Georgia, 1999

I have stood

upon this platform on many occasions, and I well

remember every speech I have given here since 1985.

This is perhaps because, first, I cannot conceive of any

loftier rostrum in the world and, secondly, because my

personal political fate has always brought me here at

times of great change. My most recent appearance before

the General Assembly was in 1992, when I was already

Head of State of my country, Georgia. That, too, was a

moment filled with drama — one in which a new,

independent State was going through a painful birth

process.

Today, I am with the Assembly at the end of a

stormy century, one which I would call the century of

freedom. That is not because freedom has become a

universal norm of life — regrettably, that is not yet the

case — but, rather, because the concept of freedom has

assumed pre-eminence on the scale of political values and

also because it was, indeed, in our century that the worst

enemies of freedom and democracy were defeated.

Perhaps the most unanticipated and important of these

events was the demise of the Soviet empire, which

19

brought about the end of the cold war, the bipolar world

and the post-war world order.

The collapse of empires follows a more or less similar

pattern. Initially, centrifugal forces triumph, but later

phantom pains for the lost territories begin to be felt in the

metropolis and attempts are made to recentralize the former

imperial space.

Yet historical experience demonstrates that designs to

restore an empire inevitably remain the unfulfilled dream of

imperial reactionaries. History cannot be turned back.

However, in the arsenal of today’s reactionaries there

remains still one chance to partially, if not completely,

return to past ways — by maintaining spheres of influence

over the territories of the former empire. Here I do not

mean spheres of interest, including strategic interests.

Harmonizing interests in a civilized way is a normal

international practice. The concept of spheres of influence,

however, particularly within the context of globalization,

represents an anachronism.

But let me return to the demise of the cold war and

the bipolar world. As someone who happened to participate

in this process, I think an explanation is in order since

debate on how and why it all happened continues to this

day.

I do not deny that the reasons for the end of the cold

war were many and complex. Yet I want to especially

stress the role of the new thinking, which was conceived

even before perestroika. I am certain that no drawn-out

economic hardships, not even any “Star Wars project”,

would have compelled the socialist camp to democratize

within, or to take radical steps in the international arena to

overcome the confrontation, if instead of Mikhail

Gorbachev and his team, leaders who possessed the old

mentality had remained at the helm of the Soviet ship of

state.

Since I have mentioned Mikhail Gorbachev, I must

send to him, a man who is an outstanding figure of our

time, condolences for the death of his spouse, Raisa

Gorbachev.

The new thinking of that period contained many

elements, but we can generally describe it as a concept

designed to make all spheres of political and public life

more human.

In international relations, this implied, first and

foremost, replacing the class-based ideological approach

with ethically motivated decisions, in line with universal

values. Only due to this new approach were the countries

of the Soviet space and Eastern Europe able to make their

democratic choices with relatively little pain. Without the

new thinking it would have been difficult to conceive of

the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan or that

truly epochal event, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the

subsequent reunification of Germany and the liberation of

Eastern Europe.

The old found it difficult to come to terms with the

new. The two could not exist harmoniously together.

Moreover, not everyone accepted the idea of replacing the

class-based approach with the primacy of universal

values. I remember that when I first expressed this

concept to the Soviet diplomatic corps, it spawned

aggressive clashes of opinion and upheaval across the

entire Soviet space.

But has not this always been the case? Historically,

changes of this scale were always preceded by paradigm

shifts in human thinking — that is, new thinking had to

occur first. This was the case in the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries, when a new world based on

scientific thinking was emerging, and also in the epoch of

the Enlightenment, during which the ideas of equality and

humanism gave birth to the theory and practice of a

democratic state.

In the historical literature and memoirs dedicated to

the end of the cold war, one often finds references to

winners and losers. It is erroneous to frame this most

complex event of global historical significance in such

simplistic terms. For example, how can Russia be

considered to have been “defeated” when it set forth the

example to other peoples by creating its own independent

State? One might ask the same about other States which

belonged to the so-called socialist camp and today are

independent democracies.

Credit for the victory over the cold war equally

belongs to the representatives of the former opposing

camps who had in common the new thinking and a

commitment to the noble idea of saving mankind from a

nuclear nightmare.

If we talk of any loser at all, it was the old, stagnant

thinking which was defeated, and a new common sense

prevailed. Shifts in thinking should occur at every stage

of human development. The end of the cold war is a

highly significant intellectual breakthrough of the

twentieth century.

