Ukraine, 1994

It is a great

honour for me to congratulate you, Sir, on your election

to the distinguished and very important post of President

of the General Assembly.

I am confident that your knowledge, experience and

consummate personal skills, which you have demonstrated

both as Permanent Representative to the United Nations

and as President of the Security Council, will allow the

successful resolution of the complex problems the

international community is now facing on the eve of the

celebration of the United Nations half century.

I would like also to express my appreciation to the

President of the previous session of the General

Assembly, Ambassador Insanally, whose wise guidance

resulted in the adoption of an entire set of constructive

decisions to the benefit of all Member States of the

United Nations.

The year that has elapsed since the previous session

of the General Assembly has witnessed important

international developments, in many of which the United

Nations was both a catalyst and a participant. They

included the historic turn towards peace in the Middle

East and the elimination of the apartheid system in South

Africa. Positive developments are expected in Ulster and

in other hot spots of the planet. The completion of the

withdrawal of Russian troops from Germany and the

Baltic States has at last marked the end of the European

history of the Second World War. In this context, the

leaders of the Russian Federation should be given their

due for displaying political courage and foresight.

17

Radical changes have also taken place in the political,

social and economic life of Ukraine, which recently

celebrated the third anniversary of its independence. The

Ukrainian people, of their own free will, in a truly

democratic way, elected Leonid Kuchma as the new

President, and has elected the Parliament of the country.

New leaders have come to executive power. Naturally, all

of these developments are generating broad interest in, and

closer attention to, Ukraine.

In this connection, different - sometimes arbitrary -

predictions have been made concerning the direction of our

domestic and foreign policies, and even regarding their

possible reorientation. Many radical and even diametrically

opposed views have been heard - for example, whether the

political pendulum in Ukraine will swing to the East or

West, or whether Ukraine will remain an independent State

and preserve its political sovereignty.

In taking the opportunity to speak from this rostrum,

I should like to clarify these important issues.

First, the State policy of Ukraine will be consistently

based on the authority established by the Ukrainian people

when it confirmed, almost unanimously, its choice of

independent development during the national referendum

held in December 1991. This reality is decisive, and

rumours that Ukraine will eventually lose its sovereignty

are absolutely unfounded. We shall continue to follow the

path of building an independent State, and a return to the

situation which prevailed in the former Soviet Union is

impossible.

Secondly, what also seems to be an oversimplification

is the question of where Ukraine will be, whether in the

East or the West, of where it will go. I think it is precisely

here in this Hall, which brings together representatives of

all continents and regions of the world, that the artificial

division into East, West, North and South is especially

strongly felt. Today the world is becoming more

integrated, and political indicators of geographical

affiliation of countries are gradually disappearing. Ukraine,

like any other State, cannot simply "go" East or West. It

is there, where it has been for ages, and where it will stay

for ever. Its main task as a historically ancient but

politically young State consists in gradual integration into

the European and world political, economic, humanitarian

and other processes as a reliable link in a new global

system of international relations.

Of course, there will be corrections to our policy. The

world has changed considerably, even in comparison with

that period of time when Ukraine emerged on the political

map as an independent State. All of us, including

Ukraine, have to take into account new realities and

respond to them appropriately. This is particularly so

when we deal with the question of the intensification of

mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation with the

Russian Federation and with the other countries of the

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). But these

relations will by no means be developed at the expense of

our contact with our other partners. Ukraine is equally

concerned with strengthening relations with the United

States; Germany; Canada; the countries of Central and

Eastern Europe; the States of Asia - above all, China and

Japan; as well as other countries of the Asian-Pacific

region, Africa and Latin America. In other words, the

range of our foreign policy interests is very broad. I

would like to emphasize that at the international level

Ukraine will protect its national interests, including its

economic interests, with increasing dynamism and

pragmatism.

