Georgia, 1995

Allow me to begin by

extending my warmest congratulations to the President on

his assumption of his functions at this remarkable session

of the United Nations General Assembly in its fiftieth

year. It is without a doubt a fitting recognition of his rich

personal experience and of his outstanding contribution to

the world community.

I should like to address words of deep appreciation

to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for

his dedicated efforts aimed at creating a more secure,

peaceful and coherent world for future generations but,

above all, for the close attention, constant concern and

personal compassion that he has demonstrated with regard

to the fate of my homeland.

On behalf of the Head of State, Mr. Eduard

Shevardnadze, and the people of the Republic of Georgia,

I should like to express our gratitude to all Member States

for their support of Georgia in one of the most dramatic

moments of its long history. I should like to assure the

international community that despite a very difficult

political landscape, which of late has included savage acts

of political terrorism, the Georgian nation continues to

strive towards its goal of democracy and stability.

I have been fortunate enough to have had the honour

of addressing this unique gathering on previous occasions,

and have always found that, although some of the

problems facing our individual countries and our

community as a whole persist from year to year, the

unique nature of this world body provides an incentive to

look at problems in a more optimistic light and to seek

18

new and innovative solutions. This holds especially true in

this anniversary year.

This Hall has witnessed different times and events,

some of them full of tension and stress, when the world

was teetering on the brink of catastrophe. One can say

without exaggeration that the history of mankind has been

written within these walls for the last 50 years.

Fortunately, the tense cold-war confrontation has

subsided, clearing the way for the forming of mechanisms

of cooperation and partnership. These mechanisms need

time to mature and prove their vitality — but time is a

luxury that few can afford in our day.

This fledgling process is also hampered by a variety

of other factors. Foremost among these factors is the

existence of a number of countries that are, at the same

time, struggling to make ends meet and to reform their

impoverished economies. This creates a very difficult

economic and social situation, which, in turn, leads to

political instability, ethnic or civil conflict and, in the final

analysis, to additional threats to regional peace, making the

problems of individual countries a matter of concern to the

entire world. For Georgia, this most difficult factor is

further complicated by the country’s detachment from the

global opportunities of commerce, technology, investment

and information.

No developing country — and Georgia is undoubtedly

among them — has the means to pull itself out of its

current difficulties by its own bootstraps. And if left to their

own devices, these countries will inevitably follow the same

scenario and become additional “bleeding wounds” on the

body of the world.

The international community is providing significant

assistance to Georgia and to the other new independent

States, for which we are very grateful. I should like to

make special mention of the additional funds allocated

recently for development and of the extensive activities of

the United Nations Development Programme in the

countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

This problem is of a greater magnitude, however, and

its solution, we believe, lies in devising a comprehensive

plan for the economic and social development of a number

of fledgling States, involving vigorous actions on the part

of the international community and a considerable

expansion of the role of the United Nations in promoting

development and in the allocation of additional possibilities

to support the countries transiting to a market economy.

One specific option could be to elaborate general

programmes of development for individual countries.

These programmes would be targeted at the main spheres

of the economy, based on a thorough assessment of

individual needs, assets and possibilities. They would set

the dates, define the sources of financing, and integrate

international assistance and the efforts of national

Governments. The programmes would include the

activities of the United Nations and of national and

international non-governmental organizations in each

specific country. Such a general programme of a

coordinating nature would enable us to clearly identify

priorities, set goals and effectively harness the untapped

reserves of each nation. It would also make much more

effective use of international assistance and goodwill,

which, we all understand, are not infinite.

The creation and implementation of such

programmes would have a very important additional

benefit: by helping to create the basis for a sound,

growing economy, they would simultaneously be

eliminating the breeding ground for internal wars and

conflicts in a manner much more effective than any

peace-keeping operation.

The cruel and merciless flame of war raging on the

territory of the former Yugoslavia is a vivid example of

the discrepancy between the realities of our world today

and the means that international organizations have at

their disposal. Death, unbearable suffering and misery for

tens of thousands of people are the price of this

discrepancy.

