts of the world. Consequently, the stream of refugees increases constantly, and this process has acquired the form of a powerful new global factor fraught with unpredictable social and economic consequences. We believe we need more fully developed measures in order to oppose it effectively. What can we do about this? As a rule, the response of the world community to separatism as a phenomenon is nearly always late and consequently inadequate to existing conditions. The first resolution of the Security Council on the conflict in Abkhazia was adopted on 9 July 1993; the most recent, on 12 July 1996. Comparing them, we can see that it took three years to call something by its proper name: to call an aggressor an aggressor, a criminal a criminal and a victim a victim. It is obvious that we need a doctrine to contain aggressive separatism. This should include a number of measures directed at revealing the underlying causes and at preventing and overcoming any manifestation of extremist separatist tendencies. We consider it necessary, first, to define the phenomenon of separatism in terms of international law and, to that end, to establish a corresponding juridical and legal basis, namely, a well-defined system to identify and categorize aggressive separatism in international legal documents. Secondly, it is necessary to introduce and enforce economic measures. One might respond that the practical implementation of economic sanctions already exists. However, these should be binding in nature and their enforcement fall under the strict control of the international community; moreover, there must be follow- up implementation of sanctions against violators, if necessary. At the same time, in order to eliminate economic incentives for armed hostilities, we should provide economic assistance and other means of support to regions where separatist tendencies are growing in strength. Thirdly, we must consider measures of a military- political character, such as the imposition of arms embargoes against those regions where separatism takes on aggressive forms. Fourthly, those who have committed these crimes against humanity must be fully aware that they cannot avoid severe punishment and that, sooner or later, they will have to stand before an international tribunal. It is clear that international terrorism and aggressive separatism are interconnected and that we must combine our efforts in the struggle against both. The efforts of the countries of the Group of 8 aimed at the elimination of international terrorism give us cause for hope. The Government of Georgia fully supports the 16 recent initiative of the President of Egypt to establish a new specialized international organization dedicated to the struggle against these evils. We must also work as speedily as possible on the creation of a stable system of regional security, without which the process of aggressive separatism that has contributed to the political and economic disintegration of traditional regional structures of mutually beneficial cooperation and ethno-cultural exchanges will only grow, hastening the division of regions into hostile microsystems under the permanent influence of neighbouring regional Powers. Once again, let us focus concretely on the prospects for a peaceful settlement of the Abkhaz problem. The current negotiations continue under the auspices of the United Nations and through the mediation of the Russian Federation. The “Friends of Georgia” group of countries is also making concerted efforts. The settlement of the conflict has thus taken on an international scale. We have repeatedly declared Georgia’s position on the settlement of this conflict and the determination of Abkhazia’s status. First, it is necessary and very possible to settle the conflict through a peaceful process of negotiation. Through the new Constitution of Georgia, adopted last year, the question of the state territorial structure of our country was deliberately left open. At the same time, proposals were elaborated according to which Abkhazia would be granted autonomy in accordance with the highest possible international standards. Just over a month ago, the President of Georgia made a statement in which he once again set forth his suggestions regarding the settlement of the conflict in the Caucasus, including his assertion to the authorities in Sukhumi of his readiness to meet immediately for serious discussions. Unfortunately, these efforts have borne no fruit. The responsibility for that lies with the separatists. It has proven hitherto impossible to achieve progress towards a political settlement. Moreover, the separatist regime, sensing its impunity, has undertaken a new series of provocations, attempting to organize so-called parliamentary elections on the same territory which was ethnically cleansed and on which less than one-fifth of the native population presently resides. The regime has cynically ignored the mediation efforts of the Russian Federation, the United Nations and the world community, numerous resolutions of the Security Council and the decisions of various forums. The growing concern on this point is also understandable. Has not the perfunctory evaluation of acts of “ethnic cleansing” and genocide in Abkhazia, by accident or a design, strengthened the confidence of the separatists that they will get away with their crimes and even legitimize the status quo? In the recent past, Transcaucasia acted as a boundary between two opposing systems, two military-political blocs separated by the iron curtain and implacable ideologies. These confrontational orientations did not allow the innate human and natural resources of the region to be fully exploited, relegating it to a secondary role on the periphery of the world stage. As a consequence of historic changes that occurred before our very eyes, we believe that the time has come seriously to reappraise the role of our region. Our final aim is to turn it into the very opposite of what it once was. The Caucasus can become and is already becoming a region of multilateral cooperation, not only between the States geographically located within it. The prospects for creating a transportation corridor across our region are gradually becoming reality. The States of Central Asia, the Black Sea basin and Western and Eastern Europe are directly involved in the process of its creation. There has thus been a logical growth in the international community’s interest in the fate of the Caucasus. The Caucasus today is a complicated interlacing of political economic and financial contradictions and interests. Therefore, it is necessary to respond appropriately to these emerging circumstances. Otherwise, we run the risk of creating a new, powerful and large- scale breeding ground for international tensions. While pondering the creation of a new global and, in particular, European