These are the corrections that will be made to

Ukraine’s foreign policy, which, despite domestic political

changes, remains, as President Leonid Kuchma has stated,

predictable, consistent and weighted. There can be no

doubt whatsoever in this respect: Ukraine has been

committed, and will continue to be committed, to

fulfilling its international obligations, consistently and in

good faith. This is a solid foundation of our foreign

policy.

The wave of political romanticism yielded to a time

of severe trials in the political, social and economic lives

of the newly independent States that emerged from the

former Soviet Union. Linking the titles of two well-

known novels, the overall tenor of the mood of society in

the post-communist world might be described as "great

expectations gone with the wind".

To speak frankly, those feelings were not spared

Ukraine, which immediately declared its readiness to

cooperate honestly and openly with all interested partners.

However, our State, after having made persistent efforts,

has felt that only recently has the world community come

to understand its position. At the same time, the reality

of the current situation of Ukraine is that we are still the

subject of pressure and suspicion from outside and that

we continue at times to encounter open reluctance to

understand the essence of the problems we are facing.

This greatly aggravates the present and still difficult

economic situation in the country and hinders the process

of market reforms.

18

Today, Ukraine is facing the difficult tasks of

overcoming an economic crisis, of normalizing its social

and economic situation and of creating favourable domestic

and international conditions for gradually raising the living

standard of its population. The President and the new

Government are focusing their efforts on those tasks, but I

must note that Ukraine’s problem in surmounting its

economic crisis has an international dimension as well

since, because of its geopolitical situation, the establishment

of Ukraine as a sovereign and economically developed State

is an important factor for peace and stability on the

continent of Europe. There is therefore every reason to

assert that support for Ukraine - both political and,

especially, economic - is a reliable investment in the

strengthening of international security. These facts are

gradually being accepted, and the discussion of the

Ukrainian question at the Naples Summit Meeting of the

Group of 7 was evidence of this trend.

The existence of a group of countries undergoing

transition to a market economy has become a real factor in

current international relations. Ukraine is a part of that

group. Our experience is showing that the transition period

will not be smooth, that it will be fairly lengthy and that it

will necessitate considerable effort, including international

effort. There is, however, no alternative. Those very

aspects of statecraft will be the focus of President

Kuchma’s attention in the policy statement he will soon

deliver to the Parliament. I should also like to note that the

difficult economic situation in our country can to a

considerable extent be explained by the vast financial

burden of nuclear disarmament and the eradication of the

aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster. Those problems are

not solely Ukrainian; they have a global dimension as well.

In this connection, one positive development is the fact that

the problems of countries undergoing the transition to a

market economy are gradually coming to occupy a rightful

place in the varied activities of the United Nations and its

specialized agencies.

However, it seems that donor States, while declaring

their support for the implementation of reforms in countries

undergoing transition, are still being excessively cautious in

providing adequate support to specific projects in Eastern

Europe and in the countries of the Commonwealth of

Independent States (CIS). Today, that attitude is beginning

to pose a serious problem.

We are also looking forward to target-oriented

activities by the international community designed to create

favourable conditions for free access to the world market

for exports from countries in this region, particularly

Ukraine. In this connection, Ukraine welcomes the

establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO)

and firmly intends to accede to the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO system. We hope that

that system will promote trade liberalization and facilitate

the creation of an open and transparent system of trade.

After all, the intensification of international trade is an

integral part of economic development.

As a European country, we are primarily concerned

with the problem of security in Europe in the broadest

sense of that term. I should like to express some views

concerning Ukraine’s vision of ways to safeguard peace

and stability on that continent.

The difficulties of making forecasts in the field of

international relations can be explained by the number of

new risks and challenges to security that have been

created by political, economic, inter-ethnic and other

contradictions. These have already generated a wave of

conflicts to which Europe was not prepared to make an

adequate response.

The anxiety on the continent of Europe is clearly

demonstrated by the ongoing search for new machinery to

ensure State security in Eastern and Central Europe, of

which Ukraine is also a part. The point is not that

appropriate structures to strengthen security in Europe do

not exist. There are the activities of the Conference on

Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Western

European Union (WEU) and the North Atlantic

Cooperation Council (NACC), and the countries of the

Commonwealth of Independent States are also seeking

ways to achieve collective security. However, for various

reasons none of those structures is able adequately to fill

the military and political vacuum created in the region

following the disintegration of the USSR and the Warsaw

Treaty.

