Georgia, 1994

I should like to begin by

extending my congratulations to Mr. Amara Essy on his

election as President of the General Assembly at its forty-

ninth session. It is a fitting acknowledgement of his

considerable experience, as well as a tribute to his country’s

high standing in the international community.

I should also like to offer greetings and special words

of gratitude to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros

Boutros-Ghali, for the attention and careful consideration he

has accorded to my country’s problems and for his selfless

devotion to the cause of securing a safer and saner world

for future generations. The Georgian people are looking

forward with great anticipation to his forthcoming official

visit to Georgia.

First of all, I would like to convey to the Assembly

the greetings and best wishes for productive work from the

Head of State and Chairman of the Parliament of the

Republic of Georgia, Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze.

Just over two years have passed since the day I had

the privilege of ushering my country into the United

Nations as its one hundred seventy-ninth Member and

addressing the Assembly from this rostrum. It was a

moment of joy and celebration for my nation.

Many events have taken place in those two years, and

they certainly cannot serve as a basis for euphoria and

complacency.

My country has only recently set out on the arduous

journey of building a democratic society. It is encountering

numerous internal, as well as external, problems in its

efforts. Despite fair and democratic elections and the

forming of government structures, the country continues to

languish in a deep economic and political crisis.

The international community has extended a helping

hand to Georgia, and I should like to convey our

appreciation and gratitude to the Governments of the United

States of America, the Russian Federation, Germany, other

States members of the European Union and Turkey, to

name but a few, as well as to the United Nations and its

specialized agencies, for their invaluable assistance to my

country in times of hardship.

Granted, a large measure of the problems facing

Georgia and all those nations which have only recently

reverted to independence and normal development have

domestic roots and must be addressed, first and foremost,

by the countries themselves. But let us leave the internal

aspect aside for the moment and concentrate on the

international environment, of which these nations, as well

as all other nations, are a part.

With the demise of the cold war the world

underwent profound changes. The risk of an all-out

nuclear catastrophe receded, and the world thus became

a less dangerous place; but at the same time it became

less stable and less predictable. The relationship between

States and other actors on the international scene has

changed, too.

The system of post-war international relations was

tailored to the economic, political, ideological, geographic

and other realities of that era. One of these realities was

a deep realization of the fact that a totalitarian regime of

the fascist variety had been defeated. Therefore, despite

its major flaws, the post-war bipolar system generally

responded to the demands of the times and somehow

ensured security and stability on our planet.

Our generation witnessed the fall of another

totalitarian regime with the downfall of communist

ideology and of its followers. This resulted in deep

changes in the nature of international relations. Different

demands are being dictated by the times and different

challenges are now facing the community of nations.

This end of a whole era of human history, however, was

not followed by the creation of a new system of

international relations that would correspond to the

realities of the contemporary world, as happened some 50

years ago. International political institutions, as well as

political thought in general, found themselves unprepared

for the changes, and they continue to apply stop-gap

measures to this very day.

Today’s political leaders seem to have

underestimated both the essence and the importance of

these changes; hence the inability to cope with today’s

problems or with the challenges of the

post-confrontational world. The infrastructure, principles,

tools and mentality of international relations need to be

adapted to the changed circumstances.

Therein lies the external aspect of the problems that

the newly emerging independent States, including my own

country, are facing. They are taking their first unsure

steps on the road to a democratic society, a long and

difficult road in a world that is still reeling from the

nature of the changes and that realizes neither the extent

of the predicament these nations face nor the stake it has

in their existence and stable development.

24

Many of these nations, including my own, can,

unfortunately, be described as "hot spots": they are the

unhealed wounds that cover the body of our planet. These

open wounds cry out for radical surgery, while the

peace-keeping activities of the international community,

despite its best efforts, tend in some cases to resemble

cautious treatment with prescribed medication.

Perhaps, as I am the Foreign Minister of Georgia, it is

not for me to complain about the deficiencies of the United

Nations in terms of its peace-keeping activities. The

Organization as a whole, its Security Council,

Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and his Special

Envoy, Ambassador Brunner of Switzerland, have accorded

a great deal of attention to the problems of my tormented

country. On the issue of Georgia’s Abkhazia region alone,

nine Security Council resolutions have been adopted,

numerous missions have been dispatched and the mandate

of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia

(UNOMIG) has been extended. Alas, this has not proved

to be sufficient. Clear decisions and bold, timely action are

what the peoples of the world expect of the United Nations

and of the Member States that make up the Organization.

