Armenia, 2001

Let me begin, Sir, by

congratulating President Han Seung-soo on his election

as President of the fifty-sixth session of the General

Assembly. I would like also to express our appreciation

of and respect for Mr. Harri Holkeri for the

professionalism and dedication with which he

conducted the previous session.

Since the acts of terrorism on 11 September, each

of us, as individuals and as leaders responsible for the

future of our planet, has been trying to understand what

happened — why and how. The universal

condemnation of the arrogance and fascist mentality

9

that conceives and implements such terror could not

have been more justified. The immediate determination

that the perpetrators must be punished and their bases

eliminated was necessary and prudent. The awareness

that this is a long and complex process remains

evident.

Scholars and analysts have attempted to explore

and explain that day of terror, its causes and its

ramifications. This is a necessary process that, if we

are patient, will begin with more questions than

answers. Listening will inevitably lead to dialogue, not

just this year, but every year. If we are honest, this

dialogue will reflect the fact that, although we all see

quite plainly that there has been a change, we do not

agree on what that change is or how it affects each of

us.

There are those who believe that the world has

been taken off the path of economic globalization and

democratization. There are some who insist that the

nature and course of international relations has

irrevocably changed — that the world order, as it

existed, has come crashing down. That may be the

inescapable, though illusory, initial reaction. It may

appear that bilateral and multilateral relations have

been fundamentally and involuntarily re-tailored.

Yet if this perception becomes more than a

natural temporary reaction — if the terrorists succeed

in intimidating us, and force us to take actions that are

not in our best interests, causing us to abandon

principles and agendas — then the terrorists will have

succeeded. They will have terrorized their way to

setting agendas and determining policies. But just as

New Yorkers have vowed continued allegiance to their

city and their way of life, the international community,

too, must remain true to its structures, traditions and

agenda.

That is not to say, however, that life has returned

to business as usual, or that it can do so. It certainly

cannot return to thinking as usual. Our allied approach

to the problems and realities that we collectively face

requires genuine, radical rethinking. The deep

dissatisfaction, injustice, poverty and hopelessness —

which do not justify terror but serve to validate it,

legitimize it and guard it — must be addressed and

eradicated, too. These deep-problems must be replaced

by equality, education, social justice, women’s and

children’s human rights, civil liberties and democracy.

Armenia readily joined the global struggle to

eradicate the terrorism network because the success of

this effort is as important for us as it is for the coalition

leaders. However, Armenia asks that, in our effort and

exercise of responsibility, to neutralize this enemy, we

be careful about our own definitions and labels. Just as

it is crucial to ensure solidarity in the united battle

against the evil of terrorism, a divergence of

interpretative opinion or varied agendas should not be

construed as lack of solidarity.

Just as the coalition leaders are concerned about

the effects of terrorism on their countries, peoples,

lifestyles and values, Armenia is concerned about how

the advent of such terror, and the extended battle

against it, will affect our region and our country. The

war on terrorism has added a further dimension to our

domestic and foreign policy agenda, not narrowed its

focus. The economic and political conditions which

make ours a volatile region have not gone away.

Indeed, they have been exacerbated by the new

alliances and priorities. Worse still, they might be

further aggravated if they are ignored and allowed to

lie latent while all attention is focused on the

immediate danger. In focusing on the hatred of

thousands, we do not want to dismiss the frustration

and needs of millions, many of whom stand at the brink

of war.

That is why, even as Armenia has offered

unreserved cooperation with the global coalition,

signed the United Nations and Council of Europe anti-

terrorism conventions, and offered military and

strategic assistance, we continue to insist that the

fundamental short- and long-term developmental issues

facing us also be dealt with. We are worried about the

stability of our region, because the basic freedoms

which are the hallmarks of modern society and which

decrease the likelihood of violent social and political

solutions are not universally guaranteed in our

neighbourhood.

Security and peace around the world depend on

stability in each region. If we are committed to world

peace and security, each of us in our own region must

take on the responsibility to address the outstanding

issues in a new light, guided by new thinking. It

remains for the leaders to abandon the expediency of

realpolitik for the efficacy of “justpolitik”. This is

nothing that has not been said before, but perhaps in

this new environment of searching, our call will not fall

on deaf ears. Our region has the wealth, the traditions,

10

the opportunities and the links that can make it flourish

and thrive.

As far as Armenia’s contribution to peace and

stability in the Caucasus is concerned, there are two

intertwined issues affecting our relations with two of

our neighbours. One is the absence of relations with

Turkey, to the west; the other is the Nagorny Karabakh

conflict, which affects our relations with Azerbaijan.

