Greece, 1996

Allow me to extend the

warmest congratulations of my Government to the

President of the General Assembly at its fifty-first session

on his election. I would also like to express our deep

appreciation to his predecessor, Mr. Diogo Freitas

do Amaral, whose leadership during the fiftieth session

was a valuable asset for the Organization.

I also seize this opportunity to express my deep

appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros

Boutros-Ghali, for his dedication to his duties since 1992.

The Foreign Minister of Ireland, as President of the

Council of the European Union, delivered a statement to

which my Government fully subscribes, as it does to the

Union’s memorandum. I would like, however, to

elaborate further on some issues that are of particular

interest to my country.

Let us remember the message delivered by the world

leaders during the special commemorative meeting of this

body: the Organization needs to undergo a serious

reorganization in order to be ready to confront the

challenges of the years ahead. The political commitment

of the Member States and the contribution of adequate

resources constitute two fundamental prerequisites for the

success of the United Nations.

Unfortunately, few noteworthy proposals have been

put forward concerning the comprehensive modernization

effort to enable the Organization to become more efficient

and transparent in the fulfilment of its functions while

rationalizing the use of its resources.

It is the Member States that have endowed the

United Nations with its current features. Even if the

Organization’s administrative weaknesses were fully

remedied, the power of extensive correction and

long-overdue reform lies not in this building, but in our

own capitals.

At this stage, we are faced with two alternatives:

either curtail demands on the United Nations, giving it a

reasonable chance of carrying out reduced policies within

its existing resources, or recognize the need to improve its

capacities and grant it greater functions, as well as the

necessary means. Greece strongly advocates the second

path, because the need for the world Organization is

growing, not shrinking. Year by year, we move closer to

menacing demographic, socio-economic and ecological

thresholds. The only chance we have to deal with

transnational problems is to work out transnational

4

responses. We need to cooperate constructively towards

common ends.

It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for

the United Nations to face the current financial crisis if

Member States were to deprive the world Organization of

the resources and assets that they have contractually

pledged of their own free will. In this context, it should be

stressed yet again that no amount of savings will, by itself,

permit the United Nations to be solvent, and that none of

the Member States, in particular those that play a major

role in the Organization’s decision-making process and in

the definition of its activities, should have second thoughts

when it comes to footing their part of the bill.

Let us be clear: the whole reform is endangered by the

looming atmosphere of imminent financial collapse. Even

worse, the United Nations, and all the principles that it

stands for, are exposed to the danger of being discredited,

perhaps forever, even in the eyes of its warmest supporters.

This is a much more fundamental issue than improvements

to specific parts of the system, welcome and needed though

the latter may be.

Earlier this year, the European Union outlined a

comprehensive package to address the financial crisis.

Furthermore, Greece, on a national basis, responded

positively to the Secretary-General’s appeal and decided to

increase its annual contribution to the peacekeeping-

operations budget, thus moving on a voluntary basis from

Group C to Group B of countries that contribute to the

financing of the Organization’s peacekeeping activities. As

a result, our contribution will increase by 500 per cent by

the year 2000, when the process of gradual reallocation will

have been completed.

It has become increasingly fashionable to argue that

the idea of a world community is alive in the human

imagination, though not yet in the world of action; that the

concept of collective security has failed to take root because

it does not reflect the spirit of the age; that the public

multilateral approach cannot be effective in conflict

resolution, because there are no collective solutions to

individual crises; and that behind-the-scenes diplomacy,

which pursues relatively modest goals, will always be better

at keeping conflict within reasonable limits, because it will

compromise between what justice demands and what

circumstances permit.

In the light of past and recent experience, the Greek

people certainly do not have immoderate illusions in this

regard. The case of Cyprus is a striking example of the

inability of the international community to ensure

implementation of clear-cut United Nations resolutions

and to tackle the problem of the ongoing occupation of

one Member State by another following an act of military

aggression. To cite just one other example, Greece is

threatened with war in the event it applies the provisions

of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has been

signed by all Member States, except for the one that

made it clear that it would not hesitate to use force for

the maintenance and defence of its vital interests.

However, it would be totally wrong to discard

multilateralism just because of the persistence of attitudes

that assuage consciences without solving the problems.

We have to strike a positive balance between vision and

reality, because no society, and certainly not the

international community, can aspire to human, economic

and social development without a stable and legally

appropriate framework.

Throughout its existence, the United Nations has not

just constituted the main, if not the only, incarnation of

the global spirit of hope. The principles enshrined in its

Charter have established a code of conduct for States,

which have the duty to contribute to the maintenance of

international peace and security, to refrain from the threat

or use of force, and to settle disputes by exclusively

peaceful means and in accordance with international law.

