Kazakhstan, 1992

First, I should

like to express our profound satisfaction. Sir, at your election to your high

post, and we wish you every success in carrying out your duties as President

of the United Nations General Assembly at its current session.

At the preceding session the Republic of Kazakhstan was unanimously

admitted as a Member of the United Nations. On behalf of the people of

Kazakhstan, I have the honour to express our deep gratitude for that step and

to declare that the Republic of Kazakhstan, as a peace-loving State, is fully

capable of fulfilling its obligations, as defined in the Charter of the United

Nations, and of making a constructive contribution in all the spheres of

activity of this authoritative international Organization.

The current session is no less important for us, since during this

session the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan has for the first time,

been given the opportunity to speak from this rostrum. I take this

opportunity to extend cordial greetings to all the States Members of the

United Nations. It would be difficult by now to conceive of the present world

order without the United Nations. The world community places many hopes in

this unique international organization, chief among them being the formation

of a reliable machinery, reliable stability and security.

The world has now come close to the threshold beyond which the visible

disturbing challenges of the future compel us to adopt a new quality of

coordination, a new way to organize our joint efforts.

We must clarify what is the essence of this new and as yet unknown

process, and we must master it within the context of our whole community, our

continent, our region and our own country. These are the aspects on which I

should like to focus Members' attention.

The first aspect relates to the world community itself and the role of

the United Nations in the world. At this session there has already emerged an

understanding of the new realities, which must be defined in a new agenda for

the entire world. It is no accident that this is the title of

Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's well-known report. We believe that

his concept of preventive diplomacy is an extremely timely, politically

rational initiative, in the realization of which all members of the world

community should become involved.

In this connection I regard preventive diplomacy as a system of political

and socio-economic measures designed to prevent hotbeds of potential tension

from bursting into flame. An important place in it is occupied by the

conditions which are needed for maintaining social and political stability and

are visible on the surface and by those problems the detection of whose very

existence requires prognosticatory analysis in depth.

It is not difficult to understand that the question of borders is a

powder-keg that could explode at any moment, and the explosion usually hurts

not only those who are playing with fire but also many others who have only a

very remote connection with the fuse-lighters. In my view, it is obvious that

even one precedent in the revision of currently existing borders would cause a

chain reaction of geopolitical disintegration with unforeseeable consequences.

In referring to the importance of the principle of the inviolability of

State territory-, I should like to emphasize that the rights of national

minorities today are often thought to be identical with the rights of nations

to self-determination, extending even to the establishment of independent

States. If we were to hold to such an approach, then, hypothetically

speaking, thousands of economically weak sovereign States might arise all over

the world. Such a situation would be a striking demonstration of turning a

principle into a fetish, carrying it to the ultimate absurdity.

I am convinced that the world community, which today quite rightly gives

so much attention to the rights of national minorities, should define clearly

the criteria for such rights, in order to ensure that human rights and the

rights of nations will triumph on the basis of the triumph of democracy and

peace. Otherwise, under cover of a nation's right to self-determination, the

integrity of any national State will be called into question, and the

corrosive principle of separatism will go on without end.

At the same time, taking a look forward from the present day to the

twenty-first century in a search for hotbeds of potential tension, I wish to

draw the world community's attention, among other questions that give cause

for great concern, to the problem of water in the Central Asian region, which

in time might become a source of dangerous disputes in the very heart of the

oldest continent. I am convinced that we need to speed up work now, not

later, on the preparation of special United Nations projects that would

provide for a gradual and effective solution to the problem of furnishing

water resources to Central Asia.

I must point out that the decrease in geopolitical tension along

East-West lines and the increasingly dangerous confrontation between North and

South is a universally recognized fact. However, the emergence and

exacerbation of the second confrontation do not decrease the timeliness of the

first. The long-standing complexity of relations between East and West cannot

he dissipated with the breakup of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Accordingly, I believe that the proposed efforts for preventive diplomacy

in establishing, keeping and enhancing the peace should be exerted equally

along all the lines of global interaction. I stress this because some

distortions have already become visible in this connection. United Nations

efforts, to judge from the events of recent months, are predominantly

political and military-political in nature. We see more use being made of

prohibitions than of encouragement and incentives. These measures are aimed

at reducing the tensions, visible on the surface, but so far they have not had

any influence on the roots of the conflicts that have arisen and grown. The

real cause of these conflicts was recently pointed out from this rostrum. The

richest 20 per cent of the world's people, in the Northern and Western

countries, consume 83 per cent of the world's gross product, and the poorest

20 per cent of the world's people, in the countries of the South and the East,

only 1.4 per cent. As we can see, the income of the richest 20 per cent is

60 times that of the poorest 20 per cent. I would call this 60 to 1 ratio the

formula for world inequality. Until this gap begins to narrow, we shall not

have a real basis for the comprehensive prevention of conflicts.

