Poland, 1998

Allow me first to congratulate

the President and wish him every success in carrying out

his responsible task. The delegation of Poland will do its

best to assist him in his important functions.

I also pay tribute to the outgoing President,

Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko, an eminent statesman from

Ukraine, a country with which we have developed good-

neighbourly ties of friendship and cooperation, for his

excellent guidance of the work of the Assembly during its

fifty-second session.

I would also like to assure the Secretary-General,

Mr. Kofi Annan, not only of our respect and admiration,

but also of our continued support for his tireless efforts to

make the United Nations live up to the expectations of

the twenty-first century and to the ideals set out in the

Charter.

We have a saying in Poland that is variously

attributed to the Chinese or to the Jews — two nations

well steeped in suffering and in wisdom:

“Unfortunate one, you shall live to see your dreams

satisfied.”

And I, indeed, have come to experience the full measure

of that truth. Ten years ago a dissident, I could barely

even dream that I would be at the helm of my free

nation?s foreign affairs, and in that role preside over the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

(OSCE), an organization which spans three continents in

its attempt to promote security and cooperation in a

conflict-torn world.

And yet those 10 years ago, had I imagined that

such a future were possible I would probably have

believed that a man in my position could indeed help

change the world, make it a better, safer place. Like so

many of us present here in this Hall, I had to learn the

bitter lessons of the limitations of power. These lessons

should indeed teach us humility, but not serve as an alibi

for not assuming our obligations.

The world today is a better and safer place than it

was 10 years ago, before the fall of the Berlin Wall. For

all the needless suffering, the agony of hunger, the

scourge of ethnic hatred and war, the shame of

underdevelopment, the evil of oppression that human

beings had to endure in so many places on the face of the

planet — these are less than a decade ago. And even now

the perpetrators attempt to conceal their doings, to show

it is not so, and more, that suffering is contentment, war

is peace, and oppression is liberty. Hypocrisy, as we all

know, is a compliment sin pays to virtue.

The world is a better place because time and time

again evil has been avoided, circumscribed or reduced

thanks to preventive action taken by concerned States.

This action could be something as simple as sending food

20

where there is none, or as complicated as over a dozen

nations pooling their military resources to prevent a new

outbreak of ethnic hatred in Bosnia, and helping to rebuild

that devastated nation.

The world will never be the same. The world economy

is currently confronted with the biggest financial challenge

in a half century. We note the increasing interest on the

part of politicians as well as economists in market

intervention and capital controls. Obviously, a serious

situation may indeed call for desperate remedies, but the

really serious risk to the world economy seems to lie in a

retreat from free market ideals and principles.

Actions to limit the spread of weapons of mass

destruction are an evident reflection of efforts made to

consolidate peace and international security. Systematic

progress in the field of nuclear disarmament, apart from

important American-Russian and American-Chinese

agreements, could become even more notable if the

Parliament of the Russian Federation, heeding the appeals

by the international community, ratified the START II

agreements. We expect and hope that the indispensable

decision will be taken in Moscow with no further delay.

We welcome the decision of the Geneva Conference

on Disarmament to enter negotiations on a treaty banning

the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and

other nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices.

This is a significant and indispensable step for the further

consolidation of the global regime of non-proliferation of

nuclear weapons.

At the same time, we witness with concern and regret

the developments in South Asia that are so dangerous to

peace and international security. Although we do not

question the right of any nation to sovereign decisions on

issues concerning its national security interests, nothing, in

our opinion, justifies acceptance of the nuclear option. The

choice of the road of nuclear armaments by India and

Pakistan comes as a blow to the ideals personified by

Mahatma Gandhi.

Together with the entire international community, we

address to the leaders of India and Pakistan an appeal to

refrain from any actions that could make the situation

worse in the Indian subcontinent and to join, immediately

and unconditionally, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban

Treaty (CTBT).

The sixteenth-century Polish humanist Jakub Przyluski

wrote:

“Since man is ... more inclined to live in society

than bees, ants or cranes, an isolated life is a thing

most contrary to human nature. Man could then

neither suffice to himself, nor come to the rescue of

others... And since nature has established some kind

of affinity between us, and the same definition

encompasses all humankind, we are to consider it

vile if man threatens man.”

We, indeed, consider it vile if man threatens man.

But it is in our nature, or at least in our better nature, to

come to the rescue of others, the more so if by making

others more secure, our own security is enhanced.

Furthermore, neighbours usually know best the nature of

the problems affecting the neighbourhood; they are

therefore best placed to try to resolve them. That is why

the concept of collective security is becoming so

increasingly important and popular. But we must all learn

this if this Organization is to successfully negotiate the

transition into the twenty-first century. The United

Nations has grown beyond the hopes and expectations —

indeed, beyond control.

