Allow me first of
all to congratulate you warmly. Sir, on your election to the presidency of the
General Assembly. Through your person, an entire region of the world affirms
in this forum its political renewal.
The body of Members of our Organization is growing continually. Over the
last year, 21 new States have come to join our ranks and have subscribed to
the commitments of the Charter. We bid them welcome. Belgium has always held
the view that our Organization should be open to all States. Equally strong,
however, is our conviction that expansion should not come to mean shattering
and dispersal. National aspirations must remain subordinate to the essential
prerequisites of multilateral cooperation, which is becoming more necessary
every day.
In this respect, the confidence Belgium placed in the new
Secretary-General even before his election has turned out to be fully
justified. As proof of this, I would refer to his actions in the former
Yugoslavia and in Somalia. I have also in mind his analyses at the Rio
Conference, his report on preventive diplomacy and his report to the General
Assembly.
My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom, has
already spoken on behalf of the member States of the European Community. This
allows me to concentrate my statement on a few issues of particular concern to
us.
The end of the cold war made strengthened international cooperation both
possible and necessary. For combined reasons of history, size and
geographical location, Belgium has always been predisposed to cooperation.
Without a credible international order, we will all sooner or later be faced
with an upsurge of unilateral demands containing the seeds of inevitable
threats to peace. Our membership of the Security Council has enabled us to
witness this first hand. A United Nations which functions effectively
constitutes the best guarantee against such dangers.
The end of the cold war has produced a variety of results. A wall has
fallen but new trenches have been dug. The elimination of global ideological
confrontation has led to the easing of regional conflicts that were fuelled by
that confrontation. But it has also released frustrations, which have often
degenerated into parodies of the right to self-determination and into new
conflicts. We must react to this.
Fortunately, the United Nations is no longer paralysed by the automatic
ideological antagonisms of the past. The Security Council in particular has
regained its means of action and its authority, which is now broadly
recognized. Failure to comply with its decisions now equals isolation from
the international community.
But precisely because our Organization is experiencing something of a
revival, we have to ensure that it does not fall victim to its own success.
The summit meeting of the Security Council members, held last January,
recognized the extent of this challenge. The Heads of State or Government
requested the Secretary-General to develop concrete proposals to respond to
it.
The Secretary General's report, "An Agenda for Peace", has given us ample
food for thought on the future role of the Organization. The report confirms
that our central objective should be peace first and foremost, for without
peace, neither normal society nor faith in the future of individuals is
possible.
The General Assembly will debate preventive diplomacy in depth. We hold
this concept to be based on the following elements: full use of the powers
vested in the Secretary-General; a United Nations presence in the initial
stages of a potential conflict; the specific role of regional organizations;
commissions of inquiry and temporary observer missions; an enlarged role for
United Nations staff already present in potential conflict zones; and
disarmament and non-proliferation.
Disarmament and non-proliferation continue to merit special attention in
their own right. The end of the cold war has made the control and monitoring
of conventional weapons more difficult. The nightmare of global nuclear
confrontation has given way to the threat of the unchecked proliferation and
dissemination of nuclear arms and technology. During the forty-sixth session
of the General Assembly, the 12 countries of the European Community, together
with Japan, took an initiative which has led to the creation of a register for
multilateral control of the transfer of conventional weapons. That, however,
is but a first step.
The case of Iraq has demonstrated the extent of the problems caused by a
lack of transparency in commercial transactions involving both conventional
and nuclear weaponry. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should
therefore continue to improve its system of safeguards, preventive detection
and monitoring of the transfer of dual-use items.
I would like to pay a tribute here to the steadfast efforts of the
Conference on Disarmament. Belgium currently chairs that Conference and will
present to the General Assembly the draft Convention on a ban on
chemical-weapons. On behalf of a country victimized by these weapons during
the First World War, I want to launch a solemn appeal in favour of the
universal acceptance of the draft Convention, resulting in the final
elimination of these particularly barbaric weapons from all arsenals.*
A more systematic use of preventive diplomacy would, no doubt, enable us
to limit at least the human cost of conflicts. However, it is clear that when
prevention reaches its limits, the Organization must be able to resort to
other peace-keeping measures.
In response to the appeals of the Secretary-General, Belgium, for its
part, has dispatched a battalion to Croatia and units to Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and is preparing a battalion for deployment in Somalia.
The financial difficulties of our Organization have led us recently to
seek alternative financing systems. However, I must take this opportunity to
recall the obligation of solidarity that applies to all Member States. All
Members must fulfil their budgetary obligations. The system for financing
peace-keeping operations should be uniform and predictable, and should resolve
the problems of financing the initial phases of urgent operations. The United
Nations would obviously lose both operational capacity and credibility if the
Organization were denied the budgetary resources corresponding to its
responsibilities.
However, all the combined tools of preventive diplomacy, disarmament,
non-proliferation and peace-keeping operations are not sufficient to ensure
real peace. Most conflicts are more deeply rooted. I wholeheartedly agree
with the Secretary-General's broad interpretation of the elements which
contribute to ensuring peace. Like him, I believe that the role of the
Organization extends to the prevention of tensions of any kind, be they
economic disparities, infringements of human rights, the absence of democracy
or environmental degradation.
For the first generations of the post-colonial era, the term "North-South
dialogue" kept alive the hope of attaining a more equitable distribution of
wealth and opportunities. The situation today is far from meeting those
expectations. This is the combined result of the cold war and military
expenditure, of a degree of selfishness in the North, of corruption and bad
governance, and of a wrong choice of priorities both in the South and the
North.
For these reasons, major bilateral and multilateral aid efforts have
sometimes failed and have also maintained a culture of dependency which now
demands a process of emancipation. The contrasts between North and South
demand our attention more than ever. We are witnessing, on the one hand, a
race to satisfy material cravings, and on the other, abject poverty. This is
the greatest challenge facing us. We not only have to maintain important
resource and technology transfers, but we also need to make a frank analysis
of past errors and to identify the real priorities.
In this context two factors have, in my view, become of key importance:
first, the concept of global interdependence and, secondly, the growing
emphasis on the close links between population, environment and development.
Useful lessons may be drawn from past disappointments concerning
donor-recipient relationships. The Assembly will also discuss the triennial
policy review of the operational activities of the United Nations system. We
hope that this will be a thorough debate leading to a genuine reassessment of
multilateral aid mechanisms.
For our part, we have launched a number of innovations in our bilateral
aid during recent years. These include, in particular, the creation of joint
management systems for our development projects, designed to reinforce the
decision-making capacity of our partners.
Nevertheless, a real economic take-off will be possible only if
investments follow government efforts. We note with satisfaction that a
number of developing countries have taken steps to offer greater legal
security to foreign investors with respect to freedom of enterprise, fiscal
matters and mobility of capital and profits. Such measures contribute to the
creation of a better investment climate.
We have to concern ourselves now more than ever with the social aspects
of development. Profit is not a goal in itself. Income redistribution must
allow for the full personal development of every individual within a society
based on solidarity. This solidarity must extend to future generations. The
rights of workers, as well as their families, their cultural heritage and
their environment, must therefore be protected. The World Conference on
Social Development, to be held in 1995, will provide us an opportunity to give
these goals and principles the high priority they deserve.
International economic cooperation can flourish only on the basis of
political will and effective mechanisms. This explains the vital importance
of several international negotiating processes, either in progress or already
being finalized, being brought to a successful conclusion.
I should like to stress Belgium's attachment to the liberalization of
world trade as a driving force for economic growth and development. The
success of the Uruguay Round is the essential precondition for this.
Finally, the Rio de Janeiro Conference was a milestone in the process of
increasing collective awareness of the future of our planet, and Belgium will
attach the greatest importance to its follow-up. One of the crucial aspects
here concerns the financial mechanisms. We earnestly wish for a strengthening
of the structure of the global environment facility to adapt it better to the
various needs. This should also contribute to a greater convergence between
the international financial institutions of the Bretton Woods system and the
operational mechanisms of the United Nations family.
I could not possibly close this part of my statement without mentioning
the economic problems of a region to which we feel particularly close, namely
Africa. Current events are continually giving us cause for concern. Belgium,
however, refuses to give in to visions of catastrophe or what a fashionable
phrase defines as "Afro-pessimism".
In recent years Belgium has redefined its attitude and its commitments
towards Africa, first in areas where we could have to assume special
responsibilities. We warmly welcome the fact that the link between democracy,
human rights and development is now widely recognized and applied. We hope
that democratization will be understood at its true value, namely, for the
benefit of the people. The spirit which inspires us is not that of a new
paternalism: we wish to enter into cooperation as equal partners. In order
to support political renewal in Africa, my Government has just created a fund
to assist in the financing of democratic elections, the main beneficiary of
which will be the African continent. Furthermore, Belgium is actively using
its influence with its partners and in relevant international institutions to
ensure that the dawning of democracy is accompanied by an upturn in economic
activity. In the meantime, we have intensified our emergency aid in several
areas affected by conflict or natural disasters. My Government also welcomes
the fact that, as regards aid to Africa, it has established a fruitful working
relationship with Belgian and international non-governmental organizations.
Failure to respect the rights of the individual is another source of
tension and violence, as well as an impediment to economic and social progress.
We must clearly reaffirm the principle of the universality of basic
rights and freedoms which are inherent in human dignity. These rights cannot
be subject to various interpretations.
Respect for and the protection of human rights require stronger
monitoring mechanisms. An extraordinary session of the Human Rights
Commission took place last month in Geneva. The Commission strongly condemned
the serious and intolerable human rights abuses taking places in the former
Yugoslavia. Belgium warmly welcomes this rapid reaction and
would like to see it serve as an example in the future.
Belgium would also like to see the coming World Conference on Human
Rights lead to a reaffirmation of the international commitments by States and
a strengthening of cooperation in the world community. We appeal to all
countries to strive in a constructive spirit for the success of this
Conference.
We are already in favour of a role for the Security Council in certain
cases of particularly flagrant or large-scale violations of human rights.
This is why Belgium insisted on having the Council hear Mr. van der Stoel on
the human rights situation in Iraq.
This is a delicate subject, as we are well aware. But international law
is evolving, and since information has virtually lost its borders, frontiers
are fading for injustice as well. Ultimately, States simply have to respect
the international commitments they have undertaken as sovereign Powers.
The unbreakable link between democracy and respect for human rights is
also put in concrete terms in the United Nations system through the question
of electoral assistance. Numerous requests for such assistance are currently
being addressed to the Secretariat. In order to give an adequate response,
precise standards must be established. The existing mechanisms which allow
for some forms of electoral assistance must be fully used. This session of
the General Assembly should enable us to clarify matters where necessary.
The growing number of ethnic conflicts poses a special problem, half-way
between the traditional questions of human rights and the exercise of the
right to self-determination. Consequently, the protection of ethnic
minorities deserves special attention at this time.
In Europe, we continue to believe, in spite of recent disappointments,
that the rules developed by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe (CSCE) remain valid. The right to self-determination must in no case
be put forward to justify excesses and cruelties committed in its name.
Besides, the protection of minorities should not necessarily or indeed
exclusively be placed under the banner of self-determination. I wish to
repeat what I said in the early part of my statement - for this seems to me to
be a fundamental truth: excessive invocation of the principle of
self-determination leads straight to a caricature of national sovereignty.
It is necessary therefore to explore viable alternatives: real
administrative decentralization, cultural autonomy, federal or confederate
systems. The claims of minorities are above all the collective expression of
a specific dignity and of human rights which cannot be trodden underfoot or
ignored. Once this truth has been admitted, approaches more conciliatory than
blind nationalism become possible. This is my hope for the future of the
minorities issue.
The current world situation has prompted me to concentrate my reflections
around the role of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and
security, in the fight against underdevelopment and in the protection of human
rights. In none of these fields can we hope to achieve lasting improvements
without strengthened regional cooperation.
As we approach the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the United
Nations Charter, in a world very different from the one its authors knew, the
need for complementarity between the regional and global spheres has become
obvious. We must work to define its modalities. At a time when Belgium is
close to the end of its term of membership in the Security Council, I am
pleased to note that this debate is taking place above all as regards the
establishment and maintenance of peace.