While the attention of the entire world is drawn to

extinguishing the fire in the Balkans, the territory of the

former Soviet Union has become the scene of events no

less dramatic and equally threatening to international

security. Many of them bear an uncanny resemblance to

the Balkans in their train of events and in their destructive

potential for regional and international stability.

A timely and just resolution of even one of these

conflicts would provide a brilliant example and a strong

motivation for settling the other ones.

In the past era — and I use this word on purpose,

since we have witnessed a veritable change of eras —

Georgia was often referred to as a laboratory of bold

experiments. Though Georgia hardly has time for

experimenting, this trend continues to this day with an

unprecedented case. I am referring to the joint activities

of United Nations military observers and the

19

Commonwealth of Independent States peace-keeping forces

in the Abkhazia region of Georgia. So far, this novel

approach — or experiment, one could say — has yielded

precious few results. Logically, this would prompt us to

search for new forms and methods, but it should not at all

exclude a more effective use of the existing and tested

possibilities.

The interminable plight of Abkhazia and of the

300,000 displaced persons scattered throughout Georgia

continues to weigh heavily on the entire country and

constitutes another major factor in Georgia’s inability to

engage fully in the process of consolidating, rebuilding and

moving the nation forward.

A fair settlement of the conflict in Abkhazia is made

up of two equally important aspects: the unconditional

return of the displaced persons to their homes and the

definition of the political status of Abkhazia within a

unified Georgia. This is not somebody’s wish, it is not even

solely a matter of principle; this is a fact of life, and one

that will be implemented, sooner or later.

Despite the bitter experience of repeated treachery, the

Georgian Government has never attempted, or threatened to

resort to military force in order to solve this problem. We

have always been committed to the peaceful and negotiated

resolution of the conflict. It is extremely difficult, however,

to carry on peaceful negotiations with a party that resorts to

blatant “ethnic cleansing” and genocide as a means of

consolidating its ill-gotten gains.

Moreover, the Abkhaz side has recently gone so far as

to practically stall the negotiating process by demonstrating

more than their usual intransigence. It is obvious that the

separatist regime is determined to make no compromises,

and prefers to maintain the status quo in the zone of

conflict. Each round of negotiations has proved that the

Abkhazian separatists seek to win time, while pretending

that they are committed to a negotiated settlement of the

conflict.

The separatist leadership is impatiently awaiting

parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia. They

attach great importance to the results, assuming that they

will bring about a revision of policy priorities there towards

a more pro-Abkhaz orientation.

Such is the nature of “aggressive separatism”, which

pursues its dark schemes with little regard for law,

international public opinion, or elementary norms of human

decency.

“Aggressive separatism” is a relatively new

phenomenon which emerged on the ruins of the

communist system and is being nurtured by various

political forces. The peculiarity of “Abkhaz separatism”

lies in its seeming usefulness for the larger political aims

of these forces. This fact makes it possible for a minority

of the population of an autonomous republic to drive out

the majority indigenous population of the land by force.

This aspect of “aggressive separatism”, making it a

tool in larger political schemes, has international

ramifications and represents a danger for world security

as a whole.

The special role and possibilities of Russia in

bringing about the resolution of the Abkhazian conflict

are recognized by all, not least by relevant United Nations

documents. Some recent developments encourage us to

hope that Russia may finally decide to use this potential

in order to bring about a comprehensive settlement of this

problem.

The international community has applied much effort

to promoting a peaceful, fair solution to the conflict in

Abkhazia. In the past two years the Security Council

alone has adopted 13 resolutions on Abkhazia. One

hundred and thirty six United Nations military observers

are situated in the conflict zone. The Secretary-General’s

Special Envoy has undertaken numerous trips to the area

and has consulted repeatedly with all the parties.

In December 1994 the Organization for Security and

Cooperation in Europe (OCSE) adopted a Declaration at

its Budapest summit in which the participating States

expressed their deep concern over “ethnic cleansing”,

“massive deportation of the population” and “numerous

deaths of innocent civilians”, having included these

specific terms in the declaration.

Add to this several declarations and statements

adopted at CIS summits in Almaty and Minsk, which

denounce any form of separatism. Member States of the

CIS assumed the obligation not to support in any form or

manner separatist movements and regimes on the

territories of other countries, and not to establish political,

economic and other relations with them. Neither would

they provide their territory and communications facilities

for use by separatists, nor render them economic,

financial, military or any other kind of assistance.

