It is a great honour for me to congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the distinguished and very important post of President of the General Assembly. I am confident that your knowledge, experience and consummate personal skills, which you have demonstrated both as Permanent Representative to the United Nations and as President of the Security Council, will allow the successful resolution of the complex problems the international community is now facing on the eve of the celebration of the United Nations half century. I would like also to express my appreciation to the President of the previous session of the General Assembly, Ambassador Insanally, whose wise guidance resulted in the adoption of an entire set of constructive decisions to the benefit of all Member States of the United Nations. The year that has elapsed since the previous session of the General Assembly has witnessed important international developments, in many of which the United Nations was both a catalyst and a participant. They included the historic turn towards peace in the Middle East and the elimination of the apartheid system in South Africa. Positive developments are expected in Ulster and in other hot spots of the planet. The completion of the withdrawal of Russian troops from Germany and the Baltic States has at last marked the end of the European history of the Second World War. In this context, the leaders of the Russian Federation should be given their due for displaying political courage and foresight. 17 Radical changes have also taken place in the political, social and economic life of Ukraine, which recently celebrated the third anniversary of its independence. The Ukrainian people, of their own free will, in a truly democratic way, elected Leonid Kuchma as the new President, and has elected the Parliament of the country. New leaders have come to executive power. Naturally, all of these developments are generating broad interest in, and closer attention to, Ukraine. In this connection, different - sometimes arbitrary - predictions have been made concerning the direction of our domestic and foreign policies, and even regarding their possible reorientation. Many radical and even diametrically opposed views have been heard - for example, whether the political pendulum in Ukraine will swing to the East or West, or whether Ukraine will remain an independent State and preserve its political sovereignty. In taking the opportunity to speak from this rostrum, I should like to clarify these important issues. First, the State policy of Ukraine will be consistently based on the authority established by the Ukrainian people when it confirmed, almost unanimously, its choice of independent development during the national referendum held in December 1991. This reality is decisive, and rumours that Ukraine will eventually lose its sovereignty are absolutely unfounded. We shall continue to follow the path of building an independent State, and a return to the situation which prevailed in the former Soviet Union is impossible. Secondly, what also seems to be an oversimplification is the question of where Ukraine will be, whether in the East or the West, of where it will go. I think it is precisely here in this Hall, which brings together representatives of all continents and regions of the world, that the artificial division into East, West, North and South is especially strongly felt. Today the world is becoming more integrated, and political indicators of geographical affiliation of countries are gradually disappearing. Ukraine, like any other State, cannot simply "go" East or West. It is there, where it has been for ages, and where it will stay for ever. Its main task as a historically ancient but politically young State consists in gradual integration into the European and world political, economic, humanitarian and other processes as a reliable link in a new global system of international relations. Of course, there will be corrections to our policy. The world has changed considerably, even in comparison with that period of time when Ukraine emerged on the political map as an independent State. All of us, including Ukraine, have to take into account new realities and respond to them appropriately. This is particularly so when we deal with the question of the intensification of mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation with the Russian Federation and with the other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). But these relations will by no means be developed at the expense of our contact with our other partners. Ukraine is equally concerned with strengthening relations with the United States; Germany; Canada; the countries of Central and Eastern Europe; the States of Asia - above all, China and Japan; as well as other countries of the Asian-Pacific region, Africa and Latin America. In other words, the range of our foreign policy interests is very broad. I would like to emphasize that at the international level Ukraine will protect its national interests, including its economic interests, with increasing dynamism and pragmatism. These are the corrections that will be made to Ukraine’s foreign policy, which, despite domestic political changes, remains, as President Leonid Kuchma has stated, predictable, consistent and weighted. There can be no doubt whatsoever in this respect: Ukraine has been committed, and will continue to be committed, to fulfilling its international obligations, consistently and in good faith. This is a solid foundation of our foreign policy. The wave of political romanticism yielded to a time of severe trials in the political, social and economic lives of the newly independent States that emerged from the former Soviet Union. Linking the titles of two well- known novels, the overall tenor of the mood of society in the post-communist world might be described as "great expectations gone with the wind". To speak frankly, those feelings were not spared Ukraine, which immediately declared its readiness to cooperate honestly and openly with all interested partners. However, our State, after having made persistent efforts, has felt that only recently has the world community come to understand its position. At the same time, the reality of the current situation of Ukraine is that we are still the subject of pressure and suspicion from outside and that we continue at times to encounter open reluctance to understand the essence of the problems we are facing. This greatly aggravates the present and still difficult economic situation in the country and hinders the process of market reforms. 