In this regard, I would like to note how useful and

timely the Georgian Government found the recent visit to

Georgia of the United States Permanent Representative to

the United Nations, Ambassador Madeleine Albright. That

visit also demonstrates the attention President Clinton

attaches to events in Georgia.

While I would not want to belabour the issue of "hot

spots," the predicament of my own country does not allow

me to ignore this problem altogether. We would hate to

think that yet another experiment is perhaps being

conducted in Georgia, the result of which may well have a

direct bearing on the security and sovereignty of other

nations.

It is hard to describe the disappointment - and

sometimes apathy - which the Georgian nation is feeling

with regard to whether the international community will be

able to promote a peaceful settlement of the Abkhazian

conflict.

These feelings have created a dangerous and volatile

political situation domestically. A wave of indignation is

rising in Parliament and among the people at the inability

to resolve this conflict - and the efforts to do so have been

going on for more than a year now - and allow almost

300,000 displaced persons, who escaped physical

extermination, to return to their homes and continue their

lives.

At the heart of the Abkhazian conflict is an attempt

by forces of aggressive separatism, bolstered by external

support, to wrench a piece of territory away from a

sovereign State and to create, in that part of Georgia, a

provincial dictatorship based on ethnic hatred, intolerance

and discrimination.

We appealed to the United Nations in the hope that

it would be responsive to our desire to settle the conflict

by peaceful means through a United Nations

peace-keeping operation. But our hopes were only

partially fulfilled. Despite almost a dozen resolutions of

the Security Council, Member States could find neither

the financial resources, the military contingents nor the

political will to order a peace-keeping operation in

Georgia.

Convinced of the possibility of a fair solution under

the auspices of the United Nations, the Georgian

Government has been negotiating with the separatists in

good faith all this time under the auspices of the Special

Representative of the Secretary-General, with the Russian

Federation as facilitator and the Conference on Security

and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) as an observer. As a

result, a number of agreements have been signed, which

are designed to promote the return of the displaced

persons to their homes and a settlement of the conflict.

But the bitter memory of a string of broken promises

and unfulfilled obligations on the part of the separatists

confirms how naive it is to expect a forthcoming position

from a regime that conducts "ethnic cleansing" and

genocide against the Georgian population. Predictably,

the Abkhazian separatists are using far-fetched pretexts to

continue ignoring their commitments under the

agreements that have been signed.

Frustrated in its hopes for a United Nations

peace-keeping operation in Abkhazia, the Government of

the Republic of Georgia sent a similar appeal to the heads

of the States members of the Commonwealth of

Independent States (CIS). A decision was reached and a

CIS peace-keeping force was deployed in the zone of

conflict. While its presence is beneficial and provides

hope for a settlement, we feel that it could be more active

and proceed beyond the stage of disengaging the parties

in conflict.

25

The Abkhazian conflict is not a problem for Georgia

alone. Believe me, I am not saying this in order to lay our

problems at somebody else’s doorstep. This conflict has

direct and dangerous implications for the entire world.

There are also compelling reasons why the world should be

concerned with finding a solution to this problem.

Above all, we believe that the international community

simply cannot act as an outside observer when a blatant

attempt is being made against the sovereignty and territorial

integrity of a Member State and when peace and stability

are threatened. Allowing separatism to attain its goals in

one country would set a precedent that could start a chain

reaction throughout the world. And how many of us

represented here today can safely say that their countries,

their peoples, are immune from this danger?

And, lastly, the Caucasus is one of those areas in the

world which have a geopolitical importance and bearing on

the stability of large regions of the planet. The Caucasus

is one of the world’s few crossroads where North, South,

East and West meet, and where continents, cultures,

interests and strategies encounter one another. If peace and

stability cannot be maintained in the Caucasus, they cannot

be maintained anywhere.

In this regard, it is tragic that our closest neighbours,

Armenia and Azerbaijan, have been unable to resolve their

differences for so many years now. This conflict, too, tears

at the fabric of the Caucasus and greatly increases the

instability of the region, as well as the misery of hundreds

of thousands of people.

It is my Government’s firm position that the

Abkhazian conflict can and should be resolved by peaceful

means. A great deal of effort, delicate statesmanship and

deep commitment are required from all sides.

The Georgian Government has to be very meticulous

in elaborating a modern, workable and fair structure for its

ethnically and culturally diverse population, a diversity

which throughout the centuries has been a source of

friendship, stability and pride, and never of tension or

hatred. Most important, it has to create a strong economic

base for its people, one that would prevent economic

hardships from taking on a political and ethnic character.

