Czechoslovakia, 1992

Let me congratulate you. Sir, on

your election as President of the General Assembly at its forth-seventh

session. I wish you much success and promise you full support.

I thank your predecessor, Mr. Shihabi, for guiding the General Assembly

to success at its forth-sixth session.

The past year weakened further the illusion that the end of the cold war

would facilitate a speedy and effective solution of problems that built up

during the post-war period. It has been a sobering year, during which we have

been involved in the gradual process of getting acquainted with the possible.

Sometimes we see euphoria replaced by total pessimism and little faith.

While the era of bipolarity is over and democracy is winning, many

conflicts remain unresolved, and a new generation of conflicts is beginning.

In addition to conflicts with which we have dealt routinely, but

unsuccessfully, over the years, we are now witnessing a great variety of

wars. The number of zones of conflict gets larger and larger.

Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Bosnia and

Herzegovina mainly Bosnia and Herzegovina - are new symbols of violence to

which we have no answers.

The United Nations, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe

(CSCE), the European Communities, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO), the Western European Union (WEU) and the Council of Europe are unable,

despite all their commendable efforts, to exert sufficient pressure to secure

the desired solutions to these tragedies. In this respect, there has been

growing impatience and anxiety, as well as dissatisfaction and criticism, on

the part of the public and the mass media. It has become routine to question

the role of international institutions as instruments that are suitable for

conflict management. Let us be frank about this: we face a problem of

credibility. Much will be at stake if we fail to deal immediately with it.*

There is a risk that a very typical challenge of the 1990s the

relationship between statehood and nationhood will become a phenomenon of

world politics that defies efficient international regulation. In this

respect in particular, international institutions have a fundamental role to

play in providing a guarantee that the processes will develop on a basis of

democracy and of respect for universal and civilized human values.

However, it would be a mistake to start the search for solutions by

challenging international institutions as such. It would be a mistake to

decide to modify the United Nations radically and rebuild it by rejecting the

wisdom of its founding fathers, as embodied in the Charter. The claim that

revitalization of the United Nations requires not a change in the Charter but,

on the contrary, full implementation of the Charter is often considered to be

a cliche. I regard it not as a cliche but as a wise approach, indicating not

rigidity but, rather, a willingness to exploit fully the political potential

of the Charter.

It is true that the Charter makes no explicit reference to drugs,

organized crime, the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), indebtedness

or the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. However, it contains

fundamental political principles on the basis of which these problems can and

should be solved. To that end, the things that are lacking are sometimes

instruments, sometimes money and very often the political will. What is

needed is - in short - a change in our approach to the priorities of the

activities of the Organization.

It is in this climate that the Secretary-General's report the "Agenda

for Peace" - has come into our hands. The recommendations contained in that

report provide useful guidelines for effective exploitation of the Charter's

potential. I believe that the section dealing with the prevention of conflict

requires elaboration, as it has been demonstrated that activity in this field

will increasingly become one of the basic orientations of multilateral

diplomacy.

In summary, the Secretary-General's report deals with confidence-building

measures, fact-finding, early warning and preventive diplomacy. I am familiar

with these terms as the CSCE, at its third summit, held in Helsinki, firmly

incorporated them into the list of its instruments.

Mention of the CSCE brings me to a question that Czechoslovakia has

proposed as a new item for the General Assembly's agenda - coordination of the

activities of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and

Cooperation in Europe. In this connection, let me take the former Yugoslavia

as an example. Several times, in my capacity as Chairman of the CSCE Council

of Ministers, I have come across situations in which activities of the United

Nations and activities of the CSCE overlap. Naturally, such overlapping has

reduced the effectiveness of those activities.

My meetings with Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the United Nations Special

Rapporteur for Human Rights in the former Yugoslavia, clearly demonstrated a

need for, and an interest in, regular coordination of United missions with

those of the CSCE. In this connection, I should say that the United Nations

made an excellent choice when it picked Mr. Mazowiecki for its human-rights

activities in this explosive area.

However, this problem does not concern just the former Yugoslavia. Like

the CSCE, the United Nations has sent missions to Nagorno-Karabakh and

Transnistria. As the aims of all these missions have been coordinated only in

outline, it is no wonder that the parties to the conflict often fail to

understand the purpose of these foreign delegations coming to see them and

asking the same questions. It is often unclear how they differ.

The CSCE summit that took place in Helsinki in July laid the basis for

improved cooperation between the United Nations and the CSCE, as well as other

other organizations NATO, the Western European Union (WEU) and the Council

of Europe. The need for such interaction resulted in the London Conference on

the former Yugoslavia. This was the first example of systematic cooperation

between three international organizations, and it amounted to the first

interlocking action by the European Community, the United Nations and the

CSCE. As the London Conference was attended also by the Organization of the

Islamic Conference and the International Red Cross as a non-governmental

organization, I see it as the germ of a loose system of cooperation between

various institutions.

It seems to me that the time is right to consider seriously the convening

of an informal "brainstorming" meeting of the United Nations, the CSCE, the

European Community, NATO, the WEU and the Council of Europe to discuss the

idea of an interlocking system of international organizations. The purpose of

the proposed General Assembly agenda item on coordination between the United

Nations and the CSCE is not simply to secure a resolution. In my opinion,

that discussion of the issue at this session could develop at two levels - the

conceptual level, at which the fundamental political meaning of coordination,

both in the immediate future and in the light of medium-term and long-term

prospects, could be clarified; and the practical level, at which the

activities of the two institutions have already begun to overlap, making it

possible to draw conclusions.