18 Today, Ukraine is facing the difficult tasks of overcoming an economic crisis, of normalizing its social and economic situation and of creating favourable domestic and international conditions for gradually raising the living standard of its population. The President and the new Government are focusing their efforts on those tasks, but I must note that Ukraine’s problem in surmounting its economic crisis has an international dimension as well since, because of its geopolitical situation, the establishment of Ukraine as a sovereign and economically developed State is an important factor for peace and stability on the continent of Europe. There is therefore every reason to assert that support for Ukraine - both political and, especially, economic - is a reliable investment in the strengthening of international security. These facts are gradually being accepted, and the discussion of the Ukrainian question at the Naples Summit Meeting of the Group of 7 was evidence of this trend. The existence of a group of countries undergoing transition to a market economy has become a real factor in current international relations. Ukraine is a part of that group. Our experience is showing that the transition period will not be smooth, that it will be fairly lengthy and that it will necessitate considerable effort, including international effort. There is, however, no alternative. Those very aspects of statecraft will be the focus of President Kuchma’s attention in the policy statement he will soon deliver to the Parliament. I should also like to note that the difficult economic situation in our country can to a considerable extent be explained by the vast financial burden of nuclear disarmament and the eradication of the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster. Those problems are not solely Ukrainian; they have a global dimension as well. In this connection, one positive development is the fact that the problems of countries undergoing the transition to a market economy are gradually coming to occupy a rightful place in the varied activities of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. However, it seems that donor States, while declaring their support for the implementation of reforms in countries undergoing transition, are still being excessively cautious in providing adequate support to specific projects in Eastern Europe and in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Today, that attitude is beginning to pose a serious problem. We are also looking forward to target-oriented activities by the international community designed to create favourable conditions for free access to the world market for exports from countries in this region, particularly Ukraine. In this connection, Ukraine welcomes the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and firmly intends to accede to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO system. We hope that that system will promote trade liberalization and facilitate the creation of an open and transparent system of trade. After all, the intensification of international trade is an integral part of economic development. As a European country, we are primarily concerned with the problem of security in Europe in the broadest sense of that term. I should like to express some views concerning Ukraine’s vision of ways to safeguard peace and stability on that continent. The difficulties of making forecasts in the field of international relations can be explained by the number of new risks and challenges to security that have been created by political, economic, inter-ethnic and other contradictions. These have already generated a wave of conflicts to which Europe was not prepared to make an adequate response. The anxiety on the continent of Europe is clearly demonstrated by the ongoing search for new machinery to ensure State security in Eastern and Central Europe, of which Ukraine is also a part. The point is not that appropriate structures to strengthen security in Europe do not exist. There are the activities of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Western European Union (WEU) and the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC), and the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States are also seeking ways to achieve collective security. However, for various reasons none of those structures is able adequately to fill the military and political vacuum created in the region following the disintegration of the USSR and the Warsaw Treaty. That is why Ukraine strongly supports initiatives aimed at all-European cooperation in various fields, including the field of security. I should like to recall that Ukraine was the first of the CIS countries to become a signatory of the NATO Partnership for Peace programme and the Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation with the European Community. The Ukraine became a party to the Conference on the Pact on Stability in Europe and has put forward initiatives for the strengthening of security and 19 cooperation in Central and Eastern Europe and in the Black Sea region. However, it should be acknowledged that, notwithstanding all their positive features, neither the Partnership for Peace programme nor any other measures undertaken can yet ensure reliable security safeguards for the States concerned. In the existing situation it seems reasonable to focus attention on a detailed examination of the question of creating an all-European security structure that would involve all the existing structures in this field - the CSCE, the NACC, NATO, the WEU - and, of course, the States of the former USSR should have an appropriate place in that structure. Ukraine advocates just such an approach, namely, the strengthening of partnership and cooperation in an all-European dimension rather than a search for new geometrical schemas which would, in fact, solidify the division of the European continent, small as it is on the global scale. We feel that the strengthening of stability and security in the all-European sphere can and must be supplemented by regional actions that could be organically integrated into the overall process of confidence-building and constructive cooperation. In the search for such steps, Ukraine put forward the initiative on confidence-building measures in the region of the Black Sea. This region is extremely important to us as a crossroads between Europe and Asia and between North and South. The elaboration and implementation of specific confidence-building measures in the military and political fields in the Black Sea region would promote good- neighbourly relations and political and economic cooperation between the Black Sea