Georgia, 1996

Allow me at the outset to warmly congratulate

the President on his election to his post at the fifty-first

session of the General Assembly. I am deeply honoured

to speak from this rostrum for the first time, and would

like to take this opportunity to thank all our friends in the

world community for the valuable assistance given to us

in the construction of a new, democratic Georgia.

In recent years, Georgia has undergone every

possible trial in the transition from the old and obsolete

to the new and progressive. Overcoming the totalitarian

past has been very painful, demanding many sacrifices. In

conditions of post-communist chaos, ongoing ethno-

political conflicts and a precipitous decline in the

economy, Georgia has managed, with the help of the

international community, to stabilize the situation. Over

the past two years, democratic institutions have been

established, economic stability has been achieved, a

national currency has been introduced, the process of

privatization is being completed and favourable conditions

for foreign investment are being created. The presidential

and parliamentary elections held last year confirmed the

strong determination of the Georgian people to continue

on the path of democratic development. All this has been

done in order to further the gradual integration of

Georgia, and indeed the whole of Transcaucasia, into the

international economic system. Georgia has had to

overcome a number of obstacles on this course, both

subjective and objective in nature.

Today I would like to draw the Assembly’s attention

to the phenomenon that has become the main obstacle in

Georgia’s path to recovery: aggressive separatism, which

can completely nullify the beginnings of peace and

stability not only in Georgia, but in the entire region.

Aggressive separatism is not a new phenomenon, but it

has only recently come to the attention of the world

15

community, due to its global nature and its destructive

impact on international security. I can say with certainty

that the world community has no right to take the position

of an outside observer on this question, because countries

and entire regions are subjected to separatism, regardless of

their geographic location and level of development.

Despite differences in the underlying reasons for the

emergence of separatist movements, in their nature and in

their scale they have one thing in common: they establish

regimes on the ideological basis of terrorism under the

banner of “the self-determination of suppressed people”.

We are certain that everyone present in this Hall considers

the principle of self-determination for nations and peoples

one of the most important basic principles of international

law. Contemporary international law has established a clear

framework for the implementation of this principle. Yet it

is unacceptable for the principle of self-determination to be

exploited by national minorities or small nations that have

historically constituted a single society with other nations,

within the framework of sovereign States that today are

Members of the United Nations.

There is good reason for us to have singled out the

problem of aggressive separatism, as we consider it to be

the main threat to international peace and security at this

stage. Georgia has made enormous efforts to introduce the

notion of aggressive separatism into the agenda of the

world. Aggressive separatism uses “ethnic cleansing” as the

main tool of vengeance against other nations and ethnic

groups.

Here I must bring up the example of Abkhazia:

300,000 peaceful Georgian citizens have been expelled

from the territory of Abkhazia. Thousands more have been

shot, burned, hanged or tortured to death. Furthermore, the

persecution of the Georgian population on the basis of

ethnic origin was raised by the separatist regime to the

level of state policy. This is a most serious crime against

humanity.

Analogous manifestations of aggressive separatism are

taking place in other parts of the world. Consequently, the

stream of refugees increases constantly, and this process has

acquired the form of a powerful new global factor fraught

with unpredictable social and economic consequences. We

believe we need more fully developed measures in order to

oppose it effectively.

What can we do about this? As a rule, the response of

the world community to separatism as a phenomenon is

nearly always late and consequently inadequate to existing

conditions.

The first resolution of the Security Council on the

conflict in Abkhazia was adopted on 9 July 1993; the

most recent, on 12 July 1996. Comparing them, we can

see that it took three years to call something by its proper

name: to call an aggressor an aggressor, a criminal a

criminal and a victim a victim.

It is obvious that we need a doctrine to contain

aggressive separatism. This should include a number of

measures directed at revealing the underlying causes and

at preventing and overcoming any manifestation of

extremist separatist tendencies.

We consider it necessary, first, to define the

phenomenon of separatism in terms of international law

and, to that end, to establish a corresponding juridical and

legal basis, namely, a well-defined system to identify and

categorize aggressive separatism in international legal

documents.

Secondly, it is necessary to introduce and enforce

economic measures. One might respond that the practical

implementation of economic sanctions already exists.

However, these should be binding in nature and their

enforcement fall under the strict control of the

international community; moreover, there must be follow-

up implementation of sanctions against violators, if

necessary. At the same time, in order to eliminate

economic incentives for armed hostilities, we should

provide economic assistance and other means of support

to regions where separatist tendencies are growing in

strength.