infrastructure of stability, we have in mind very specific elements that will create a single and indivisible unit. In this context, the initiative of President Shevardnadze on a peaceful Caucasus, proposed in the spring of 1996, can serve as the basis for the creation of a regional model that could, in its own right, become a major component in a general and comprehensive model of security for Europe in the next century. The ideas set forth in this initiative were discussed and approved in principle at the summit between the Presidents of the Russian Federation, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and the leaders of the northern Caucasus Republics within the Russian Federation in June 1996. These proposals are aimed not only at the peaceful settlement of conflicts currently besetting the Caucasus, but also at post-conflict settlement, insuring the security 17 and multi-level development of the region. They advocate the application of generally recognized, fundamental principles of international law, the observance of which would guarantee peace and stability in the region. I am not engaging in wishful thinking. The road to achieving all this will, of course, not be easy, but I am confident that the States of the region possess sufficient determination and political will, together with the active participation of the international community, to make the only correct decision and, like one of Brecht’s characters, break out of the “Caucasian Chalk Circle”. I would like to share some of my concerns on the prospects for new United Nations activities. The impending reforms, supported by practically all Member States, testify to a qualitatively new stage in the development of international relations. At the same time, the need for reforms places great responsibility on us. We have no right to take hasty decisions that might result in unforeseen consequences. On the other hand, excessive dilatoriness could also harm our cause. Given the new realities in international relations, it is clear that these changes should be reflected in the body of the United Nations that is entrusted with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. ln order to enable the Security Council to respond adequately to contemporary challenges, new geopolitical realities should be reflected in its structure. I refer to the timely question of increasing the number of permanent and non-permanent members of the Council. We are fully convinced that increasing the number of members would expand the geopolitical base of the Security Council, which in turn would make it more effective and representative. In considering in this context the candidacy of Germany and Japan for possible permanent membership, we are guided by the hope that we would finally and irrevocably have an opportunity to overcome the psychological consequences of the Second World War and the cold war. In 1992 our President argued, from this rostrum, for the need to expand the membership of the Security Council by including Germany and Japan; and Georgia has repeatedly advocated this since. Careful consideration should be given to proposals put forward by Italy and other Member States with regard to non-permanent membership of the Security Council. However, the Security Council should remain a comparatively small body, which makes it more dynamic. Most importantly, in considering an increase in Council membership, due attention should be paid primarily to the degree of participation of Member States in the maintenance of international peace and security. The changes should also touch upon the practical side of Council activities, especially with regard to conflict resolution. The criteria that guide the Security Council in the use of its discretionary rights, provided for in Chapters VI, VII and VIII of the Charter, should be more clearly formulated and universally applied. In order to improve the management of peacekeeping operations, the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy should be responsible for coordinating the implementation of peacekeeping operations, with the direct participation of regional organizations. We should also note that a significant number of conflicts throughout the world do not fall within the category of threats to international peace and security under Chapter VII of the Charter, although they are characterized by gross and massive human rights violations and are considered to be crimes against humanity. Thus, in most cases, the initiators and executors of these crimes, which include “ethnic cleansing” and genocide, feel that they enjoy impunity because of the inability of the international community to take legal action. Consequently, we should consider the establishment of a permanent United Nations special international observer institution, which would investigate the facts pertaining to such crimes. Georgia, having undergone the tragedy of conflict in Abkhazia, and having experienced “ethnic cleansing” and genocide in its own population, is keenly interested in the rapid establishment and effective functioning of an international criminal court. Such a body should become an effective tool for implementing the law on behalf of the international community. We are inspired by the fact that the International Law Commission has already approved the text for a list of crimes against peace and humanity. We are also happy that the United Nations has already taken steps in laying the foundation for developing peacekeeping contingents of stand-by forces. Georgia has already declared its readiness for active participation in the establishment of stand-by forces. We believe, however, that the United Nations should not take half measures, as the use of stand-by forces cannot completely resolve problems of effective and timely 18 reaction to conflict situations arising in different parts of the world. In this connection, we are convinced that we should finally implement the idea of establishing a United Nations rapid deployment force to carry out the tasks prescribed by the Security Council to restrain the escalation of conflicts and deploy the main peacemaking contingents of the United Nations. In conclusion, we would like to see the world community as a union of free nations that enrich each other spiritually, economically and culturally. Mutual efforts in this direction will inevitably lead to the establishment of a permanent, cooperative peace in a world free of wars and ethnic conflicts. The General Assembly offers a unique opportunity to elaborate a uniform and coordinated approach to the real, global problems of humanity. This is our chance to reach global consensus, and we should take full advantage of it. I thank the Assembly for its attention, and express my hope that our pain and our hopes will be taken into account by the entire international community.