Poland

Allow me first to congratulate the President and wish him every success in carrying out his responsible task. The delegation of Poland will do its best to assist him in his important functions. I also pay tribute to the outgoing President, Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko, an eminent statesman from Ukraine, a country with which we have developed good- neighbourly ties of friendship and cooperation, for his excellent guidance of the work of the Assembly during its fifty-second session. I would also like to assure the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, not only of our respect and admiration, but also of our continued support for his tireless efforts to make the United Nations live up to the expectations of the twenty-first century and to the ideals set out in the Charter. We have a saying in Poland that is variously attributed to the Chinese or to the Jews — two nations well steeped in suffering and in wisdom: “Unfortunate one, you shall live to see your dreams satisfied.” And I, indeed, have come to experience the full measure of that truth. Ten years ago a dissident, I could barely even dream that I would be at the helm of my free nation?s foreign affairs, and in that role preside over the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), an organization which spans three continents in its attempt to promote security and cooperation in a conflict-torn world. And yet those 10 years ago, had I imagined that such a future were possible I would probably have believed that a man in my position could indeed help change the world, make it a better, safer place. Like so many of us present here in this Hall, I had to learn the bitter lessons of the limitations of power. These lessons should indeed teach us humility, but not serve as an alibi for not assuming our obligations. The world today is a better and safer place than it was 10 years ago, before the fall of the Berlin Wall. For all the needless suffering, the agony of hunger, the scourge of ethnic hatred and war, the shame of underdevelopment, the evil of oppression that human beings had to endure in so many places on the face of the planet — these are less than a decade ago. And even now the perpetrators attempt to conceal their doings, to show it is not so, and more, that suffering is contentment, war is peace, and oppression is liberty. Hypocrisy, as we all know, is a compliment sin pays to virtue. The world is a better place because time and time again evil has been avoided, circumscribed or reduced thanks to preventive action taken by concerned States. This action could be something as simple as sending food 20 where there is none, or as complicated as over a dozen nations pooling their military resources to prevent a new outbreak of ethnic hatred in Bosnia, and helping to rebuild that devastated nation. The world will never be the same. The world economy is currently confronted with the biggest financial challenge in a half century. We note the increasing interest on the part of politicians as well as economists in market intervention and capital controls. Obviously, a serious situation may indeed call for desperate remedies, but the really serious risk to the world economy seems to lie in a retreat from free market ideals and principles. Actions to limit the spread of weapons of mass destruction are an evident reflection of efforts made to consolidate peace and international security. Systematic progress in the field of nuclear disarmament, apart from important American-Russian and American-Chinese agreements, could become even more notable if the Parliament of the Russian Federation, heeding the appeals by the international community, ratified the START II agreements. We expect and hope that the indispensable decision will be taken in Moscow with no further delay. We welcome the decision of the Geneva Conference on Disarmament to enter negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices. This is a significant and indispensable step for the further consolidation of the global regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. At the same time, we witness with concern and regret the developments in South Asia that are so dangerous to peace and international security. Although we do not question the right of any nation to sovereign decisions on issues concerning its national security interests, nothing, in our opinion, justifies acceptance of the nuclear option. The choice of the road of nuclear armaments by India and Pakistan comes as a blow to the ideals personified by Mahatma Gandhi. Together with the entire international community, we address to the leaders of India and Pakistan an appeal to refrain from any actions that could make the situation worse in the Indian subcontinent and to join, immediately and unconditionally, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). The sixteenth-century Polish humanist Jakub Przyluski wrote: “Since man is ... more inclined to live in society than bees, ants or cranes, an isolated life is a thing most contrary to human nature. Man could then neither suffice to himself, nor come to the rescue of others... And since nature has established some kind of affinity between us, and the same definition encompasses all humankind, we are to consider it vile if man threatens man.” We, indeed, consider it vile if man threatens man. But it is in our nature, or at least in our better nature, to come to the rescue of others, the more so if by making others more secure, our own security is enhanced. Furthermore, neighbours usually know best the nature of the problems affecting the neighbourhood; they are therefore best placed to try to resolve them. That is why the concept of collective security is becoming so increasingly important and popular. But we must all learn this if this Organization is to successfully negotiate the transition into the twenty-first century. The United Nations has grown beyond the hopes and expectations — indeed, beyond control. Many of its specialized agencies accomplish their important jobs quietly and