At the CIS summit in Minsk the mandate of the

peace-keeping forces in Georgia was expanded to include

20

wider rights in order to facilitate the orderly return of

displaced persons and protect vitally important structures.

The mere enumeration of all these measures and

activities would seem to indicate that sufficient political and

legal foundation has been created to finally resolve this

festering crisis. However, the displaced persons are still

waiting to return to their homes, there continue to be no

guarantees of a secure life and normal living conditions,

and the separatist leaders in Abkhazia persist in their aim

of turning Abkhazia into a land uninhabited by Georgians.

Should we regard all the above-mentioned resolutions,

decisions and statements as futile efforts that carry little

beyond moral support? Or consider that the adoption of

Security Council resolutions and their implementation are

two separate and unconnected acts?

I recall an emotional intervention by the Permanent

Representative of the Czech Republic, Ambassador

Kovanda, at one of the Security Council meetings, in which

he suggested that the time had finally come to “call a spade

a spade”. As I have mentioned, this was done in the OSCE

Declaration in Budapest last year, but this has yet to appear

in any United Nations document on the situation in

Georgia.

Also, the process of enforcing the implementation of

the provisions of adopted documents is slack and, with very

few exceptions, brings no results. I realize that I am

touching on some sore points in United Nations activities,

but the lack of movement on the Abkhazian conflict

compels us to present the undisguised truth and begin the

transformation from words to deeds.

In this regard, I should like to present some

suggestions which, we believe, could contribute to the

effectiveness of both the words and of the actions of the

United Nations.

In our view, the resolutions emanating from the United

Nations, as well as from other international organizations,

must clearly assign personal responsibility to individual

persons, organizations or regimes, guilty of disrupting the

process of the peaceful resolution of conflicts. They should

clearly state that these actions will inevitably entail

adequate punitive measures.

First among them should be an introduction of severe

economic and other sanctions according to Articles 41 and

42 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. The

specific form of sanctions intended for the territories under

the control of criminals should also be defined clearly at

the outset, as well as the fact that the population of these

territories will be entitled to receive only humanitarian aid

under strict international control. The case of Abkhazia is

a relevant example. The Georgian Government has

information indicating that weapons and heavy armaments

are being stockpiled in some areas of the territory under

the control of the United Nations Observer Mission and

the CIS peace-keepers. The systematic commuting of

ships between Abkhazian ports and regional States with

the intention of supplying criminal gangs, the free

movement of foreign nationals and the illegal operation of

commercial entities cannot be tolerated either.

Secondly, during its history, the United Nations has

not been energetic enough in taking compulsory measures

against violators of international peace and stability. In a

recent document devoted to the fiftieth anniversary of the

United Nations, the Secretary-General describes such an

approach as desirable in principle and enumerates the

positive and negative aspects of entrusting this task to the

Member States. Much room exists also with regard to the

possibility of achieving the same objective by regional

organizations, especially at a time when the coordination

of action between international organizations has acquired

more and more importance. Cooperation between the

United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia and the CIS

peace-keeping force, as an example, could benefit from

some additional elements.

With regard to this, I would like to point out that the

establishment of a permanent representation of the CIS at

United Nations Headquarters, headed by a dynamic and

experienced diplomat, would be highly beneficial and

desirable.

Thirdly, we consider the establishment and operation

of the international criminal court a priority. The United

Nations would be contributing greatly to promoting

international law and justice and the court could quickly

develop into a potent tool of preventive diplomacy, which

in itself would be a major factor reinforcing international

stability.

More often than not we are reduced to dealing with

the effect, rather than the cause, of events. In other

words, we put much less stock in United Nations

preventive diplomacy than is prudent or practical. In the

case of the Abkhazian conflict, this point, naturally, has

no practical significance any longer, but conclusions can

be drawn from it that would be relevant for the future.

Preventive diplomacy must have real mechanisms and

21

levers which would enable the international community to

impose its will, rather than expose the futility of its

initiatives.

