Poland, 1994

Let me express my great

pleasure at seeing Mr. Amara Essy presiding over our

deliberations. I am confident that, given his experience and

skills, this session will contribute to the further

enhancement of the role of the United Nations. Let me

also thank the Secretary-General for the thoughtful and

thorough review of the world situation, given in his annual

report - this in addition, of course, to our thanks for his

tireless work for the good of the Organization.

I would like to follow the point made by our Dutch

colleague regarding the increased responsibility of

individual Member States for the success of this institution,

let me say that the end of the cold war has been a source

of and a sound reason for satisfaction throughout the entire

world community. A series of "velvet revolutions" in

Central Europe, the dissolution of the USSR and

remarkable events in South Africa and the Middle East

have shaken the entire post-war geopolitical pattern of

"negative stability" - frozen enmity. As expected, the end

of the East-West confrontation and the disappearance of

competing blocs has proved beneficial to international

relations. The planet has become a safer place. Yet the

euphoria is fading, giving way to a sober evaluation of

events. Indeed, have all the "Berlin Walls" or "Iron

Curtains" been dismantled - especially economic barriers

that separate countries on a global or regional scale? Is the

"peace dividend" actually being paid? Has the North-South

development gap ceased to widen and to undermine the

newly acquired, still fragile global stability?

The old bipolar, confrontational world has gone. We

are not divided anymore. But we are not united either. In

fact, many problems, dormant or concealed until now, have

surfaced with startling force: ethnic conflicts, nationalisms,

religious intolerance. The "cold war" may very well be

replaced by a "cold peace" or, even worse, by "hot chaos".

Global cooperation will not come by itself. The

United Nations is best placed to lead its Members in an

effort to achieve it. However, are the nations ready for it?

Is the United Nations properly equipped to cope with the

task?

The question that should be asked first is not what

the United Nations could do for us, but what we - the

Member States - should do to unite the nations. A

contest between the two super-Powers no longer dictates

the course of history. The international scene, both

political and economic, has become pluralist, with

medium-sized and small countries emerging as

increasingly important actors. Previously, the role of

these countries was, at best, that of a go-between or

observer, rather than an active participant. Now they are

becoming partners in the multi-country discourse.

Multilateralism is becoming more important than ever.

Multilateral arrangements in various domains provide both

insurance of equal treatment and an opportunity to take

part, to contribute. Multilateralism increases the freedom

of action of individual States and the degree of their

responsibility.

Let me set forth briefly the way in which Poland, a

medium-sized country, perceives its role and duty - I

stress duty - as a partner in the international effort to

bring about global cooperation, to build a united world.

First, we develop friendly relations with neighbours.

The best testimony in this regard is found in the treaties

we have concluded with all our seven neighbours. We

regard those treaties as a great common accomplishment

by Poles, Belarusians, Czechs, Germans, Lithuanians,

Russians, Slovaks and Ukrainians. It was not always easy

to reach an agreement: hard diplomatic work,

imagination and willingness to compromise were required,

to say the least. But the result was very much worth the

effort. The treaties constitute a solid block of durable

rules based on international law, in a region of major

importance for the security of the continent and the world

at large.

Secondly, we are active in developing regional

cooperation. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and

Poland have formed a non-binding structure known as the

Visegrad group. It is not an organization; it has no

permanent bodies, not even a secretariat - a true rarity for

any international venture. The group did, however,

manage to work out a Central European Free Trade

Agreement (CEFTA).

Poland is also a partner in the Central European

Initiative and the Council of the Baltic Sea States.

Furthermore, we have recently reached out to our eastern

neighbours with a number of proposals to enhance

regional links.