I emphasize that, in the final analysis, we are not talking about

redistributing the income of the wealthiest 20 per cent for the benefit of the

poor. The world inequality formula should be changed not by reducing the

income of the wealthiest 20 per cent but by increasing that of the poorest

through organized assistance to help their countries develop. It may be

worthwhile to think about redirecting United Nations efforts towards genuine

conflict prevention and finding the root causes of conflicts. What practical

steps can be taken in this regard?

I can understand the Secretary-General's concern over the main problem

that impedes United Nations peace-keeping efforts the shortage of financial

resources. It is obvious that United Nations expenditures for the

establishment, maintenance and enhancement of peace must be increased each

year. But how can this be done?

As is well known, until 1992, United Nations expenditures on

peace-keeping totalled approximately US$8.3 billion, not even 1 per cent of

total annual defence expenditures in all countries at the end of the last

decade, which was approximately 1 trillion dollars.

I propose that all countries should, as a demonstration of their good

will, begin to set up a fund for United Nations peacemaking efforts on the

basis of the "one plus one" formula. This means that each State would begin

to transfer 1 per cent of its defence budget to the fund and would increase

its transfers by the same 1 per cent each year. Thus the amount allocated to

peacemaking in 10 years would increase tenfold.

I think that the national security of every member of the world community

would be by no means harmed but, on the contrary, actually strengthened by

such an action. It is appropriate to recall here the Eastern story which

tells of some people who held a contest of strength. One showed the power of

his muscles and fists, another found strength in the hardness of his skull,

the third in his fleetness of foot, the fourth in the sharpness of his

tongue. But a wise man, remembering the heart, without which no strength is

possible, suggested that they should compete in generosity. The generosity of

each country will be what determines the degree to which my proposal is

implemented a sort of competition for the benefit of the whole world. The

Republic of Kazakhstan is ready to begin this process immediately. There are.

of course, also other ways that can be provided for States to contribute to

the fund for United Nations peacemaking efforts.

The second aspect on which I should like to dwell is the problem of peace

and security in our continent of Asia or, more broadly, in Eurasia. I am

referring to the initiative put forward by the Republic of Kazakhstan to hold

a conference on Interaction and Confidence-building Measures in Asia (CICMA).

The idea of establishing structures for security and cooperation in Asia of

the same type as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)

has long been in the air but has not yet gained wide support.

The useful experience of the activities of continental organizations in

the Americas, in Africa and in Europe should, it would seem, impel Asia as

well to establish unified bodies for interaction and cooperation. But this is

not happening, and there are quite a few real reasons for that fact.

Politicians and analysts critical of the idea of setting up structures for

security and cooperation in Asia often advance the weighty argument that the

level of geographical, historical, economic, political social and cultural

heterogeneity among Asian countries is much higher than that among the

countries of Europe, the Americas, or Africa. Such heterogeneity in economic

and political matters naturally interferes with the action of continental

structures for collective security.

This can be countered with a well-known piece of Oriental wisdom: A

journey of a thousand steps starts with the first step. It is by no means

necessary to move towards a unified Asian structure and collective security in

all these types of interaction at once. It is sufficient to start levelling

out the heterogeneity in one area - for instance, in the military-political or

economic sphere - and then look for joint approaches in other fields of

cooperation. The move towards such a continental structure could take place

in many steps and on a stage-by-stage basis. For example, it could go from

bilateral relations through regional and continental structures and coalitions

in particular types of cooperation, through the elaboration of

confidence-building measures and collective security, as well as humanitarian,

economic and cultural interaction, to common continental bodies for

cooperation on a broad spectrum of problems.

Prospects for this process and its main stages might be as follows:

The first stage would consist of preparatory work to organize and conduct

the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-building Measures in Asia

(CICMA). The approximate time-frame would be 1992 to 1994.

The second stage would involve accelerating the work of CICMA, increasing

the number of its members, adapting it to the framework of a Conference on

Security and Cooperation in Asia (CSCA) and forming pan-Asian structures of

the CSCE type. The approximate time-frame could be 1994 to 1998.

The third stage would include defining the development of CSCA,

strengthening its permanent structures, interaction between CSCE and CSCA and

the creation of transcontinental bodies in particular areas of cooperation.

The approximate time-frame would be 1998 to 2000.

The fourth stage would consist in forming a unified transcontinental

conference on security and cooperation in Eurasia and creating machinery for

permanent interaction between the continental systems of collective security

in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas, with the further prospect of setting

up a unified global system of collective security and cooperation. The

approximate time-frame would be 2000 to 2005.

