Slovenia, 1992

Allow me to congratulate you. Sir, and the friendly nation of

Bulgaria on your election as President of the General Assembly at its

forty-seventh session. We are convinced that under your leadership the

General Assembly will be successful. I should also like to take this

opportunity to express my appreciation to His Excellency Mr. Samir Shihabi,

Ambassador of Saudi Arabia, for the creative and constructive manner in which

he guided the forty-sixth session.

A number of newly independent European States, including Slovenia, have

become new Members of the United Nations and are taking part in this session

of the General Assembly. This reality, until recently almost beyond

imagination in the context of the traditional view of international relations,

came about through the process of democratization, which dramatically brought

to a close the period of absolute ideologies that formed the basis of various

forms of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

The far-reaching changes brought about by the end of the cold war have

confronted the international community and the United Nations with new

problems. The futility of attempts to solve the Yugoslav crisis and to stop

the war against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which in all its

tragic dimensions is taking place in our immediate neighbourhood, is another

indication of the insufficiency of current institutional arrangements in the

world. This applies both to the United Nations and to regional organizations

that complement the universality of the United Nations.

Our international institutional arrangements were made in the

circumstances of a world divided into political and military blocs. The

primary function of those arrangements was to palliate the effects of

ideological, political and military confrontation by maintaining a balance of

power and a balance of fear and through understandings reached between the

great Powers. In the context of such a world order, there was insufficient

commitment to enhancing cooperation and integration, to facilitating the

necessary evolution of the modem world as required by the nature of

technology, to the organization of production, to free markets, to the

responsibility for coordinated and accelerated economic development, to

overcoming poverty, to the protection of the human environment and to the

universalization of communications and information.

opportunity to express my appreciation to His Excellency Mr. Samir Shihabi,

Ambassador of Saudi Arabia, for the creative and constructive manner in which

he guided the forty-sixth session.

A number of newly independent European States, including Slovenia, have

become new Members of the United Nations and are taking part in this session

of the General Assembly. This reality, until recently almost beyond

imagination in the context of the traditional view of international relations,

came about through the process of democratization, which dramatically brought

to a close the period of absolute ideologies that formed the basis of various

forms of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

The far-reaching changes brought about by the end of the cold war have

confronted the international community and the United Nations with new

problems. The futility of attempts to solve the Yugoslav crisis and to stop

the war against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which in all its

tragic dimensions is taking place in our immediate neighbourhood, is another

indication of the insufficiency of current institutional arrangements in the

world. This applies both to the United Nations and to regional organizations

that complement the universality of the United Nations.

Our international institutional arrangements were made in the

circumstances of a world divided into political and military blocs. The

primary function of those arrangements was to palliate the effects of

ideological, political and military confrontation by maintaining a balance of

power and a balance of fear and through understandings reached between the

great Powers. In the context of such a world order, there was insufficient

commitment to enhancing cooperation and integration, to facilitating the

necessary evolution of the modem world as required by the nature of

technology, to the organization of production, to free markets, to the

responsibility for coordinated and accelerated economic development, to

overcoming poverty, to the protection of the human environment and to the

universalization of communications and information.

The process of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe

(CSCE), which on the international scene in Europe complements the United

Nations system on a regional level and whose documents helped the wave of

democratic changes in Europe was, to a large extent, created with the

objective of accelerating cooperation and integration. The CSCE was

constructed and developed on the basic principles enshrined in the United

Nations Charter and which constitute a vital precondition for the security,

peace, welfare and progress of all. All CSCE participating States were

therefore expected to agree voluntarily to those principles in their own

interest. However, the CSCE was left without suitable means to respond to

situations in which a State violated and did not respect those principles and

norms.

The war in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and all the horrors

which, thanks to the media, are known to the whole world, as well as the

Balkan crisis, in which we were also involved, are an important experience for

the CSCE, for the United Nations and for the world at large.

