Georgia

I should like to begin by extending my congratulations to Mr. Amara Essy on his election as President of the General Assembly at its forty- ninth session. It is a fitting acknowledgement of his considerable experience, as well as a tribute to his country’s high standing in the international community. I should also like to offer greetings and special words of gratitude to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for the attention and careful consideration he has accorded to my country’s problems and for his selfless devotion to the cause of securing a safer and saner world for future generations. The Georgian people are looking forward with great anticipation to his forthcoming official visit to Georgia. First of all, I would like to convey to the Assembly the greetings and best wishes for productive work from the Head of State and Chairman of the Parliament of the Republic of Georgia, Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze. Just over two years have passed since the day I had the privilege of ushering my country into the United Nations as its one hundred seventy-ninth Member and addressing the Assembly from this rostrum. It was a moment of joy and celebration for my nation. Many events have taken place in those two years, and they certainly cannot serve as a basis for euphoria and complacency. My country has only recently set out on the arduous journey of building a democratic society. It is encountering numerous internal, as well as external, problems in its efforts. Despite fair and democratic elections and the forming of government structures, the country continues to languish in a deep economic and political crisis. The international community has extended a helping hand to Georgia, and I should like to convey our appreciation and gratitude to the Governments of the United States of America, the Russian Federation, Germany, other States members of the European Union and Turkey, to name but a few, as well as to the United Nations and its specialized agencies, for their invaluable assistance to my country in times of hardship. Granted, a large measure of the problems facing Georgia and all those nations which have only recently reverted to independence and normal development have domestic roots and must be addressed, first and foremost, by the countries themselves. But let us leave the internal aspect aside for the moment and concentrate on the international environment, of which these nations, as well as all other nations, are a part. With the demise of the cold war the world underwent profound changes. The risk of an all-out nuclear catastrophe receded, and the world thus became a less dangerous place; but at the same time it became less stable and less predictable. The relationship between States and other actors on the international scene has changed, too. The system of post-war international relations was tailored to the economic, political, ideological, geographic and other realities of that era. One of these realities was a deep realization of the fact that a totalitarian regime of the fascist variety had been defeated. Therefore, despite its major flaws, the post-war bipolar system generally responded to the demands of the times and somehow ensured security and stability on our planet. Our generation witnessed the fall of another totalitarian regime with the downfall of communist ideology and of its followers. This resulted in deep changes in the nature of international relations. Different demands are being dictated by the times and different challenges are now facing the community of nations. This end of a whole era of human history, however, was not followed by the creation of a new system of international relations that would correspond to the realities of the contemporary world, as happened some 50 years ago. International political institutions, as well as political thought in general, found themselves unprepared for the changes, and they continue to apply stop-gap measures to this very day. Today’s political leaders seem to have underestimated both the essence and the importance of these changes; hence the inability to cope with today’s problems or with the challenges of the post-confrontational world. The infrastructure, principles, tools and mentality of international relations need to be adapted to the changed circumstances. Therein lies the external aspect of the problems that the newly emerging independent States, including my own country, are facing. They are taking their first unsure steps on the road to a democratic society, a long and difficult road in a world that is still reeling from the nature of the changes and that realizes neither the extent of the predicament these nations face nor the stake it has in their existence and stable development. 24 Many of these nations, including my own, can, unfortunately, be described as "hot spots": they are the unhealed wounds that cover the body of our planet. These open wounds cry out for radical surgery, while the peace-keeping activities of the international community, despite its best efforts, tend in some cases to resemble cautious treatment with prescribed medication. Perhaps, as I am the Foreign Minister of Georgia, it is not for me to complain about the deficiencies of the United Nations in terms of its peace-keeping activities. The Organization as a whole, its Security Council, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and his Special Envoy, Ambassador Brunner of Switzerland, have accorded a great deal of attention to the problems of my tormented country. On the issue of Georgia’s Abkhazia region alone, nine Security Council resolutions have been adopted, numerous missions have been dispatched and the mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) has been extended. Alas, this has not proved to be sufficient. Clear decisions and bold, timely action are what the peoples of the world expect of the United Nations and of the Member States that make up the