Poland

Let me express my great pleasure at seeing Mr. Amara Essy presiding over our deliberations. I am confident that, given his experience and skills, this session will contribute to the further enhancement of the role of the United Nations. Let me also thank the Secretary-General for the thoughtful and thorough review of the world situation, given in his annual report - this in addition, of course, to our thanks for his tireless work for the good of the Organization. I would like to follow the point made by our Dutch colleague regarding the increased responsibility of individual Member States for the success of this institution, let me say that the end of the cold war has been a source of and a sound reason for satisfaction throughout the entire world community. A series of "velvet revolutions" in Central Europe, the dissolution of the USSR and remarkable events in South Africa and the Middle East have shaken the entire post-war geopolitical pattern of "negative stability" - frozen enmity. As expected, the end of the East-West confrontation and the disappearance of competing blocs has proved beneficial to international relations. The planet has become a safer place. Yet the euphoria is fading, giving way to a sober evaluation of events. Indeed, have all the "Berlin Walls" or "Iron Curtains" been dismantled - especially economic barriers that separate countries on a global or regional scale? Is the "peace dividend" actually being paid? Has the North-South development gap ceased to widen and to undermine the newly acquired, still fragile global stability? The old bipolar, confrontational world has gone. We are not divided anymore. But we are not united either. In fact, many problems, dormant or concealed until now, have surfaced with startling force: ethnic conflicts, nationalisms, religious intolerance. The "cold war" may very well be replaced by a "cold peace" or, even worse, by "hot chaos". Global cooperation will not come by itself. The United Nations is best placed to lead its Members in an effort to achieve it. However, are the nations ready for it? Is the United Nations properly equipped to cope with the task? The question that should be asked first is not what the United Nations could do for us, but what we - the Member States - should do to unite the nations. A contest between the two super-Powers no longer dictates the course of history. The international scene, both political and economic, has become pluralist, with medium-sized and small countries emerging as increasingly important actors. Previously, the role of these countries was, at best, that of a go-between or observer, rather than an active participant. Now they are becoming partners in the multi-country discourse. Multilateralism is becoming more important than ever. Multilateral arrangements in various domains provide both insurance of equal treatment and an opportunity to take part, to contribute. Multilateralism increases the freedom of action of individual States and the degree of their responsibility. Let me set forth briefly the way in which Poland, a medium-sized country, perceives its role and duty - I stress duty - as a partner in the international effort to bring about global cooperation, to build a united world. First, we develop friendly relations with neighbours. The best testimony in this regard is found in the treaties we have concluded with all our seven neighbours. We regard those treaties as a great common accomplishment by Poles, Belarusians, Czechs, Germans, Lithuanians, Russians, Slovaks and Ukrainians. It was not always easy to reach an agreement: hard diplomatic work, imagination and willingness to compromise were required, to say the least. But the result was very much worth the effort. The treaties constitute a solid block of durable rules based on international law, in a region of major importance for the security of the continent and the world at large. Secondly, we are active in developing regional cooperation. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland have formed a non-binding structure known as the Visegrad group. It is not an organization; it has no permanent bodies, not even a secretariat - a true rarity for any international venture. The group did, however, manage to work out a Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA). Poland is also a partner in the Central European Initiative and the Council of the Baltic Sea States. Furthermore, we have recently reached out to our eastern neighbours with a number of proposals to enhance regional links. 24 Thirdly, we are impatiently and insistently striving to become members of institutions whose membership has been determined by the logic of the divided world. We all agree they must not remain exclusive. It is "one Europe, one world" that lies behind Poland’s efforts to join the European Union, the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It was in this context that Poland responded with determination and confidence to the Partnership for Peace programme. By virtue of its history, size and vital interests, Poland wants to enter NATO not as a front-line State but, rather, as a country furthering cooperation. We do not want to create new divisions. On the contrary, we are striving to overcome the remnants of the past divisions which are still with us. It was also in this context that Poland entered into the association agreement with the European Union, and it is in this context that Poland is actively preparing for membership. It is our strong desire to take part in the process of integrating Europe so that it becomes more secure, cooperative and hospitable; and to participate in an effort to overcome the irrationalities of history - rivalry, imperial divisions and nationalistic stereotypes. Fourthly, Poland is a strong believer and a dedicated participant in interregional and global actions. We are in the forefront in promoting cooperation within the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). The CSCE is not only the symbol of the necessary bonds of security but also a forum for practical cooperation across three continents. We support the CSCE as a regional arrangement within Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. Poland is a time-tested participant in United Nations peace-keeping operations. Over 2,000 of our troops are there to uphold the ideas in the Charter, whenever called to duty by the Security Council. Poland, finally, is also active in other areas of international cooperation: in the economic, social, cultural, educational and health fields as well as in the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms as stipulated by Article 13 of the Charter. Medium- and small-sized States are potentially a great asset of the United Nations; it has not so far been sufficiently recognized, let alone utilized. States such as Poland can play a stabilizing role and exert an important beneficial influence on developments in their immediate and more distant neighbourhood, and tangibly contribute to global stability and security. In particular, they can be expected to become nuclei of regional integration as they should not be suspected of seeking to dominate or to impose their will on others. To act locally - that is, regionally - is practical and effective. Medium-sized countries in consensus with smaller States can, indeed, make a difference. However, we should not allow a loose constellation of separate villages to emerge. We need a global, united village. Therefore, we need a framework for subregional, regional and interregional cooperation and discipline to ensure