It teaches us that it is relatively simple to plead for peace. It is

much more difficult to guarantee security and to create the stable conditions

that would allow urgent and peaceful changes in accordance with the principles

upholding peace, security and prosperity. This is the most important function

of the United Nations and of all regional organizations and is the basis of

our support for the proposal that the United Nations should rapidly create

mechanisms for adjusting to emerging changes in the world.

In his report "An Agenda for Peace", the Secretary-General has made an

exceptionally cogent contribution to efforts to ensure the gradual

establishment of security machinery that will enable the peaceful settlement

of all disputes, primarily through an insight into the circumstances and the

timely mobilization of international institutions, to prevent or quickly cut

short armed conflicts between States Members of the United Nations and between

sovereign States. It is in the interest of the international community that a

war, if it occurs, does not spread to new regions and countries. The report

contains many useful ideas about the building of peace after the conflict has

been brought to an end and about when it becomes possible and necessary to

create conditions for long-term security and stability in relations between

the participants in the conflict.

The United Nations may establish machinery which will enable it to

intervene speedily to help the democratization of international and internal

relations and implementation of self-determination and thus prevent lapsing

into the kind of violence that is now tragically escalating in the Balkans.

The United Nations has in the past been a forum for achieving the

self-determination of many peoples. As such it was supported by Slovenia

which, through its active role in the Allied anti-fascist coalition as part of

former Yugoslavia, was among the Founding Members of the Organization. It is

therefore understandable that we expect the United Nations to continue in this

role the future.

The world Organization has ever more Members. This is not the result or

expression of some incomprehensible process of fragmentation: it is an

expression of democratization of relations within those non-traditional States

which were built not on the principle of national equality and the real common

interest of their nations but on ideologies, on fear of bloc threats. In

these multi-national States the levers of integration were not economic

success and respect for the welfare and dignity of man, but rather

monopolistic ideologies and a unitary party and army. In these States the

interests and dignity of people and nations were mainly subordinated to the

interests of the State and party or its apparatus.

States such as Yugoslavia which, from a historical point of view, were

artificial creations should have constantly re-examined and demonstrated their

raison d'être in the light of changing historical circumstances. Their

disintegration is not a priori in contradiction with the logic and needs of

integration. It is part of the same process. Individual nations enter the

process of integration at different points. With the formation of their own

States, they create the conditions necessary in order to enter the process of

their own free will.

We cannot exclude the possibility that new links and cooperation among

States will emerge. It is essential that such links must first conform to the

principles of international law, democracy, and respect for universally

recognized standards for the protection of human rights and the rights of

minorities and nations.

The trend of the pre-modern world was towards the concentration of power

through the conquest of territory and war. The trend of the modern world is

increasingly economic through cooperation and association, through improvement

of the quality of life and respect for natural limitations trends which

were at least partly defined at the recent world ecological summit. Slovenia

is situated in an area where the pre-modern and modern worlds meet in both

perception and in practice. It is in the interest of the United Nations and

of all nations of the modern world, so that the modern world will border only

on the modern world.

Allow me to suggest that after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the

democratization of Eastern Europe, the democratic world did not respond with

as much commitment as it did, justifiably, in the introduction of the values

of democracy and the market economy. The world was insufficiently prepared

for this epochal event. It is only now seeking and implementing models and

mechanisms for overcoming and preventing the deterioration of relations

between some of the new States. The London Conference, which tried to pave

the way towards a political solution of the Balkan crisis, was a successful

expression of this common search.

The denial to the so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Serbia and

Montenegro - of participation in the General Assembly of the United Nations, a

move that was supported by Slovenia, is convincing proof that the United

Nations is capable of showing the necessary decisiveness in order to condemn

the States that flagrantly violate the United Nations Charter and, above all,

peace, security and human rights.