24

Thirdly, we are impatiently and insistently striving to

become members of institutions whose membership has

been determined by the logic of the divided world. We all

agree they must not remain exclusive. It is "one Europe,

one world" that lies behind Poland’s efforts to join the

European Union, the Western European Union and the

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It was in this

context that Poland responded with determination and

confidence to the Partnership for Peace programme. By

virtue of its history, size and vital interests, Poland wants

to enter NATO not as a front-line State but, rather, as a

country furthering cooperation. We do not want to create

new divisions. On the contrary, we are striving to

overcome the remnants of the past divisions which are still

with us. It was also in this context that Poland entered into

the association agreement with the European Union, and it

is in this context that Poland is actively preparing for

membership. It is our strong desire to take part in the

process of integrating Europe so that it becomes more

secure, cooperative and hospitable; and to participate in an

effort to overcome the irrationalities of history - rivalry,

imperial divisions and nationalistic stereotypes.

Fourthly, Poland is a strong believer and a dedicated

participant in interregional and global actions. We are in

the forefront in promoting cooperation within the

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).

The CSCE is not only the symbol of the necessary bonds

of security but also a forum for practical cooperation across

three continents. We support the CSCE as a regional

arrangement within Chapter VIII of the United Nations

Charter.

Poland is a time-tested participant in United Nations

peace-keeping operations. Over 2,000 of our troops are

there to uphold the ideas in the Charter, whenever called to

duty by the Security Council.

Poland, finally, is also active in other areas of

international cooperation: in the economic, social, cultural,

educational and health fields as well as in the promotion of

human rights and fundamental freedoms as stipulated by

Article 13 of the Charter.

Medium- and small-sized States are potentially a great

asset of the United Nations; it has not so far been

sufficiently recognized, let alone utilized. States such as

Poland can play a stabilizing role and exert an important

beneficial influence on developments in their immediate and

more distant neighbourhood, and tangibly contribute to

global stability and security. In particular, they can be

expected to become nuclei of regional integration as they

should not be suspected of seeking to dominate or to

impose their will on others.

To act locally - that is, regionally - is practical and

effective. Medium-sized countries in consensus with

smaller States can, indeed, make a difference. However,

we should not allow a loose constellation of separate

villages to emerge. We need a global, united village.

Therefore, we need a framework for subregional, regional

and interregional cooperation and discipline to ensure

coherence. This is of course the raison d’être of the

United Nations. We are trying today to improve its

operations. Let me here draw attention to two specific

issues.

First, the fundamental task for the United Nations is

to maintain international peace and security. The role of

the Security Council has been in recent years broadened

by more frequent recourse to action under Chapter VII of

the Charter. On the one hand, that allows for a fresh look

at the security role of the United Nations, particularly in

the context of countries which do not enjoy sound

security guarantees. On the other hand, one cannot

remain indifferent to the Council’s decisions in cases

where sovereignty, democracy and human rights are

violated, or access to humanitarian assistance is hindered.

For this reason, Poland consistently makes an effort to

respond to the Council’s calls for action, be it in the

former Yugoslavia, Rwanda or, most recently, Haiti.

Poland shares the view that the increase in the

membership of the United Nations justifies the

enlargement of the Council. There are different

suggestions and ideas as to how this might best be done.

The principal criterion continues, for us, to be

preservation of the effectiveness of the Council.

Enlargement should be accomplished on a consensus basis

and as a package. The interests of all United Nations

regional groups need to be respected in the process. A

seat on the Council, permanent or not, cannot be

considered a matter of prestige. Indeed, it implies

increased responsibility and the ability to discharge it.

The Council’s decisions involving peace-keeping and

peace-enforcement measures, from sanctions to recourse

to force, give rise to various risks and sacrifices by third

countries. They include potential risk to the lives and

health of the troops and financial losses for which so far,

despite the provisions of Article 50, there is no adequate

compensation.

25

The security of the peace-keepers is of the utmost

importance. Work undertaken on a convention on the

safety of United Nations peace-keeping personnel should be

completed at the earliest date. There is also a need for

active dialogue between members of the Security Council,

the Secretary-General and troop-contributing States. Such

dialogue should be a standard practice in the case of

decisions which may affect the security of these troops.

