Italy, 1993

I would like to express our

warmest congratulations to Guyana and to you personally,

Sir, on your election to the presidency of the General

Assembly at its forty-eighth session.

I am also pleased that in the past year the United

Nations family has grown to include the Former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia,

Andorra, Monaco and Eritrea. We wish to extend a special

welcome to the last two in view of our long-standing historic

and human ties.

Italy, deeply committed to European political and

economic unity, shares the views expressed by the Belgian

Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is the current Chairman of

the European Council.

We are not simply voicing conventional wisdom if we

stress the depth of the transformations that define the times

in which we live. Every day brings forth new proof that the

end of the cold war has brought us to a watershed. We must

carefully decipher the lessons and courageously shoulder the

new tasks with which this moment has presented us.

As the Secretary-General said in Milan, international

law is the main instrument at our disposal; it is not merely

a regulatory instrument but the very language of the relations

between States. But the social pressures we are now facing

are profoundly new, generating changes that international

law must begin to reflect as it translates new needs into new

institutions.

If today we believe we can govern this transformation,

and if we refuse to yield to the disorderly growth of a new

international order, we have first and foremost the renewed

vitality and prominence of the United Nations to thank.

The United Nations has evolved on the foundation of

practices that are solidly inscribed in the Charter, while

discovering new ways to pursue its aims. Take

peace-keeping, a practice from the United Nations earliest

days that has recently acquired a special role. Today peace

is more likely to be threatened by the explosion of internal

conflicts (though at times with transnational components)

than by acts of open aggression across international borders.

Peace-keeping, peace-enforcement, and humanitarian relief

missions all take place in the midst of conflicts with

complex political causes, and tangled ethnic and national

roots. In such an environment, the traditional juxtaposition

of diplomacy and military action no longer corresponds to

the reality of the present, and a broad initial mandate is not

sufficient concretely to define operations in the field.

The unity of military command is an unquestionable

principle, without which no operation can succeed.

However, the political management of an operation cannot

be confined strictly to military options, especially when the

real issue is not the legitimacy of the use of force (which

may be clearly authorized by the Security Council’s

mandate), but its advisability and timing in view of the

political objectives. I would add that in situations involving

crowds of civilians, we must consider making it our policy

always to give pride of place to the use of non-lethal

anti-riot equipment. This is not only an Italian concern.

Spokesmen for other countries have also stressed that

countries contributing troops to United Nations

peace-keeping missions need mechanisms that would exempt

their troops from passively abiding by orders that may be

illegal, inconsistent, or in contradiction with the aims of the

operation.

The United Nations peace-keeping practices reveal an

awareness of the need for adequate prior consultation of

troop-contributing countries. To this end, while Article 29

of the Charter provides a general guideline for the

establishment of bodies subsidiary to the Security Council,

Article 44 could provide a more fitting solution to the

problem. It provides for the Security Council to establish

16 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

consultative procedures with non-members of the Security

Council that have been requested to contribute troops to

peace-keeping and security operations. Today, even in the

absence of formal agreements such as those provided for by

Article 43, I believe we should extend Article 44, by

analogy, to operations conducted under Chapter VII of the

Charter.

In his "An Agenda for Peace", the Secretary-General

defined peace-building as laying the necessary political and

socio-economic foundations for a lasting peace after the

phase of open conflict has ended. The reconstruction - or

the establishment - of legal and economic institutions in

critical areas and countries represents the main prerequisite

of an enduring peace.

These premises form the basis of what Italy means to

propose in order to move beyond the current situation in

Somalia - a situation characterized somewhat by giving pride

of place to the military aspect of the United Nations

Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) and by the standstill in

the political process. We believe that it is essential that the

United Nations step up its political efforts at peacemaking by

appointing a personality of great international prestige to

renew the political and diplomatic initiative with all the

Somali factions. At the same time, the mechanisms of the

Addis Ababa Conference should be reactivated in such a

way as to increase the involvement of the African nations

and their institutions in the normalization of Somalia. But

the predominantly political nature of our operation to restore

hope in Somalia must also be translated into the progressive

reconstruction of Somalia’s basic economic and social

structures and the reorganization of a government and its

administrative structures. This requires broad development

programmes, to which Italy’s commitment has remained

unswerving even in the most difficult moments.

Italy welcomes the renewed central role of the United

Nations, and at the same time supports a reform of its

institutional mechanisms.

Let us first consider the possibility of a change in the

membership of the Security Council. As Italy emphasized

to the Secretary-General last June, since the Security Council

is moving towards a future of greater burdens and

responsibilities, its representativeness and effectiveness must

develop in parallel. What we suggest is that, in addition to

the permanent members with veto power and the

non-permanent members, a third category be established. It

would be made up of countries able to make a special

contribution to achieving the objectives of the United

Nations. What matters is not drawing up controversial lists,

but identifying objective criteria for selection, based on

economic factors, human resources, culture, and mass

communications. These countries would rotate two at a

time, thereby becoming semi-permanent members of the

Council.

We must all recognize the renewed central role of the

United Nations in international relations, but avoid

interpreting this role in exclusive terms.

The regional dimension of multilateralism, which is

described in Chapter VIII of the Charter, has today a great

role. Take the Conference on Security and Cooperation in

Europe (CSCE), which has been explicitly defined as a

regional institution on the basis of the United Nations

Charter. Italy is about to assume the chairmanship of the

CSCE. We believe that it is being called on to play an

increasing role, mainly in preventive diplomacy but also in

peace-keeping and in fostering negotiated settlements. In

this regional framework, we would welcome more stringent

regulations on arms transfers that build on the present United

Nations provisions.