20

The process of renovation of ideas is perennial.

Stagnation is tantamount to backward motion. At the

threshold of the new millennium, it is necessary that we

once again develop a new thinking — new principles in the

relationship between States and a new approach to common

problems and threats.

Today, nearly a decade after the Iron Curtain was

lifted and the cold war came to an end, one often hears

scepticism expressed about this great liberal democratic

revolution of the twentieth century. “What has changed,

after all?” some ask. Indeed, it is high time that we

thoroughly assessed what has happened and surveyed the

myriad new opportunities that have presented themselves as

a result of this tectonic shift, as well as the far-from-simple

problems that up until now one would hardly ever think

about.

My ancient country, Georgia, is one of those newly

independent States which provide a good platform for

observing both the virtues and shortcomings of the

processes under way in this new, post-bipolar world.

Although the history of Georgian statehood stretches

back more than three millennia, the vicissitudes of history

caused us to have to begin building our nation State from

scratch once again in the last decade of this century. The

beginning proved especially difficult. The utter

incompetence and inexperience of its first post-communist

leadership threw Georgia into conflict and civil war. The

result was complete economic collapse and the loss of even

those token signs of statehood that we had inherited from

the Soviet system. Georgia in fact found itself isolated from

the rest of the world. All this was accompanied by an

unprecedented criminal rampage the eradication of which

took several years.

Georgia began to work its way out of this isolation in

the spring of 1992 when it became a member of the United

Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in

Europe and the Black Sea Economic Cooperation and began

to actively forge diplomatic relations with its neighbours

and more distant nations. In fact, it was during this difficult

period that our country — its people and leadership —

made its choice. Georgia would set forth on the way

towards building a free and democratic society based on a

socially oriented market economy. Despite the serious

barriers that continued to emerge along the way, Georgia

never once departed from the course it set for itself.

The principles and practice of the construction of our

democratic country did not go unnoticed by the

international community. Under new conditions, when the

bipolar confrontation was no more, international

organizations were given the opportunity for their actions

to span the entire globe, to help those States in need and

to assist in their development. The United Nations, the

International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the

European Union and particularly the United States,

Germany and Holland, as well as others, extended their

help to us.

The year 1995 was indeed the turning point in

Georgia’s new era. With it came the adoption of a new

democratic Constitution, as well as the holding of the first

parliamentary and presidential elections. In the same year,

we achieved financial stability and introduced a new

national currency. At the end of that year, for the first

time in Georgia’s democratic development, growth in

gross domestic product was recorded. Very importantly

also, law and order prevailed in the country, and the

rampage of crime was finally curbed.

It was in the same year, however, 1995, that the first

blast thundered. It was a terrorist act targeting Georgia’s

head of State. This barbaric act signalled to the world that

not everyone found Georgia’s progress towards

democracy to their liking, especially if Georgia were to

succeed along the path of her choice.

Recent years have demonstrated that the positive

trends in Georgia have become irreversible. From 1996 to

1997, the annual economic growth was around 11 per

cent, the exchange rate was stable and inflation continued

to decline.

No less significant was the progress made in

building democratic institutions and putting in place and

enforcing the legal framework for a civil society. In this

respect, it is no exaggeration to say that Georgia has

travelled in several short years a distance that often

requires decades. I am happy to say that as Georgia

continues to improve its democratic institutions and

develop its economy we are becoming a partner to others

rather than merely a recipient of international aid. This is

largely made possible through the new function that my

country has been establishing for itself over the past few

years.

For many decades the fuel-rich countries of the

Caspian region and Central Asia were cut off from the

rest of the world by impermeable walls. Now they have

begun to seek alternative routes to deliver their wealth to

21

the world market. The south Caucasus, especially Georgia,

with its outlets to the Black Sea, has a pivotal location on

the route along which cargoes are already being shipped

between east and west and between north and south. Since

April this year, oil has been flowing westward across the

territory of Georgia via the new Baku-Supsa pipeline. In

ancient times, Georgia was part of the great Silk Road. This

function is reviving along with that vast highway that in

ancient times traversed the continents, bridging peoples and

promoting the diffusion of cultures and the exchange of

ideas. I am referring to the great Eurasian space and

relevant transport routes.