countries. Multilateral consultations on these issues have already begun. Ukraine proceeds on the basis that all Black Sea countries may participate in confidence-building measures. We believe that the measures themselves should be identified in a politically binding document, which would regulate naval activities on the Black Sea, establish a procedure for the exchange of appropriate information and promote the development of contacts between the naval forces of States parties. The principle of collective action aimed at the maintenance of peace under appropriate international control must be one of the important conditions for the operation of an all-Europe security system. At the present stage, national and international security is threatened not so much by the possibility of military aggression from outside as by local and regional conflicts provoked by domestic circumstances - economic, ethnic, religious and others - and especially by the possibility of their spilling over and involving neighbouring countries. This requires timely preventive action. Assessing recent developments in the world, we have to recognize that, on the whole, preventive diplomacy is coming to the foreground of United Nations activities aimed at securing, restoring and strengthening peace and of activities of the CSCE. In this context, I should like to express gratitude to Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the United Nations Secretary-General, for his significant personal contribution to the development of the foundations in this extremely important field of international activity. We greatly appreciate United Nations peace-keeping efforts aimed at settling regional conflicts. We realize that such activities require intensive political, physical and financial support from Member States. Unfortunately, the difficult economic situation of our State - not to mention the unjustified excessively high contribution to the regular budget - prevents Ukraine from meeting in full its financial obligation to the United Nations. However, we are trying to compensate, at least partially, through our contribution to the peace-keeping forces. Ukraine has already become one of the major contributors to United Nations forces, and it remains ready to cooperate in this field. We believe that appropriate protection and security for the peace-keeping personnel are essential conditions for such cooperation. Let us consider the sad statistics. In the course of all United Nations operations more than 1,000 peace-keepers have been killed. In the territory of the former Yugoslavia nine Ukrainian servicemen gave their lives, and more than 30 persons were wounded. The problem of security for United Nations personnel becomes more acute every year. When sending its troops to Yugoslavia, Ukraine took the initiative of developing an international convention on the protection of United Nations peace- keepers and of submitting a draft of the document. We now await with hope the completion, during the current session, of work on this question. Developments in the former Yugoslavia and in Somalia compel us to think about the problems of the 20 effectiveness of United Nations peace-keeping operations. The fact that the United Nations, even using the potential of such a powerful organization as NATO, failed to extinguish the flames of bloody conflict in these countries obviously calls for a more thorough examination and a closer definition of principles of United Nations peace- keeping operations. First and foremost, there are such questions as a precise mandate, a link with the negotiating process, the neutrality of the United Nations contingent, the reasons for coercive action and the concept of multinational forces. Today, with the transition to a multipolar world, it has become evident that no country, however great its potential for military power, can any longer pretend to be an effective guarantor of peace by relying exclusively on its own strength. This would be incompatible with the rules and principles of behaviour that are recognized throughout the world. Unfortunately, the United Nations proved not to be completely ready to assume this important role. Operations have become increasingly expensive and unwieldy. During the last four years alone United Nations expenditure for these purposes has increased from $350 million to $2.8 billion, thus aggravating the chronic financial problems. In the opinion of the world community, peace-keeping operations have lost their element of the extraordinary and have become routine, and not always successful, emergency actions. But the main reason for the crisis in United Nations peace-keeping efforts has proved to be changes in the conditions and circumstances of conflicts. Classic peace-keeping operations started after the end of the "hot" phase. That is why they were, in fact, quite effective means of conflict prevention. Now, in many cases, the United Nations intervenes when hostilities are at their height. This changes the principles of the use of peace-keeping forces. It is not always the case that the "blue helmets" are regarded by all the conflicting parties as welcome guests. That is why the United Nations forces’ mandate is considerably wider than used to be the case. In some cases they have been given the right to use all available weapons - and not only in self-defence. The parties to conflicts are often unable to provide adequate conditions for United Nations forces to accomplish their peace-making mission. A distinctive attribute of current conflicts is the phenomenon of field commanders. These people obey no one and, thus, compromise United Nations decisions or agreements reached within the framework of efforts aimed at achieving an armistice. It is high time to renew the principles and mechanisms of peace-keeping operations on the basis of the United Nations Charter. We feel that it is necessary to accelerate the creation of United Nations rapid- deployment forces, which would recruit volunteers and would be extraterritorial in character. Ukraine has already declared its readiness to take part in this process. An extremely important issue is the enhancement of the role of international law within the system of international relations and the creation of a climate between States that would completely exclude diktat, interference in internal affairs, the proclamation of so-called zones of special interests, and so on. The United Nations is also making a valuable contribution to strengthening the international rule of law. In this context, Ukraine advocates further enhancement of the rules and principles of international law - first and foremost, such