At the
outset, on behalf of the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian people, I wish
to express my gratitude for the support of the General Assembly for our
request to be admitted to membership of the United Nations.
I wish also to congratulate you. Ambassador Ganev, on your election to
the presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-seventh session.
Today is the first anniversary of Armenia's declaration of independence,
so it is a signal honour for me to be addressing the General Assembly. The
past year has been significant both for a newly independent Armenia as well as
for the international community at large. Our Government, which was formed as
a result of free elections, has continued its policy of democratization,
economic liberalization and the creation of a State of law. The Parliament of
Armenia has voted in favour of freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and
freedom of the press. It has instituted a multiparty system and has acceded
to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and all
international conventions on human rights.

3
In this relatively short time, Armenia has succeeded in carrying out
agrarian reform by distributing to the people 80 per cent of its agricultural
lands. Moreover, Parliament has already enacted the laws underlying
denationalization, and has begun the privatization of small and medium-sized
enterprises and of certain service industries. In addition, bills relating to
reform of the banking system, credit, finance, the budget and communications
are already before Parliament with a view to creating the legal infrastructure
necessary for a market economy.
The entrenchment of democracy and economic reform are taking place
against the backdrop of blockades, skyrocketing unemployment, free-falling
standards of living and an acute energy crisis. That energy crisis, which is
the main reason for the drop in national production, is the result not only of
regional blockades but also of the closing of our nuclear power plant for
safety and ecological reasons.
In those conditions the Government must still devote a major portion of
its resources to rebuilding the Spitak region, hit hard by the earthquake of
7 December 1988.
Democratization and independence have had a no less fundamental impact on
the new direction of the foreign policy of the Republic of Armenia, which is
based on two principles:
First, the security of the State and the people hinges on normalized
relations with all of our neighbours, on a negotiated solution to conflicts,
and on strengthened regional economic cooperation. All of this should lead to
the establishment of a system of regional collective security.

4-5
Secondly, Armenia is ready to participate in any constructive process
that would guarantee the development of international economic and political
cooperation and the strengthening of regional stability. That is why Armenia
pursues an active policy in the Commonwealth of Independent States, in the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and in the Black Sea
economic cooperation process. Armenia wishes also to play a role in economic
cooperation and a system of collective security in the Middle East.
On the basis of those two principles, Armenia has already signed
bilateral agreements with two of its neighbours: Georgia and Iran. We have
also begun serious negotiations with Turkey on normalized relations with that
country. In the light of the respective interests of our two countries and
sharing a concern to restore regional stability, Armenia is convinced that it
will be able to achieve that goal on the basis of international law.
With equal persistence, Armenia has been pursuing that policy with
respect to its fourth neighbour, Azerbaijan. Armenia harbours no territorial
claims with respect to Azerbaijan, but we insist that the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh not be relegated to the status of ethnic minority, that they
not be denied their right of self-determination and that this population not
be sacrificed on the altar of the principle of territorial integrity.

6
It is indeed high time that the security of the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh should be ensured with sound international guarantees.
Armenia is very pleased to note that the position which we have been
defending since the outset of the conflict is being increasingly taken into
account and even endorsed by other States involved. For us it is clear that
the cease-fire is the necessary initial stage in advancing towards a solution
to this question. Negotiations must follow, first between Azerbaijan and
Nagorno-Karabakh on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, together with the
necessary international guarantees, and, secondly, between Azerbaijan and
Armenia to resolve questions arising from the conflict.
In order to bring about the required cease-fire, Armenia has welcomed all
proposals made to date and thus Armenia, like the parliament of
Nagorno-Karabakh, has just given an unconditional and favourable response to
the cease-fire appeal made by the President of the Minsk group of the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Unfortunately,
Azerbaijan did not adopt the same position.
At all events, Armenia is prepared to make a positive contribution in
talks with Azerbaijan in the hope that the attention which we give to the
well-being of all the peoples in the region will lead us to peace and
stability. It is not too early to declare that the United Nations is in a
position to assist in achieving these ends.
As the Armenian people acceded to democracy and independence by
constitutional and non-violent means, independent Armenia is moving towards
peace and justice in the context of strict respect for international law.
Similarly, in accord with the two principles I referred to previously,
Armenia has attempted to transform the burden of history into an historic

7
opportunity to lay bare the historic roots that unite it with this region, to
restore the communality of culture which connects it with the peoples of this
region, and to transform ethnic and religious differences into a source of
wealth conducive to resolving all the problems besetting our common house.
This year was equally significant for the United Nations. The Republic
of Armenia would like to congratulate the Secretary-General of the United
Nations on his report entitled "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277). The report
contains a number of constructive proposals to which I am sure the United
Nations will give the closest scrutiny.
Whether it be as a Member of the United Nations or as a party involved in
a regional conflict, Armenia is very interested in proposals to create
specific machinery for the implementation of Article 43 of the United Nations
Charter. The creation of peace-keeping and cease-fire forces, binding
arbitration for conflicts, and encouraging active recourse to the
International Court of Justice under the aegis of the United Nations would be
a major success for the international community and the new world order.
Armenia realizes that other proposals to change the structures of the United
Nations also contain constructive ideas which, if they were acted upon, would
make it possible more surely to achieve collective security and the concepts
of the new world order in the United Nations today.
Armenia has acquired some experience in the creation of ,new structures
while the former ones are gradually disintegrating. Accordingly, we are fully
prepared to participate in the creation and implementation of a new world

8-10
order so as to avoid inertia, a lack of will or imagination, or simply a lack
of vigilance and cause a return to the old system which attempted to impose
solutions on peoples by involving them in even more bloody conflicts.
In the new world order States should be able to shoulder the problems of
their neighbours regardless of considerations of race, religion or ideology.