That is why Ukraine strongly supports initiatives

aimed at all-European cooperation in various fields,

including the field of security.

I should like to recall that Ukraine was the first of

the CIS countries to become a signatory of the NATO

Partnership for Peace programme and the Agreement on

Partnership and Cooperation with the European

Community. The Ukraine became a party to the

Conference on the Pact on Stability in Europe and has put

forward initiatives for the strengthening of security and

19

cooperation in Central and Eastern Europe and in the Black

Sea region.

However, it should be acknowledged that,

notwithstanding all their positive features, neither the

Partnership for Peace programme nor any other measures

undertaken can yet ensure reliable security safeguards for

the States concerned.

In the existing situation it seems reasonable to focus

attention on a detailed examination of the question of

creating an all-European security structure that would

involve all the existing structures in this field - the CSCE,

the NACC, NATO, the WEU - and, of course, the States of

the former USSR should have an appropriate place in that

structure. Ukraine advocates just such an approach,

namely, the strengthening of partnership and cooperation in

an all-European dimension rather than a search for new

geometrical schemas which would, in fact, solidify the

division of the European continent, small as it is on the

global scale.

We feel that the strengthening of stability and security

in the all-European sphere can and must be supplemented

by regional actions that could be organically integrated into

the overall process of confidence-building and constructive

cooperation.

In the search for such steps, Ukraine put forward the

initiative on confidence-building measures in the region of

the Black Sea. This region is extremely important to us as

a crossroads between Europe and Asia and between North

and South. The elaboration and implementation of specific

confidence-building measures in the military and political

fields in the Black Sea region would promote good-

neighbourly relations and political and economic

cooperation between the Black Sea countries.

Multilateral consultations on these issues have already

begun. Ukraine proceeds on the basis that all Black Sea

countries may participate in confidence-building measures.

We believe that the measures themselves should be

identified in a politically binding document, which would

regulate naval activities on the Black Sea, establish a

procedure for the exchange of appropriate information and

promote the development of contacts between the naval

forces of States parties.

The principle of collective action aimed at the

maintenance of peace under appropriate international

control must be one of the important conditions for the

operation of an all-Europe security system. At the

present stage, national and international security is

threatened not so much by the possibility of military

aggression from outside as by local and regional conflicts

provoked by domestic circumstances - economic, ethnic,

religious and others - and especially by the possibility of

their spilling over and involving neighbouring countries.

This requires timely preventive action.

Assessing recent developments in the world, we have

to recognize that, on the whole, preventive diplomacy is

coming to the foreground of United Nations activities

aimed at securing, restoring and strengthening peace and

of activities of the CSCE. In this context, I should like to

express gratitude to Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the

United Nations Secretary-General, for his significant

personal contribution to the development of the

foundations in this extremely important field of

international activity.

We greatly appreciate United Nations peace-keeping

efforts aimed at settling regional conflicts. We realize

that such activities require intensive political, physical and

financial support from Member States. Unfortunately, the

difficult economic situation of our State - not to mention

the unjustified excessively high contribution to the regular

budget - prevents Ukraine from meeting in full its

financial obligation to the United Nations. However, we

are trying to compensate, at least partially, through our

contribution to the peace-keeping forces.

Ukraine has already become one of the major

contributors to United Nations forces, and it remains

ready to cooperate in this field. We believe that

appropriate protection and security for the peace-keeping

personnel are essential conditions for such cooperation.

Let us consider the sad statistics. In the course of all

United Nations operations more than 1,000 peace-keepers

have been killed. In the territory of the former

Yugoslavia nine Ukrainian servicemen gave their lives,

and more than 30 persons were wounded. The problem

of security for United Nations personnel becomes more

acute every year. When sending its troops to Yugoslavia,

Ukraine took the initiative of developing an international

convention on the protection of United Nations peace-

keepers and of submitting a draft of the document. We

now await with hope the completion, during the current

session, of work on this question.