basic principles as respect for the sovereignty of States; territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders; and the protection of individual human rights, including the rights of national minorities. Our State is committed to cooperating with other countries in this field. Ukraine is also ready to make its contribution to the solution of other urgent problems. It is necessary that we should examine thoroughly and comprehensively the question of the implementation of economic sanctions against those who threaten peace and security. Previous United Nations experience in this field provides grounds for justified criticism of the effectiveness of such sanctions. It is time to give serious thought to the creation of machinery for the implementation of Article 50 of the United Nations Charter. This would protect the economic interests of third countries, which are suffering colossal losses as a result of the strict implementation of sanctions. Ukraine has already lost more than $4 billion as a result of the implementation of sanctions against Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, the international structures did not extend appropriate assistance to enable our State to overcome the economic difficulties caused by the embargo. Obviously, collective action aimed at implementing coercive measures cannot be taken on such an unfair basis, as this increases the danger of a loss of confidence in the device of sanctions. Generally, the necessity of substantively reforming the United Nations, with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of the Organization while reducing at the 21 same time the expenditures for its functioning, is a very serious problem. I am confident that this problem has ceased to be merely an administrative and budgetary one and is moving to the foreground as one of the major political problems. Many countries, including Ukraine, are currently encountering great difficulties in convincing their citizens that it is necessary to make excessively large contributions to the budget of international organizations. There are still many outstanding problems in the field of arms control and disarmament, which traditionally occupy an important place in the foreign policy of Ukraine. We support efforts aimed at putting into force the chemical weapons Convention. We are taking an active part in the elaboration of effective mechanisms of international control regarding the implementation of the inhumane weapons Convention, the Convention on the prohibition of biological weapons, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, and other international instruments to which Ukraine is a party. We attach great importance to the preparation of the comprehensive test-ban treaty, which is now under way within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament. These activities prove that Ukraine is pursuing a consistent policy in the field of the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction, and they demonstrate its openness and readiness to cooperate, its commitment to respect the obligations assumed. Ukraine stands for the equality of all States parties to international treaties and supports the universality and non-discriminatory nature of these treaties. It is precisely from such a position that Ukraine approaches nuclear disarmament, which, at the present stage, is its most complicated problem. It should be emphasized that Ukraine is the first State in the world that has voluntarily and unilaterally assumed the obligation of eliminating nuclear weapons located in its territory - the third nuclear potential in the world - and that intends to achieve the status of a non-nuclear Power. The decision on non-nuclear status was approved by the Parliament of Ukraine for the benefit both of the highest interests of our State and of mankind as a whole. This decision was based on the profound belief of our people in the morality of the non-nuclear option and was not the result of any external pressure. At the same time, Ukraine, as a State that of its own free will is giving up nuclear weapons - this most effective means of deterrence - obviously has the right to obtain reliable security guarantees from other nuclear States and adequate economic and technical assistance from the international community for the elimination of these weapons. Unfortunately, our partners did not immediately comprehend these just demands, and we lost a lot of time. The Ukraine Parliament’s conditions for revoking its reservations at the time of the ratification of the START Treaty and the Lisbon Protocol, and for proceeding with the practical withdrawal of nuclear warheads from Ukraine with the view to their further elimination, were created only after the Trilateral Statement by the Presidents of Ukraine, the United States and the Russian Federation was signed and the relevant implementation agreements were concluded. Very soon the Parliament of Ukraine intends to consider the accession of our State to the non- proliferation Treaty. Today, the settlement of this issue depends mainly on the finalization of an acceptable text of the document concerning the provision of guarantees for Ukraine’s national security by the nuclear States. Ukraine stands for corresponding guarantees to be multilateral and to be addressed directly to Ukraine as that State which for the first time in history, on its own, is getting rid of nuclear weapons; these guarantees should provide a mechanism of consultations, which could become involved should the security of Ukraine be threatened. In this process, we attach great importance to the role of the United Nations as the most authoritative international organization. In conclusion, I would like to express optimism concerning the future development of the United Nations and international co-operation. Current international life is highly complicated and contradictory: there are alarming moments and there are frustrations, but there are also truly historical shifts which have led to the end of the cold war and to the transition to constructive co-operation. It is highly symbolic that this is happening on the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of our Organization, which emerged from the ruins of the Second World War. On behalf of Ukraine, which suffered very heavy losses in that war, I would like to support the proposal to proclaim 1995 the universal year of commemoration of the victims of this, the bloodiest of wars. Present-day realities are laying a sound foundation for global cooperation, stability and peace. Let us therefore make every effort not to lose this historic opportunity.