International organizations and individual countries

have shown great interest in the idea of a rebirth of the

great Silk Road. The European Union initiated the

TRACECA and INOGATE projects, under which the

construction of the transport infrastructure is funded and

multiple alternative networks of oil and gas pipelines are

being elaborated. The United States Senate recently adopted

the Silk Road strategy support bill, introduced by Senator

Brownbeck, which envisages providing assistance to the

south Caucasus and Central Asian States to strengthen

independence and democratic development, as well as to

build a transport infrastructure that will include multiple oil

and gas pipelines. In addition, the Japanese Government has

developed a strategy for the new Silk Road. China and

other States are also participating in the realization of this

project. The countries of south Caucasus — Azerbaijan,

Armenia and Georgia — signed partnership and cooperation

agreements with the European Union that entered into force

in June of this year. As for Georgia’s progress in building

a democratic society based on the rule of law and respect

for human rights, its accomplishments have been recognized

by the Council of Europe, of which Georgia became a full-

fledged member earlier this year.

As I said earlier, the modest successes we have

enjoyed on the way towards independent development —

that is, our participation in projects of global significance

and our aspiration to integrate with international, regional

and Euro-Atlantic institutions — have irritated and continue

to irritate the reactionary forces that are scattered across the

entire territory of the former Soviet Union, where they pose

a serious threat to democratic regimes in the new States,

including Russia.

The terrorist blast of 1995 was not an isolated

incident. It was followed by other provocations and terrorist

acts, which included another attempt on the President’s life.

Will these attempts to force Georgia’s deviation from its

chosen path continue? We cannot rule this out, since

geopolitical shifts of this scale never proceed smoothly.

The enemies of our country use the entire arsenal at their

disposal, including buying politicians and even votes, in

attempting to bring to power a regime that is more to

their liking.

In the current conditions of globalization and

increased interdependence, no country is immune to the

contagion of economic crisis. Last year independent

Georgia experienced first hand the repercussions of the

negative global economic situation, especially when the

financial crisis erupted in neighbouring Russia, which

continues to play a major part in Georgia’s foreign trade

operations. Today we can claim with reasonable

confidence that Georgia’s young market economy and

banking system passed this test worthily, and international

organizations and friendly countries made major

contributions to our ability to survive.

Unresolved conflicts and our violated territorial

integrity remain Georgia’s most painful problem — in

other words, the very problem which is among the series

of new threats that the international community has

shown itself unprepared to deal with. As a result of the

campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing conducted by

Abkhaz separatists, with external military support, many

civilians of Georgian and other ethnic extractions have

been killed, and nearly 300,000 people have been

displaced. Despite the aid that our Government, the Office

of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

and other organizations provide, these innocent victims

continue to live in conditions of extreme deprivation.

These severely traumatized people, who have been

subjected to inhuman brutalities, demand protection of

their most inalienable right: the right to live in their own

homes. It is unfortunate that, unlike the confrontation in

the Balkans, the Abkhaz conflict has been given no

exposure on world television screens, and therefore the

international community has little awareness of it. Having

seen with my own eyes the brutalities committed there, I

have no doubt whatsoever that people infected by the

germ of hatred lose their humanity and behave in the

same barbaric manner, be it in Kosovo, Rwanda or

Abkhazia.

It is difficult to believe what has happened. With the

help of foreign regular army units and mercenaries, the

Abkhaz, who originally constituted only 17 per cent of

the population, expelled the majority just because they

were not Abkhaz, but Georgians, Armenians, Jews,

Russians, Greeks or other ethnicities. This was

22

accomplished alongside ethnically motivated summary

executions and mass killings.

The involvement of international entities — the United

Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in

Europe (OSCE), the Russian Federation and the Group of

Friends of the Secretary-General — has so far failed to

produce tangible results. In my opinion, one of the reasons

for the failure of all attempts to resolve this conflict is that

what has really happened in Abkhazia has not yet been

objectively assessed at the level of the highest international

body — the Security Council, which the Charter mandates

to act as the guarantor of security in the world. Is it not all

too obvious that it is impossible to fight evil if one does not

call it by its proper name — that is, if one does not assign

an appropriate legal assessment to what has happened?

The 21 United Nations resolutions on the conflict in

Abkhazia, Georgia, do not provide such an unequivocal

assessment, despite the fact that the final documents of the

OSCE’s Budapest and Lisbon summits qualify the action of

the leaders of the Abkhaz separatists as ethnic cleansing.