Developments in the former Yugoslavia and in

Somalia compel us to think about the problems of the

20

effectiveness of United Nations peace-keeping operations.

The fact that the United Nations, even using the potential

of such a powerful organization as NATO, failed to

extinguish the flames of bloody conflict in these countries

obviously calls for a more thorough examination and a

closer definition of principles of United Nations peace-

keeping operations. First and foremost, there are such

questions as a precise mandate, a link with the negotiating

process, the neutrality of the United Nations contingent, the

reasons for coercive action and the concept of multinational

forces.

Today, with the transition to a multipolar world, it has

become evident that no country, however great its potential

for military power, can any longer pretend to be an

effective guarantor of peace by relying exclusively on its

own strength. This would be incompatible with the rules

and principles of behaviour that are recognized throughout

the world. Unfortunately, the United Nations proved not to

be completely ready to assume this important role.

Operations have become increasingly expensive and

unwieldy. During the last four years alone United Nations

expenditure for these purposes has increased from $350

million to $2.8 billion, thus aggravating the chronic

financial problems. In the opinion of the world community,

peace-keeping operations have lost their element of the

extraordinary and have become routine, and not always

successful, emergency actions. But the main reason for the

crisis in United Nations peace-keeping efforts has proved to

be changes in the conditions and circumstances of conflicts.

Classic peace-keeping operations started after the end

of the "hot" phase. That is why they were, in fact, quite

effective means of conflict prevention. Now, in many

cases, the United Nations intervenes when hostilities are at

their height. This changes the principles of the use of

peace-keeping forces. It is not always the case that the

"blue helmets" are regarded by all the conflicting parties as

welcome guests. That is why the United Nations forces’

mandate is considerably wider than used to be the case. In

some cases they have been given the right to use all

available weapons - and not only in self-defence.

The parties to conflicts are often unable to provide

adequate conditions for United Nations forces to accomplish

their peace-making mission. A distinctive attribute of

current conflicts is the phenomenon of field commanders.

These people obey no one and, thus, compromise United

Nations decisions or agreements reached within the

framework of efforts aimed at achieving an armistice.

It is high time to renew the principles and

mechanisms of peace-keeping operations on the basis of

the United Nations Charter. We feel that it is necessary

to accelerate the creation of United Nations rapid-

deployment forces, which would recruit volunteers and

would be extraterritorial in character. Ukraine has

already declared its readiness to take part in this process.

An extremely important issue is the enhancement of

the role of international law within the system of

international relations and the creation of a climate

between States that would completely exclude diktat,

interference in internal affairs, the proclamation of

so-called zones of special interests, and so on. The

United Nations is also making a valuable contribution to

strengthening the international rule of law. In this

context, Ukraine advocates further enhancement of the

rules and principles of international law - first and

foremost, such basic principles as respect for the

sovereignty of States; territorial integrity and the

inviolability of borders; and the protection of individual

human rights, including the rights of national minorities.

Our State is committed to cooperating with other

countries in this field.

Ukraine is also ready to make its contribution to the

solution of other urgent problems. It is necessary that we

should examine thoroughly and comprehensively the

question of the implementation of economic sanctions

against those who threaten peace and security. Previous

United Nations experience in this field provides grounds

for justified criticism of the effectiveness of such

sanctions. It is time to give serious thought to the

creation of machinery for the implementation of Article

50 of the United Nations Charter. This would protect the

economic interests of third countries, which are suffering

colossal losses as a result of the strict implementation of

sanctions.

Ukraine has already lost more than $4 billion as a

result of the implementation of sanctions against

Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, the international structures

did not extend appropriate assistance to enable our State

to overcome the economic difficulties caused by the

embargo. Obviously, collective action aimed at

implementing coercive measures cannot be taken on such

an unfair basis, as this increases the danger of a loss of

confidence in the device of sanctions.