Thirdly, we must consider measures of a military-

political character, such as the imposition of arms

embargoes against those regions where separatism takes

on aggressive forms.

Fourthly, those who have committed these crimes

against humanity must be fully aware that they cannot

avoid severe punishment and that, sooner or later, they

will have to stand before an international tribunal. It is

clear that international terrorism and aggressive

separatism are interconnected and that we must combine

our efforts in the struggle against both.

The efforts of the countries of the Group of 8 aimed

at the elimination of international terrorism give us cause

for hope. The Government of Georgia fully supports the

16

recent initiative of the President of Egypt to establish a new

specialized international organization dedicated to the

struggle against these evils. We must also work as speedily

as possible on the creation of a stable system of regional

security, without which the process of aggressive separatism

that has contributed to the political and economic

disintegration of traditional regional structures of mutually

beneficial cooperation and ethno-cultural exchanges will

only grow, hastening the division of regions into hostile

microsystems under the permanent influence of

neighbouring regional Powers.

Once again, let us focus concretely on the prospects

for a peaceful settlement of the Abkhaz problem. The

current negotiations continue under the auspices of the

United Nations and through the mediation of the Russian

Federation. The “Friends of Georgia” group of countries is

also making concerted efforts. The settlement of the conflict

has thus taken on an international scale.

We have repeatedly declared Georgia’s position on the

settlement of this conflict and the determination of

Abkhazia’s status. First, it is necessary and very possible to

settle the conflict through a peaceful process of negotiation.

Through the new Constitution of Georgia, adopted last year,

the question of the state territorial structure of our country

was deliberately left open. At the same time, proposals

were elaborated according to which Abkhazia would be

granted autonomy in accordance with the highest possible

international standards.

Just over a month ago, the President of Georgia made

a statement in which he once again set forth his suggestions

regarding the settlement of the conflict in the Caucasus,

including his assertion to the authorities in Sukhumi of his

readiness to meet immediately for serious discussions.

Unfortunately, these efforts have borne no fruit. The

responsibility for that lies with the separatists. It has proven

hitherto impossible to achieve progress towards a political

settlement. Moreover, the separatist regime, sensing its

impunity, has undertaken a new series of provocations,

attempting to organize so-called parliamentary elections on

the same territory which was ethnically cleansed and on

which less than one-fifth of the native population presently

resides. The regime has cynically ignored the mediation

efforts of the Russian Federation, the United Nations and

the world community, numerous resolutions of the Security

Council and the decisions of various forums.

The growing concern on this point is also

understandable. Has not the perfunctory evaluation of acts

of “ethnic cleansing” and genocide in Abkhazia, by

accident or a design, strengthened the confidence of the

separatists that they will get away with their crimes and

even legitimize the status quo?

In the recent past, Transcaucasia acted as a boundary

between two opposing systems, two military-political

blocs separated by the iron curtain and implacable

ideologies. These confrontational orientations did not

allow the innate human and natural resources of the

region to be fully exploited, relegating it to a secondary

role on the periphery of the world stage.

As a consequence of historic changes that occurred

before our very eyes, we believe that the time has come

seriously to reappraise the role of our region. Our final

aim is to turn it into the very opposite of what it once

was. The Caucasus can become and is already becoming

a region of multilateral cooperation, not only between the

States geographically located within it. The prospects for

creating a transportation corridor across our region are

gradually becoming reality. The States of Central Asia,

the Black Sea basin and Western and Eastern Europe are

directly involved in the process of its creation. There has

thus been a logical growth in the international

community’s interest in the fate of the Caucasus.

The Caucasus today is a complicated interlacing of

political economic and financial contradictions and

interests. Therefore, it is necessary to respond

appropriately to these emerging circumstances. Otherwise,

we run the risk of creating a new, powerful and large-

scale breeding ground for international tensions.

While pondering the creation of a new global and, in

particular, European infrastructure of stability, we have in

mind very specific elements that will create a single and

indivisible unit. In this context, the initiative of President

Shevardnadze on a peaceful Caucasus, proposed in the

spring of 1996, can serve as the basis for the creation of

a regional model that could, in its own right, become a

major component in a general and comprehensive model

of security for Europe in the next century. The ideas set

forth in this initiative were discussed and approved in

principle at the summit between the Presidents of the

Russian Federation, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia,

and the leaders of the northern Caucasus Republics within

the Russian Federation in June 1996.