If it is true that without peace there can be neither

development nor satisfaction of social needs, it is also true

that conflict is fed everywhere not only by the urge to

subjugate the adversary violently but also by the existence of

social injustice, imbalance and poverty.

The first and basic injustice is the violation of human

rights. When the international community defends human

rights, it is pursuing absolute and autonomous values that

must be protected. At the same time, it is eradicating many

of the causes of violence between groups and nations.

We hope that an agreement between the groups will

finally make it possible to end the fighting in Bosnia.

However, as the international community prepares to support

the implementation of an agreement, we must not forget the

war crimes and the crimes against humanity committed

during this tragic conflict. Thus, we applaud the

establishment of the International Tribunal and hope that -

impartial and free from political influences - it will begin its

work at the earliest possible date. Where appropriate, the

Tribunal should hand down tough sentences, although I take

exception to the death sentence, which Italy firmly opposes

on the basis of its time- honoured juridical traditions.

Forty-eighth session - 30 September l993 17

I wonder if the international community could not

summon the same determination to establish an international

criminal court to prosecute the most serious human rights

violations.

Italy is convinced that human rights prosper in systems

based on democracy and an open-market economy. That is

why we firmly support Governments that are committed to

such goals and work courageously through hardships and

temporary crises.

An issue of great contemporary relevance is the

protection of minorities - which cannot be separated from

the protection of individuals, for the two issues are based on

the same hopes, the same principles of freedom and the

same respect for cultural, religious and philosophical

differences. Too often, the territorial integrity of the State

has been contrasted with the rights of minorities. Instead,

we must demonstrate that in a democracy, a democracy that

leaves room for direct participation and for true pluralism of

identity and choice, it is possible to balance these two

equally worthy values. We must demonstrate that there is

no contradiction between the protection of minorities and the

stability of borders. On the contrary, as the experience of

my country shows, they can reinforce each other.

The principles, institutions and rights that make peace

more solid are a primary consideration. But we must never

underestimate the often-decisive role played by weapons.

The accumulation and development of weapons endangers

stability since the perception of a threat triggers actions that

are harmful for peace and economically ruinous.

That is why disarmament and non-proliferation, even in

the post-cold-war era, must remain one of our main

objectives and why we highly value the message delivered

from this podium by the President of the United States.

We need to complete past disarmament initiatives that

we have agreed to and begun, and both confirm and expand

existing tools. We strongly support the early ratification of

the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II). The

Non-Proliferation Treaty must be strictly observed, which is

why North Korea’s unclear attitude towards that Treaty is a

matter of such great concern. That Treaty must also be

strengthened and made universal. In 1995, we should all

join together to renew the Treaty unconditionally and for an

indefinite period.

Today we are witnessing the emergence of a collective

consciousness, the expansion of a shared system of values,

an international citizenship based on common, objective

interests and the spread of more uniform lifestyles. An

Italian philosopher, Giambattista Vico, wrote:

"Ultimately, once the cities got to know each other,

having shared dealings in war, alliances and trade, they

came, to an unprecedented extent, to the recognition of

natural civic rights as a natural right of all peoples, that

is of all united nations - as if the world were one large

city - which is the law of humankind."

That was written in the early eighteenth century.

Faced with a world beset by multiple conflicts, in

which individual nations or groups often pursue their

interests through the use of force, it would be intellectually

dishonest and morally reprehensible to adopt attitudes of

resignation or fatalism. Violence is no more natural than

peaceful coexistence and collaboration between peoples and

groups. Acting against violence and for coexistence is

therefore not only morally desirable, but actually practicable.

One such possibility has been eloquently demonstrated

in recent days by the hopeful development of a peaceful

future in the Middle East thanks to the courage of the

Israelis, the Palestinians and the Arab countries. As a

Mediterranean country with a long tradition of active

involvement in the cause of stability and peace in the area,

Italy is ready to contribute further to help the entire region

take the first steps on a long and complex journey toward

peace and cooperation, with borders permanently defined in

accordance with Security Council resolutions. The same

possibility is confirmed by the promising steps being taken

towards democracy and coexistence in South Africa.

The awareness of the possibility and the moral duty to

act must also inspire our attitude towards the economic and

social problems that dehumanize the lives of millions of

people all over the world. I am referring to development

policies, which should be conducted in a spirit of solidarity

and on the basis of multilateral coordination. Such

coordination must also be extended to bilateral initiatives,

while we also need closer cooperation between agencies.

That approach has already produced successful results in

Mozambique and Eritrea, and even in war-torn Somalia. It

must now be applied to endorse the peace process in the

Middle East. The donors’ conference about to open in

Washington will provide an important occasion to translate

our political support into action.

We know the limits of our actions, and we cannot allow

ourselves to be swayed by the temptations of noble but

abstract Utopias. It is our responsibility to draw up

18 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

principles and instruments that are valid for the times in

which we live and that can help us to manage and to

transform in a more rational and humane way the reality that

surrounds us.

Each country must promote this action on its own or

through alliances or other groups. But it is ultimately here,

in the framework of this Organization and in view of its

universal aims and membership, that each country will have

to contribute to the solution of these problems. To do this,

we must not limit ourselves to declaring principles but,

rather, on the basis of those principles we must be willing to

hand the United Nations the tools it needs. The international

community - in other words, we as Member States - is

giving the United Nations greater and greater responsibilities.

But the responsibilities of the United Nations are our

responsibilities. The problems of the United Nations are our

problems.