Armenia, 2007

Each opportunity to

speak from this rostrum is a humbling experience,

because I know that all the countries of the world listen

to one another and try to discern and understand where

our common approaches and interests lie. Those of us

who represent small countries have a sense that this

forum is a place where large nations address the ills of

the world and that we smaller ones ought to stick to

issues and topics that are specific to us and to our

regions, as if addressing overarching, global issues

were pretentious and best left to those with the power

to do something about them.

Today marks my tenth year here, and I risk

breaking the rule. This year, as financial calamities

have compounded political and natural disasters, it has

become very clear that, although our common

problems and challenges threaten us all equally, they

affect us unevenly. The small nations, which have less

of everything — diversity, resources, manoeuvrability,

means and options — are at greater peril and have

greater susceptibility than those with bigger territories,

larger populations and greater potential.

At the same time, the issues on the agenda of the

General Assembly — such as peace and security,

economic growth, sustainable development, human

rights, disarmament, drugs, crime and international

terrorism — know no borders, and none of us can

address them individually if we want to see effective

solutions. Finding solutions to these problems is in our

common interest, for they are issues that affect all of

humanity. And because these problems cannot be

solved within our own borders, no one has either the

right to abdicate responsibility for the consequences or

the luxury of doing so.

When the speculative market drives the price of

oil to $80, those who are too small to have significant

reserves are the ones who are affected most, and large

countries with large appetites for fuel sometimes make

deals on energy matters that are not consistent with

their policies. So do we, because energy security is not

only a matter of global arithmetic; it is also a matter of

life and death.

When climate change causes serious changes in

the environment, it does not take much for a prolonged

drought or an excessive rain to harm our agriculture

and damage our economy or for rising sea levels to

reach our cities. But we do not have the space or the

diversity to cope and adapt.

When it is news that there have been no

explosions in Iraq and when daily calamities are

commonplace, we in the small countries begin to sense

that we are vulnerable and susceptible to the will and

the capacity of other members of the international

community and, most important, to their tolerance of

distant acts of violence and humiliation.

When development is dependent on the absence

of bad weather, disease and war, and when the capacity

to ward off at least two of those three ills lies in the

hands of those who have the ability to bring peace and

to heal, we in the small nations feel at risk and

helpless.

When disarmament and arms control cease to be

instruments for peace and security and instead become

a means to reap political dividends, we in the small

countries turn to our own means for self-protection. In

other words, we become part of the problem, because

the solution is not straightforward or visible.

Finally, when “Darfur” becomes shorthand for

“helplessness”, we in the small nations of the world

realize that power has replaced responsibility. The

ubiquitous language of human rights cannot and will

not compensate for a lack of political will to act.

Genocide must be prevented, not commemorated.

Generation after generation, we find new places

for appalling human tolerance of inhuman

machinations and names for places of slaughter, mass

killings and massacres of those who belong to a

particular sector, ethnic group, race or religion. For

Armenia, it was, for 100 years, the desert of Der el

Zor; for the next generation, it was Auschwitz; later, it

was the killing fields of Cambodia; and, more recently,

it was Rwanda. If each one of those names, together

with the word “genocide”, evokes ignorance,

helplessness and the covering up of war crimes,

“Darfur” today is synonymous with expediency,

evasion and simple inconvenience. “Darfur” is

synonymous with shame.

My appeal to the international community, on

behalf of the small countries, is that it address each of

these issues on its own merits and for its own sake, not

as a piece of the global power puzzle. When tension

rises between global Powers, it leads to polarization,

and that in turn leads to a decrease in the capacity of

small nations to carry out hard-earned policies of

complementarity and balance. Our ability to be part of

the process diminishes.

Let me state the obvious: we count on the

willingness of the great Powers in the international

community to set aside their disputes and to try to

address these issues collectively. We also expect that

they clearly understand that their power and influence

do not make them immune from the consequences of

the processes and problems that afflict us.

Last month, Armenia celebrated its sixteenth year

of independence. During this period, we have

weathered sea changes that have swept us up in

regional and global processes that affect us in our daily

lives. But we can only take pride in what we have

accomplished during the same period: an open and

diverse economy, high growth and strong financial

systems, as well as improved elections, stronger public

institutions and a population that is increasingly aware

of its rights. All of that gives us the confidence and

determination to address other ills facing our society —

uneven growth, a high poverty rate, low pay — and to

strengthen our human institutions and deepen our

experience with democracy.

We have accomplished all of this under difficult

circumstances. We still have a conflict to resolve with a

neighbour; there are artificial limitations on Armenia’s

ability to act; and regional cooperation is lacking.

The agenda of the General Assembly this year

includes an item on protracted conflicts. Lumping all

those conflicts together is an inherently flawed

approach. Our own conflict in Nagorny Karabakh does

not belong there. The United Nations is not the place to

address it, because that issue is being addressed within

the Organization for Security and Cooperation in

Europe. Additionally, Karabakh is not a frozen conflict.

We are negotiating with Azerbaijan and are inching

towards a resolution.

Second, during this time, there has been an

evolution of the process. We have a balanced, solid

document in our hands that addresses not only the core

issues but also consequential issues, and the two

together add up to a reasonable solution.

Third, at the core of our process lies the right of

peoples to self-determination. Indeed, the people of

Karabakh do not want anything more than that which is

theirs. They want to live in peace and security on their

own territory. In other words, they would like to

exercise the very right that every single nation in this

Hall has exercised at some time in their history.

Speaking of conflict, we also follow very closely

the events in Kosovo. We hear the international

community loud and clear when it is said that Kosovo

will not be a precedent for other conflicts. We are not

attempting to make Kosovo a precedent for our

conflict, because that contradicts our own principle that

all conflicts are different. At the same time, however,

we will not accept or understand the reverse logic,

which holds that because Kosovo has been given

independence, other peoples cannot achieve

self-determination. No one should tell us that there is a

quota for liberty and freedom.

At the end of the day, the willingness and

understanding of small nations and their involvement

in global processes cannot be a substitute for what

major Powers with greater capacities and political will

to act can do. In this age of openness and inclusion,

there is no room for the old instruments of coercion

and exclusion. Instead, we need new instruments of

compromise and consensus so that we can achieve

humanity’s enduring goal of living in peace and

prosperity.