The
forty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly provides the
democratic transitional Rwandese Government the welcome opportunity to hail
the annual gathering for the conduct of international diplomacy, and thus to
make its contribution to the discussions on peace, security and development in
the world.
However, allow me, at the outset Sir, to express to you my warm
congratulations on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly at
its forty-seventh session. Your election is confirmation of the esteem and
respect you enjoy in the international community. You are a man of
experience, dialogue and conviction and these outstanding qualities guarantee
success for the work of this session of the Assembly.

The Rwandese delegation wishes to assure you. Sir, of our complete
readiness to make a positive contribution to the success of this session.
Concern for effectiveness in the service of peace, justice and
development was always the driving force behind your predecessor,
Mr. Samir Shihabi. I should like to express to him our profound gratitude for
his major contribution to the development of the United Nations.
May I also be permitted, on behalf of my delegation, to welcome very
warmly the courageous and innovative initiatives that have been undertaken by
our Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for peace, justice and
security and for international cooperation and the mutually supportive
development of all members of the international community. Such initiatives
are certainly intended to open up a new world political, economic, social and
cultural order. This will involve creating international solidarity between
the peoples and countries of the planet so that they can jointly achieve their
common destiny in peace and justice.
In this regard, my country, Rwanda, is happy to note that between
September 1990 and September 1992 the United Nations carried out important
actions to improve international political and economic relations. Some
particular achievements were: the Programme of Action for the Least
Developing Countries for the 1990s, adopted at the United Nations Conference
on the Least Developed Countries, held in Paris from 3 to 14 September 1990;
the United Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s,
adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 1991; a new partnership for
sustainable development, advocated by the eighth session of the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development, which took place in Cartagena, Colombia
from 8 to 25 February 1092; and Agenda 2 1, adopted by the United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development, which was held in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, from 3 to 14 June 1992.
This is a small sample of actions with the same goal: the progressive
building of a world that is more united and more mutually supportive.
However, it can be achieved only after the definitive elimination of
totalitarian or autocratic regimes that hinder the flowering and development
of peoples in many countries of the world. Therefore, the restoration of
democracy and political pluralism are preconditions for the success of a new
world political order.
That is why, on 10 June 1991, Rwanda took the firm decision to move from
autocracy and a single-party system to democracy and political pluralism.
Since that time 16 political parties have been officially registered, and five
of them are represented in the Government of democratic transition, which I
have had the honour to lead since 16 April 1992.
The current democratic process in Rwanda, although it has passed through
a number of important stages and has reached the point of no return, is
encountering some difficulties because of the existence of forces that are
resistant to change. We think that this is the result of the fact that in
politics, as in physics, as soon as forces of change are set in motion, the
forces of inertia arise to counter them.
That is why the Government of transition has set as its major goal the
task of putting democracy in the country on a firm footing.
To do so, it has decided to undertake in-depth reforms to transform
Rwandese political life. Thus institutional reforms will be carried out to
ensure the separation and independence of the three branches of civil power:
the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. Furthermore, appropriate

machinery will be set up to allow the population to participate effectively in
the country's administration. Therefore, the political, social and moral
forces in our country have been invited to contribute to the conduct of the
democratic process under way in Rwanda.
The process of democratizing Rwandese political life is also viewed as a
solution to the war that has been going on in Rwanda since 1 October 1990.
This unjust, fratricidal and costly war has no objective raison d'√™tre. The
Rwandese Government feels that there can be no military solution to this
conflict; that is why it has committed itself to seeking a negotiated solution.
I should like to inform the international community of the efforts made
by the multiparty Government of transition to end this conflict. These
efforts have been directed on the one hand towards the Rwandese Patriotic
Front, which began the war, and on the other to our neighbouring countries,
with a view to normalizing our relations and to coordinating our actions aimed
at restoring peace in the subregion of the Great Lakes countries. Within this
framework, an agreement on mutual security cooperation was signed with Uganda
on 8 August 1992.
The Government has resolutely committed itself to a frank and sincere
dialogue with the Rwandese Patriotic Front. In this context, direct
negotiations have been taking place in Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania,
since 10 July 1992 with the participation of observers from Burundi, United
Republic of Tanzania, Uganda, Zaire, Senegal, France, Belgium, Germany, the
United States of America and the Organization of African Unity. The parties
concerned would also like the United Nations to take part in the negotiations.

The first phase of these negotiations, which took place from 10 to
12 July 1992, ended with the signing of a cease-fire agreement between the two
parties. There is reason to welcome the fact that this cease-fire has been
respected by all sides in spite of some irregularities.
The second phase, which took place from 10 to 18 August 1992, brought
about the signing of a protocol agreement for a government of law, a protocol
defining the basic principles that are to govern political life in Rwanda:
national unity, democracy, political pluralism and respect for human rights.
The third phase of the negotiations, which took place from 7 to
17 September 1992, has just been suspended and will resume on 5 October 1992.
None the less, the two parties have already taken another important step by
agreeing to the existence and separation of the three powers: legislative,
executive and judiciary. Let us recall that this third phase is devoted to
definition of the machinery and procedures for power-sharing.
The Rwandese Government defends respect for the State institutions and
agrees to the integration of the Rwandan Patriotic Front into those
institutions as well as to the making of institutional arrangements to speed
up the process of democratizing Rwandese political life and for favouring the
effective participation of the political forces of the country in managing the
State.
The work of this phase will resume on 5 October and we hope that at that
time the two parties will show sufficient political open-mindedness and
realism to find common ground quickly. Following that phase there is
provision for a fourth one which will study the modalities for integrating the
fighters of the Rwandan Patriotic Front into the Rwandese Army.

Over and above the efforts to end the war in Rwanda, which has been going
on since 1 October 1990, Rwanda reiterates its firm will to find a just and
lasting solution to the problem of its refugees.
To this end, the Rwandese Government reaffirms solemnly that the return
of Rwandese refugees to their country is an inalienable right that no one can
challenge. Actions to facilitate the welcoming of these refugees who opt for
repatriation have been undertaken. Mention may be made in particular of the
identification of reinstallation zones, the promulgation of a general amnesty
law, and the sensitizing and educating of the population to welcome the
returnees in a spirit of reconciliation and peaceful coexistence.
The Government of Rwanda has also decided to ensure diplomatic protection
for Rwandese refugees who may have chosen to stay in host countries. These
refugees will enjoy all the civil rights that are recognized for other
Rwandese citizens.
The Government of Rwanda takes this opportunity to make another urgent
appeal to the High Commissioner for Refugees and to the Organization of
African Unity to accelerate the completion of the plan of action for the
repatriation of Rwandese refugees and the holding of the donors' round table,
which should take place before the end of this year.
The war in our country has entailed considerable economic, social and
cultural losses. One of the unfortunate consequences of this war undoubtedly
remains the tragic situation of displaced persons, who at present number more
than 350,000. They are located in 20 camps, where dozens of them are dying
every day from hunger, cold and poor hygiene. We take this opportunity to
make an urgent appeal to the international community to come to the assistance

of these displaced persons. We expect this community to come to our
assistance by providing food, tents, blankets and medicine. In monetary
terms, what is needed to maintain these persons displaced as a result of war
amounts to $30 million a year. Moreover, we are asking friendly countries
that have always stood by us not to remain aloof but rather to give increased
financial assistance for the rehabilitation of infrastructures and areas
destroyed by war and also for economic recovery.
In terms of international trade, Rwanda has suffered heavy losses because
of the closing of the Kigali-Mombasa via Kampala road. Current talks among
the users of the north corridor are of great interest for Rwanda, which would
like to see this road reopened as quickly as possible.
The Rwandese economy, like that of other developing countries, continues
to feel the effects of world economic imbalances and the burden of debt which
is still suffocating the economies of the poorest countries in the world.
The drop in world prices for coffee, which is the principal export
product of Rwanda, and which went from $2.50 in 1986 to less than 60 cents
from 1982 on, has caused a considerable drop in earnings for the Rwandese
economy. As a result of this deplorable situation,the gross domestic product
of Rwanda at first stagnated and then dropped while the balance-of-payments
problem remained largely one of indebtedness and some development projects had
to be stopped because there were no means for investment in them.
Despite these indicators which are not very encouraging, the Government
has taken courageous measures to limit the losses: drastic reduction in
public expenditures; credit restrictions; and the devaluation of the currency,
which in two years lost more than half its value.