Indeed, the sole objective of the separatist leadership,

encouraged by reactionary external forces, was to change

the demography of this autonomous republic. It is hard to

imagine that a regime that has in fact attained its goal can

be convinced through mere request and persuasion to allow

the displaced to return.

I do not want to be misunderstood. We do not thirst

for the blood of our Abkhaz brothers, nor do we seek

vengeance. No, I am sure that in time Georgians and

Abkhaz will dwell together in their historic homeland:

Georgia. But in order to speed up the process of the

Georgian-Abkhaz reconciliation, the tragedy must be given

its fair legal assessment.

It is no surprise that in a century in which the concept

of freedom has acquired such scope, human rights

command special attention. Before Georgia was accepted

into the Council of Europe, rapporteurs scrutinized our

human rights profile, examining how free the media were,

the conditions of prisoners — including the worst

offenders — and many other aspects of human rights. We

are grateful to the Council of Europe and other international

bodies and non-governmental organizations for their

undiminished attention to this critical aspect of life in our

country, and for their unbiased assessments and

recommendations.

Especially against the backdrop of such keen attention

to matters of human rights, I find it hard to understand the

indifference of the international community to the fate of

the 300,000 people currently displaced from Abkhazia and

to the flagrant violation of their basic right to live in their

own homes. The matter is not whether or not help is

being extended to these people. Of course, they would

have been in far more difficult straits had the United

Nations and individual countries not provided relief. But

in terms of human rights the only response proportionate

to their situation would be to assist them in restoring their

inalienable rights — that is, allowing them to return to

their homes and holding those who have violated their

rights responsible, if only by giving an appropriate

assessment of the acts of the perpetrators of ethnic

cleansing. Unfortunately, little has been done to this end.

Although expressing personal feelings is perhaps not

appropriate from this podium, I find it difficult to repress

my emotions when talking of completely innocent people

expelled from their homes by brutal force fuelled by

simple hatred. My heart is heavy. I was involved in the

complex processes that brought an end to the Cold War.

I believed, as did my co-thinkers, that the future world

order, liberated from the confrontations between camps,

would not permit injustice; that under the new conditions,

the United Nations and the Security Council, at the

pinnacle of our world’s hierarchy, would be able to

prevent individual assaults against civilized norms of

existence.

The Assembly can imagine how disillusioned I was

when ethnic purging of the Georgian population occurred,

and, by the way, remaining unpunished within my own

country. I addressed the Security Council twice with a

detailed account and explanation of what happened, but

no substantial progress has yet been made, even in the

formulation of its resolutions. Having experienced this

disappointment, I believe it should have come as no

surprise that I firmly supported the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO) operation in Kosovo, aimed at

putting an end to ethnic cleansing, since I viewed that

operation as the long-awaited manifestation of a firm

stand against evil. At the same time, however, the action

in Kosovo must not be interpreted by anyone as even

indirect support of aggressive separatism. By no means.

I have always believed that aggressive separatism and

attempts to manipulate evolving democratic orders by use

of force is one of the worst and most dangerous maladies

of modern times.

Since the end of the cold war, during which the

threat of nuclear war hung over our heads like the sword

of Damocles, while local conflicts, despite their true

23

causes, inevitably acquired an ideological tint, political

analysts have made extensive efforts to determine the

nature of the virus causing today’s aggression and the

causes of possible future clashes. The theories are

extremely interesting, and the debates as to how well they

correspond to reality will doubtless continue for years to

come.

On the other hand, from even a brief glance at today’s

conflicts it is clear that virtually all of them are linked to an

erroneous interpretation by ethnic minorities of the principle

of self-determination, and to a likewise erroneous

understanding by titular nations and their central authorities

of minorities’ rights with respect to that principle. In other

words, either aggressive separatism or no less aggressive

violation of the rights of ethnic minorities, and in some

cases both, underlie these conflicts.

During such confrontations, a certain segment of the

population becomes undesirable to a group of political

adventurists. This “foreign body” is then removed through

the policy of “ethnic cleansing” and genocide. Today there

are hundreds of places in the world where some groups of

individuals may come to entertain an ambition towards this

manner of self- determination and apply the well tried —

and, regrettably, in many cases successful — method,

which I would call the method of demographic engineering.