Georgia will never accept the loss of any part of its

territory. Not only because its territory is not large, but

also because what it has is incontestably its own - every

square inch of it. The leaders of the Abkhazian separatists

have to realize this. They too have to find the political

courage and will, the flexibility and the foresight, to

negotiate in good faith and come to a settlement that

would be fair and lasting, so that future generations of

Georgians and Abkhazians could forget this one dark

page in their fathers’ lives and pick up in friendship and

peace where their grandfathers left off.

The Russian Federation is an active participant in the

process designed to find a peaceful solution to the

Abkhazian conflict. It has taken on a great responsibility

with regard to this peace process. We firmly believe that,

despite the feelings of some political groups, the Russian

Federation, as a great Power - and President Yeltsin, as

the leader of that nation - does indeed want to see a

strong, stable, sovereign, united and friendly Georgia on

its southern border. Any other considerations would be

contrary to logic. We are gratified that in his address to

this Assembly a few days ago President Yeltsin alluded

to this when he said that Russia’s relations towards other

States members of the Commonwealth of Independent

States are based on good will and mutual benefit. In

short, it is a time to think not about the mistakes of the

past, but about the possibilities for the future.

Georgia has only recently joined the community of

nations as a full-fledged member. And yet this period has

been filled with events of great intensity and emotion for

us. We feel an obligation to share our experience and

thoughts in a number of areas which, we believe, will

contribute to the effectiveness of our collective efforts in

the future.

We live in troubled times and are witness to rapid,

unpredictable changes in the world. It is of paramount

importance that contemporary political thought bring

existing international institutions into conformity with the

international political realities of today. It would seem

that even such a representative body as the United

Nations, if it is to continue to be ahead of events and

fulfil its role as the parliament of man in a new situation,

may have to effect some changes in its structure.

The reforms - prompted by the times - which the

Organization is about to embark upon, the efforts of the

Secretary-General to implement them, and the consent of

the majority of the Member States are evidence that the

time has come for a new era in international relations.

The number of Member States has more than

doubled since the creation of the United Nations. We

fully support the proposal to reflect these changes by

increasing the numerical composition of the Security

26

Council to 21, and we believe that the candidacies of

Germany and Japan are appropriate for inclusion as new

permanent members of the enlarged Security Council.

Apart from reflecting the political and economic weight of

these nations, this would also enable us finally to bring to

a close the legacy of the Second World War and the cold

war.

In considering the possibilities for increasing the

number of permanent and non-permanent members of the

Council, one of the main criteria, in our view, should be the

involvement and role of member States in maintaining

universal peace and stability. Although we see this

consideration as a crucial one, other aspects, such as

equitable geographical representation, should not be

neglected either.

The task of creating a modern comprehensive system

of ensuring peace and security in the world requires an

increase in the effectiveness of the International Court of

Justice, the main judicial body of the United Nations. We

share the concern of the Secretary-General that the Court,

the most important instrument for the settlement of

disputes, is not being fully utilized for this purpose. More

efficient use of the International Court would, undoubtedly,

reinforce the ability of the United Nations to promote and

strengthen peace. In this regard, we fully support the

initiative of the Secretary-General to recognize the universal

jurisdiction of the International Court, in accordance with

Article 36 of its Statute, and on the basis of the

recommendations put forward in the report of the Secretary-

General entitled "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277).

Efforts aimed at creating a comprehensive system of

international security can be effective today only if they are

applied at both the global and the regional level. In our

view, the ties between the global and regional security

systems are inadequate for today’s needs, and are

maintained in a haphazard way. In this regard we consider

it timely to raise the issue of achieving a higher level of

interaction between global and regional security systems by

concluding a series of special "form" treaties that will

ensure more effective use, in close coordination, of their

respective mechanisms.

Without prejudice to United Nations rules and

regulations and to the provisions of the Charter, or to the

statutes of the regional systems, these treaties should

provide, inter alia, for regional organizations to exercise

consultative and controlling functions on behalf, and on the

authorization, of the United Nations.

In various international forums we often discuss the

specific challenges of the post-confrontational world.

Separatism, especially in its aggressive, extremist form, is

one of the most dangerous of these challenges, and it is

spreading like a cancer all over the planet. We believe

that the creation of a legal basis for the containment of

aggressive separatism is imperative and long overdue so

that situations, such as the one in Georgia, will not flare

up in other parts of the world in future, or if they do, they

will be localized and defused in a timely manner.