After the final defeat and withdrawal of the Yugoslav army from Slovenia

a year ago, armed conflicts flared up ever further from Slovenia. In the

process of seeking a solution, Slovenia has worked as a constructive and

objective participant in the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia, unselfishly

presided over by Lord Carrington, and now the London Conference, to which it

is currently committed. Our most immediate and most direct interest is in the

solution of humanitarian problems and, in particular, the situation of the

more than 70,000 refugees in our country. Our other basic interest relates to

the settlement of all issues of State succession of the former Socialist

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It goes without saying that our ultimate

objective is the establishment of a durable peace in the Balkans.

Slovenia is not in dispute with any of the nations of the former

Yugoslavia. In accordance with the decisions of the London Conference, we

support measures against the policies of Serbia and Montenegro and we oppose

their attempt to usurp the succession of the Socialist Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia. It is not hard to see that it was the recent policies of these

two republics, which today go by the name of the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia, that caused the disintegration of Yugoslavia, by enforced

domination over the others, by a reinforcement of a centralist and

undemocratic political system, and by force and seizure; later by war,

territorial conquest, "ethnic cleansing", concentration camps and other crimes

which must be the subject of judicial investigation and trial; and finally by

contempt for all the civilized values that form the basis of the Charter of

the United Nations and key documents of the Conference on Security and

Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).

The Helsinki Final Act is undoubtedly one of those invaluable codes of

behaviour a guide to the development of human rights, respect for borders

and their openness and the protection of minorities which, through general

respect, regulate the process of the democratization of relations between

nations and States in a peaceful framework.

The authorities of the former Yugoslavia did not really accept the

Helsinki principles. They did not believe that signing the document bound

them to respect them. The tragedy in the Balkans would not have occurred had

the Helsinki principles been respected and implemented in the former

Yugoslavia. It could have been avoided. Even once it had started, it could

have been resolved peacefully precisely by respecting the Helsinki

principles with the understanding that this might affect the political map

of Europe. Such understanding would have prevented the damage, as well as the

simplifications and justifications that frequently attribute the crisis in the

Balkans, and similar situations elsewhere, to irrational nationalist passion,

nationalist animosities, tribalism and the like.

Slovenia chose independence with its implementation of the right to

self-determination. Slovenia proposed the peaceful dissolution of Yugoslavia

in the manner advocated by Russia at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet

Union, when Russia supported the independence of all the republics of the

former Soviet Union.

Slovenia does not oppose modern movements towards integration. It

supports them provided they are based, like the European Community, on respect

for the interests of all those involved, and on equal cooperation and

agreement. Slovenia wishes to join the European Community and is prepared

voluntarily to surrender such parts of its sovereignty as all members of the

European Community must surrender. Slovenia does not wish this only because

of its need for economic integration, but also because of its historical

affiliation with that culture, which was interrupted by catastrophic

ideological, political and economic divisions after the Second World War.

Ensuring durable international peace and security requires the fulfilment

of certain conditions, among which respect for human rights is of critical

significance. Those States that do not respect human dignity and human rights

at home will not respect the dignity and sovereignty of other nations and

other States. It is evident that threats to international peace very often

start with violations of human rights within the boundaries of countries which

later disturb the peace.

The Republic of Slovenia attaches great importance to concern for the

implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. As a new, sovereign

State, it is strongly committed to the view that in our times State

sovereignty is primarily defined by criteria of the legitimacy of State

authority and respect for human rights. This is due above all to the

practical importance of human rights as a guarantee of social stability and

peace and thus as an important constituent of international peace and security.

At a time when the setting of international standards in the field of

human rights is being completed, concern for the effectiveness of their

implementation and of international supervision is of high priority.

Experience has shown that assuring respect for human rights, including

especially the rights of persons belonging to national, ethnic, religious and

linguistic minorities, is of critical importance for extinguishing crises and

establishing peace. Efforts at post-conflict peace-building will be

precarious and incomplete if that condition for stabilization is not fulfilled

and supervised. The Secretary-General also fully stresses this in his

important report "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277).