The Government of Rwanda expresses its gratitude to the friendly
countries and international organizations which have been broadly contributing
to the execution of our structural adjustment programme. The Government of
Rwanda is also counting upon them to support the sectoral programmes for
economic recovery that are under way in our country.
After this survey of the economic and political situation prevailing in
our country, allow me now to take up some of the major international problems
of the moment.

Before doing so, I should like, as other delegations have done here, to
warmly welcome the new Members to the great family of the United Nations. We
wholeheartedly congratulate them and we encourage them to work for the triumph
of the noble ideals of the United Nations.
Mankind remains torn by bloody conflicts and wars that result from
anachronistic situations of colonialism, oppression, racism and ideological
intolerance. The seeds of blind violence are multiplying wherever the
sovereignty of peoples and the territorial integrity of States are being
undermined and wherever the dignity and fundamental rights of man are being
trampled upon by totalitarian regimes.
In this context, the Rwandese delegation praises the untiring efforts of
the United Nations to extinguish the flames in various hotbeds of tension and
to put an end to murderous, fratricidal conflicts that occur in the North as
well as in the South. In this respect, the Rwandese Government would like to
congratulate the Secretary-General of our Organization for his remarkable
contribution and for the ways and means he advocates in his "Agenda for
Peace", which would favour preventive diplomacy and peacemaking, peace-keeping
and peace-building actions.
Rwanda also welcomes the initiative taken by the twenty-eighth Summit of
Heads of State or Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), which
allowed the Security Council to give serious consideration to ways and means
of controlling the outbreak of massacres in South Africa.
The Rwandese delegation hopes that dismantling the legal pillars of
apartheid will quickly lead to the establishment of a multiracial and
democratic South African society. It encourages the South African Government
to conclude negotiations with the African National Congress and to set up a
democratic Government that represents all the people of South Africa.

Rwanda is pleased at the resumption of peace negotiations in the Middle
East. We encourage all the parties involved to cooperate in good faith so
that that new diplomatic opportunity will be seized to the fullest in order to
achieve a lasting peace. Against that background, the Rwandese Government
pays tribute to the new Israeli Government's gesture of halting the
establishment of Jewish settlements in the occupied Arab territories.
The Rwandese Government also supports all efforts to restore peace in the
Horn of Africa, Liberia and other regions of the world, in particular Lebanon,
Afghanistan, Cambodia, Cyprus and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The success of the commitment of the United Nations to the process of
national reconciliation and democratization now under way in Central America
reflects the renewed influence of our Organization in the management of crises
and the seeking of negotiated solutions to local conflicts.
In addition, Rwanda notes with satisfaction the continuing dialogue
between the parties directly involved in the conflict in Western Sahara.
Hence Africa still hopes to see the organization of a referendum, under the
auspices of the United Nations, on the future status of that Territory.
Rwanda welcomes the current restructuring of the United Nations system
and the end of the cold war. We hope that disarmament will lead to a positive
net transfer of resources to the South, where the struggle against poverty
remains a constant challenge.
It is on this hopeful note that I should like once again to make an
urgent appeal to the international community to give diplomatic support to the
process of peace negotiations in Rwanda and to help, financially and
materially, with the repatriation of Rwandese refugees. The active
participation of the United Nations in the Arusha negotiations would be an

additional guarantee of the will of the international community to find a
just, speedy and lasting solution to the Rwandese conflict. We also appeal to
the international community to come to the assistance of the 350,000 displaced
persons and to help in the reinvigoration of our economy.
For its part, the Rwandese Government is committed to carrying out our
country's current democratization process until the establishment of a State
founded on law where all Rwandese, whether they live in or out of the country,
will have the right to exercise their civil rights freely and without any
discrimination whatsoever and to participate actively in the management of
public affairs.


Allow me to express to you my sincere
congratulations on your election as President of the forty-seventh session of
the General Assembly. At the same time, let me once again wish much success
to the Secretary-General of our Organization.
The scale of the changes that have taken place lately on the
international scene is amply demonstrated by the sheer number of new
delegations that have joined our ranks at the United Nations. In large areas
of our globe, which were shown on the map hitherto only by single-coloured

expanses representing federations held together by totalitarian power, we see
today a colourful collection of independent States that have regained or are
about to gain their sovereignty. There are few countries whose external
relations have been affected by these changes as directly and as deeply as
ours. The number of Hungary's neighbours has grown from five to seven, and
five of them will be shown as independent States only on maps that are to be
published in the coming months.
Two years ago, when I first had the opportunity to address this forum as
the representative of a Hungarian government formed following the first free
elections in 45 years, I returned home convinced that the fresh breeze of
history was having a reinvigorating effect on the activities of the United
Nations as well. The downfall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe not
only opened a new chapter in the lives of the peoples of the region, but set
on a new course the whole system of international relations. The ensuing
total collapse of the bipolar world system and the fading away of the
paralysing effect of great-Power confrontation raised particularly high
expectations. It appeared that the world Organization would be able to
respond effectively in all instances to the challenges to international peace
and security.
These hopes and expectations, and the faith of some in a swift and
radical renewal, are contrasted today by many with the present situation in
the world and at the United Nations. Certain sectors of the public view the
events of the last year as a dissipation of the hopes fostered by the historic
turn of events in 1989 and 1990. They cite the tragedies of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, Somalia, Karabakh, Abkhazia and other regions, the grave
and massive violations of human rights, and the persistence of serious

economic and social tensions in the world, and reproach the world Organization
for not managing the crises effectively. However, we have to show that the
United Nations has not retreated from the role it played and regarded as a
historic milestone when the Coalition forces, on the basis of the Security
Council's authorization, acted against the aggressor and liberated Kuwait.
An important stage in this field was the summit meeting of the Security
Council in January, which renewed the commitment of the Member States to the
collective security system of the United Nations. As a result of this
meeting, it seems that preventive diplomacy has now entered the minds of
political decision makers as a most promising method of crisis management.
We set high value on the substantive and action-oriented report entitled
"An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277) that the Secretary-General has prepared on
the Security Council's initiative. In our view, it makes good use of the
possibilities inherent in the Charter and may serve as a good point of
departure for the efforts directed at enhancing the effectiveness of the
crisis-prevention, peacemaking, peace-building and peace-keeping role of the
United Nations.
Now that the relationship between the great Powers is determined not by
opposition but agreement and a consistent search for consensus, the dust can
be blown off those chapters of the Charter that are related to the
international collective security system and had almost become a historic
relic. We also concur with the Secretary-General's recommendations concerning
a stronger role for the International Court of Justice and the regional
organizations. In this connection, I wish to announce that the Hungarian
Government, empowered by a recent decision of the parliament, will deposit
with the Secretary-General the declaration recognizing as compulsory the
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

In view of the fact that the emergence of regional hotbeds of tension is
often engendered by conflicts within individual States, one can rightly say in
connection with the Agenda for Peace that the viability of preventive
diplomacy depends to a decisive extent on how we deal with the relationship
between the sovereignty of the State concerned and the preventive measures
taken by the international community.
Even if an internal conflict can be localized and does not transcend the
borders of the country, it has a direct effect on the situation and stability
of neighbouring States and, thus, on international peace and security: the
strands of bilateral and multilateral political and economic cooperation are
weakened, instability emerges, an atmosphere of mistrust prevails, there are
massive flows of refugees, environmental damage from the conflict spills over,
and so on. It must be stated that in our world today, preventive diplomacy
can succeed so long as individual States, already at the early stages of the
development of a problem, do make use in a responsible manner of the
crisis-prevention possibilities provided by the world Organization and do not
regard them as an impairment of their sovereignty. On the other hand, if such
possibilities remain unexploited and the problems start festering, the
Organization must be prepared to act resolutely, effectively and swiftly,
making use of all means at its disposal against a State that threatens peace
and security.