It is not difficult to foresee how chaotic our world can

become and what torment millions of innocent people will

suffer just because they are found to be ethnically

inappropriate, so to speak.

Today, when the epoch of colonial empires has been

relegated to the past, the issue of the integrity of the State

and the self-determination of peoples demands new, clearer

formulations to ensure that each side in a potential conflict

fully realizes the limits of international legitimacy of its

claims. In democratic States, with Governments equally

representing the interests of all its citizens, self-

determination must be regarded as the right to express

oneself in a very broad sense, but only within the

boundaries of a State which, on its part, respects these

rights. There should be no talk of separation by the use of

force and violation of territorial integrity.

Let me also add that the rationale provided by

opposing sides to justify forcible redrawing of borders

always centres around an alleged necessity to restore

historical justice. History, which is hardly an exact science,

is interpreted according to the respective interests of the

sides involved. I believe that new thinking should have a

say with regard to this matter as well. In international

relations, perhaps, one must not overemphasize, or, to be

more precise, blow out of proportion the role of historical

precedence. That was precisely the intent of the Helsinki

Accords, regarding norms for the inviolability of existing

borders.

At the same time, there is nothing more fundamental

to the formation of a national consciousness than the

citizens’ knowledge of their own history. And this

acquires special significance in the present era of vigorous

globalization. The efforts of individual peoples,

particularly small ones, will not be enough to sustain

world diversity.

The contribution of each nation, large or small, to

the development of world civilization and culture is

unique and special. So is that of my small country. The

culture of every nationality is a singular phenomenon.

Although the economy, the environment, the elimination

of poverty, the management of demographic processes

and sustainable development are the main challenges for

us all, the time is also ripe to protect and preserve the

national cultural heritage, which remains an ever present

fountain to enrich and ennoble the human spirit.

The Georgians say “Let us save culture, and culture

will save us”. Universal homogenization, which endangers

the identity of small nations, should be entered in the

register of modern threats. I suggest that we develop a

collective mechanism for their cultural protection.

Developments in recent years have clearly shown

that the existing system of collective responsibility for

global security is still far from perfect. Certainly, since

bipolarity has been overcome we have significantly

improved the prospects for the successful activities of

international organizations, especially the United Nations,

whose decisions were often not enforced because of the

rivalry between the two ideological blocs. Yet they are

not always able to effectively address new perils. Order

cannot be ensured unless negative sanctions are applied,

and this is exactly what the United Nations is avoiding in

every way. Although the United Nations Charter does

provide for fairly strong mechanisms for ensuring

security, such awesome word combinations as Chapter

VII and the Military Staff Committee exist most often

merely on paper. Surely the founders of the United

Nations deserve praise for their wisdom and vision, but

we should not forget that the mechanism they created for

our collective responsibility for the world’s fate was

framed for a different time.

24

It must be admitted that, despite attempts to establish

order in the world, the planet continues to live in a state of

anarchy. On the other hand, the need for a tougher and

more just order becomes increasingly more obvious. Most

of today’s threats go way beyond the scope of the

competence of the nation-State. They are global in nature.

No individual country can cope with them alone. Much as

is the case within individual nations, the international

community primarily needs the unanimity of its subjects in

terms of their commitment to a set of fundamental

principles. This seems to be expressed in many charters and

conventions. In reality, however, it is not the case. The

attitude towards terrorism can be cited as an example.

Despite public statements condemning terrorism, it appears

that many still allow it as an acceptable means for

achieving political and other ends. How else can one

explain that terrorists whose identities are known to all are

not hiding in the woods, but, rather, are able to find shelter

in different States?

Of course, it is true that the world does respond to

some extent to threats as they occur. Individual States and

alliances of States do make serious efforts to fight global

ailments. Sometimes, as has just happened in Kosovo, they

undertake such tasks as a coercion to peace. It is my

position that no one has a moral right to denounce NATO

for that operation, particularly those who, through their

inaction, play into the hands of those who disturb the peace.

Yet this is not precisely what one would call a

demonstration of collective responsibility. In such a case

several democratic and developed — and therefore

powerful — States undertake the stewardship of the rest of

the world. Of course, we can only thank them for this. But

it would be better for all if those who have undertaken

responsibility for the fate of the world carried out their

mission within the framework of a mechanism established

by the international organizations. We have already

proposed to expand the membership of the Security Council

and address the issue of veto rights in order to adapt it to

present-day requirements. In my view, the almost automatic

use of the veto is unacceptable. In the bipolar world this

practice largely cancelled out the possibility of conducting

peace enforcement operations, because in those years any

force represented, to some extent, one pole or the other.