Organization. In this regard, I would like to note how useful and timely the Georgian Government found the recent visit to Georgia of the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Madeleine Albright. That visit also demonstrates the attention President Clinton attaches to events in Georgia. While I would not want to belabour the issue of "hot spots," the predicament of my own country does not allow me to ignore this problem altogether. We would hate to think that yet another experiment is perhaps being conducted in Georgia, the result of which may well have a direct bearing on the security and sovereignty of other nations. It is hard to describe the disappointment - and sometimes apathy - which the Georgian nation is feeling with regard to whether the international community will be able to promote a peaceful settlement of the Abkhazian conflict. These feelings have created a dangerous and volatile political situation domestically. A wave of indignation is rising in Parliament and among the people at the inability to resolve this conflict - and the efforts to do so have been going on for more than a year now - and allow almost 300,000 displaced persons, who escaped physical extermination, to return to their homes and continue their lives. At the heart of the Abkhazian conflict is an attempt by forces of aggressive separatism, bolstered by external support, to wrench a piece of territory away from a sovereign State and to create, in that part of Georgia, a provincial dictatorship based on ethnic hatred, intolerance and discrimination. We appealed to the United Nations in the hope that it would be responsive to our desire to settle the conflict by peaceful means through a United Nations peace-keeping operation. But our hopes were only partially fulfilled. Despite almost a dozen resolutions of the Security Council, Member States could find neither the financial resources, the military contingents nor the political will to order a peace-keeping operation in Georgia. Convinced of the possibility of a fair solution under the auspices of the United Nations, the Georgian Government has been negotiating with the separatists in good faith all this time under the auspices of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, with the Russian Federation as facilitator and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) as an observer. As a result, a number of agreements have been signed, which are designed to promote the return of the displaced persons to their homes and a settlement of the conflict. But the bitter memory of a string of broken promises and unfulfilled obligations on the part of the separatists confirms how naive it is to expect a forthcoming position from a regime that conducts "ethnic cleansing" and genocide against the Georgian population. Predictably, the Abkhazian separatists are using far-fetched pretexts to continue ignoring their commitments under the agreements that have been signed. Frustrated in its hopes for a United Nations peace-keeping operation in Abkhazia, the Government of the Republic of Georgia sent a similar appeal to the heads of the States members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). A decision was reached and a CIS peace-keeping force was deployed in the zone of conflict. While its presence is beneficial and provides hope for a settlement, we feel that it could be more active and proceed beyond the stage of disengaging the parties in conflict. 25 The Abkhazian conflict is not a problem for Georgia alone. Believe me, I am not saying this in order to lay our problems at somebody else’s doorstep. This conflict has direct and dangerous implications for the entire world. There are also compelling reasons why the world should be concerned with finding a solution to this problem. Above all, we believe that the international community simply cannot act as an outside observer when a blatant attempt is being made against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a Member State and when peace and stability are threatened. Allowing separatism to attain its goals in one country would set a precedent that could start a chain reaction throughout the world. And how many of us represented here today can safely say that their countries, their peoples, are immune from this danger? And, lastly, the Caucasus is one of those areas in the world which have a geopolitical importance and bearing on the stability of large regions of the planet. The Caucasus is one of the world’s few crossroads where North, South, East and West meet, and where continents, cultures, interests and strategies encounter one another. If peace and stability cannot be maintained in the Caucasus, they cannot be maintained anywhere. In this regard, it is tragic that our closest neighbours, Armenia and Azerbaijan, have been unable to resolve their differences for so many years now. This conflict, too, tears at the fabric of the Caucasus and greatly increases the instability of the region, as well as the misery of hundreds of thousands of people. It is my Government’s firm position that the Abkhazian conflict can and should be resolved by peaceful means. A great deal of effort, delicate statesmanship and deep commitment are required from all sides. The Georgian Government has to be very meticulous in elaborating a modern, workable and fair structure for its ethnically and culturally diverse population, a diversity which throughout the centuries has been a source of friendship, stability and pride, and never of tension or hatred. Most important, it has to create a strong economic base for its people, one that would prevent economic hardships from taking on a political and ethnic character. Georgia will never accept the loss of any part of its territory. Not only because its territory is not large, but also because what it has is incontestably its own - every square inch of it. The leaders of the Abkhazian separatists have to realize this. They too have to find the political courage