In the course of the crisis management of recent years the Security
Council has set precedents the latest being the condemnation of "ethnic
cleansing" and of breaches of international humanitarian law in Bosnia and
Herzegovina which make it unambiguously clear that respect for human rights,
including the rights of minority communities, is an integral aspect of
international peace and security and can by no means be regarded as an
internal affair.
It is therefore of fundamental importance that the Security Council pay
close attention to grave human-rights violations in individual States. Action
in this field by the international community is a legitimate manifestation of
our common concern and responsibility. This constantly expanding dimension of
the Security Council's activity is in accord with the Charter and should be
incorporated into preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and, in
particular, peace-building.
With regard to the practical tasks related to these activities at the
United Nations, some progress can be made in the short run, beginning with the
current session of the General Assembly. For example, we can take steps with
regard to the initiative concerning the establishment, within national
frameworks, of standby forces for the peacemaking and peace-keeping activities
of the United Nations. Those Governments that have already made specific
offers to this end have demonstrated an exemplary attitude. Hungary is ready
to do likewise. We are in favour of another initiative aimed at the
establishment of a temporary reserve fund to meet the initial cost of
peace-keeping operations.
Hungary also supports the Secretary-General's proposal that, even on the
request of only one of the parties to a conflict, international monitors could

be deployed on the territory, including its border areas, of the requesting
party. These measures could be similar to those planned for the near future,
with the support of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, in
connection with the Southern Slav crisis, in the form of monitoring missions
to be sent to Hungary and other States.
Central and Eastern Europe are the scene of one of the major changes in
international relations. Here the scenario of almost euphoric expectations
and of ensuing disillusionment is played out in an especially dramatic way.
Following the demise of communism, it seemed that the outlines of a new and
unifying Europe were appearing on the horizon. The States in the region were
faced simultaneously with the tasks of returning to Europe, both symbolically
and in reality, and of ending the conflicts that for centuries had plagued
relations between their peoples. We had every right to hope that, this time,
the past would not be repeated and that, with guidance through jointly
proclaimed democratic ideals, the recognition of interdependence would prevail
over confrontation.
For the peoples of multinational States welded together by coercion and
totalitarian methods, the spread of democracy has also become an experience of
national emancipation. It is a telling fact that, following more than seven
decades of existence, all three federal States bordering my country recently
disintegrated with tempestuous speed or are undergoing a process of
disintegration. _ In our view, it is wrong to regard such processes as an
entirely retrograde phenomenon and contrasting them with modern
integrationist tendencies to deplore them. Internal turmoil, efforts at
secession and the breakup of existing State frameworks are most likely to
occur where integration does not enjoy genuine popular endorsement and where
democratic mechanisms for conflict management are lacking.

Today the key issue of stability and security in Central and Eastern
Europe is recognition and promotion of the endeavours of peoples for
self-determination and of the endeavours of national minorities to secure
adequate forms of self-government. This can be advanced only through the
combined efforts of the parties concerned and the international community, in
conformity with the basic norms of international law.
For these peoples, endeavours towards self-determination constitute the
first, and apparently unavoidable, step on the road back to Europe the road
to participation in a new and voluntary integration. On the other hand and
it is gratifying to be able to say this more and more people now recognize
the compelling need to deal positively with the problem of national
minorities, including those people who, only recently, persisted in denying
the reality of such questions.
However, it is a mistake for anyone to seek to achieve self-determination
and self-government by resurrecting the nineteenth century concept of the
nation State, and it is a crime to advance that concept by redrawing frontiers
by force or "ethnic cleansing". We are all well aware that attempts to create
so-called ethnically pure States have more than once in history degenerated
into massive tragedy, naked aggression and crimes against humanity and against
minorities.
The enormous changes that are taking place in our region pose yet another
pressing problem: how are we to ensure success for this unprecedented and
historic transformation, which is occurring in difficult conditions? We have
to cope with a hard legacy, bequeathed by the past, a legacy that is a source
of complex problems to solve and of lurking dangers to avoid. The transition
from dictatorship and so-called planned economies to political pluralism and

market economies is an uncharted path, lacking time-tested models or
examples. This process involves tension and sharp internal debate, both
economic and social, just as it produces unresolved external problems.
In this respect, I should like to mention the vitally important legal,
ecological and navigational problems that arose along one of our fluvial
frontiers as a result of the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the River
Danube. Much to our regret, the bilateral talks aimed at finding a solution
to the problem have so far been unproductive. We want to do everything
possible to ensure that Hungary and the neighbour in question, with welcome
international assistance, can find a mutually acceptable solution rather than
add another source of conflict to our region, which is already ridden with
tension.
The transformations sweeping through Central and Eastern Europe present
another question: how are the dark shadows accompanying the rebirth of
freedom and democracy to be confronted? These transformations must be
protected from all extremes: from the demons of totalitarianism, of whatever
colour; from the revival of various brown-shirt ideologies; and from attempts
to paint over communism with national colours. All these things, with their
demagogic appeal and offer of temptingly simplistic solutions, can only
undermine and ruin the unsparing and strenuous efforts to establish and
strengthen the rule of law.
Hungary is convinced that it will prove to be equal to the historic
challenge and will bring about the triumph of the universal and lasting values
of our civilization. However, the peoples of our region are far from being
the only ones affected by this task and interested in mastering it.
Therefore, their efforts to ensure that democratic values prevail require and
deserve international support.

In the immediate neighbourhood of my country in the former Yugoslavia
the gravest crimes and violations of human rights continue to occur. The
Southern Slav crisis has for more than a year gravely endangered international
peace and security through aggressive nationalism, dictatorial government, the
forcible acquisition of territory, "ethnic cleansing", the intimidation of
minorities and the daily suffering of the 2 million people who have been
chased from their homes.

Grave responsibility for the outbreak of the crisis and the spread of the
conflict to successive new areas rests with Serbian nationalism and its
regular and irregular armed forces. The value judgement of the international
community in that respect was expressed again as recently as last week in the
relevant General Assembly resolution. We believe that the Security Council
too must take further concrete measures to promote a comprehensive, lasting
and equitable settlement of the crisis. It is indispensable to expand the
international presence in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and to
increase its effectiveness. The peace-keeping forces of the United Nations,
which have earned all our recognition, should have their mandate extended,
with their preventive deployment in areas where such action is warranted and
has not been taken so far.
The brutality raging almost undisturbed in the territory of the former
Yugoslavia is a telling signal that the world has not yet done everything
possible to enforce, with all the means at its disposal, the purposes and
principles enshrined in the Charter. The aggressor must be made aware that
the international community, including the States of Europe, will under no
circumstances acquiesce in situations brought about as a result of violent
conquests and inhumane actions, and is prepared to cast out from among its
ranks all those who would want to pull our continent back to the age of
barbarism. On the threshold of a new world full of great opportunities, the
United Nations must take a firm stand against aggressions and breaches of
law. It is no exaggeration to say that the peace and tranquillity of present
and future generations will depend on that choice.
It is with deep concern that our public opinion is following the
developments of the situation of the Hungarian minority in Serbian Vojvodina

and other areas under Serbian control, where a Hungarian community close to
half a million lives in increasing danger and under threat. Serbian policy
not only has chased tens of thousands of Hungarians from their ancestral
homes, but is now intent on settling several thousand Serbian refugees in
territories of Vojvodina and Croatia inhabited by Hungarians and others,
thereby forcibly changing the ethnic composition of whole areas. This is a
grave violation of resolutions of the Security Council and of the decisions of
the London Conference, which demands an adequate response.
Recently, Hungary has given shelter to over 80,000 refugees from the
former Yugoslavia, in addition to the more than 50,000 who had arrived earlier
from another neighbouring country. I know from personal experience that these
refugees are eager to return, but the conditions that would enable them to do
so are, unfortunately, not yet ripe. In order to create such conditions as
soon as possible, we consider it necessary for the United Nations forces in
the former Yugoslavia to assume an active role in conformity with the Vance
plan to assist the safe return of the refugees, to create conditions under
which the right of the returnees can be guaranteed and the prosecution of
those responsible for violations of law can take place. The Hungarian side
offers its full cooperation to this end.
We cannot speak of freedom, democracy, justice and, consequently, of
the rule of law when the rights of national, ethnic, linguistic or religious
minorities are not respected. The legitimate aspirations of the minorities
to preserve their identity, language, culture and religion, as well as to
foster relations with their mother nations, do not at all call into question
their loyalty as citizens. These aspirations, therefore, cannot be regarded
as a threat to the unity of the State. The various concepts of autonomy