With the end of the cold war, the possibility of using

collective decisions to bring about peace reappeared. The

decision taken against the aggression in Kuwait gave many

the hope that from then on the Security Council would be

bound by shared principles and that an ethical approach

would prevail. There were other encouraging episodes as

well. But in the case of Kosovo, a new cold breeze

seemed to have begun to blow from the Security Council.

Despite its humane motivations, the operation carried out

by NATO — like any ethical action today — also

contained a pragmatic component. Had NATO not

intervened in Kosovo, the influx of refugees would

inevitably have upset the fragile balance in that extremely

important part of Europe. Perhaps a number of States

would have been drawn into the conflict. We might even

have witnessed a big Balkan war.

In today’s world an ethical approach in international

politics is justified from a pragmatic standpoint as well.

It is from a position of morality that we should act if we

want to do good for mankind. Morality should be the

basis of our policy, and it should become the pillar of the

new thinking of the twenty-first century.

We are encouraged by the Secretary-General’s

statement that measures to reform the Security Council

will be taking place shortly and that the reform will

enable us to act in accordance with the norms of

international law when addressing regional conflicts in the

future.

Regardless of the serious threats existing today, it

would not be an overstatement to say that mankind has

never in the course of history had a more singular

opportunity to create a just world order and a more

harmonious community of nations. True, occasionally

confrontational rhetoric can still be heard, but I am

convinced that today’s controversies between East and

West are ghosts of the past, artificially grafted onto the

present. One may argue that this is done mostly to

camouflage the acute internal problems of individual

States. The generation that ended the cold war, the most

dangerous conflict in the history of mankind, without

spilling blood, can find a common language between

continents, States and individual people and, through

civilized dialogue, shorten the route leading to the

resolution of global problems today and in the future.

Now that we have overcome the dividing lines of the

ideological confrontation, we must learn how to erase

other lines that divide the peoples of our world into rich

and poor, educated and uneducated. In this process too, a

new approach and new thinking are critical. Those who

spoke before me have already mentioned that

globalization should not mean only access to markets,

free trade across borders, free movement of capital and

financial interdependence. All this should be paralleled by

the globalization of responsibility for the fate of the

25

planet and the realization that today’s world is too small to

allow for the painless coexistence of affluence and poverty.

We must find ways to alleviate the burden of debt on the

poorest developing States. Otherwise, the perpetual pressure

of a shortage in financial resources will render them unable

to emerge from poverty and, certainly, unequipped to build

a free society.

Assisting them in building free societies is a pragmatic

objective, not merely an ethical cause. In today’s

interdependent world the poverty of States will produce

echoes of terrorism, drugs and crime in others. In order to

be secure, the future world must consist of at least

moderately well-off, free nations that will pursue

transparent and predictable domestic and foreign policies.

I recall appeals made by the leaders of many developed

States at different international forums, including President

Clinton’s reassuring remarks at the annual meeting of the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank,

where he underlined the critical importance of relieving the

debt burden on poor nations.

There are also appeals to the effect that we should

enter the twenty-first century with developing and

economically weak nations freed of the heavy burden of

debt. We could, in fact, think of a 10-year programme

designed to resolve the problem of debts right at the outset

of the twenty-first century. This would be a most fair

decision which, at the threshold of a new century and a

new millennium, would become a kind of beacon guiding

many a nation to a brighter future.

I have said many times that I am generally optimistic

about the future of mankind. This optimism is grounded in

the belief that we are slowly acquiring experience; we can

learn and we can be transformed. The Marshall Plan and

post-war Europe, which have vanquished the chimera of

antagonisms and showed new ways of integration, are good

examples of this.

In 1985, when many from this platform spoke of “star

wars” and the end of humanity, I declared that the new

thinking offered to the world not “star wars”, but a “star

peace”. I thank God that this declaration did not remain

simply a dream, and that mankind is gradually emerging

from the nightmare of nuclear war, both on the ground and

in the sky. This gives me reason to hope that humankind,

equipped with the capacity for constant intellectual renewal,

will live its next century with a single mind which will

make it an epoch of peace and freedom, justice and

universal harmony.