Italy, 1992

First of all, I have great pleasure in congratulating you. Sir,

and your country, Bulgaria, on your election as President of the General

Assembly. I should also like to express Italy's satisfaction, and my own, at

seeing here present the delegations of the new States admitted to our

Organization during the past year: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Slovenia,

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. May I be permitted to extend a

particularly warm welcome to the delegation of San Marino, a State with which

Italy has close ties of very long standing.

I should particularly like to express my Government's most sincere

appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who is

giving the United Nations the benefit of his wealth of experience in political

affairs and diplomacy. Even in his first year he has already worked

tirelessly and constructively to apply the principles which we all support and

which are enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.

The points I am about to make follow on the comments, which Italy fully

endorses, made by the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, the current

President of the European Community.

Since the historic events of 1989, no General Assembly session has been

held, or will be held in the near future, against the same international

background as the session of the previous year. Since the demise of

bipolarism, international society has become subject to processes of

reaggregation which are made more laborious and arduous by an array of

historical, cultural, ethnic, religious and nationalistic factors. There are

certain groups that, wishing to assert their own specificity, are not content

to be recognized and safeguarded within the State framework to which they

belong, but seek to express their own identity in the form of statehood.

In the East, what was once a monolithic structure has been falling apart,

and, in some cases, is being fragmented into a multiplicity of separate

entities, each demanding to translate its own history, culture and national

identity into an international personality. In the process, they are

resorting to all available means, including conflict and violence.

The obstacles preventing the restoration of equilibrium are not really

new: they derive from factors that have long been chafing under the heavy yoke

of dictatorship. Constrained in ideological straitjackets, they have been

unable to engage in an open dialectic. Denied all opportunities for natural

development, they have maintained the potential for confrontation and conflict.

With the fall of ideologies and the break-up of the Soviet empire,

the nightmare of a nuclear holocaust has receded. But while the spectre

of a world war has been banished, we are still seeing a proliferation of

local wars. These and the manifold antagonisms underlying them now pose a

new threat, particularly in geographical areas that have regained their

freedom but find it marred by violence and conflict and are unable to

build a new structure based on tolerance and peace.

There are therefore hotbeds of war, signs of revolt and unresolved

conflicts in areas formerly belonging to the Soviet empire, which is now

divided into a number of republics united only by tenuous economic

relations and very fragile political ties.

In Central Europe, ancient nations which have graduated from limited

to full sovereignty are endeavouring to become pluralistic democracies

with a market economy.. They, too, are having their share of problems.

And how can we forget the war raging in the very heart of Europe

the most complex, dangerous and tragic of all these conflicts and the one

thus far untouched by all international appeals? In the territory of the

former Yugoslavia, and particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, bloodshed

and strife are accompanied by violations of the dignity of the human

person. After the horrors of the Second World War, we had all hoped never

again to witness acts of discrimination and violence against those

belonging to a different ethnic group.

What gives.us cause for pessimism is the fact that after the London

Conference a new and original experiment, which brought together round

the conference table the United Nations, represented by its

Secretary-General, the 12 members of the European Community, the members

of the United Nations Security Council, and representatives of Serbia and

Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia, and

after clear commitments were entered into and undertakings were even

signed on such matters as cessation of the violence, control over heavy

weapons, the cessation of "ethnic cleansing" and the closure of

concentration camps, nothing I say nothing - has been done apart from

some occasional checks on heavy weapons.

In spite of the assurances and undertakings given by Prime Minister

Panic, which we consider sincere and deserving of support, shooting

continues in the towns and in the mountains, and planes are being shot

down, as in the case of an Italian aircraft carrying relief supplies.

Four airmen died in that incident, and three French soldiers belonging to

the United Nations Protection Force have been killed. Many other lives

have been lost. A miserable winter lies ahead and people will suffer from

hunger, cold and disease. It is now too dangerous to provide humanitarian

assistance, and the threatened sanctions are not entirely watertight.

Can the international community and its institutions permit this

ongoing tragedy to persist in spite of the solemn promises and pledges

made at high-level peace conferences? Can the perpetrators of heinous and

odious crimes be allowed to escape international judgement, also at the

legal level? This question must be answered by those whose duty it is to

do so, including myself, in the appropriate forums.