These proposals are aimed not only at the peaceful

settlement of conflicts currently besetting the Caucasus,

but also at post-conflict settlement, insuring the security

17

and multi-level development of the region. They advocate

the application of generally recognized, fundamental

principles of international law, the observance of which

would guarantee peace and stability in the region.

I am not engaging in wishful thinking. The road to

achieving all this will, of course, not be easy, but I am

confident that the States of the region possess sufficient

determination and political will, together with the active

participation of the international community, to make the

only correct decision and, like one of Brecht’s characters,

break out of the “Caucasian Chalk Circle”.

I would like to share some of my concerns on the

prospects for new United Nations activities. The impending

reforms, supported by practically all Member States, testify

to a qualitatively new stage in the development of

international relations. At the same time, the need for

reforms places great responsibility on us. We have no right

to take hasty decisions that might result in unforeseen

consequences. On the other hand, excessive dilatoriness

could also harm our cause.

Given the new realities in international relations, it is

clear that these changes should be reflected in the body of

the United Nations that is entrusted with the primary

responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and

security. ln order to enable the Security Council to respond

adequately to contemporary challenges, new geopolitical

realities should be reflected in its structure. I refer to the

timely question of increasing the number of permanent and

non-permanent members of the Council. We are fully

convinced that increasing the number of members would

expand the geopolitical base of the Security Council, which

in turn would make it more effective and representative.

In considering in this context the candidacy of

Germany and Japan for possible permanent membership, we

are guided by the hope that we would finally and

irrevocably have an opportunity to overcome the

psychological consequences of the Second World War and

the cold war. In 1992 our President argued, from this

rostrum, for the need to expand the membership of the

Security Council by including Germany and Japan; and

Georgia has repeatedly advocated this since.

Careful consideration should be given to proposals put

forward by Italy and other Member States with regard to

non-permanent membership of the Security Council.

However, the Security Council should remain a

comparatively small body, which makes it more dynamic.

Most importantly, in considering an increase in Council

membership, due attention should be paid primarily to the

degree of participation of Member States in the

maintenance of international peace and security.

The changes should also touch upon the practical

side of Council activities, especially with regard to

conflict resolution. The criteria that guide the Security

Council in the use of its discretionary rights, provided for

in Chapters VI, VII and VIII of the Charter, should be

more clearly formulated and universally applied.

In order to improve the management of

peacekeeping operations, the Secretary-General’s Special

Envoy should be responsible for coordinating the

implementation of peacekeeping operations, with the

direct participation of regional organizations. We should

also note that a significant number of conflicts throughout

the world do not fall within the category of threats to

international peace and security under Chapter VII of the

Charter, although they are characterized by gross and

massive human rights violations and are considered to be

crimes against humanity.

Thus, in most cases, the initiators and executors of

these crimes, which include “ethnic cleansing” and

genocide, feel that they enjoy impunity because of the

inability of the international community to take legal

action. Consequently, we should consider the

establishment of a permanent United Nations special

international observer institution, which would investigate

the facts pertaining to such crimes.

Georgia, having undergone the tragedy of conflict in

Abkhazia, and having experienced “ethnic cleansing” and

genocide in its own population, is keenly interested in the

rapid establishment and effective functioning of an

international criminal court. Such a body should become

an effective tool for implementing the law on behalf of

the international community. We are inspired by the fact

that the International Law Commission has already

approved the text for a list of crimes against peace and

humanity.

We are also happy that the United Nations has

already taken steps in laying the foundation for

developing peacekeeping contingents of stand-by forces.

Georgia has already declared its readiness for active

participation in the establishment of stand-by forces. We

believe, however, that the United Nations should not take

half measures, as the use of stand-by forces cannot

completely resolve problems of effective and timely

18

reaction to conflict situations arising in different parts of

the world.

In this connection, we are convinced that we should

finally implement the idea of establishing a United Nations

rapid deployment force to carry out the tasks prescribed by

the Security Council to restrain the escalation of conflicts

and deploy the main peacemaking contingents of the United

Nations.

In conclusion, we would like to see the world

community as a union of free nations that enrich each other

spiritually, economically and culturally. Mutual efforts in

this direction will inevitably lead to the establishment of a

permanent, cooperative peace in a world free of wars and

ethnic conflicts.

The General Assembly offers a unique opportunity to

elaborate a uniform and coordinated approach to the real,

global problems of humanity. This is our chance to reach

global consensus, and we should take full advantage of it.

I thank the Assembly for its attention, and express my

hope that our pain and our hopes will be taken into account

by the entire international community.