Poland shares the view that: first, all United Nations

activities in the four fields - preventive diplomacy,

peace-keeping, peacemaking and post-conflict

peace-building - must be fully mandated and better planned,

organized and financed; secondly, regional organizations

should make a more significant contribution in the areas of

preventive diplomacy and peace-keeping, but one fully

consistent with the United Nations Charter; and, thirdly, a

specific mandate is to be sought when peace-keeping troops

need to use force beyond the requirements of self-defence.

Disarmament is yet another dimension of a global

effort to strengthen international peace and security.

Mankind is no longer held hostage to nuclear confrontation;

the nuclear arms race has been halted and, it is hoped,

reversed. Post-cold-war cooperation between erstwhile

adversaries has resulted in important nuclear disarmament

accords. Poland is playing an active part in the ongoing

multilateral negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament

in Geneva for a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty.

Internationally verifiable, universally adhered to and

effective, such a treaty would put in place yet another

barrier to the spread of nuclear arms, which is in the vital

security interests of each and every member of the family

of nations. These interests would also be served by a

non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and

effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile

material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices.

The window of opportunity is wide open. It must not be

ignored. We warmly welcome the renewed interest and

initiative on nuclear disarmament submitted yesterday to

this Assembly by President Clinton and President Yeltsin.

We believe that further reinforcement of the

non-proliferation regime is imperative. We are alarmed by

recent reports of illicit trafficking in nuclear materials

across frontiers. This is a threat to international security

and also a danger to innocent bystanders exposed to

radiation. It also casts doubts on the efficiency and

sufficiency of existing legal provisions and procedures. A

thorough review of such provisions and procedures seems

timely.

The overriding national security interests of States

would be served in particular by the universalization of

the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

(NPT). We welcome the recent accessions to the NPT,

especially by some of our newly independent neighbours.

We fervently hope that Ukraine will soon follow suit. In

this connection, I wish to recall that Poland firmly

supports the unconditional and indefinite extension of the

NPT. The forthcoming Conference to review the

operation of the NPT and to decide on its extension

should strengthen the regime. It will benefit the entire

international community. Coming as an aftermath to both

Hiroshima and Chernobyl, it would be the most fitting

step to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the nuclear age.

With the signing of the chemical weapons

Convention, there is a prospect of finally eliminating

another category of weapons of mass destruction. Poland

is actively involved in the work of the Preparatory

Commission for the Organization for the Prohibition of

Chemical Weapons, and its ratification procedure is well

advanced.

In conclusion, I would say this: more power to the

regions; more authority to the Security Council; more

initiative and involvement on the part of medium-sized

countries. These are, in our view, the cornerstones and

objectives of the reform of the United Nations.

Allow me now to address an issue to which Poland

and a number of other countries attach particular

importance. I am referring to the provisions of Article

107 and to parts of Article 53 of the Charter of the

United Nations. I doubt that there is any delegation here

that would not agree that they have become obsolete - a

dead letter.

For almost 50 years these provisions have not been

officially invoked. Indeed, the States covered by this

so-called "enemy clause" have become not only an

inseparable part of the democratic world but also a crucial

element of the United Nations system. It is impossible to

imagine how the Organization and its system could

function without their political, economic and financial

commitment.

Poland, the victim of the Nazi aggression that started

the Second World War, considers it its moral duty to take

a lead in closing this chapter of history for all time. We

believe that the time has come to part with transitional

clauses born of the war, concerning States which were

26

then, 50 years ago, enemies, but which have now become

partners in our common work for the United Nations.

I formally propose the removal from the Charter of the

United Nations of the clauses referring to "enemy States".

A political decision by the General Assembly on this

matter could be taken at this session. While, of course,

other modalities may be considered, the Assembly could,

for instance, request the Special Committee on the

Charter of the United Nations to submit to it at its fiftieth

session a proposal for an appropriate legal solution that

would not amount to a substantive revision of the Charter.

Let me express the hope that this initiative will meet

with the unanimous support of the Member States.