Moreover, the Organization itself has often been a

successful instrument for the prevention and management

of conflicts.

If power politics are allowed to be deployed in the

pursuit of exclusive and narrow interests in a climate of

confrontation, if the world’s resources are shared on the

basis of military power rather than of international treaties

and conventions, if priority is not given to international

law and international cooperation, and if we attempt to

evade the responsibilities that we have all undertaken

under the Charter, however appealing and convenient that

might appear in the short term, we will sow the seeds of

chaos, anarchy and rapid disintegration. The United

Nations offers the only framework in which to achieve

the important objective of enforcing international

legitimacy, provided, of course, that it improves its

capacity to deal with international problems and

especially to create an effective mechanism of collective

security.

Greek-Turkish relations illustrate the need for such

an improvement. The Greek Government sincerely desires

the establishment of normal good-neighbourly relations

5

based on the principles of international law and respect for

international treaties, which, however, Turkey seems

determined to ignore. The Turkish Parliament unanimously

adopted a resolution on 8 June 1995, which empowers the

Government to use military force in case Greece exercises

its legal right to extend its territorial waters in accordance

with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Moreover, the Turkish Government adopted the contents of

this resolution in direct violation of the United Nations

Charter, which forbids the use of force or the threat of the

use of force in international relations.

Even worse, in contravention of the Treaty of

Lausanne and the Treaty of Paris, Turkey laid claim at the

beginning of this year to the Imia islets in the Aegean Sea,

which are Greek sovereign territory, and even supported

this claim by military means. This sets a very dangerous

precedent for the entire region. Turkey is attempting to

subvert the territorial status quo established more than 70

years ago and is backing its claims with the use of armed

force. Furthermore, the Foreign Minister, Mrs. Ciller, in her

capacity as Prime Minister, claimed in February that 1,000

Greek islands and islets in the Aegean are Turkish, and that

if Greece attempted to contest this “fact”, Turkey would

consider it a casus belli. A few days later she raised the

number to 3,000.

Greece has repeatedly called on Turkey to have

recourse to the International Court of Justice concerning the

Imia islets. Turkey, on the contrary, has lately challenged

Greek sovereignty, even over the inhabited island of

Gávdhos, south-west of Crete in the Libyan Sea, and

despite the outrageous nature of this claim, it has not

unequivocally withdrawn it.

We see that Turkey wilfully violates the most basic

principles of the international legal order and far from

exhibiting any self-restraint, puts forth ever more

provocative claims against Greece. My country, on the

other hand, not only scrupulously respects international law

and treaties, but also demonstrates great self-restraint in its

relations with Turkey. There is no better example of this

than the fact that Greece has chosen not to react forcibly to

the massive violations of Greek airspace and the constant

overflying of Greek territory on the part of Turkish

warplanes. This responsible stance should not, however, be

misinterpreted in any way. On the contrary, and despite the

absence of any real will on the part of international

community to uphold the principles enshrined in the United

Nations Charter, Greece is absolutely determined to protect

its sovereign rights by all legitimate means, and the threat

of force will not dissuade it from doing so.

As to the Cyprus issue, it is widely admitted that the

status quo is unacceptable. Nevertheless, no progress has

been achieved in the course of the last 22 years. Turkey,

provocatively defying consecutive Security Council

resolutions is still occupying by force a considerable part

of the island. At the same time, Turkey is flagrantly

violating basic human rights and freedoms of the Cypriot

people, while engaging in systematic plunder of the

island’s cultural and religious heritage. Moreover, Turkey

continues to systematically promote the illegal and

condemned practice of establishing settlers on the island.

The time has come to reach a just and viable

solution to the Cyprus problem based on the relevant

United Nations resolutions and providing for a

bicommunal bizonal federation with a single sovereignty

and international personality and a single citizenship,

while safeguarding the independence and territorial

integrity of the Republic of Cyprus.

The prospect of Cyprus joining the European Union

is indeed an important new development, which creates

conditions that should facilitate a comprehensive

settlement of the issue. The period until the start of the

accession talks should in no way be left unexploited. At

the same time, the Greek Government welcomes any new

ideas and initiatives, whatever their origin may be, which

would contribute to a solution within the framework of

the United Nations resolutions. A basic factor for

achieving a breakthrough, in our opinion, is the

coordination of all initiatives by the Secretary-General

and his Special Representative.

Meanwhile, the tension lingering on the island

involves serious risks and creates additional complications

which render the efforts for a settlement more arduous.