In my intervention at the meeting of the Security

Council on 12 May 1995, I requested an expansion of the

functions of the United Nations observers in order to

accelerate the repatriation of refugees. We felt that it was

important to register and control the breaches of human

rights. This would deter lawbreakers and keep the

international community better informed about the situation

in the region. Since military observers would be

inappropriate for this type of specialized work, we

suggested the establishment of a small team of competent

professionals working alongside the observers to undertake

this mission. The Government of the Republic of Georgia

welcomed the decision to establish such a human rights

monitoring mission in Abkhazia, Republic of Georgia, as

well as its objectives, as presented in the

Secretary-General’s report of 7 August 1995.

I should like to take this opportunity also to convey

our satisfaction with the decision of the Secretary-General

to appoint a deputy to his Special Envoy, who would be

resident in Georgia and would thus provide a continuous

presence at a senior political level.

I have another suggestion of a more administrative

nature. I know that I am expressing the opinion of a

number of newly independent States in requesting that some

mechanism be found to allow the hiring of representatives

of these States by organizations and programmes of the

United Nations system — primarily, the United Nations

Development Programme and the United Nations Children’s

Fund, as well as others. The problem lies in the fact that

most programmes and organizations have instituted a hiring

freeze, which came into effect before the newly

independent States became independent. So, in reality, this

hiring freeze, as necessary and as useful as it may be from

the point of view of internal administration, represents for

our States a roadblock to the normal representation of its

citizens. We would be very grateful if such a mechanism

could be found.

Three years have passed since the Head of State of the

Republic of Georgia, Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze, laid out a

set of very sensitive points at the forty-seventh session of

the General Assembly. The creation of a global monitoring

system for the early prevention of potential conflicts; the

establishment of special units of Blue Helmets, after the

example of Interpol teams, in order to control and combat

the flow of conventional weapons; and the establishment of

a rapid reaction force were among the proposals. The

problems that prompted him to make these suggestions

have, unfortunately, grown more acute today and need to

be urgently addressed. We are aware of the many

difficulties in implementing some of these measures, not

least the financial difficulty, but the costs inevitably grow

astronomically when problems are left to fester.

Recently a forum was held in Tbilisi under the

auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization, entitled “Solidarity Against

Intolerance, For Dialogue Between Cultures”. It was held

in the framework of the Year for Tolerance declared by

the United Nations. The main aim of the forum was to

find ways out of the situation in which the countries

infected by the virus of intolerance had found themselves.

It is symbolic that Georgia, a country known historically

for its tolerance, hosted the forum. I am sure that

everyone shares the opinion expressed in Tbilisi, that

“we cannot afford to overlook intolerance, since

indifference and complacency equal complicity”.

The contribution of the United Nations to the

process of maintaining international peace and stability is

enormous. And yet numerous open wounds remain in the

world. Conventional wisdom would hold the United

Nations solely responsible for not being able to close

them. There are, however, deeper reasons for this.

At the root of the problem of the United Nations

ineffectiveness, we see the current situation in the world.

The system of coordinates into which the United Nations

was born 50 years ago has been drastically and

precipitously altered by the rapid disintegration of the

bipolar world and the emergence of new

interrelationships, new problems and new threats to world

security, as well as to the security of individual Member

States. In this situation it is all of us Member States,

expressing the collective will of the United Nations, that

need to determine what kind of United Nations we would

like to see at the turn of the century and, indeed, in the

next 50 years, and what means we would be prepared to

provide to the United Nations in order for it to be

effective in the new situation.

As the representative of one of the many nations

caught up in the vortex of these changes, I am confident

that I express the opinion of all Georgians when I say that

my country looks upon the United Nations both with

disappointment, for the failure to contribute meaningfully

to resolving some of our most burning problems, but also

22

with hope and optimism that the United Nations will finally

bring itself into conformity with the changes in the world

and find the resolve and the means to impose its will and

international law.

This hope is based on the fact that the United Nations

is at its half-century mark and regards this not only as a

time for celebration and commemoration, but, more

importantly, as a time for stock-taking and mapping out its

future activities, in order to be able to rise to the challenges

of the next 50 years and of the twenty-first century.