Russia, 1997

Mr. President, allow me sincerely to

congratulate you, a representative of friendly Ukraine, on

your election to this responsible and honoured post. We

are confident that under your Presidency, the General

Assembly will be able to achieve significant results.

In just a little over 800 days, mankind will enter

upon the twenty-first century. From a historical point of

view, this is indeed no more than a sprinter’s lap, and

thus the need to look at what lies ahead, at what awaits

us, would appear quite natural.

One year ago, in speaking from this rostrum, I spoke

about the emerging process of a transition to a multipolar

world order. The developments of the past year support

that. There is a growing diversity in the political,

economic and cultural development of countries. New

centres of economic and political influence in the world

are shaping up, coupled, at the same time, with increased

intermeshing of the interests of different States and

peoples.

The horizons opening up to the international

community in the twenty-first century are making new

demands. These are the assertion of the ideals of

interdependency and partnership in inter-State relations;

the prevention of the emergence of new dividing lines or

exclusive bloc structures; and strict adherence by all to

the principles and rules of international law. As a separate

issue, I should like to cite not only the creation of

conditions for economic and social progress of all

countries, but also the maintenance of environmental

balance.

There is also a need to mention that the transition

from a confrontational bipolar world to a multipolar

system per se would not provide a solution to these

17

problems. Furthermore, realistically minded people realize

that although we are moving farther away from the

simplistic stereotypes of the ideological confrontation era,

the number of existing risks and threats in the world is not

decreasing.

Regional conflicts continue to be one of the major

sources of instability on the global level; they should not be

allowed to continue into the twenty-first century. How can

this be achieved? A characteristic of our days is the

increasing number of intra-State problems — conflicts of an

ethnic rather than social nature. There are many

multinational States in the world today, and we support the

initiatives designed to prevent their forcible disintegration.

The formula for settling such conflicts in today’s

world — and, of course, in the twenty-first century — can

and must combine the need to preserve the territorial

integrity of those States with the provision of the maximum

possible number of rights to their national minorities. To

abandon any of the principles of this two-track formula

would result not only in the continuation but in the

dangerous escalation of such conflict situations.

Likewise, I wish to draw the Assembly’s particular

attention to a dangerous aspect of regional conflicts: their

ability to trigger terrorist waves and spread them far and

wide beyond the borders of the actual conflict zone. For

example, many of the militants who launched a bloody

campaign of terror in a number of countries emerged out of

the ongoing armed conflict that still rages in Afghanistan.

We strongly support the combat against terrorism,

whatever trappings it may don, be it in Ireland or in Israel.

Today, we will not be able to prevail in this fight without

all States pooling their efforts to combat this greatest of

evils. While we oppose the backing of terrorism in any

form by any Government, we believe that we cannot

stigmatize individual Member States forever as international

rogues, irrespective of changes in their policies, simply

because of their suspected links to terrorists.

In the present-day world, no country can hold a

monopoly on any kind of conflict-resolution effort. This

fully applies as well to the long-standing conflict in the

Middle East, where the settlement process has been

stalemated. As the saying goes, “it takes two hands to

applaud”. Broad-based international efforts are required to

undo the taut Middle East knot. Russia, as one of the co-

sponsors of the peace process launched in 1991 in Madrid,

is prepared actively to cooperate actively with all to attain

this goal.

For many years, so too has the Cyprus issue been

awaiting the effective international cooperation needed for

its resolution.

A synergy of efforts would provide the shortest cut

to the resolution of both long-standing and of relatively

new conflicts. But our stance by no means implies — and

I wish to emphasize this — that any individual country

that has influence in a zone of conflict or that can exert

it over conflicting parties should not make active use of

its own potential. It must do so, however, without putting

up a high fence around itself to ward off others.