Generally, the necessity of substantively reforming

the United Nations, with a view to enhancing the

effectiveness of the Organization while reducing at the

21

same time the expenditures for its functioning, is a very

serious problem. I am confident that this problem has

ceased to be merely an administrative and budgetary one

and is moving to the foreground as one of the major

political problems. Many countries, including Ukraine, are

currently encountering great difficulties in convincing their

citizens that it is necessary to make excessively large

contributions to the budget of international organizations.

There are still many outstanding problems in the field

of arms control and disarmament, which traditionally

occupy an important place in the foreign policy of Ukraine.

We support efforts aimed at putting into force the chemical

weapons Convention. We are taking an active part in the

elaboration of effective mechanisms of international control

regarding the implementation of the inhumane weapons

Convention, the Convention on the prohibition of biological

weapons, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in

Europe, and other international instruments to which

Ukraine is a party. We attach great importance to the

preparation of the comprehensive test-ban treaty, which is

now under way within the framework of the Conference on

Disarmament. These activities prove that Ukraine is

pursuing a consistent policy in the field of the prohibition

of weapons of mass destruction, and they demonstrate its

openness and readiness to cooperate, its commitment to

respect the obligations assumed. Ukraine stands for the

equality of all States parties to international treaties and

supports the universality and non-discriminatory nature of

these treaties.

It is precisely from such a position that Ukraine

approaches nuclear disarmament, which, at the present

stage, is its most complicated problem. It should be

emphasized that Ukraine is the first State in the world that

has voluntarily and unilaterally assumed the obligation of

eliminating nuclear weapons located in its territory - the

third nuclear potential in the world - and that intends to

achieve the status of a non-nuclear Power.

The decision on non-nuclear status was approved by

the Parliament of Ukraine for the benefit both of the

highest interests of our State and of mankind as a whole.

This decision was based on the profound belief of our

people in the morality of the non-nuclear option and was

not the result of any external pressure.

At the same time, Ukraine, as a State that of its own

free will is giving up nuclear weapons - this most effective

means of deterrence - obviously has the right to obtain

reliable security guarantees from other nuclear States and

adequate economic and technical assistance from the

international community for the elimination of these

weapons.

Unfortunately, our partners did not immediately

comprehend these just demands, and we lost a lot of time.

The Ukraine Parliament’s conditions for revoking its

reservations at the time of the ratification of the START

Treaty and the Lisbon Protocol, and for proceeding with

the practical withdrawal of nuclear warheads from

Ukraine with the view to their further elimination, were

created only after the Trilateral Statement by the

Presidents of Ukraine, the United States and the Russian

Federation was signed and the relevant implementation

agreements were concluded.

Very soon the Parliament of Ukraine intends to

consider the accession of our State to the non-

proliferation Treaty. Today, the settlement of this issue

depends mainly on the finalization of an acceptable text

of the document concerning the provision of guarantees

for Ukraine’s national security by the nuclear States.

Ukraine stands for corresponding guarantees to be

multilateral and to be addressed directly to Ukraine as

that State which for the first time in history, on its own,

is getting rid of nuclear weapons; these guarantees should

provide a mechanism of consultations, which could

become involved should the security of Ukraine be

threatened. In this process, we attach great importance to

the role of the United Nations as the most authoritative

international organization.

In conclusion, I would like to express optimism

concerning the future development of the United Nations

and international co-operation. Current international life

is highly complicated and contradictory: there are

alarming moments and there are frustrations, but there are

also truly historical shifts which have led to the end of

the cold war and to the transition to constructive

co-operation. It is highly symbolic that this is happening

on the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of our Organization,

which emerged from the ruins of the Second World War.

On behalf of Ukraine, which suffered very heavy losses

in that war, I would like to support the proposal to

proclaim 1995 the universal year of commemoration of

the victims of this, the bloodiest of wars.

Present-day realities are laying a sound foundation

for global cooperation, stability and peace. Let us

therefore make every effort not to lose this historic

opportunity.