and will, the flexibility and the foresight, to negotiate in good faith and come to a settlement that would be fair and lasting, so that future generations of Georgians and Abkhazians could forget this one dark page in their fathers’ lives and pick up in friendship and peace where their grandfathers left off. The Russian Federation is an active participant in the process designed to find a peaceful solution to the Abkhazian conflict. It has taken on a great responsibility with regard to this peace process. We firmly believe that, despite the feelings of some political groups, the Russian Federation, as a great Power - and President Yeltsin, as the leader of that nation - does indeed want to see a strong, stable, sovereign, united and friendly Georgia on its southern border. Any other considerations would be contrary to logic. We are gratified that in his address to this Assembly a few days ago President Yeltsin alluded to this when he said that Russia’s relations towards other States members of the Commonwealth of Independent States are based on good will and mutual benefit. In short, it is a time to think not about the mistakes of the past, but about the possibilities for the future. Georgia has only recently joined the community of nations as a full-fledged member. And yet this period has been filled with events of great intensity and emotion for us. We feel an obligation to share our experience and thoughts in a number of areas which, we believe, will contribute to the effectiveness of our collective efforts in the future. We live in troubled times and are witness to rapid, unpredictable changes in the world. It is of paramount importance that contemporary political thought bring existing international institutions into conformity with the international political realities of today. It would seem that even such a representative body as the United Nations, if it is to continue to be ahead of events and fulfil its role as the parliament of man in a new situation, may have to effect some changes in its structure. The reforms - prompted by the times - which the Organization is about to embark upon, the efforts of the Secretary-General to implement them, and the consent of the majority of the Member States are evidence that the time has come for a new era in international relations. The number of Member States has more than doubled since the creation of the United Nations. We fully support the proposal to reflect these changes by increasing the numerical composition of the Security 26 Council to 21, and we believe that the candidacies of Germany and Japan are appropriate for inclusion as new permanent members of the enlarged Security Council. Apart from reflecting the political and economic weight of these nations, this would also enable us finally to bring to a close the legacy of the Second World War and the cold war. In considering the possibilities for increasing the number of permanent and non-permanent members of the Council, one of the main criteria, in our view, should be the involvement and role of member States in maintaining universal peace and stability. Although we see this consideration as a crucial one, other aspects, such as equitable geographical representation, should not be neglected either. The task of creating a modern comprehensive system of ensuring peace and security in the world requires an increase in the effectiveness of the International Court of Justice, the main judicial body of the United Nations. We share the concern of the Secretary-General that the Court, the most important instrument for the settlement of disputes, is not being fully utilized for this purpose. More efficient use of the International Court would, undoubtedly, reinforce the ability of the United Nations to promote and strengthen peace. In this regard, we fully support the initiative of the Secretary-General to recognize the universal jurisdiction of the International Court, in accordance with Article 36 of its Statute, and on the basis of the recommendations put forward in the report of the Secretary- General entitled "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277). Efforts aimed at creating a comprehensive system of international security can be effective today only if they are applied at both the global and the regional level. In our view, the ties between the global and regional security systems are inadequate for today’s needs, and are maintained in a haphazard way. In this regard we consider it timely to raise the issue of achieving a higher level of interaction between global and regional security systems by concluding a series of special "form" treaties that will ensure more effective use, in close coordination, of their respective mechanisms. Without prejudice to United Nations rules and regulations and to the provisions of the Charter, or to the statutes of the regional systems, these treaties should provide, inter alia, for regional organizations to exercise consultative and controlling functions on behalf, and on the authorization, of the United Nations. In various international forums we often discuss the specific challenges of the post-confrontational world. Separatism, especially in its aggressive, extremist form, is one of the most dangerous of these challenges, and it is spreading like a cancer all over the planet. We believe that the creation of a legal basis for the containment of aggressive separatism is imperative and long overdue so that situations, such as the one in Georgia, will not flare up in other parts of the world in future, or if they do, they will be localized and defused in a timely manner. We propose that clear provisions be inserted into international legal documents, outlawing aggressive, extremist separatism from its first stirrings. It is becoming more and more clear that the mere reiteration and confirmation of the principle of territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders is insufficient, all the more so since it is being