For the past 10 years, representatives of my

Government have, from this podium, affirmed that

basic freedoms of thought, belief, conviction, ethics,

traditions, values and culture also apply to the men,

women and children of Nagorny Karabakh. This lies at

the heart of the conflict over Nagorny Karabakh.

Azerbaijan’s insistence on inventing numbers,

redefining terms, creating history and obfuscating

discussion are part of the problem, not the search for a

solution. In response to the charges made today by my

colleague from Azerbaijan with regard to Armenia and

Nagorny Karabakh, let me say the following. Nagorny

Karabakh has never been a part of independent

Azerbaijan. Whether we consider history or geography,

whether we adopt a long-term political perspective or

face the reality of the facts on the ground, the men,

women and children of Nagorny Karabakh have earned

the right to live peacefully on their historic lands. For

decades they have been denied that right. Today, a

dozen years after the re-eruption of the conflict, the

children of Karabakh have completed an entire school

career free of alien domination and foreign occupation.

Justice for the people of Nagorny Karabakh has

been at the core of Armenia’s policies and actions, not

just because we believe it is right, but also because we

believe that, in order to achieve lasting peace,

economic cooperation and political development, this

conflict will have to be resolved fairly and fully.

Azerbaijan’s empty calls for a military solution, which

arise from an adherence to old clichés rather than from

new realities, are not acceptable among neighbours that

are serious about peace.

As for our relations with Turkey, in this post-

11 September world, when the cold war has truly and

finally ended, where erstwhile adversaries have found

reasons to put aside ideology and establish

partnerships, perhaps Turkey will put aside

preconditions in the interests of regional and world

peace. Armenia would like to have normal, good-

neighbourly relations with Turkey, and is hopeful that

Turkey will establish diplomatic relations with

Armenia, open the borders and engage in constructive

cooperation.

But the obvious must be stated. The memory of

the Armenian genocide continues to haunt and obstruct

Turkey’s relations with Armenia. However, we are

confident that this issue can be addressed between the

two Governments, through dialogue. The events of the

past two months have reminded Armenians that man is

indeed capable of immense, indescribable evil and that

mass violence is not a thing of the past. Yet if we, as

the victims of genocide, are unwilling to permit our

own tragic past to define our actions in the future, we

can confidently call on Turkey to do the same, and to

join us as equal participants in a dialogue between our

two peoples.

There is no doubt that the United Nations

provides the most overarching and inclusive framework

for creating the conditions that make States and

peoples prefer peace to war. The United Nations —

acting, where possible, with various multilateral and

regional organizations — should identify and utilize

the comparative advantage and specificity of each

institution and each country as a potential fighter, as a

potential instrument in the war for peace, and even as a

potential victim.

The United Nations did not need 11 September to

acknowledge economic development and poverty

eradication as strategic battlefields in the war against

terrorism. Donor countries can contribute to the

success of this war by providing not only military

forces, but also greater financial and technical

assistance.

Such assistance must be coordinated. The new

challenges call for the consolidation of existing

mechanisms of international dialogue, cooperation and

security. The United Nations can make a major

contribution to this process, especially if it reflects, in a

more equitable manner, the political and economic

realities of today’s world. We believe that real reform

of the Security Council lies in the expansion of both

categories: permanent and non-permanent. We support

the desire of Germany and Japan to become permanent

members of the Security Council.

Armenia also attaches great significance to the

issue of equitable geographic representation, and hence

it supports increased representation for

underrepresented regions, especially Asia, Africa,

11

Latin America and the Caribbean. In this regard,

Armenia is equally supportive of India’s quest for

permanent membership in the Security Council. We

believe strongly that any increase in non-permanent

membership should also ensure enhanced

representation for the Group of Eastern European

States through the allocation of one additional non-

permanent seat.

Modern life has caused upheavals in static

societies, and the answer lies not in any particular faith

but in healthy, democratic institutions and legislation

and viable economic systems.

Writer V. S. Naipaul made that assertion, and this

year he was awarded a Nobel Prize, as was Secretary-

General Kofi Annan. This choice of recipients provides

much food for thought. Neither has been exclusivist;

they have both been inclusive, as can be seen in their

ability to bring their deep-rooted traditions to bear on

the challenges facing our global society. While Naipaul

the writer teases and provokes, Annan the diplomat

challenges and soothes. They both do so with grace and

from positions of strength. They can both afford to be

more extreme in their pronouncements, but they are

not.

The message here is that in this year of dialogue

among civilizations, there are successful ways of

merging the best of the world’s traditions, even while

challenging the world to move forward towards justice

and democracy for all. Naipaul and Annan do not reject

the failures of the world, but challenge us to address

them. We, collectively, could do worse than to follow

their example.