arising out of a particular minority situation do not call into question the
framework of the State concerned. Their purpose is to create the proper
conditions for the self-government of minorities and for the exercise of their
rights in a way that fits into the constitutional and legal order. Life
demonstrates that orderly minorities do not weaken, on the contrary, they
unequivocally strengthen the stability of the State and its internal social
peace. In this connection, we sincerely welcome the settlement by Austria and
Italy of the issue of Alto Adige-Sud Tirol. This example may be worth
following as a democratic solution for minority problems and may serve as a
credible counterargument in the face of those forces that do not tire of
suggesting, by way of whispered propaganda or spectacular and noisy
demonstrations, that the raising of such questions is meant only to conceal
territorial demands.
The United Nations, as the most comprehensive multilateral organization,
has a major role to play in the promotion of the rights of minorities. We
attach particularly great significance to the completion of the draft
Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious
and Linguistic Minorities. We see this as an important initial stage of a
process. However, the effective protection of minorities also requires the
drawing up of binding international norms. Consequently, we consider it
desirable to start the relevant codification process as soon as possible.
In the field of minority protection, it is essential to introduce an
institutional system of international guarantees and to create suitable
fact-finding, monitoring, conciliation and counselling mechanisms, such as a
complaints mechanism with the competent international forums. These forums
would be empowered to investigate infringements of minority rights, identify

those responsible, eliminate the consequences of the infringement of rights
and compensate the injured party. In this context, mention must be made of
the important step forward taken by the Conference on Security and Cooperation
in Europe with the establishment of the Office of High Commissioner on
National Minorities.
We must all trust that the conflicts inevitably arising out of the
radical transformations in our world will be solved through dialogue,
compromise and, when necessary, recourse to international forums. Even crises
and difficulties cannot eclipse the fact that since the end of the cold war
the international community has become capable of taking incomparably more
efficient measures than previously to deal with threats to international peace
and security. Hungary is convinced that our rejuvenating world Organization
will overcome the "too-little-too-late" syndrome, will also have the necessary
financial resources and as a result of the reforms already under way will
be in a better position to meet the requirements of our times. In this field,
as in so many others, we must be ready to leave behind an old era that should
never return.


Anyone who
has spoken from this rostrum will probably understand what my feelings are at
this moment: there is both a feeling of pride in my people and my country,
which have now set out along the road of independent development a right
that does not come so easily and a sense of enormous responsibility for
every word I say, for my words will be addressed to the whole world. And I
hope they will be heard!
All of us who have gathered here in this highly respected international
forum, whatever our natural objective differences may be, have in common a
single goal, that of achieving peace and security, and a single desire, to
solve existing problems and prevent new ones from arising. Through our
understanding that the world is interdependent in all its aspects, we have
come to realize our necessary interest in overcoming difficulties, and that
common interest has become the foundation of this transitional stage on the
road towards the establishment of a new world order.
All of us, I think, have already got over the euphoria of expecting rapid
changes that were about to take possession of a world liberated from the
chains of the cold war, and we have come to understand the depth of the
problems confronting a human race which has gone to the limit in its search
for new paths to development. Nobody is expecting easy victories.
The situation in the world is undergoing fundamental and sometimes
drastic changes. The military, political and economic confrontation between
the two systems which had for a long time determined the balance of power in
the world has come to an end with the collapse of one of them. What this has
actually done is to destroy the foundation of international security, which
had until then been intimidation and deterrence through parity of forces.
A new system of world security must be created, one oriented on the new
poles of power, the new roles of the super-Powers, new threats, new ways of
waging war and new types of forces. The probability of a nuclear war has been
reduced almost to zero, but the element of chance has increased; there are no
safeguards against the occurrence of regional wars or against the unforeseen
actions of State leaders or the consequences of those actions. These are all
matters of serious concern to the Azerbaijani Republic, for no State can be
secure on its own.
Azerbaijan has no nuclear weapons on its soil and is not participating
directly in the process of nuclear disarmament. Nevertheless, the Azerbaijani
Republic is making its contribution by acceding to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We are optimistic as a result of the
implementation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, to which
Azerbaijan, along with other European States, has become a party. However,
despite the achievements and successes of the disarmament process, military
expenditures are, as before, absorbing a significant portion of State budgets
at a time when such funds could be directed towards economic development.
Arms stockpiling is, as before, a threat to security.

One of the most important elements in military security is the openness
or transparency of military programmes and activities. As a member of the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), my country is
participating in the development of this process.
The move towards direct cooperation in the form of wide-ranging and
intensive multilateral exchanges of information on military budgets and
numbers, production levels, research, development and modernization programmes
and weapons deployment and delivery plans seems to be a desirable one. Such
openness will create an atmosphere of trust, make it easier to predict
developments in the overall security situation, bolster stability and reduce
the risk of war.
During the long years of the East-West conflict it was usual for one side
to arm the other's enemies. Today, when the threat of confrontation along
East-West lines has gone, this so-called foreign-policy wisdom is likely to
prove a significant danger to us all. Weapons proliferation is a serious
challenge to international security and requires the world community to take
active steps in order to ensure that it is limited and effectively controlled.
Arms shipments, which are fraught with a fundamental potential for
danger, are becoming a real factor capable of producing destructive effects on
the situation in so-called hot spots. I hardly need explain how much trouble
Azerbaijan has been caused by the weapons, including foreign-made weapons,
being supplied, within Azerbaijani territory, by Armenian forces. We must
encourage restraint on the part of arms suppliers; this will, of course,
entail political difficulties. Limits could be placed on exports of arms to a
particular country or region.
It should be normal practice to declare arms transfers and to observe
established limits, and the political complexion of the recipient must also be
taken into account. The United Nations Register of conventional arms
transfers will undoubtedly also play an important role in this regard.
Given the attempts by certain countries to obtain weapons covertly, I
would like to emphasize the extreme importance of having access to
intelligence data on weapons proliferation and of observing suspicious regions
and carrying out unannounced inspections there. In addition to the direct
effects, these would increase States' confidence in the weapons
non-proliferation regime. I believe that it would be appropriate to make
efforts to establish subregional restraint regimes; this is particularly
urgent for the multiplicity of hot spots which are appearing against the
background of a minimal military threat on a Europe-wide scale. Subregional
restraint could include reducing military force levels in limited
geographically remote areas. Thereafter such regimes could lay the groundwork
for the demilitarization of whole regions. Azerbaijan has already proposed
this concept for the Transcaucasian region.
The vacuum left by the disappearance of the Soviet Union from the
military and political map of the world threatened to bring global disaster.
However, we have survived that difficult period. In its death throes, the
Soviet Union fortunately disintegrated; new sovereign States arose from its
ruins and declared for all to hear that they were determined to join the
community of democratic States based on law and with market economies. The
United States of America and Russia, the two super-Powers, as they are still
being called, have started to cooperate in the name of their common interests.

World developments of the last few years do indeed show that the
democratic sphere is expanding. More and more countries want to be
democratic, and regimes of other kinds are facing more and more difficulties.
Of course, the development of democracy is a very difficult process whose
ultimate goal, the establishment of an ideal system, is difficult to achieve;
however, we can and must move forward towards that goal, by consolidating
democratic values and institutions. And the core of the issue here is not
merely adherence to ideals but the political and socio-economic rightness of
the democratic system, whose effectiveness will very soon, I hope, become
apparent in my country as well.
There is in science a principle called dynamic evolutionary stability,
according to which the elements of a system obey the same laws and move in the
same direction. Any member of the system which tries to move in a direction
different from the general trend is thrown out. And so it is in life. One
cannot enter the world system and then follow a different programme and not
observe the same rules as everybody else. Of course, the euphoria of national
independence may prompt its own "special" path, but we know from history how
such experiments end.
What is the substance of the Azerbaijani Republic's national
independence? Today new people have taken the helm, people free of the dogmas
of the communist past, prepared to see the world as it is, without ideological
masks, and striving for cooperation on the basis of common human values.
These people have inherited the burdensome legacy of a repressive State which
governed an obedient society, but that has only made their resolve to overcome
it that much stronger. Our need for capable authorities which would see as
their principal purpose the creation of the conditions for stimulating

initiative and independence, which would act in the interests of the
individual and would be rooted in the institution of citizenship, was forged
in suffering. Our State policy is based on the interrelationship between the
freedom and well-being of the individual and the security and prosperity of
the State. Today the Government of the Azerbaijani Republic is facing the
complex task of establishing legislative, political and socio-economic
safeguards for the irreversibility of the democratic process.
Newly independent States encounter a multitude of political, economic and
social problems on their way to establishing themselves. They must face the
difficult task of overcoming those problems within a cruelly short time-limit
set by life itself. However, even that punishing pace at which the democratic
authorities chosen by the people must act is intensified by threats and
challenges of a different order which undermine States that are not yet
standing on their own feet. I have in mind here what are called inter-ethnic
conflicts, which are more political than ethnic in nature.
There are no limits to the energy of a nation, which has become one of
the driving forces of the development of mankind in the twentieth century.
The explosive power of the energy of a national ego released from the fetters
of many years of repression destroys the apparently unshakeable citadels of
totalitarian regimes and opens up new prospects for people.

