Let me congratulate
Ms. Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa on her election to the
presidency and wish her a year relatively free of
conflict crisis and catastrophe — in other words, a year
unlike the one we have just had, during which His
Excellency Jan Eliasson significantly contributed to the
successful navigation of troubled waters with his great
leadership. The “year of turmoil”, as he called it (see
A/60/PV.100), included conflicts and crises, as well as
man-made and natural disasters, all requiring our
collective response. We have responded with great
commitment to maintain peace and stability in the
world.
Of the conflicts that we have faced in this past
year, the one that emerged to be the most tragic was
that of the war in Lebanon. I believe the international
community has lost some credibility and moral
authority in the eyes of the peoples of the world, who
watched the Security Council bicker over minute issues
while bombs were being dropped in Lebanon and
innocent people were being killed. It was a great shame
for the international community not to be able to
deliver and establish an immediate ceasefire. When an
international body loses moral authority, our ability to
effectively tackle problems and issues that require a
collective response is certainly undermined.
In other areas, however, the collective efforts of
the international community have indeed succeeded. I
believe we played a role in the civilized process of
bringing Montenegro to this day and to this body.
Collectively, we created and empowered the
Peacebuilding Commission and the Human Rights
Council, two bodies that hold great promise for
delivering deeper and more profound commitment on
the part of the world community to building peace and
protecting human rights.
The most threatening challenges in the world
remain those of poverty and hopelessness. When our
leaders gathered in this Hall six years ago, they
decided that the United Nations was the most effective
body in which to address the ills facing our societies.
They collectively recognized their responsibility to
deliver, worldwide, more equitably distributed social
and economic development, at an accelerated pace.
They said to the world that they were willing to
channel international processes and multilateral
resources in order to tackle the needs of the world’s
poor. They will be judged by their adherence to the
principle, promise and commitment of collective
action. Six years have now passed and the world still
earnestly looks on to see whether individual and
regional interests can be overcome and those problems
jointly addressed.
We in Armenia also face similar problems. We are
encouraged and rewarded by the extensive political and
economic reforms that we have conducted over the past
10 years. The results are evident. We are now preparing
to engage in the second generation of political and
economic reforms in order to continue to build on the
past decade of progress. We are moving forward on
legislative and administrative matters; we are today a
more democratic society and a more open and more
liberal economy. We have been registering double-digit
growth over the past six years.
While we are encouraged by this economic
progress and the positive macroeconomic indicators,
we are now turning our attention to the rural areas in
order to eradicate poverty in our society. We are
reminded of the remarkable promise, made in 2000, to
the victims of global poverty to “free our fellow men,
women and children from the abject and dehumanizing
conditions of extreme poverty” (resolution 55/2,
para. 11). To be able to do that in Armenia, we will
leverage the philanthropy of international organizations
and friendly countries with the traditional generosity of
our diaspora, so that we can build and repair
infrastructure and thus create new conditions for
economic development and social change. But we also
understand that infrastructure alone is not enough to
introduce that kind of change that reduces poverty. We
need to invest in people; we need to invest in women
and children; and we need to educate them and train
them for the future.
We will begin that programme in Armenia’s
border villages. Unlike other countries, where border
villages are points of interaction and activity,
Armenia’s eastern and western borders are closed, thus
stifling economic interaction and regional cooperation.
With our neighbour, Turkey, it is not only economic
cooperation that suffers, but also the dialogue between
our two peoples. Turkey’s insistence on keeping the
border closed and not allowing interaction between the
two communities freezes the memories of yesterday,
instead of promoting dialogue and interaction to create
new experiences and new memories for tomorrow. We
still believe and hope that Turkey will eventually
understand that keeping the border closed until there is
harmony and mutual understanding between our two
06-53341 8
peoples is not a policy. On the contrary, it is avoidance
of a responsible policy to forge and promote regional
cooperation and economic development at a time and
in a region that are the object of growing global
attention.
Let me address the issue of Kosovo, as many
have done from this podium. We closely follow the
process of self-determination in Kosovo because we
Armenians, ourselves, are extremely supportive of the
process of self-determination for the people of
Nagorno Karabakh. But we do not draw parallels
between the two conflicts or with any other conflict.
We believe and insist that conflicts are all different,
and each must be decided on its own merits. While we
ourselves do not consider the Kosovo outcome to be a
precedent for other conflicts, we are extremely anxious
about the possibility that it may raise artificial
obstacles for other self-determination movements,
simply because others cite it as a precedent. This is of
extreme concern to us because we believe that there are
movements in the world today that have earned the
right to self-determination. The Kosovo outcome
should not serve as an excuse or reason to put a damper
on those self-determination movements.
Yet, such attempts are already apparent in this
Hall as the principle of self-determination is being
undermined compared to other principles. But this goes
contrary to the lessons of history. There is a reason that
the Helsinki Final Act enshrined the principle of self-
determination as equal among other principles in
international relations. In international interactions,
just as in human relations, there are no absolute values.
There are also responsibilities. A State should gain and
earn the right to govern. States have the responsibility
to protect their own citizens, and the people have the
right to choose the Government that they think should
govern them.
The people of Nagorno Karabakh decided long
ago not to be represented by the Government of
Azerbaijan, because they suffered from State violence.
They tried to protect themselves, and they succeeded
against all odds, only to hear the State cry foul and
claim sovereignty and territorial integrity. But
Azerbaijan has lost every iota of the moral right to talk
about guaranteeing the security of the people of
Nagorno Karabakh, let alone to claim custody over that
people.
Azerbaijan did not act responsibly or morally
towards the people of Nagorno Karabakh, people that it
considered to be its own citizens. It unleashed military
action; it sanctioned pogroms and massacres in urban
areas. It bombed and displaced more than 300,000
Armenians. When it lost the war and accepted a
ceasefire, it began to destroy all traces of Armenians by
eliminating Armenian monuments throughout the
territory. Over the past two years, the remaining 2,000
carved stone crosses, representing Armenian
cemeteries, were desecrated and eliminated. The
territory has now been turned into a shooting range for
the Azerbaijani army. This reflects the fact that
Azerbaijan still does not believe in the peaceful
resolution of this conflict.
Armenians cannot be blamed for thinking that
Azerbaijan is not serious about a peaceful solution.
Having rejected the past two offers of the international
community, Azerbaijan is now concerned about being
accused of rejecting the current peace plan. That is why
it is manoeuvring and manipulating every possible
situation — from State violence to introducing
resolutions in other forums outside the peace process
so that the Armenians are forced to do the rejecting.
But Armenia is clearly on record as stating that it
stands by every single principle included in the
document it submitted. However, in order to give a
chance to that document, one cannot think or even
pretend to think that there is a military option to this
conflict. There is no military option. That option has
been tried and has failed. The only option today is
realism and compromise. The path that the people of
Nagorno Karabakh have chosen over the past two
decades is a path that has become irreversible.
Solidifying and formalizing the process will greatly
contribute to peace and stability in our region.
Karabakh is not a cause. It is an ancient place, a
beautiful garden with people who have earned the right
to live in peace and prosperity. That is what we seek,
and we cannot accept anything less.