I should like in this connection to draw the

Assembly’s attention to Russia’s peacekeeping efforts in

the Commonwealth of Independent States region. First of

all, as concerns Tajikistan, Russia is doing a great deal

since we are equipped with the particular tools needed to

do the job, in part for historical reasons. Our efforts have

proved rather effective. Recently in Moscow an

agreement was signed that put an end to the armed strife

between the Government and the opposition in that

country. The return to Dushanbe of Mr. Nuri, the

opposition leader, shows that the agreement is already

working.

Nevertheless, we want only our fair share of the

deal. We note with satisfaction that the attitudes of Russia

and the United Nations towards the parameters of the

operation in Tajikistan are in concurrence, based on the

close cooperation between the United Nations Observer

Mission, the collective Commonwealth of Independent

States peacekeeping force, and the contingent of Russian

border troops. We welcome the intention of the United

Nations to expand the mandate of its observers and to

increase their number.

Nagorny Karabakh provides yet another example.

Acting on its own, Russia has done a great deal to

stabilize the situation in the region. But I believe that we

have quite productively cooperated with the United States

and France, which, jointly with Russia, are acting as co-

chairmen of the Organization for Security and

Cooperation in Europe’s Minsk process to settle the

Nagorny Karabakh conflict. The Georgian-Abkhaz

conflict offers a similar example.

I should now like to say a few words about

peacekeeping as a whole. Over the last few years, a trend

has been observed towards its decentralization. Naturally,

there are objective reasons for this: the financial

constraints placed on the United Nations, and the increase

18

in the number of regional organizations working, inter alia,

in peacekeeping. We see nothing wrong with such

decentralization.

However, it is extremely important that peacekeeping

activities, whatever their sponsorship, should rely first and

foremost on the underlying principles developed within the

United Nations framework. We need here to be extremely

cautious in dealing with peacekeeping activities. We believe

that actions involving force should be carried out solely

when authorized by the Security Council and under its

direct supervision, as provided for in the Charter of the

United Nations.

As we move towards a multipolar world in the twenty-

first century, it is essential to create conditions that will

bring stability to a new world order. To that end, work

must be completed to demolish the hurdles of the past and,

above all, the legacy of the massive, decades-long arms

race.

We are moving together along this path, and we are

determined to proceed further. Together with the United

States, we have been steadily reducing our national strategic

arsenals. President Yeltsin of Russia and President Clinton

of the United States have reached an understanding on the

basic parameters for agreement in this area.

On the agenda now are systematic measures for a

reduction in the nuclear arsenals of all the nuclear Powers.

But let us be perfectly clear here: the stability of a

multipolar world cannot be ensured simply by ending the

nuclear-arms race of the past. It is also essential to have

guarantees against the re-emergence of that arms race on a

new basis, and here I have in mind the desire of individual

countries to acquire nuclear weapons. This once again

proves the need for urgent measures to relieve tensions in

the relations between India and Pakistan.

Hence the essential need for the entire international

community to give a universal dimension to the Treaty on

the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Those few

countries that have so far remained outside the Treaty must,

in our view, come to grips with their responsibility. They

must realize that their own security is an integral part of

global security, and they must assume those obligations to

which over 180 States have already committed themselves

as parties to the Treaty.

The entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-

Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) on a global scale, as well as the

forthcoming talks to ban the production of weapon-grade

fissile materials, figures likewise among those badly

needed steps intended to impart stability to global security

in the twenty-first century.

The implementation of the Convention on the

Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling

and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction

is getting under way. We consider this document as one

of the major instruments designed to eliminate one of the

weapons of mass destruction subject to the greatest

proliferation. We have been working together with the

deputies of the State Duma to ratify the Convention, and

we look forward to the early, successful completion of

those efforts.

But even now it is conventional weaponry that is

killing people in local conflicts, often in situations where

hostilities have already stopped. In this connection, we are

fully aware of the humanitarian dimension of the problem

of landmines. We think that the elimination of the threat

of landmines to people, especially to civilian populations,

is long overdue. We advocate active, phased efforts and

negotiations to resolve it.