efficiently. We have perfect relations with many of them, especially with the United Nations Development Programme office in Warsaw. The Secretary-General is to be praised for his efforts to make the United Nations a better example of how the world?s institutions could function, rather than a cartoon of the way they actually do. But he can do this only with our support. Also, we can no longer delay the reform of the Security Council and the General Assembly. I am sure all of us look towards these changes with some dread, because knowing how wrong things could have turned out, we cannot believe that they have been going right until now. The United Nations is ripe for change. One of the most pressing issues on the United Nations reform agenda is the financial crisis. It is true this crisis is due in great part to the mismanagement of resources and, at times, excessive spending. But at least as much can be attributed to the deficit brought about by some Members? refusal to pay their dues on time. True, it is in large part because that pressure that a favourable climate for change emerged within the institution itself. It has become a truism to say that peacekeeping is ineffective when there is no peace to keep, and that peacemaking is impossible if there is no will to sustain the unavoidable costs. But this does not mean that 21 peacekeeping is ineffective. A wide spectrum of examples, from Cyprus to Moldova, shows that the contrary is true. But even in a successful peacekeeping operation we run the risk that we will not only keep the peace but also preserve the hatreds, envies and jealousies which were the root causes of the conflict in the first place. In this sense, each peacekeeping operation must also be one of peacemaking. Armed conflicts between States are giving way to internal conflicts, as in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia. Consequently, the United Nations peacekeeping forces are being faced, in many cases, with the dilemma of having to depart from the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of the State that is being torn apart by a civil war. We remain convinced that when a direct threat is posed to peace and security, the United Nations must be properly equipped to discharge its role and should not remain indifferent and ignore human suffering. Poland is proud of its continuous participation in United Nations peacekeeping efforts, following our old tradition of struggle “for freedom, ours and yours”. We are currently providing the largest contingent of troops involved in United Nations peacekeeping operations. We are convinced that the Organization should not allow the highest price to be paid in terms of the lives of women and men serving in the field under the United Nations banner. The security of people in United Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian operations must be ensured. My country finds itself at the centre of European transformation. Our aspirations to join European and trans- Atlantic political and military structures are in the process of being satisfied, fulfilling the dreams of a nation long subject to the cataclysms of European history. But far from turning our back on our neighbours who as yet remain outside these structures, we indeed wish to intensify our cooperation with them. We believe this would be conducive to a better climate on the continent, and in the best interests of both our neighbours and our allies. This is especially true of our cooperation with other Central European nations. Poland, solidly anchored in collective security and regional cooperation structures, can develop in peace and security and substantially contribute to the development of others. If there ever was a win-win scenario, this is it. It would be arrogant and unhelpful if we believed we could give lessons to others. But we do believe deeply that our experience of the last decade shows that nations can move away from authoritarianism, through negotiations — what we called round-table negotiations — to then successfully build a democratic system based on the rule of law, individual freedoms, freedom of economic enterprise and political democracy. To those, near or far, who proclaim that theirs will be a different course, based on the presumed specificity of their culture, history, customs and circumstance, we say, “Please reconsider. Do not waste the creative energy of your nations in futile experiments and grotesque performances.” This will not work. And time is a resource none can afford to waste. But at the same time, to those who would say, “Follow us, for history has proved that we are right”, — we would like to say that even among friends we can differ. We do not believe too much in the efficacy of punishment and sanction. Rather, we expect that nations need to develop apace. We can but help them on their way. This is best seen in the functioning of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which my country has the honour of chairing this year. It would be hard to imagine a collection of nations more geographically, historically, economically, culturally and politically diverse. Assuming the chairmanship of this organization for 1998, we have faced important questions and challenges. Can the organization that is the heritage of the past successfully cope with the challenges of the future? Is it needed during a period of both globalization and regionalization, a period of multi- polarity, when we are striving for the universalization of the Earth?s civilization? Will it be able to prevent conflicts and regulate inter-State relations? The Polish chairmanship started at the moment of significant changes in the so-called European security environment: when the Atlantic Alliance decided on its enlargement; when a conflict erupted in Kosovo, threatening South-Eastern Europe with destabilization; when the countries of Central Asia, born from the territory of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, signalled their more intensive interest in joining the current of values that are the foundation of the