It will certainly be in the interests of the United Nations and of the

CSCE to have the meaning of "preventive diplomacy" and "early warning"

clarified. These terms have already taken on a very definite meaning at the

CSCE, and the majority of United Nations Member States, as they do not

participate in the CSCE, will probably want to become acquainted with them.

The conceptual discussion might focus also on the relationship between

the United Nations and the CSCE as institutions each of which has the task of

looking after the security of its members. This is especially so as the CSCE

now covers an area stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok.

For the purpose of getting the discussion under way, I should like, in my

national capacity, to put forward some ideas. Whenever the Security Council

wishes to discuss a security issue within the competence of the CSCE, a

representative of the CSCE should be invited to provide the Council with the

necessary information on any CSCE activities in respect of that issue or

otherwise to contribute to the work of the Council. The Council and its

President, as well as the United Nations Secretary-General, should be kept

constantly informed of the main activities of the CSCE, and the reverse should

apply.

Coordination of the human-rights activities of the United Nations and of

the CSCE could be improved by, for example, regular CSCE participation at

meetings of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and its committees,

the Economic and Social Council and the Third Committee of the General

Assembly. And is there any reason why we should not establish working

contacts between the United Nations Centre for Human Rights in Geneva and the

CSCE's Warsaw Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights?

In addition, one of the main elements of the CSCE's early-warning

system the High Commissioner on National Minorities might have some link

with the United Nations. Indeed, at the appropriate time, that might even be

turned into an institutional link. In the long term, the CSCE human-rights

institutions, structures and mechanisms could become tools of both the United

Nations and the Council of Europe.

Such discussion as I have suggested could dispel the fear of United

Nations Member States which do not participate in the CSCE that the Helsinki

process is an elite club that institutionalizes the gap between the rich North

and the poor South.

We must also ensure that there is a proper understanding of the

peace-keeping role of the CSCE vis-a-vis that of the United Nations. The most

recent reason for this comparison is to be found in President Bush's statement

to the General Assembly on Monday, in which he suggested that the

peace-keeping function of the United Nations should be expanded considerably.

The peace-keeping concept of the United Nations is not identical to that of

the CSCE, and I believe that there is a good prospect of their becoming

complementary. It should be remembered that, in this respect, the North

Atlantic Alliance and the Western European Union have made important offers.

It is unlikely that we shall be able to avoid having a debate on

peacemaking and peace-keeping. The crisis in the former Yugoslavia

necessitates a really serious discussion of this question. It is unnecessary

for me to reiterate my country's full support for the United Nations

peace-keeping operations, as there are Czech and Slovak "blue helmets" in the

former Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia has contributed to the United Nations

operations in Angola, Somalia and Iraq. To be of practical benefit,

discussion of the interaction between the United Nations and the CSCE should

take place annually.

In today's world the United Nations can play an even more important role

in arms control and disarmament. I am thinking especially of the Convention

on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of

Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. When

the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms becomes operational, it will

have a substantial role to play.

The Secretary-General's report, "An Agenda for Peace", says, "globalism

and nationalism need not be viewed as opposing trends" (para. 19). These

words attracted my attention as they reflect one of the peculiarities of our

times. They embody the historical experience of the two nations of

Czechoslovakia experience that I should like to share with members.

The idea of the right of nations to self-determination advanced by

President Wilson facilitated the disintegration of the former Austro-Hungarian

monarchy, thus opening up the way for the creation of Czechoslovakia. That

was 74 years ago.

Czechoslovakia emerged, however, under the influence of the notion that

there was a Czechoslovak nation, whereas it should have been admitted that

there were two distinct nations the Czechs and the Slovaks. But the idea of

Czechoslovakism, which resulted in the creation of a common State for the

world's two closest Slavic nations, impeded relations between those nations.

Thus a specific Czecho-Slovak problem was born, and it remains unresolved.

At about the same time, communism tied nations together by means of the

false idea of proletarian internationalism. This was bound to affect

relations between the Czechs and the Slovaks. However, our experience

indicates that communism was not the root of these problems; it simply gave

them a new dimension. Many nations are now searching for a new role in Europe

and in the world by seeking integration into larger economic entities and

political groups.

I believe that, so far as Czechoslovakia is concerned, one possible

solution lies in the replacement of the existing federalist pattern by new

ties. Understanding and viable coexistence between nations cannot be based on

false and outdated ideas. Czechoslovakia is therefore preparing to establish

two closely connected sovereign States by creating a common economy space and

retaining intact the close contacts between the peoples of the two republics.

We want to introduce elements of European integration into the relations

between the republics.

What is now taking place in Czechoslovakia is a process aimed at the

creation of a solid basis for a model of integration such as has been

developing democratically in Western Europe and has led to the creation and

development of the European Communities.

minim

Globalism and nationalism are not necessarily opposing trends, provided

that the right to self-determination is accompanied by the desire for closer

cooperation with other nations and by efficient participation in international

systems of guaranteeing the basic values upon which the world and especially

the fragile structure of peace are built. We live in an era of global

integration comprising different subsystems, among which the United Nations

has an irreplaceable role to play.

I should like, in conclusion, to say that this statement is a sort of

farewell speech of the Czechoslovak federation to the United Nations. It is

highly probable that by January of next year the federation will have ceased

to exist. Thus one of the founding members of the United Nations will give

its place in international politics to the two new independent States. It is

my hope that all the current Members of the United Nations will extend to the

Czech republic and the Slovak republic the understanding that they have always

shown to Czechoslovakia, by admitting them to membership as soon as possible.