Many of its specialized agencies accomplish their

important jobs quietly and efficiently. We have perfect

relations with many of them, especially with the United

Nations Development Programme office in Warsaw.

The Secretary-General is to be praised for his efforts

to make the United Nations a better example of how the

world?s institutions could function, rather than a cartoon

of the way they actually do. But he can do this only with

our support. Also, we can no longer delay the reform of

the Security Council and the General Assembly. I am sure

all of us look towards these changes with some dread,

because knowing how wrong things could have turned

out, we cannot believe that they have been going right

until now. The United Nations is ripe for change.

One of the most pressing issues on the United

Nations reform agenda is the financial crisis. It is true this

crisis is due in great part to the mismanagement of

resources and, at times, excessive spending. But at least

as much can be attributed to the deficit brought about by

some Members? refusal to pay their dues on time. True,

it is in large part because that pressure that a favourable

climate for change emerged within the institution itself.

It has become a truism to say that peacekeeping is

ineffective when there is no peace to keep, and that

peacemaking is impossible if there is no will to sustain

the unavoidable costs. But this does not mean that

21

peacekeeping is ineffective. A wide spectrum of examples,

from Cyprus to Moldova, shows that the contrary is true.

But even in a successful peacekeeping operation we run the

risk that we will not only keep the peace but also preserve

the hatreds, envies and jealousies which were the root

causes of the conflict in the first place. In this sense, each

peacekeeping operation must also be one of peacemaking.

Armed conflicts between States are giving way to

internal conflicts, as in Rwanda and in the former

Yugoslavia. Consequently, the United Nations peacekeeping

forces are being faced, in many cases, with the dilemma of

having to depart from the principle of non-interference in

the internal affairs of the State that is being torn apart by

a civil war. We remain convinced that when a direct threat

is posed to peace and security, the United Nations must be

properly equipped to discharge its role and should not

remain indifferent and ignore human suffering.

Poland is proud of its continuous participation in

United Nations peacekeeping efforts, following our old

tradition of struggle “for freedom, ours and yours”. We are

currently providing the largest contingent of troops involved

in United Nations peacekeeping operations. We are

convinced that the Organization should not allow the

highest price to be paid in terms of the lives of women and

men serving in the field under the United Nations banner.

The security of people in United Nations peacekeeping and

humanitarian operations must be ensured.

My country finds itself at the centre of European

transformation. Our aspirations to join European and trans-

Atlantic political and military structures are in the process

of being satisfied, fulfilling the dreams of a nation long

subject to the cataclysms of European history. But far from

turning our back on our neighbours who as yet remain

outside these structures, we indeed wish to intensify our

cooperation with them. We believe this would be conducive

to a better climate on the continent, and in the best interests

of both our neighbours and our allies.

This is especially true of our cooperation with other

Central European nations. Poland, solidly anchored in

collective security and regional cooperation structures, can

develop in peace and security and substantially contribute

to the development of others. If there ever was a win-win

scenario, this is it.

It would be arrogant and unhelpful if we believed we

could give lessons to others. But we do believe deeply that

our experience of the last decade shows that nations can

move away from authoritarianism, through negotiations —

what we called round-table negotiations — to then

successfully build a democratic system based on the rule

of law, individual freedoms, freedom of economic

enterprise and political democracy. To those, near or far,

who proclaim that theirs will be a different course, based

on the presumed specificity of their culture, history,

customs and circumstance, we say, “Please reconsider. Do

not waste the creative energy of your nations in futile

experiments and grotesque performances.” This will not

work. And time is a resource none can afford to waste.

But at the same time, to those who would say,

“Follow us, for history has proved that we are right”, —

we would like to say that even among friends we can

differ. We do not believe too much in the efficacy of

punishment and sanction. Rather, we expect that nations

need to develop apace. We can but help them on their

way.

This is best seen in the functioning of the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

(OSCE), which my country has the honour of chairing

this year. It would be hard to imagine a collection of

nations more geographically, historically, economically,

culturally and politically diverse. Assuming the

chairmanship of this organization for 1998, we have faced

important questions and challenges. Can the organization

that is the heritage of the past successfully cope with the

challenges of the future? Is it needed during a period of

both globalization and regionalization, a period of multi-

polarity, when we are striving for the universalization of

the Earth?s civilization? Will it be able to prevent

conflicts and regulate inter-State relations?

The Polish chairmanship started at the moment of

significant changes in the so-called European security

environment: when the Atlantic Alliance decided on its

enlargement; when a conflict erupted in Kosovo,

threatening South-Eastern Europe with destabilization;

when the countries of Central Asia, born from the

territory of the former Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics, signalled their more intensive interest in

joining the current of values that are the foundation of the

OSCE; and when signs of another crisis appeared in

Russia. There arose the question of how to include OSCE

activity in United Nations efforts for peace and security.