However, going beyond politics, I should like to reiterate an appeal

voiced by one of the greatest writers of this century:

"What we need today is a 'militant' humanism imbued with the

conviction that the principles of liberty, tolerance and doubt must

not be exploited or defeated by a fanaticism that knows no doubts.

If European humanism has lost its robust capacity to review its

ideas it will end in ruin, and we will have a Europe whose name is

no more than a geographical term."

In the third world, too, the end of bipolarism has eliminated for

many States the need to "belong" and to heed the dictates of a particular

bloc, even in a non-aligned context. Crises exist also in this area, as

in the case of Somalia, Iraq and Mozambique, although we hope to see this

latter crisis resolved, also as a result of Italy's mediation efforts.

At this point we should ask ourselves a question: Now that the gulf

between East and West has been bridged, are we not about to face a rift

between North and South? We must counter this danger and reactivate the

dialogue in all possible forums and translate the concept of assistance

into a living reality. We should also oppose methods and procedures that

use development cooperation to help the economic agents of donor

countries; work on the basis of established programmes; ensure that

assistance is not wrongfully diverted both in the countries of origin and

in those of destination; and reorganize and coordinate the various sources

of financing. Italy realizes that it has not yet reached, owing to its

financial imbalances, the generous development assistance targets it had

set for itself. A reorganization of the country's financial structures

will also facilitate a renewed effort to fulfil this pledge.

Now that the Rio Conference has been held, international cooperation will

have to reconcile the needs of development with the equally pressing need to

protect the environment. Italy, which supports the establishment of the

United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development, undertakes to implement

the Rio recommendations in an effort involving governments as well as

non-governmental organizations.

Chile's proposal for a world social conference, which Italy warmly

supports, opens up yet another important field of endeavour for the United

Nations.

In surveying this new international scene, we have no reason to lament or

regret the passing of the bipolar structure of the world. We cannot forget

that we paid for the containment of a global threat with a peace guaranteed by

the menace of nuclear war, by the denial of freedom to millions of human

beings, by violations of the fundamental rights of man and by the inaction of

a society that destroyed resources, stunted the growth of its own leadership

and is now posing the same old problems in a more acute form.

The ideological confrontation has ended with the downfall of the largest

ideological system in our history, the communist system, but now that this

ideology has collapsed, problems have remained in individual nations and in

the world as a whole. The names of these problems are hunger, disease,

environmental degradation and political instability. It would indeed be an

irreversible defeat for mankind were the world of affluence, production and

consumption of our generation to confuse the downfall of ideologies with the

collapse of all values and if it were to forget that in every national

society, and particularly in relations between the industrialized world and

the developing countries, the two concepts of solidarity and interdependence

need to be translated into political action.

An example of this need is provided by the problem of Somalia. This

country tragically illustrates the total detachment and lack of concern shown

by the affluent societies towards countries plagued by poverty and disease,

but the fate of this country also exemplifies the harm caused to people by

prolonged power struggles that are never resolved. The country is divided in

half. The capital, Mogadishu, is also divided, and like other population

centres lacks essential services. The people are suffering from malnutrition

and their health is in jeopardy. Armed youths, some no older than 14, are

defending the territory by violent means. They do not attend school because

they are unable to do so. We must gratefully acknowledge the initiative taken

by the United Nations and its Secretary-General in sending a Special

Representative, Ambassador Sahnoun, who is doing outstanding work in the field

of humanitarian assistance and in the service of peace.

I myself paid a two-day visit to the capital and parts of the interior.

I found assistance facilities deplorable, and I spoke individually with the

persons who have the power to make war or peace in an effort to promote peace

initiatives. Anyone, regardless of region or religious affiliation, who is

able to assist in the peace process must do so, because Somalia needs

guidance, partners and, in short, a government. We must therefore give urgent

attention to the need for an international initiative involving organizations

and countries able to contribute to the pacification and reconstruction of

Somalia, with the active participation of the United Nations.

At this point, I should like to emphasize one of the most delicate and

problematical, but also most promising points of contact between North and

South, namely, the Mediterranean. Italy is currently following, in a spirit

of optimism and active support, the promising developments in the peace

process designed to end the Arab-Israeli conflict and provide a solution to

the Palestinian question. Italy is aware that this hoped-for solution should

also lead to the removal of a burden that has jeopardized the prospects for

promoting a climate of peace and collaboration in the Mediterranean. Our

expectations, which, we believe, are shared by the entire international

community, thus extend beyond the vital objective of achieving mutual

acceptance between all the peoples of the Middle East and look forward to a

future characterized by sincere commitment to the process of dialogue and

cooperation in the economic as well as in other fields in order to build peace.