coherence. This is of course the raison d’être of the United Nations. We are trying today to improve its operations. Let me here draw attention to two specific issues. First, the fundamental task for the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security. The role of the Security Council has been in recent years broadened by more frequent recourse to action under Chapter VII of the Charter. On the one hand, that allows for a fresh look at the security role of the United Nations, particularly in the context of countries which do not enjoy sound security guarantees. On the other hand, one cannot remain indifferent to the Council’s decisions in cases where sovereignty, democracy and human rights are violated, or access to humanitarian assistance is hindered. For this reason, Poland consistently makes an effort to respond to the Council’s calls for action, be it in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda or, most recently, Haiti. Poland shares the view that the increase in the membership of the United Nations justifies the enlargement of the Council. There are different suggestions and ideas as to how this might best be done. The principal criterion continues, for us, to be preservation of the effectiveness of the Council. Enlargement should be accomplished on a consensus basis and as a package. The interests of all United Nations regional groups need to be respected in the process. A seat on the Council, permanent or not, cannot be considered a matter of prestige. Indeed, it implies increased responsibility and the ability to discharge it. The Council’s decisions involving peace-keeping and peace-enforcement measures, from sanctions to recourse to force, give rise to various risks and sacrifices by third countries. They include potential risk to the lives and health of the troops and financial losses for which so far, despite the provisions of Article 50, there is no adequate compensation. 25 The security of the peace-keepers is of the utmost importance. Work undertaken on a convention on the safety of United Nations peace-keeping personnel should be completed at the earliest date. There is also a need for active dialogue between members of the Security Council, the Secretary-General and troop-contributing States. Such dialogue should be a standard practice in the case of decisions which may affect the security of these troops. Poland shares the view that: first, all United Nations activities in the four fields - preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping, peacemaking and post-conflict peace-building - must be fully mandated and better planned, organized and financed; secondly, regional organizations should make a more significant contribution in the areas of preventive diplomacy and peace-keeping, but one fully consistent with the United Nations Charter; and, thirdly, a specific mandate is to be sought when peace-keeping troops need to use force beyond the requirements of self-defence. Disarmament is yet another dimension of a global effort to strengthen international peace and security. Mankind is no longer held hostage to nuclear confrontation; the nuclear arms race has been halted and, it is hoped, reversed. Post-cold-war cooperation between erstwhile adversaries has resulted in important nuclear disarmament accords. Poland is playing an active part in the ongoing multilateral negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva for a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty. Internationally verifiable, universally adhered to and effective, such a treaty would put in place yet another barrier to the spread of nuclear arms, which is in the vital security interests of each and every member of the family of nations. These interests would also be served by a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices. The window of opportunity is wide open. It must not be ignored. We warmly welcome the renewed interest and initiative on nuclear disarmament submitted yesterday to this Assembly by President Clinton and President Yeltsin. We believe that further reinforcement of the non-proliferation regime is imperative. We are alarmed by recent reports of illicit trafficking in nuclear materials across frontiers. This is a threat to international security and also a danger to innocent bystanders exposed to radiation. It also casts doubts on the efficiency and sufficiency of existing legal provisions and procedures. A thorough review of such provisions and procedures seems timely. The overriding national security interests of States would be served in particular by the universalization of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). We welcome the recent accessions to the NPT, especially by some of our newly independent neighbours. We fervently hope that Ukraine will soon follow suit. In this connection, I wish to recall that Poland firmly supports the unconditional and indefinite extension of the NPT. The forthcoming Conference to review the operation of the NPT and to decide on its extension should strengthen the regime. It will benefit the entire international community. Coming as an aftermath to both Hiroshima and Chernobyl, it would be the most fitting step to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the nuclear age. With the signing of the chemical weapons Convention, there is a prospect of finally eliminating another category of weapons of mass destruction. Poland is actively involved in the work of the Preparatory Commission for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and its ratification procedure is well advanced. In conclusion, I would say this: more power to the regions; more authority to the Security Council; more initiative and involvement on the part of medium-sized countries. These are, in our view, the cornerstones and objectives of the reform of the United Nations. Allow me now to address an issue to which Poland and a number of other countries attach particular importance. I am referring to the provisions of Article 107 and to parts of Article 53 of the Charter of the United Nations. I doubt that there is any delegation here that would not agree that they have become obsolete - a dead letter. For almost 50 years these provisions have not been officially invoked. Indeed, the States covered by this so-called "enemy clause" have become not only an inseparable part of the democratic world but also a crucial element of the United Nations system. It is impossible to imagine how the Organization and its system could function without their political, economic and financial commitment. Poland, the victim of the Nazi aggression that started the Second World War, considers it its moral duty to take a lead in closing this chapter of history for all time. We believe that the time has come to part with transitional clauses born of the war, concerning States which were 26 then, 50 years ago, enemies, but which have now become partners in our common work for the United Nations. I formally propose the removal from the Charter of the United Nations of the clauses referring to "enemy States". A political decision by the General Assembly on this matter could be taken at this session. While, of course, other modalities may be considered, the Assembly could, for instance, request the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations to submit to it at its fiftieth session a proposal for an appropriate legal solution that would not amount to a substantive revision of the Charter. Let me express the hope that this initiative will meet with the unanimous support of the Member States.