However if that same power is placed at the service of an ugly, overblown
nationalistic idea, it turns a people onto the path of war and drives it to
aggression and expansion against another people chosen as its victim.
An example of the first kind of national idea is the disintegration of
that conglomeration of nations known as the USSR. An example of the
second and a most accurate one - is the aggression of Armenia against
Azerbaijan.
To any action there is an opposite reaction. An aggressor dooms himself
from the outset to failure, for he arouses against himself a people's natural
reaction of self-defence, a force many times greater than the irrational force
of aggression. Prosperity gained at another's expense cannot be long-lasting,
even if it sometimes seems so.
What is the result? Death and destruction, masses of destitute people on
both sides, relations between States made difficult or broken off these are
reflected many times in all spheres of human activity and threaten to escalate
to new and more dangerous levels, involving other States and altering the
regional or even the world balance. There is only one alternative: to end
the aggression, if not voluntarily, then under the pressure of counter-force.
Aggression must not go unpunished. Aggressors must be stopped.
The importance of the international community's position on this issue
cannot be overestimated. A timely, principled reaction by the international
organizations, first and foremost by the United Nations and CSCE, is one of
the guarantees that the required result will be achieved - that the aggression
will be eliminated and therefore thousands of lives saved and that the
conditions for States to develop peacefully will be established. The key idea
that breaches of the peace are inadmissible is based on the fact that each

State bears a high responsibility to the world community, and it presupposes a
harmonization of national interests with the interests of all mankind.
No one can dispute the right of a nation to the free choice of its path
of development, but there are no rights without duties, and this is also true
of nations, whose freedom of choice is controlled by their interrelationships
with the world, as parts of the whole. Freedom does not mean irresponsibility.
Violence of any kind, whatever its motivation or justification, is
inadmissible. In our time the kind of nationalism that has nothing in common
with national self-awareness has come close to being the greatest wellspring
of violence. Sooner or later, that kind of nationalism finds the framework
imposed on it by history constricting, and it starts to break out, violating
other peoples' borders and infringing upon other peoples' interests.
Today, having emerged from an ideologically divided world, we are facing
the danger of dismemberment based on nationalistic grounds which feed the
politics of separatism. The fact that the legal norms governing the right of
peoples to self-determination, and even the meaning of the term, have not been
fully worked out, either in domestic or in international law, has opened the
door to widespread speculation on the subject on pseudo-democratic grounds,
which are essentially a cover for forces harbouring plans to seize territory.
We must make it clear, first of all, that the right of peoples to
self-determination can be exercised solely by peaceful means; secondly, that
the possessor of that right can be only a nation, not a national minority or
an ethnic group; thirdly, that a people exercising its right to
self-determination must not violate another people's right, its sovereignty or
the integrity of its State.

Making the discussion of the foregoing more concrete by projecting these
conclusions onto the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, I am compelled to say the
following.
The Republic of Armenia, having set the dismemberment of the Azerbaijani
State and the seizure of its territories as the goal of its State policy,
initiated the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, an inseparable part of Azerbaijan,
under cover of a demand for the right to self-determination for the Armenian
population of that Azerbaijani region, whose borders, incidentally, have not
been defined. There are no internal borders in the unitary Azerbaijani
State. The region was split off administratively during the Stalin era, and
it is the Armenian side that is so fervently demanding the elimination of the
legacy of that time.
I think there is no need to comment on the ill-intentioned substitution
of the concept of "people" for that of "national minority". The Armenian
people has already exercised its historic right to self-determination within
the borders of the Republic of Armenia. With regard to the Armenian national
minority which lives in Azerbaijan and has autonomy, the Azerbaijani Republic
has repeatedly stated its readiness to guarantee that minority's rights in
accordance with international norms, while justifiably expecting the Republic
of Armenia to take suitable steps in respect of the Azerbaijani community
which has lived for centuries in the territory of the present-day Republic of
Armenia but has had no rights whatsoever and which, alas, has now been forced
out of Armenia into Azerbaijan.
The conflict, which is now a matter of concern to the world community,
began with a blatant violation of the Azerbaijani Republic's sovereignty by
Armenian separatists who, without holding any discussions with the Government
of Azerbaijan, proclaimed their secession from the Azerbaijani Republic.

They were supported by the Republic of Armenia, whose Parliament, in 1989,
issued decrees on the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, on
including the budget of Nagorno-Karabakh in the Armenian budget and on the
election of deputies from Nagorno-Karabakh to the Parliament of Armenia.
Those decrees have not been annulled to this day and are in violation of the
norms of international law. Such political infringements by the Republic of
Armenia on Azerbaijan's sovereignty have since been backed up with practical
measures aimed at implementing Armenia's declared plans to annex Azerbaijani
territory.
The use of force is, of course, unacceptable in settling disputes. Yet
the actions of the Republic of Armenia, which initially took the form of
covert aggression through the infiltration of separatists and terrorist gangs
and delivering arms into Azerbaijan and which later turned into open
aggression in the form of a direct armed incursion into Azerbaijan, the
seizure of the city of Shusha and the Lachin district and the establishment of
a land corridor joining occupied Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, have naturally
prompted a response from the armed forces of the Azerbaijani Government, which
has the right and the duty to defend the interests of its citizens and its
State, over 10 per cent of whose territory is now under Armenian occupation.
Renouncing the use of force under these conditions could not prevent
bloodshed. Inaction on the part of the Government would have provoked a
movement from below, with the formation of self-defence forces whose actions
would be spontaneous and therefore might have become uncontrollable. The
Azerbaijani Republic, which has used military force only within its own
frontiers and at a controlled level, the minimum level necessary to protect
its sovereignty, has, from the very beginning of the conflict, called on the