We in Asia live in a remarkable land. All the major religions of the

world Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam were born in the sacred

soil of our continent. All the spiritual teachers of mankind, ranging from

Lao-tse and Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ and Muhammad to the greatest of

contemporary thinkers, of the calibre of Mahatma Gandhi, were born in our part

of the world. Is it not possible for Asia to absorb everything that has been

accumulated over the ages and synthesize a new concept of continental

cooperation and collective security?

This position by no means presupposes any regional autarky. We are not

going to lock ourselves within continental borders. On the contrary, in the

interests of Asian countries and peoples, we shall collect the best of what

was born in other parts of the world.

I am convinced that we must make a collective search for the best way to

meet the challenges of the future and lay new foundations for mankind's

existence in a world more integrated than ever before. Accordingly, I suggest

that we should convene a special session or a United Nations conference to

discuss the problems of the post-confrontation era, for it is the mission of

the United Nations to play a decisive role in confirming new levels of

organization in the international community. The United Nations itself should

probably be reorganized to a certain extent, and this includes the question of

the membership of the Security Council.

The third aspect, which we cannot fail to mention, concerns the events

that are taking place in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

The fragile structure of our Commonwealth, set up at the end of last

year, does not yet fully take into account the age-old traditions of

interaction between States and peoples in this part of Eurasia. As a result,

the processes of transition to free-market economics and democracy in the CIS

are accompanied by increasing socio-economic and political instability, the

exacerbation of existing conflicts and the emergence of new ones.

Kazakhstan is making every possible effort to re-establish a common

customs and economic area in a new capacity within the framework of a unified

free-trade zone.

Realists in the CIS have no illusions as far as the $24 billion of

assistance promised to Russia is concerned. We take a calm view of the

neo-isolationist policy that some of the world's countries are pursuing

towards the CIS. We realize that only we ourselves, through our own efforts,

can stop industrial decline, the severing of economic ties, hyperinflation and

other destructive processes. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that

despite efforts to strengthen the principles of coordination and the process

of integration, contradictory trends may prevail in the CIS in the immediate

future, so that the entire territory of the Commonwealth could turn into an

area of instability and disintegration. I am certain that such a tragic

outcome would not be in the interest of anyone in the world.

In this connection, I believe that the concept of early conflict

detection and preventive diplomacy might find direct practical implementation

in the former Soviet federation. I am referring primarily to strengthening

the areas of stability that exist in the CIS and then gradually expanding

their borders by reducing tensions in the areas of conflict. To that end, I

propose setting up a regional centre, or a United Nations commission, on

preventive diplomacy in Central Asia. The headquarters of the centre could be

located at Alma-Ata, the capital of our State.

Lastly, I should like to discuss the vitally important issues of ecology

and environmental protection. For Kazakhstan, these issues are embodied in at

least two areas, the Aral Sea and Semipalatinsk.

The Aral Sea drying up; it is a zone of ecological catastrophe that

demands large-scale international emergency assistance. The desertification

of its basin, accompanied by the dissemination of 150 million tons of salty

dust, is causing drastic deterioration of the environment and increasing the

negative effects on the economy and the health of a vast region with a

population of more than 300 million inhabitants. If today this means tragedy

for tens of thousands of people, tomorrow, without emergency intervention by

the United Nations, it could mean tragedy for millions.

Kazakhstan is grateful for the decision by the leadership of the United

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to set up an assistance project for

developing a plan to save the Aral Sea and also grateful for the suggestion by

a group of UNEP experts that the Aral Sea basin should be declared a zone of

global ecological disaster.

The other severe ecological problem we are suffering from involves the

Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, which was built on Kazakh land against the

will of our people. The total power of the nuclear warheads that were set off

here in the atmosphere, on the ground and underground brought suffering to

more than half a million people; it is hundreds of times as large as the power

of the devices that brought tragedy to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

By a decision of our Government, we have closed down this source of

death, but tremendous amounts of resources will be needed to clean up this

region, to cure those who have suffered and to ensure the safety of the

children who will again be born here. The people of Kazakhstan will therefore

need active international assistance.

Today, on 5 October, we celebrate the anniversary of the creation of the

United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat). Recognizing its

unquestionable importance, Kazakhstan hopes for effective technical and

advisory assistance from the Centre to our programmes of governmental

development for urban and rural construction.

The Kazakh people has a proverb, "Elu zhylda el zhana," which literally

means, "The world becomes new every 50 years". The first half-century of the

existence of the United Nations has been marked by confrontation between

super-Powers and the burden of opposing military blocs. Now the world

community has a historic opportunity to find in the form of the United Nations

the means to bring about effective cooperation in the name of peace and

progress. We must do our utmost to take full advantage of it.