We propose that clear provisions be inserted into

international legal documents, outlawing aggressive,

extremist separatism from its first stirrings. It is

becoming more and more clear that the mere reiteration

and confirmation of the principle of territorial integrity

and the inviolability of borders is insufficient, all the

more so since it is being flagrantly disregarded in many

instances.

These legal provisions should also envisage a strict

embargo on military deliveries and swift, surgical

economic measures against separatist movements that

have turned to armed struggle and violence, as well as a

mechanism to use, in exceptional cases, the most decisive

measure - military force.

The military forces for these operations could be set

up in one of two ways: either United Nations stand-by

forces, an option which would entail considerable

financial expense, or special well-trained units within the

armed forces of each Member State which, when needed,

could be put under the direct command of the United

Nations Military Staff Committee, which itself could

become more active and energetic.

While the second option seems more realistic at

present, I would still like to stress the virtues of early

preventive measures against such conflicts. Perhaps many

of them could be localized and defused at an early stage,

if the United Nations had relatively small, mobile forces

of rapid reaction and deployment at its disposal. These

forces could be made up on an international voluntary

basis, thereby emphasizing their impartial and unbiased

nature. They could be rapidly deployed in the conflict

zone and, acting within a limited mandate, could ensure

the disengagement of the conflicting parties in order to

create the conditions for the deployment of a United

Nations peace-keeping force.

In this regard, it would also seem indispensable to us

to set up a special department within the United Nations

27

Secretariat the sole purpose of which would be to work to

resolve conflict situations. Ten highly experienced and

respected political figures could form the nucleus of such

a department. To perform their functions they would be

vested with special rights and obligations.

Within such a department a special unit could be set

up to coordinate the actions of the rapid deployment force.

It would ensure the collection of information and

intelligence data, and generally function as operations

headquarters. The unit could also provide valuable

early-warning information on potential conflict situations

involving separatist tendencies.

To anticipate a natural question on the financing of

such forces, I should say that, yes, it will undoubtedly

entail additional financial, material means and human

resources. This, however, is a case of the end clearly

justifying the means. As we have paid a far greater price

for being late so often in the past, the international

community can no longer afford such a luxury.

A few days ago a proposal was made very forcefully

from this rostrum that, in order to safeguard and uphold the

rights of national minorities, the principles of the

Declaration on the rights of national minorities should be

embodied in the legislation of all member States. We

firmly support the principle of providing national minorities

with wide political, economic and cultural rights, and of

ensuring civil and human rights for everyone. We would

thus like to go a step further and propose to codify all

aspects of this issue.

Since every right presumes a responsibility, we believe

that it is imperative that international legal documents and

national legislations of Member States, along with the rights

of national minorities, also incorporate provisions on the

responsibilities of these minorities towards the country of

which they form a part.

In view of the rapidly growing role of individual

leaders and personalities in international relations today, it

would seem appropriate to us to consider also the issue of

responsibility for an individual’s role in the violation of

human rights and liberties of persons, or groups of persons.

Thus, we fully support the proposal to work out a

declaration on the rights and responsibilities of individuals,

groups and political bodies to ensure commonly accepted

freedoms and human rights. It is precisely in this context

that Georgia supported the creation of the post of United

Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

I have attempted to outline some of my

Government’s thoughts with regard to the changes that it

thinks should be made in the structure and work of the

Organization in view of the many profound changes in

the international landscape today. While these are just

some elements, a comprehensive and balanced vision of

the needed changes is laid out by the Secretary-General,

Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali in "An Agenda for Peace" and

other documents. The implementation of the changes

would go a long way towards eliminating many of the

problems that we are discussing in this Hall and would

also represent, as Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze put it so

aptly, a very timely "blood transfusion" for the entire

international system.

An important period is approaching in the life of the

Organization. Next year we will be commemorating the

fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations.

We have reached a mature age which allows us to take

stock of the Organization’s many accomplishments, but

also one that obliges us to look ahead to what still needs

to be done.

A half century of existence and experience confers

even greater responsibility upon the Organization, as well

as upon individual Member States. It imposes grander

objectives, but also opens up wider horizons. Some of

these objectives can be attained in our lifetime, while

others will be left to succeeding generations. It is our

responsibility to provide a legacy which will serve as a

stepping-stone for mankind to make a leap into the

twenty-first century and land softly on solid ground.

Georgia is a small country, but it is a democratic

country, and its foreign-policy objective is to have

28

peaceful, friendly relations with all the nations of the world.

Georgia will not be a passive observer of international

events; it will carry its fair share of the responsibilities of

the international community and make its contribution to

achieving our common goals.