opposing side to cease hostilities and to settle existing problems at the
negotiating table. It is continuing today to confirm its readiness for
peaceful dialogue by taking specific measures aimed at reaching a compromise.
However, Azerbaijan's efforts were met each time with silence on the part of
the Republic of Armenia, which continues to make demands that are contrary to
international law. One can hardly expect political leaders who rose to power
on a wave of ideas of nationalism and the establishment of a Greater Armenia
to abandon those positions, because it would mean their political death. But
holding that line will lead to a catastrophe incomparably greater than the
disappearance of the politicians from the arena.
The present leadership of the Republic of Armenia should realize that the
path they have chosen is a deadly one; Armenia will never be a democratic
State while it carries the burden of this conflict. Democracy cannot be built
on a foundation of nationalism, on flouting laws, on bloodshed and suffering.
This whole train of events gives us solid grounds for viewing Armenia's
position with regard to peaceful settlement and international mediation merely
as an attempt to gain time for consolidation in the Azerbaijani territories
Armenia has forcibly seized, so that it can subsequently obtain agreement on a
political solution from a position of fait accompli.
But there is no alternative to a peaceful settlement. Decisive steps
must be taken to clear the obstacles from the road to peace. A necessary
condition for this is the withdrawal of Armenian armed formations from
Azerbaijan, since that would establish a real foundation for a stable
cease-fire under international supervision, for the return of refugees to
their homes and the normalization of life in the war-torn areas, including
safeguards for the rights of the Armenian national minority living in
Azerbaijan.
Despite all the complications and obstacles, the peaceful settlement
process initiated by CSCE and followed up by CSCE's Minsk Group under the
chairmanship of Mr. Rafaelli, for whose efforts I am sincerely grateful, both
to him personally and to the Government of Italy, must achieve the desired
result: an end to the aggression and the senseless bloodshed, the liberation
of occupied Azerbaijani areas, the development of a peaceful dialogue between
the two States and the solution of existing internal problems on a reciprocal
basis. The national minorities in Armenia and Azerbaijan must become not
pawns in a dispute but guarantees of each other's security and of respect for
each other's interests, and, in the future, a bridge for cooperation.
I hold this optimistic view because I have faith in the reasonableness of
two peoples and two States that have lived side by side for centuries and
whose history has earned them the right to peace, prosperity and
good-neighbourly relations. I hope that the Republic of Armenia will come to
realize the importance of such concepts as good neighbours, friendship and
mutual assistance, which have deep roots in our region.
The concrete example of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict enables us to
draw certain conclusions that are related and applicable to other regional
conflicts similar in nature to the one I have mentioned. The world we live in
is very fragile; thus our approach to the principles governing global
coexistence, hammered out by the experience of human civilization, should be
very cautious. Those principles include, first of all, the sovereignty of
States, their territorial integrity and the inviolability of their borders;
they also include the inadmissibility of securing one's interests at the
expense of those of others. Such a course cannot bring independence,
democracy or prosperity to any State. Everything in the world is interrelated.
The words spoken and the actions taken by some politicians in defence of
human rights, national minorities, and nationhood can sometimes threaten the
most fundamental right - the right to life. When blood is being shed, it is
pointless to talk about the rights of national minorities. I have said it
before and now say it again: The sovereignty of the State begins with the
sovereignty of the individual. Respect for human rights is not part of a
State's internal affairs but its obligation. The safeguarding of rights and
fundamental freedoms is the main guarantee of a State's prosperous
development. Returning to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, I must point out
that our approach is based precisely on this understanding and that Armenians
living in Azerbaijan are just as much citizens of this State as Azerbaijanis,
Russians, Jews, Kurds, Lezghians, Talishes or Poles. But there are no rights
without obligations. The State is the guarantor of individual freedom; the
individual is the guarantor of the State's security.
The defence of human rights - and of the rights of national minorities as
part of those rights cannot be implemented to the detriment of State
sovereignty. External influence and interference are sometimes hard to
distinguish, and crossing the fine line that separates them can lead to
disaster. Sometimes the non-use of external force can have great benefits.
Problems of this kind have various political, social, and economic causes, and
sometimes a State trying to solve the problem cannot instantly unravel the
tangle of causes and effects. It is a lengthy process requiring a delicate
approach in which the underlying principle must be: "Do no harm". In such
circumstances a State has the right to count on the assistance and experience
of the world community. Working to improve the State from within will have
more effect than pressure from without.
Every State has its share of responsibility to the outside world,
expressed as its duty to observe accepted norms and obligations. A question
of practical interest today is that of the further elaboration in
international law of the principle of sovereignty, with due regard for the
increased international responsibility of States. Bringing national
legislation into conformity with international law, a process which creates
the necessary regimes of rights and freedoms of the individual, is of the
greatest importance in this context. Such a process has already been
initiated in Azerbaijan. The priority of international legal norms over
national ones is enshrined in the constitutional act of State independence of
18 October 1991. To conclude this subject, I should like to point out that
our common progress in that direction must emphasize the harmonization of the
interests of mankind and national interests.
One of the main factors for stability in society, particularly during a
transitional period, serving in a sense as a guarantee of the irreversibility
of democratic reforms, is a healthy and developed economy. Unfortunately, I
must state that today the economy of Azerbaijan has fallen on hard times. The
legacy of the Soviet past and the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict are taking
their toll.
The failure of the centralized planning system further strengthened our
confidence in the viability of the market economy. The Parliament and
Government of the Republic, committed to rapid reform, are working hard for
the legislative and programmed introduction of economic changes that should
accelerate the process of market formation and integrating Azerbaijan into the
world economy on an equitable and mutually beneficial footing.
The world economy has not yet succeeded in surmounting a number of
obstacles, foremost among which, to my mind, is the disproportion in economic
development. It is believed that, in spite of all the problems of the world
economy, whose number increased sharply with the collapse of the Soviet
system, the end of the ideological confrontation between the two poles of
power has given a positive impetus to the formulation of new approaches in the
developed world towards the problems of developing countries.
Participation in international economic organizations and United Nations
economic agencies, with the concomitant opening of a wide range of
possibilities for multilateral economic cooperation, is a matter of high
priority for Azerbaijan. Definite hopes for instituting economic reforms in
Azerbaijan are being placed in financial assistance and consultative technical
assistance that could be provided under special programmes. The United
Nations, an office of which is to be opened at Baku in the near future, should
play an active role in this.
However, I should like to express my regret concerning the position of
certain States in whose policy the provision of assistance to young democratic
States is linked to particular political objectives that are, in our view, of
a subjective nature. Refusal to provide assistance may not only fail to
promote the development of the reform process but also create new problems for
the establishment of democracy in young States. The consequences of such
ill-considered steps could be far more serious than the reasons that motivated
the refusal.
The warfare initiated by the Republic of Armenia against Azerbaijan has
created a social tragedy in my country. About 500,000 Azerbaijanis have been
deprived of the basic necessities of life; 230,000 of them were expelled from
the areas of Armenia in which they had historically resided, and the rest have
become refugees as a result of Armenia's direct aggression against
Azerbaijan. Our Government has encountered enormous difficulties in meeting
their needs. I should like to express my hope that the United Nations will
not leave Azerbaijan to deal with this disaster alone and that it will provide
all possible assistance.
The ecological situation, which has been gradually deteriorating
throughout the world, is becoming the greatest threat of all. Nature is
calling attention to its problems with increasing urgency through new
environmental disasters and tragedies. The problem of structural reform of
the global economy on a basis that is environmentally sound still remains
unsolved. The contribution of the United Nations in this field - demonstrated
inter alia in the convening of the Conference on Environment and Development
deserves particular mention here. That Conference was a valuable example of
collective efforts to solve humanity's problems.
My country cannot boast of a favourable ecological situation. The
condition of the Caspian Sea is tragic, showing the effect of all the ills of
a planned economy and of its consumption-oriented attitude towards nature. We
firmly intend to make every effort to save this unique natural ecosystem, and
we hope that our efforts will be supported by assistance from the world
community.
The primary mechanism of world development at present is international
cooperation. I believe that we can solve our problems only in that context.
I am also convinced that the process of strengthening cooperation will
continue to evolve. Naturally, such evolution is directly related to the
growing importance and prestige of the United Nations. Our Organization has a
special role in international relations, which are undergoing radical
changes. The United Nations has been, is and always will be the world forum
in matters of justice and law, the stronghold of the civilized norms of life
and the highest authority in the settlement of international disputes. The
growing effectiveness of the Organization as a factor for security, stability
and cooperation illustrates that fact.
New conditions and changes in the world situation require readjustments,
including structural ones. Special attention should be given to the
development of structures and means for preventive diplomacy, early warning of
crisis situations and the improvement of means for averting acts of
aggression. The United Nations should have the capacity to protect its Member
States more decisively and effectively from violations of their sovereignty,
taking action up to and including enforcement measures against the aggressor.
Cooperation with regional organizations on the basis of mutual support will, I
believe, promote greater effectiveness of United Nations peace-keeping and
peacemaking activities. United Nations structures should be brought as close
as possible to the problems which the Organization intends to resolve.
Everything should serve to increase the efficiency of United Nations
activities as a mechanism for security and cooperation.
I am firmly convinced that the ship of the United Nations, guided by the
strong hand of its captain, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a man of wisdom and
decisiveness as befits a true captain, will keep to the necessary course, the
only true course, and, as the flagship of the world community, carry it to the
shores of peace and prosperity.
The forty-sixth session of the General Assembly was significant for the
Azerbaijani Republic, when it was admitted as a Member of the United Nations.
I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to the President of
the Assembly at its forty-sixth session, Mr. Samir Shihabi, for his
contribution to our common cause and especially for his sensitivity and warmth
towards the new Members of the Organization.
I hope that the current, forty-seventh session, under the presidency of
Mr. Stoyan Ganev, will bring us closer to our common goals. I wish Mr. Ganev
success in that position of responsibility. May every day of this session be
a day of constructive solutions of our common problems. May new difficulties
which, alas, life will always throw in our way not weaken our faith, nor
discourage us on our long and thorny path. We conquer the road as we walk
along it.