In trying today to identify possible means of reconstituting the

international order, we find that regional groupings can play a unifying role,

whether they follow the path of integration or confine themselves to close

cooperation in the economic field, in foreign policy or in security matters.*

In Western Europe, we have built and tested structures that have brought

about a phenomenon quite different from the situation now prevailing in the

troubled Eastern part of the continent.

The need to defend democracy, the vast scope of economic development,

spurred by technological progress, and the necessity of preserving the values

of European culture and history, so that Europe can again play a major role in

international society have led us to attach less importance to the theory and

practice that nations must necessarily take the form of States. They

phenomena have shown us that large areas of State sovereignty can be

administered jointly in a supranational context and that such a link can also

make war impossible. The process is certainly not an easy one, because it

must be achieved through consensus and because obstacles, as we have seen in

the last few days, crop up at every turn.

European integration has repeatedly proved capable of overcoming the

difficulties it has encountered. It is a mistake to speak, as some have done

recently, of delays or setbacks in the process of further integration

established at Maastricht. At their meeting held here in New York, the

Foreign Ministers of the Community took note of the positive outcome of the

French referendum and reaffirmed their determination to ratify the Treaty

within the time stipulated without renegotiating it.

The phenomenon of European integration can be seen as an attractive

example and also as a factor for re-aggregation and stability in Central and

Eastern Europe. In this context, the Commonwealth of Independent States could

be a stabilizing element in so far as it can offer its former components valid

prospects for association.

A significant link between various components of the European continent

is provided by the Central European Initiative, which Italy continues to

support.

In the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), nations both large and

small have gained the conviction that war can never again be a means of

solving problems between them. That alliance has now formed an association in

the framework of the North Atlantic Council with countries that were formerly

its adversaries.

Since Helsinki II, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe

(CSCE) has been setting up institutional machinery to assist it in better

performing its tasks.

Examples of integration are to be found not only in Europe but on every

continent, and they encompass a variety of forms, ranging from the more tried

and tested institutions, such as the Andean Pact and the Association of

South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), to more recent initiatives, such as the

common market of four South American countries (MERCOSUR), or completely new

developments, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Also

very important are the new forms of cooperation in certain specific and highly

sensitive areas, such as the nuclear sector. The recent agreement between

Argentina and Brazil would appear to be very promising.

The formation of regional associations is a course worth pursuing and an

effective means of strengthening international society. The United Nations

might find this a useful means of consolidating the peace.

The problems in whose solution the United Nations will increasingly be

involved deal not only with relations between States but also with their

internal structure and their components in terms of minorities and ethnic

groups. Italy does not have an answer, but it does have concrete experience

to contribute to the international community: the solution to the Alto Adige

problem. That dispute between Italy and Austria, which was brought before the

United Nations in the period 1960-1961, was officially brought to a conclusion

last June. That conclusion came as a result of a lengthy process involving

the elaboration and application at the national level of a package of measures

adopted by Italy in consultation with the representatives of the

German-speaking population of Alto Adige. Those measures cover all aspects of

civilian life and provide one of the most progressive examples of minority

protection in Europe.

We feel that the settlement of that issue proves that autonomy, when

adequately guaranteed by domestic legal provisions, serves to strengthen

rather than weaken harmony in a national setting, while also promoting

good-neighbourly relations and international cooperation across borders.

There is no doubt that in the changed conditions in which we are living

the United Nations will have greater responsibility and will therefore need

greater authority and more effective means of performing its mission; hence

the discussions concerning a "new United Nations", that is, an Organization

capable of moving in new directions to satisfy the widely felt need for some

kind of world order or government.

It is the members of the Assembly that, in conformity with the Charter

and in fulfilment of the obligations deriving from it, must assume the status

and responsibility not only of peace-loving countries, but also of States that

renounce the use of force as a means of settling international disputes and

consider the protection of human rights to be an inescapable duty.

We welcome the appearance of a new and compelling document which should

serve as a basis for discussion in the Organization. I am referring once

again to "An Agenda for Peace", the Secretary-General's report on preventive

diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping. Preventive diplomacy should be a

means of defusing potential conflicts before they reach the critical threshold

of a confrontation.