We have found constructive and positive answers to

many of those questions. The organization of an all-

inclusive membership of the States of the region, from

Vancouver to Vladivostok, turned out to be necessary to

respond to threats left by the cold war. Two priorities

22

came to the fore: to prevent conflicts by reaching the roots

at their early stage of appearance and to strengthen human

rights and democracy, which the OSCE calls the “human

dimension”. We have also taken up the ambitious challenge

of preparing a European security charter, which would help

to facilitate the functioning of cooperation in security within

the OSCE, and would make it possible for all States,

regardless of their membership in alliances or other

groupings, to participate in the common effort of building

a safe, democratic and united Europe.

We want the OSCE community to have neither centre

nor peripheries, neither more equal nor less equal. In many

cases, as in the conflicts in Kosovo or Tajikistan, the lesson

was bitter. One of the conclusions is that in the

contemporary world, no organization can act alone. The

consolidation of standards of civilizational cooperation

within the OSCE must be coherent with the activity of

other organizations, in this case the United Nations, the

European Union, the North Atlantic Alliance, the Council

of Europe and subregional organizations such as the

Council of the Baltic States.

We need this solidarity. There I wish to comment on

the resolution adopted by the Security Council yesterday

concerning Kosovo. It was an example of unity and

solidarity, and I hope it will send a message to stop the

bloodshed in that region and stop the activities of all those

who are trying to introduce violence, repression and

terrorism there.

The OSCE has been able to engage in preventive

diplomacy. We have done so together; we have

strengthened our collective security together; we have

fielded a host of projects in almost every imaginable sphere

of human collective activity. In all fairness, one has to take

into consideration the conflicts avoided elsewhere in the

Balkans, as well as in Central Asia and in the Caucasus.

We do not proclaim to be a model for others. The

organization itself developed almost by chance, as a

fortuitous assembly of the members of the two cold-war

blocs. But we have been able to manage the transition and

to set standards that we all try to maintain. Maybe other

regions of conflicting interests could use some of our

experience, both the successes and the mistakes.

In the Middle East, we are facing a challenging and

difficult time. Poland is committed to a just, lasting and

comprehensive peace in that region. Therefore, we are

deeply concerned by the stalemate in the peace process, and

we strongly support all efforts to revitalize it, on the basis

of Security Council resolutions, the principles of the

Madrid Conference and the Oslo accords.

In many aspects the world is now a safer and better

place to live in than it was a decade ago. But there are

new threats and dangers. We must deter and defeat

terrorist acts. Poland continues to promote the idea of the

elaboration of the comprehensive convention against

organized crime, which should generate wide and efficient

cooperation between States, since organized transnational

crime cannot be successfully suppressed by any State

alone.

Borderlines are blurred. Ordinary crime blends with

the organized underworld, which in turn intermingles with

the terrorist community, and that in turn finds support and

relief in more than one of the world?s capitals. Drugs and

guns are replacing more conventional currencies as the

universal currency of evil, profits from one serving to

promote the dissemination of the other, in a concerted

assault on human life itself. It is indeed a culture of death

which seems to unite those who put guns and drugs into

the hands of the young and teach them to hate others

because they are of the wrong faith, race or nation. We

cannot counter that evil with the same decisiveness, haste

and cunning. We can, however, continue to support the

alternative: a culture of life, founded on respect for the

individual, his inalienable rights, dignity and freedom. In

terms of everyday reality, this means that the determined

effort of all States is required to implement the basic

conventions guaranteeing these values — to implement

them at home and to refuse to tolerate their violations

abroad.

Of these conventions, perhaps none is more

important than the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, whose fiftieth anniversary we have been solemnly

celebrating. And yet, among States whose representatives

have expressed their attachment to that document, not a

few deny their citizens the basic rights the Declaration

guarantees. Obviously, the powerful political interests

which lie behind such behaviour will not bow to simple

declarations, nor will the international democratic

community use force to implement its values.

It is our deep conviction that we should continuously

adapt United Nations human rights machinery to present

and future developments in this area. The biggest

challenge we have been facing over recent years is the

violation of human rights in the context of armed

conflicts and tensions of a domestic or civil character. For

years the international community has not been able to

23

cope with this problem, although in the meantime the

United Nations has developed a significant peacekeeping

capacity. It is only after the traumatic experience in the

former Yugoslavia and in the Great Lakes region that the

approach has changed.

“No man is an island”; no State is an island.

Connected, as the Polish writer whom I quoted said, by a

common definition of our humanity, we cannot help but try

to implement the noblest goal, incarnate in the name of this

Organization: the Nations United, in our common humanity,

our planet and our future.