OSCE; and when signs of another crisis appeared in Russia. There arose the question of how to include OSCE activity in United Nations efforts for peace and security. We have found constructive and positive answers to many of those questions. The organization of an all- inclusive membership of the States of the region, from Vancouver to Vladivostok, turned out to be necessary to respond to threats left by the cold war. Two priorities 22 came to the fore: to prevent conflicts by reaching the roots at their early stage of appearance and to strengthen human rights and democracy, which the OSCE calls the “human dimension”. We have also taken up the ambitious challenge of preparing a European security charter, which would help to facilitate the functioning of cooperation in security within the OSCE, and would make it possible for all States, regardless of their membership in alliances or other groupings, to participate in the common effort of building a safe, democratic and united Europe. We want the OSCE community to have neither centre nor peripheries, neither more equal nor less equal. In many cases, as in the conflicts in Kosovo or Tajikistan, the lesson was bitter. One of the conclusions is that in the contemporary world, no organization can act alone. The consolidation of standards of civilizational cooperation within the OSCE must be coherent with the activity of other organizations, in this case the United Nations, the European Union, the North Atlantic Alliance, the Council of Europe and subregional organizations such as the Council of the Baltic States. We need this solidarity. There I wish to comment on the resolution adopted by the Security Council yesterday concerning Kosovo. It was an example of unity and solidarity, and I hope it will send a message to stop the bloodshed in that region and stop the activities of all those who are trying to introduce violence, repression and terrorism there. The OSCE has been able to engage in preventive diplomacy. We have done so together; we have strengthened our collective security together; we have fielded a host of projects in almost every imaginable sphere of human collective activity. In all fairness, one has to take into consideration the conflicts avoided elsewhere in the Balkans, as well as in Central Asia and in the Caucasus. We do not proclaim to be a model for others. The organization itself developed almost by chance, as a fortuitous assembly of the members of the two cold-war blocs. But we have been able to manage the transition and to set standards that we all try to maintain. Maybe other regions of conflicting interests could use some of our experience, both the successes and the mistakes. In the Middle East, we are facing a challenging and difficult time. Poland is committed to a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in that region. Therefore, we are deeply concerned by the stalemate in the peace process, and we strongly support all efforts to revitalize it, on the basis of Security Council resolutions, the principles of the Madrid Conference and the Oslo accords. In many aspects the world is now a safer and better place to live in than it was a decade ago. But there are new threats and dangers. We must deter and defeat terrorist acts. Poland continues to promote the idea of the elaboration of the comprehensive convention against organized crime, which should generate wide and efficient cooperation between States, since organized transnational crime cannot be successfully suppressed by any State alone. Borderlines are blurred. Ordinary crime blends with the organized underworld, which in turn intermingles with the terrorist community, and that in turn finds support and relief in more than one of the world?s capitals. Drugs and guns are replacing more conventional currencies as the universal currency of evil, profits from one serving to promote the dissemination of the other, in a concerted assault on human life itself. It is indeed a culture of death which seems to unite those who put guns and drugs into the hands of the young and teach them to hate others because they are of the wrong faith, race or nation. We cannot counter that evil with the same decisiveness, haste and cunning. We can, however, continue to support the alternative: a culture of life, founded on respect for the individual, his inalienable rights, dignity and freedom. In terms of everyday reality, this means that the determined effort of all States is required to implement the basic conventions guaranteeing these values — to implement them at home and to refuse to tolerate their violations abroad. Of these conventions, perhaps none is more important than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose fiftieth anniversary we have been solemnly celebrating. And yet, among States whose representatives have expressed their attachment to that document, not a few deny their citizens the basic rights the Declaration guarantees. Obviously, the powerful political interests which lie behind such behaviour will not bow to simple declarations, nor will the international democratic community use force to implement its values. It is our deep conviction that we should continuously adapt United Nations human rights machinery to present and future developments in this area. The biggest challenge we have been facing over recent years is the violation of human rights in the context of armed conflicts and tensions of a domestic or civil character. For years the international community has not been able to 23 cope with this problem, although in the meantime the United Nations has developed a significant peacekeeping capacity. It is only after the traumatic experience in the former Yugoslavia and in the Great Lakes region that the approach has changed. “No man is an island”; no State is an island. Connected, as the Polish writer whom I quoted said, by a common definition of our humanity, we cannot help but try to implement the noblest goal, incarnate in the name of this Organization: the Nations United, in our common humanity, our planet and our future.