There is one further question which highlights the need to review the

suitability of institutional arrangements. This is the problem of refugees,

as demonstrated in the war against Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is clear that

an arrangement meeting the need to protect the personal status and integrity

of an individual forced to abandon his country through fear of political and

physical violence is inadequate for a mass exodus of entire nations fleeing

threatened genocide as a result of a war of conquest and the "ethnic

cleansing" of territory conquered by an aggressor.

A million Muslim refugees from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina are

without adequate protection and without an internationally guaranteed status.

They are ever more widely scattered throughout Europe. There are close to

100,000 in my own country, which is, with great difficulty, providing them

with food and shelter. The Bosnian Muslims are becoming a nation without a

land, without a State, with all the attendant tragic consequences, including

repercussions for the protection of Europe against terrorism. It is of such

hopelessness that terrorism is born. It is tragic that in this war against a

State Member of the United Nations, composed of three nations, Croats, Muslims

and Serbs, the Muslims should remain almost unprotected. That is why they

seek refuge throughout Europe.

At a number of international conferences we have proposed that United

Nations peace-keeping forces create a safe haven in Bosnia and Herzegovina

itself, where the relative safety of refugees would be assured, since, after

the war, when decisions are made on the fate of that State, the Muslims must

be present and active, physically and politically. The division of the State

would otherwise become a reality. It would also be a reality that aggression

had been rewarded by the allocation of conquered territory and that the world

had recognized the policy of fait accompli and shut its eyes to violations of

the principles of humanitarian rights, and to the perpetration of genocide.

Of equal importance is an effective mechanism for prompt action in the

resolution of humanitarian problems created by armed conflict. It is

particularly important that the humanitarian assistance - in which the High

Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Sadako Ogata, the United Nations Children's

Fund (UNICEF) and its Executive Director, Mr. James Grant, and

Under-Secretary-General Jan Eliasson have invested so much effort - be

provided in a timely manner. The importance of humanitarian measures, even if

they require overcoming resistance and military protection, has been

demonstrated recently in some of the armed conflicts of the past year,

including the conflicts in the Gulf and in the Balkans. Inability to

guarantee humanitarian assistance is inexcusable and compromises the

international community and, unfortunately, the United Nations.

In a period of eased international relations and a search for new

orientations for development, there is an important way in which the potential

role of the United Nations has been extended: in preventive diplomacy and the

creation of measures which are a real contribution to defusing conflicts,

dealing with their underlying causes and overcoming their consequences.

Preventive diplomacy is a task for the future; it will require supplementing

and reinforcing the work of the United Nations. It presupposes a knowledge of

history and respect for the principles of the equality and self-determination

of all peoples, and for other principles contained in the Charter of the

United Nations. In their own interests and in the common interest, the

Members of the United Nations will have to fulfill those principles. Only

thus will the authority of the United Nations be enhanced and protected, and

the hope which people, including the people of Slovenia, have invested in it

be justified.

The United Nations has alleviated, as far as it could, the negative

effects of bloc rivalries and the bipolar division of the world. Now, the

world needs a United Nations which is capable of guiding, harmonizing and

assisting change. This can be achieved only if the Organization can

revitalize, restructure and democratize its own system. We are firmly

convinced that the United Nations, as a universal forum of multilateralism,

will successfully take this unique opportunity to lay the foundations for a

new and more just world, in building which the entire international community

shares a common interest.

I have devoted a great deal of attention to the crisis in the Balkans. I

should like, however, to stress that the Republic of Slovenia is also well

aware of other problems that beset the world, and that it has a constructive

approach to the important aspects of an international world order that will

not be burdened by war, poverty, illiteracy, intolerance, and injustice; of an

order in which the Declaration of the World Summit on Children and the

achievements of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro will be implemented in

full; and of an order in which human rights will everywhere be the standard of

behaviour respected by States. Constructive and successful dialogue among

developed and developing countries - as well as peace, international security,

and disarmament - are among our priority tasks. I wish the the United Nations

every success - success the world badly needs.