Turkey and the pseudo-state, taking advantage of a

peaceful demonstration by Greek Cypriots, proceeded a

few weeks ago, with the active involvement of the

extremist terrorist Turkish group the Grey Wolves, to

implement a meticulously prepared plan which was

crowned by the murder in cold blood of two young

Cypriots and the injuries sustained by many others,

United Nations peacekeepers included.

The aim was undoubtedly to demonstrate the

existence of an alleged international boundary on the

island. It was also to support the Turkish claim that the

two communities cannot live peacefully side by side and

that the presence of the Turkish occupation forces is

therefore necessary for the protection of the Turkish

Cypriot community. But the truth is that both

6

communities can indeed coexist peacefully. So it was felt

necessary to call in extremist elements from mainland

Turkey in order to implement this scenario and to try to

create mistrust between the communities.

In the wake of those recent tragic developments we

steadfastly believe that the adoption of President Clerides’

proposal for the demilitarization of Cyprus, a proposal

whose importance has already been widely acknowledged,

will decisively contribute to defusing tension and will at the

same time meet the security requirements of all

communities living on the island.

In a broader context, the search for a just and viable

solution to this complex international problem requires

decisiveness and perseverance. If the bicommunal dialogue

is to have any chance of success, a minimum common

ground is indispensable, based on the relevant United

Nations resolutions. But if the other party does not show

the necessary political will, the international community

should at last live up to its political and moral

responsibilities. It should take action without delay and try

to convince Turkey to abide by international law and

withdraw its troops from the island.

With regard to the Balkans, Greece’s policy in the

area is guided by the principles of the maintenance of

stability, peace and security, the inviolability of

internationally recognized borders and full respect for

human rights, including those relating to national minorities,

in accordance with the relevant principles of the United

Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation

in Europe. Greece supports the establishment of good-

neighbourly relations and the development of close

economic ties with and among all Balkan countries. At the

same time, our systematic cooperation with the countries of

the Balkan peninsula contributes to the achievement of their

long-term goals of economic and political rapprochement

with the European Union and its institutions. We fully

support and actively promote the European orientation of

these countries.

Moreover, Greece has supported all international

initiatives aimed at further promoting Balkan regional

cooperation, such as the conference of ministers of

southeastern Europe — which convened this year in Sofia

and which will meet again in Thessaloniki in June of next

year — the European Royaumont initiative and the United

States southeast European cooperative initiative. We believe

that in their complementarity, these efforts contribute to the

stability, security and prosperity of the area.

In the context of regional cooperation I should also

mention the Greek initiative for trilateral meetings of the

ministers for foreign affairs of Greece, Bulgaria and

Romania, which took place at Ioannina, Greece in 1995,

and, after that, in Varna, Bulgaria, on 16 and 17 March

1996. The aim of these meetings is to bolster subregional

cooperation, mainly in the fields of transport,

telecommunications and energy, as well as in the

development of infrastructure.

Greece was one of the founding members of the

Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) organization.

Greece recently became a member of the Parliamentarian

Assembly of the BSEC and participates actively in this

initiative that encompasses countries from both the

Balkans and the Black Sea area and which can make an

important contribution to the development and stability of

the wider region. One important achievement among

others is the establishment in Thessaloniki of the BSEC

Bank of Trade and Development which, is expected to

start functioning soon and contribute to the

implementation of specific projects of great interest to the

region.

I will now try to give a brief assessment of my

country’s bilateral relations with each individual Balkan

country.

In its relations with Albania, Greece actively pursues

the development of good-neighbourliness and cooperation

in all fields, based on the respect of sovereignty and

territorial integrity, as well as full respect for human

rights, including those relating to national minorities, in

accordance with the principles of the United Nations and

the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The Greek minority in Albania constitutes a bridge

of friendship and cooperation between the two countries.

To this end, encouraging steps are being undertaken by

the Albanian Government. Greece has actively supported

Albania in its efforts for reconstruction and development

and has backed its association with international

organizations. The visit last March of the President of the

Hellenic Republic to Tirana and the signing of a treaty of

friendship and cooperation between the two countries

opened a new chapter in their relations for the benefit of

the two peoples.

Greek-Bulgarian relations have continued their

fruitful and constructive development marked by

exchanges of visits at all levels. Recent crucially

important agreements — among them one concerning the

7

opening of three new border check-points and another on

the waters of the Nestos river — give true meaning to their

cooperation in the field of infrastructure, while being of

decisive significance for the future development of the

region's European orientation.

Greece’s relations with Romania have reached a high

level during the last years. Visits at all levels, including one

by the President of the Hellenic Republic, have taken place

frequently and close and broad cooperation in the economic

and cultural fields has been achieved.

