Poland, 2012

May I offer

my warm congratulations to Mr. Vuk Jeremić on his

election to the position of President of the General

Assembly at its sixty-seventh session.

Following the experiences of recent years, the world

is poised at a difficult moment in its development. The

weakness of international institutions in the face of

economic, security, humanitarian and environmental

problems is indisputable, and yet those institutions

were designed to resolve such problems. That also

applies to the Security Council, especially in the

context of the conflict in Syria. It is also clear that

international financial institutions are not capable of

handling the destructive volatility of financial markets,

which results from the opaqueness and arbitrariness of

powerful private interests operating in this area.

The signals coming from Asia point to an

undiminished number of tensions and disputes. We

have been following with concern the tension resulting

from the Iranian nuclear programme. We are worried

by the increasingly tangible threat of the proliferation

of weapons of mass destruction and of an intensified

arms race among the Gulf States.

The results of the Mission in Afghanistan are not

entirely satisfactory. We must learn a lesson from the

shortcomings of the strategy devised for that country thus far. The approach that suggests the military option

first is not a suitable method for resolving complex

internal conflicts.

The hopes raised by the Arab Spring have been

justified, but only to a certain extent. The civil war

in Syria and the resulting toll in lives, as well as the

United Nations and Arab League’s inability to contain

it, cast a shadow across the entire region. The tragic

death of American diplomats and the circumstances

of their death should also prompt ref lection among all

those persuaded of the automatic nature of democratic

transformations.

When we signed the United Nations Charter, which

is the constitution of the contemporary international

order and testifies to our faith in a better world, we

pledged our readiness to make concerted efforts and

cooperate in pursuit of the ideals invoked in it. One

of the main paths to a more secure and fair world is

the peaceful resolution of disputes and conflicts. That

concept is the main theme of this year’s session of the

Assembly, and the choice of that subject is timely. In

recent years, we have seen numerous occasions in which

a commitment pursuant to Article 2 of the Charter was

ignored, with very dramatic consequences. The best

example is the crisis in Syria, but such situations also

occur in other parts of the world.

Throughout the twentieth century, the international

community developed various means and ways to

achieve a peaceful settlement to disputes at both the

global and regional level. Volumes have been written on

the subject. There are many international institutions

involved in this field, as well as many renowned and

prominent experts, diplomats and politicians. Some of

them, including Jimmy Carter and Martti Ahtisaari,

have been rightly acknowledged by being awarded a

Nobel Peace Prize. They were able to effectively use

existing procedures to quell conflicts and peacefully

resolve difficult disputes of an international or

internal nature that otherwise could have escalated

into international conflicts. However, success was not

possible everywhere. If success was not achieved, it

was because of the absence of one crucially important

factor without which it is impossible to settle a dispute

in a peaceful, lasting and just manner, namely, realizing

the obvious truth that without compromise one cannot

arrive at a lasting solution to any conflict. That is

embedded in the very nature of conflict.

In that connection, I would like to refer to the Polish

experience with the Solidarity movement and the round

table talks of the spring of 1989. Both sides of the deep

social conflict of those days — the communist regime,

on the one hand, and the champions of democratic

transformation who ultimately strove to overthrow

communism, on the other — demonstrated wisdom and

were thereby able to reach a compromise, even if it was

not fully satisfactory to either party. It was nevertheless

a compromise that opened perspectives for further

change, which extended beyond Poland to the entire

region of Central and Eastern Europe. What made that

compromise possible was the capacity for self-control

by those actors who ultimately strove to achieve a

revolutionary change. Let us recall that all previous

attempts undertaken by the democratic opposition

outside the system ended in military interventions,

bloodshed, tens of thousands of refugees and further

repression. That could have also been the case on a

massive scale in the spring of 1989.

In the long run, the capacity for self-control and

the strength of a wise compromise make a much better

solution than pushing one’s own demands and trying to

advance one’s own arguments by force. We know all too

well what happens in the latter case; it usually ends in

people taking up arms in order to prove their rightness

by military means. In line with the rules of geopolitics,

both parties to a conflict seek allies abroad. Finally,

the logic of holding each other in check and an “all or

nothing” mentality start to prevail. Costs are no longer

counted. As the conflict continues, the scale of the crisis

grows. The situation develops into a truly international

one. In order to fend off any further escalation of

antagonisms, major humanitarian and stabilization

operations supported by the army and police force are

inevitable. The process of reconciliation, normalization

and reconstruction is greatly delayed.