This preventive approach calls also for prompt steps to guarantee

through mechanisms contemplated in General Assembly resolution 46/36 L the

transparency of international arms transfers and of their production. The

same applies to the convention banning chemical weapons, which has finally

been submitted to the Assembly for approval and which will institute a global

monitoring system with unprecedented powers of on-site verification.

Peace-keeping must now be approached and applied today in innovative ways

so as to make more effective the linkage between action to prevent a

sharpening of armed conflict and the search for negotiated solutions.

It is also worth giving in-depth consideration to the possibility of

using "peace-enforcement" units, not just to perform the tasks of traditional

peace-keeping forces, in other words to intervene where a cease-fire exists,

but in order to restore and maintain it.

Lastly, a new need arises from the existing conflicts, the need to

supplement peace-keeping and peacemaking instruments by providing adequate

military protection for humanitarian assistance efforts.

In order to cope with all these requirements we will need adequate

structures and resources. Also, Italy along the lines here illustrated by

the French Foreign Minister is prepared to give its own concrete

contribution, as it has proved with its recent offer of men and equipment

formulated in the framework of the Yugoslav crisis.

The situation of former Yugoslavia also highlights the importance of the

regional dimension in pursuing "An Agenda for Peace". It now seems that the

option of a regional solution for regional conflicts as provided in the

Charter could be effectively applied in a variety of ways in a kind of

variable geometry of peace. An important example is the format of the London

Conference, which I have already mentioned. Here the regional dimension is

not an alternative to United Nations involvement; it also operates on the

basis of a creative formula for the sharing of responsibilities.

The United Nations system in any case seems destined increasingly to rely

in practice on regional organizations - ranging from the Organization of

American States (OAS) to the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the

Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) and communities,

alliances or unions of States, as is the case for the European Community, the

Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in

the Yugoslav situation.

Important new developments compel us also to rethink the limitations on

the application of certain traditional concepts and principles underlying

international relations. To rethink certainly does not mean to reject. It

means avoiding all rigid and absolute definitions and interpreting principles

in such a way as to preclude unbalanced applications that are bound to be in

conflict.

We may note, for example, that at the urging of a collective conscience

that now knows no boundaries the principle of non-interference in the domestic

affairs of States is being increasingly reviewed in the light of the grave

dangers threatening the survival of entire population groups. It is also

clear that if every ethnic, religious or language group were to claim its own

State there would be endless fragmentation and, consequently, instability.

From the discussions held during the first few days of the session it is

becoming increasingly clear that all Members of the Organization agree in

their evaluation of the central role regained by the United Nations. We all

seem to realize that this strengthening of the United Nations will require not

only the assignment of new roles but also the provision of adequate powers and

resources. The alternative would be the anti-historical reconstitution of an

oligarchy made up of those countries having the greatest capacity for

unilaterally assuming the role of guarantors of international legality.

We must protect the United Nations new capacity for action with greater

vigilance and a keen sense of responsibility without becoming entrenched in

positions that would preclude future institutional development.

Italy, along other countries, has already stated that the question of

revising certain parts of the Charter relating to matters such as the

composition of the Security Council must be adequately debated. We still

believe that the Council could be made more authoritative and representative

by increasing the number of temporary and permanent members, choosing the

latter on the basis of objective criteria.

Italy will also assert its aspiration for a more adequate representation

in the Security Council at that moment, unless institutional developments in

the European Union will not allow at a certain stage the institution of a

European seat in the Security Council.

I should like to conclude by observing that the United Nations has the

main responsibility for handling the difficult yet exciting international

developments we are now witnessing. It will do so with tools of crisis

management that are suitable to the world of today, a world in which it is

becoming increasingly necessary to accept limitations in the area of national

sovereignty, guaranteed by the objectivity of a supranational collective

system, by using political instruments and procedures wherever possible, or by

applying coercive measures if they are needed.

What needs to be preserved are the aims of the Charter, which continue to

be not only valid but indeed essential. But in a world that is now quite

different from the world of 1945, the transformation of which began to

accelerate in 1989, it would be unthinkable to suggest that we should avoid

taking speedy and courageous action to devise new instruments, change our

thinking and review the powers and composition of United Nations organs. Only

by maintaining a fruitful polarity between permanent goals and new

instruments, to which we must all contribute, will we be able to meet the

challenges of our times.