Greece’s goal is the establishment of close and

friendly relations with all countries that have emerged from

the former Yugoslavia. The traditionally close relations of

Greece with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will be

further strengthened through enhanced economic

cooperation, especially following the suspension of the

United Nations embargo, which inflicted heavy losses on

the Greek economy also. A multi-faceted development of

their cooperation will help to redress the past.

Greece’s relations with Croatia and Slovenia have

followed a steady upward trend. Greece has a great interest

in the dynamic development of its relations with those two

countries in all fields, and I am glad to acknowledge their

positive response as well. With regard to Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Greece fully supported the Dayton Peace

Agreement and has actively participated in the efforts to

implement it fully. Timely and full respect of this

Agreement is the best guarantee of the preservation of the

integrity, sovereignty and multiethnic character of that

Republic. The efforts of the international community to

achieve peace in Bosnia must succeed. First must come the

constitution and proper functioning of the joint organs of

the Republic in order to expedite the return to full

normalization of life in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Greece

has established diplomatic relations with Bosnia and

Herzegovina and participates in reconstruction plans with

substantial economic aid.

Greece expresses the wish that negotiations taking

place with The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

under the auspices of Mr. Vance on the issue of the name

of that Republic will finally meet with success, so as to

open the way for a full normalization and the dynamic

development of relations between our two countries.

The Middle East peace process is currently at a critical

crossroads. It is with shock and dismay that my

Government is following the latest dramatic developments

in the West Bank and Gaza. We express our deepest

sorrow at the deaths that have occurred and our grave

concern about the future of the peace process. Greece

urges all parties to demonstrate the utmost restraint and to

refrain from any action which might lead to a further

escalation of violence in the occupied territories. In

particular, they must step back from any action that is

bound to rekindle deep-rooted sentiments of mistrust and

enmity on both sides.

There is no alternative for the peoples in the region

other than a peace based on the principle of land for

peace. There is no alternative to the peace process. If this

process stagnates, there is a danger that it will unravel.

There is an urgency for both parties to resume efforts to

fulfil earnestly their agreed obligations. Greece calls on

the parties to resume negotiations immediately on the

basis of the principles already accepted by them in the

Madrid and Oslo agreements. We consider it of the

utmost importance that the Israeli-Palestinian Interim

Agreement be fully implemented, and that the talks on the

final status of the Palestinian territories — including

Jerusalem — are speedily concluded together with the

solution of the two outstanding problems, namely,

security for all and social and economic development.

Failure to proceed could lead to grave consequences

as far as peace and stability in the whole region are

concerned. Peoples of the region should be guaranteed a

secure life within internationally recognized and safe

boundaries. In this context, Greece believes that the

international community must spare no effort to create a

solid basis for the political and economic survival of the

Palestinian National Authority, thereby providing a source

of hope for the Palestinian people. Greece will continue

to support this effort actively. We are of the view that the

peace process could be substantially promoted if those

States of the region which are directly concerned would

join forces with those actively participating in it. We urge

the implementation of Security Council resolution 425

(1978) on Lebanon. Greece, who has actively participated

in the Middle East peace process since its beginnings in

Madrid, will continue to offer every possible support and

assistance to the bilateral and multilateral negotiations

towards a comprehensive, final and just peace.

The expansion and improvement of the

representative character of the Security Council

constitutes one of the most urgent needs for reform in the

United Nations system. While ongoing discussions have

been focusing on adding to the permanent membership in

8

order to reflect changes in the global balance since 1945, as

well as on the right of veto and its use, we should not

disregard the long-term beneficial effects of allowing more

nations to participate in the decision-making process of this

critically important body.

In this context, the Greek Government has decided to

present its candidature for one of the two non-permanent

seats allocated to the Group of Western European and other

States in the Security Council for the period 1999-2000. It

should be noted that Greece, a founding member of the

United Nations, is one of the very few Western countries

that have served only once as a non-permanent member of

the Council, and that was more than 40 years ago. Greece

is located at a crossroads in the Balkans and southeastern

Europe, a region that should be given the opportunity to be

represented on and to participate actively in the Council.

My country’s firm and unconditional commitment to the

peaceful settlement of disputes, in accordance with the

fundamental principles of international law and the Charter

of the United Nations, offers all the necessary guarantees

that its election will indeed serve the cause of international

peace and security.

On the eve of the third millennium, an affirmation of

peace and cohesion among peoples must, more than ever

before, constitute the primary legacy to bequeath to future

generations. It befits the United Nations to be the

depository and guarantor of this legacy. It rests with

Member States to make solidarity, security and

development their watchwords for concrete action and their

battle cry in the fight against discord and injustice.