Each opportunity to
speak from this rostrum is a humbling experience,
because I know that all the countries of the world listen
to one another and try to discern and understand where
our common approaches and interests lie. Those of us
who represent small countries have a sense that this
forum is a place where large nations address the ills of
the world and that we smaller ones ought to stick to
issues and topics that are specific to us and to our
regions, as if addressing overarching, global issues
were pretentious and best left to those with the power
to do something about them.
Today marks my tenth year here, and I risk
breaking the rule. This year, as financial calamities
have compounded political and natural disasters, it has
become very clear that, although our common
problems and challenges threaten us all equally, they
affect us unevenly. The small nations, which have less
of everything — diversity, resources, manoeuvrability,
means and options — are at greater peril and have
greater susceptibility than those with bigger territories,
larger populations and greater potential.
At the same time, the issues on the agenda of the
General Assembly — such as peace and security,
economic growth, sustainable development, human
rights, disarmament, drugs, crime and international
terrorism — know no borders, and none of us can
address them individually if we want to see effective
solutions. Finding solutions to these problems is in our
common interest, for they are issues that affect all of
humanity. And because these problems cannot be
solved within our own borders, no one has either the
right to abdicate responsibility for the consequences or
the luxury of doing so.
When the speculative market drives the price of
oil to $80, those who are too small to have significant
reserves are the ones who are affected most, and large
countries with large appetites for fuel sometimes make
deals on energy matters that are not consistent with
their policies. So do we, because energy security is not
only a matter of global arithmetic; it is also a matter of
life and death.
When climate change causes serious changes in
the environment, it does not take much for a prolonged
drought or an excessive rain to harm our agriculture
and damage our economy or for rising sea levels to
reach our cities. But we do not have the space or the
diversity to cope and adapt.
When it is news that there have been no
explosions in Iraq and when daily calamities are
commonplace, we in the small countries begin to sense
that we are vulnerable and susceptible to the will and
the capacity of other members of the international
community and, most important, to their tolerance of
distant acts of violence and humiliation.
When development is dependent on the absence
of bad weather, disease and war, and when the capacity
to ward off at least two of those three ills lies in the
hands of those who have the ability to bring peace and
to heal, we in the small nations feel at risk and
helpless.
When disarmament and arms control cease to be
instruments for peace and security and instead become
a means to reap political dividends, we in the small
countries turn to our own means for self-protection. In
other words, we become part of the problem, because
the solution is not straightforward or visible.
Finally, when “Darfur” becomes shorthand for
“helplessness”, we in the small nations of the world
realize that power has replaced responsibility. The
ubiquitous language of human rights cannot and will
not compensate for a lack of political will to act.
Genocide must be prevented, not commemorated.
Generation after generation, we find new places
for appalling human tolerance of inhuman
machinations and names for places of slaughter, mass
killings and massacres of those who belong to a
particular sector, ethnic group, race or religion. For
Armenia, it was, for 100 years, the desert of Der el
Zor; for the next generation, it was Auschwitz; later, it
was the killing fields of Cambodia; and, more recently,
it was Rwanda. If each one of those names, together
with the word “genocide”, evokes ignorance,
helplessness and the covering up of war crimes,
“Darfur” today is synonymous with expediency,
evasion and simple inconvenience. “Darfur” is
synonymous with shame.
My appeal to the international community, on
behalf of the small countries, is that it address each of
these issues on its own merits and for its own sake, not
as a piece of the global power puzzle. When tension
rises between global Powers, it leads to polarization,
and that in turn leads to a decrease in the capacity of
small nations to carry out hard-earned policies of
complementarity and balance. Our ability to be part of
the process diminishes.
Let me state the obvious: we count on the
willingness of the great Powers in the international
community to set aside their disputes and to try to
address these issues collectively. We also expect that
they clearly understand that their power and influence
do not make them immune from the consequences of
the processes and problems that afflict us.
Last month, Armenia celebrated its sixteenth year
of independence. During this period, we have
weathered sea changes that have swept us up in
regional and global processes that affect us in our daily
lives. But we can only take pride in what we have
accomplished during the same period: an open and
diverse economy, high growth and strong financial
systems, as well as improved elections, stronger public
institutions and a population that is increasingly aware
of its rights. All of that gives us the confidence and
determination to address other ills facing our society —
uneven growth, a high poverty rate, low pay — and to
strengthen our human institutions and deepen our
experience with democracy.
We have accomplished all of this under difficult
circumstances. We still have a conflict to resolve with a
neighbour; there are artificial limitations on Armenia’s
ability to act; and regional cooperation is lacking.
The agenda of the General Assembly this year
includes an item on protracted conflicts. Lumping all
those conflicts together is an inherently flawed
approach. Our own conflict in Nagorny Karabakh does
not belong there. The United Nations is not the place to
address it, because that issue is being addressed within
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe. Additionally, Karabakh is not a frozen conflict.
We are negotiating with Azerbaijan and are inching
towards a resolution.
Second, during this time, there has been an
evolution of the process. We have a balanced, solid
document in our hands that addresses not only the core
issues but also consequential issues, and the two
together add up to a reasonable solution.
Third, at the core of our process lies the right of
peoples to self-determination. Indeed, the people of
Karabakh do not want anything more than that which is
theirs. They want to live in peace and security on their
own territory. In other words, they would like to
exercise the very right that every single nation in this
Hall has exercised at some time in their history.
Speaking of conflict, we also follow very closely
the events in Kosovo. We hear the international
community loud and clear when it is said that Kosovo
will not be a precedent for other conflicts. We are not
attempting to make Kosovo a precedent for our
conflict, because that contradicts our own principle that
all conflicts are different. At the same time, however,
we will not accept or understand the reverse logic,
which holds that because Kosovo has been given
independence, other peoples cannot achieve
self-determination. No one should tell us that there is a
quota for liberty and freedom.
At the end of the day, the willingness and
understanding of small nations and their involvement
in global processes cannot be a substitute for what
major Powers with greater capacities and political will
to act can do. In this age of openness and inclusion,
there is no room for the old instruments of coercion
and exclusion. Instead, we need new instruments of
compromise and consensus so that we can achieve
humanity’s enduring goal of living in peace and
prosperity.