flagrantly disregarded in many instances. These legal provisions should also envisage a strict embargo on military deliveries and swift, surgical economic measures against separatist movements that have turned to armed struggle and violence, as well as a mechanism to use, in exceptional cases, the most decisive measure - military force. The military forces for these operations could be set up in one of two ways: either United Nations stand-by forces, an option which would entail considerable financial expense, or special well-trained units within the armed forces of each Member State which, when needed, could be put under the direct command of the United Nations Military Staff Committee, which itself could become more active and energetic. While the second option seems more realistic at present, I would still like to stress the virtues of early preventive measures against such conflicts. Perhaps many of them could be localized and defused at an early stage, if the United Nations had relatively small, mobile forces of rapid reaction and deployment at its disposal. These forces could be made up on an international voluntary basis, thereby emphasizing their impartial and unbiased nature. They could be rapidly deployed in the conflict zone and, acting within a limited mandate, could ensure the disengagement of the conflicting parties in order to create the conditions for the deployment of a United Nations peace-keeping force. In this regard, it would also seem indispensable to us to set up a special department within the United Nations 27 Secretariat the sole purpose of which would be to work to resolve conflict situations. Ten highly experienced and respected political figures could form the nucleus of such a department. To perform their functions they would be vested with special rights and obligations. Within such a department a special unit could be set up to coordinate the actions of the rapid deployment force. It would ensure the collection of information and intelligence data, and generally function as operations headquarters. The unit could also provide valuable early-warning information on potential conflict situations involving separatist tendencies. To anticipate a natural question on the financing of such forces, I should say that, yes, it will undoubtedly entail additional financial, material means and human resources. This, however, is a case of the end clearly justifying the means. As we have paid a far greater price for being late so often in the past, the international community can no longer afford such a luxury. A few days ago a proposal was made very forcefully from this rostrum that, in order to safeguard and uphold the rights of national minorities, the principles of the Declaration on the rights of national minorities should be embodied in the legislation of all member States. We firmly support the principle of providing national minorities with wide political, economic and cultural rights, and of ensuring civil and human rights for everyone. We would thus like to go a step further and propose to codify all aspects of this issue. Since every right presumes a responsibility, we believe that it is imperative that international legal documents and national legislations of Member States, along with the rights of national minorities, also incorporate provisions on the responsibilities of these minorities towards the country of which they form a part. In view of the rapidly growing role of individual leaders and personalities in international relations today, it would seem appropriate to us to consider also the issue of responsibility for an individual’s role in the violation of human rights and liberties of persons, or groups of persons. Thus, we fully support the proposal to work out a declaration on the rights and responsibilities of individuals, groups and political bodies to ensure commonly accepted freedoms and human rights. It is precisely in this context that Georgia supported the creation of the post of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. I have attempted to outline some of my Government’s thoughts with regard to the changes that it thinks should be made in the structure and work of the Organization in view of the many profound changes in the international landscape today. While these are just some elements, a comprehensive and balanced vision of the needed changes is laid out by the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali in "An Agenda for Peace" and other documents. The implementation of the changes would go a long way towards eliminating many of the problems that we are discussing in this Hall and would also represent, as Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze put it so aptly, a very timely "blood transfusion" for the entire international system. An important period is approaching in the life of the Organization. Next year we will be commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. We have reached a mature age which allows us to take stock of the Organization’s many accomplishments, but also one that obliges us to look ahead to what still needs to be done. A half century of existence and experience confers even greater responsibility upon the Organization, as well as upon individual Member States. It imposes grander objectives, but also opens up wider horizons. Some of these objectives can be attained in our lifetime, while others will be left to succeeding generations. It is our responsibility to provide a legacy which will serve as a stepping-stone for mankind to make a leap into the twenty-first century and land softly on solid ground. Georgia is a small country, but it is a democratic country, and its foreign-policy objective is to have 28 peaceful, friendly relations with all the nations of the world. Georgia will not be a passive observer of international events; it will carry its fair share of the responsibilities of the international community and make its contribution to achieving our common goals.