Stability on a global or regional level is impossible

without the establishment of security systems. We have

made headway in this direction on the European

continent. We feel confident that only a universal

organization which brings together all the members of the

European family of nations can serve as a foundation for

a genuinely durable security system in Europe in the

twenty-first century. I am talking here about the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

(OSCE). It is first and foremost in the frame of that

forum that it is possible to seek agreement with a view to

meeting the new and diverse challenges, which are not

necessarily of a military and political nature.

A beneficial effect on the improvement of the

European climate has already been exerted by the

Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and

Security between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

and the Russian Federation, which was born out of the

agonizing quest for compromise. This document will have

broad international resonance and will doubtless play an

essential role in European politics. Of course, the signing

of that document has not changed our negative view of

NATO’s enlargement, which, on the one hand, totally

ignores current realities and, on the other, is fraught with

the risk of creating new dividing lines.

19

I must mention yet another contribution to the

strengthening of good-neighbourly relations in Europe. I am

referring to the agreements signed recently by Russia,

Ukraine and Belarus that have allowed our three countries

to take major steps forward in developing mutually

beneficial, equitable relations which have strengthened

stability in the region.

Russia has an interest in the security and stability of

its Baltic neighbours and is ready to guarantee their

security. Such guarantees could be provided in the form of

our commitment backed by an agreement on good-

neighbourly relations between Russia and the Baltic States.

Such an agreement could become a kind of pact on regional

security and stability.

The Asia-Pacific dimension is also of great

significance to us. We are convinced that the Russian-

Chinese agreements on borders and military détente in the

frontier zone, which were also signed by Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, will become a long-term factor

for stability in that vast region. Russia also holds a number

of other Asian countries — including India, Japan and the

States of the Association of South-East Asian Nations

(ASEAN) — among its priority partners.

At the same time, our future in the twenty-first century

at both the global and the regional levels depends directly

on whether the international community will be able to stop

and reverse the economic impoverishment of a great

number of the Member States of the United Nations.

A central role in resolving the most important tasks

facing all the countries of the world today belongs to the

United Nations.

Established over half a century ago, the Organization

in general has succeeded in passing the durability test,

traversed the thorny road of the bloc-confrontation era,

survived both the ice-age period and the thaw in

international relations. But today this could be viewed as

axiomatic — the United Nations needs a rational

renovation, referred to by virtually all the speakers in this

debate. The substantive report of Secretary-General Kofi

Annan gives clear proof of this need. Today, figuratively

speaking, the image of this Organization in the twenty-first

century is being shaped.

It is our strong conviction that the priority objective

of the Organization’s reform is to enhance the usefulness

of the United Nations. Naturally, it is impossible to

reform the United Nations in order to increase its

effectiveness without overcoming the financial problems.

We must note that the financial problems of the United

Nations have unfortunately become chronic. It must

therefore be emphasized that the responsibility for the

financial health of the United Nations is borne by all

Member States and that they must all pay their dues

properly.

We are also in favour of expanding the membership

of the Security Council. A decision to that effect is long

overdue. But this expansion should not render our

Organization less efficient.

The reform of the United Nations will take place

against the background of the ever increasing role of

regional organizations. This is a fully logical process. At

the same time, we are convinced that the special leading

role of the United Nations among all other universally

recognized international organizations must be preserved.

We see the United Nations in the twenty-first

century as a highly efficient Organization, free from

bureaucratic constraints, and as a proactive Organization

capable of swiftly responding to the challenges of the

contemporary world.

I began my remarks by encouraging concerted action

by the international community to concentrate on current

problems and on the prospects for the coming century.

And I shall conclude by citing a well-known saying:

“Pessimists are no more than casual observers, it is the

optimists who can change the world”. We are optimists,

and we believe that the United Nations will be able to

play a positive role in the ongoing evolution of the

international community.