We have seen that process in various situations in

different countries. It can be avoided provided that,

from the very outset of a dispute, both sides anticipate

dialogue, acknowledge the limits of what is feasible,

show sensitivity to the potential costs of conflict and

seek compromise. The art of self-control and of wise

compromise, embodied by Nobel Prize winners Lech

Walesa and Nelson Mandela, are worth promoting.

However, this approach is not promoted often

enough in the context of efforts for peaceful conflict

resolution and situations that may lead to conflict.

Syria is a dramatic example of how a wasted chance for compromise can unfold. We expect that an end

will be soon put to the bloodshed in Syria and that the

conflict will be settled on the basis of United Nations

principles, using the instruments available to the

Organization. May the new United Nations envoy for

that conflict never lack determination in the fulfilment

of his mission.

After many centuries of antagonism, disputes and

conflicts in Europe, yet another preventive method

was invented in order to do away with wars and stop

differences and competing claims from turning into

bloody crises. That method is the process of regional

integration, which was ushered in after the Second

World War by the creation of the European Coal and

Steel Community. The project’s hidden intention was

to firmly establish the “no war” principle. It was not

enough to ban war, as had been done through the

Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. What was needed was for

war to be made impossible by the process of integration.

Through the establishment of the Community and its

expansion to new areas of integration, including most of

the countries on the continent, the disputes threatening

Europe’s security and peace were consigned to the past.

Even if that experience cannot be used in a completely

copy-and-paste manner, it can still serve as an example

to other regions of the world.

The plight of civilian populations, in particular

children, is the most dramatic consequence of the lack

to self-control and the absence of a culture of, and

willingness to, compromise in contemporary disputes

and internal and international conflicts. The methods

and means of combat spare soldiers, sometimes at the

expense of innocent civilians, especially children,

who often become a target of military operations.

This phenomenon is related to efforts to move the

aggression to the other side. The responsibility for

civilian casualties, even if unintended, can also fall on

international and peacekeeping forces.

Based on experience gathered by the international

community, the contentious idea of humanitarian

intervention has been replaced with the concept of the

“responsibility to protect”. I believe that this was a very

wise path to take to end the stalemate that emerged in

this area more than 10 years ago. The concept of the

responsibility to protect has been approved by the

entire international community and has been a United

Nations norm since 2005.

As we know, a norm and its practice may sometimes

be worlds apart. Given the developments that have

unfolded over the past decade, including several events

in North Africa, and in the light of the humanitarian

tragedies, in particular the suffering and death of

thousands of innocent children, that should stir people’s

hearts and consciences, we cannot afford for the

responsibility to protect to remain a dead letter. What

we put forward for the Assembly’s consideration is that

the United Nations should initiate work on defining

a catalogue of instruments to be applied in situations

that entail the responsibility to protect. This is about

the international community being effective without

exceeding a mission’s mandate and inciting disputes on

that count.

This is a particularly important consideration for

us in Poland. Our nation has more than once fallen

victim to crimes perpetrated on a mass scale. Prompted

by that awareness, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, special

rapporteur on crimes in the Balkans for the Human

Rights Commission, embarked on his mission 20 years

ago. The effectiveness of the international community

when faced with f lagrant violations of human rights on

a mass scale and crimes and suffering that call for rapid

reaction, as in Syria these days, depends largely upon

the credibility of our action in previous such situations.

We must always act in good faith and in line with the

mandate given to us.

I am speaking on behalf of a country that, over the

past 20 years, has managed to travel the difficult road

from a totalitarian regime, the collapse of its economy

and mass social unrest curbed by force to democratic

stability, economic growth and the ability to support

peaceful transformations beyond its borders. Thirty

years ago, when martial law was imposed in order to

crush the Solidarity revolution, it was suggested that

Poland’s attempt to enter the world of democracy would

entail potential imbalances between the East and West,

and even a war between the Warsaw Pact nations and

NATO — in effect, a world war.

Fortunately, those days are gone. Hardly anyone

would think in such terms now. Today, Poland is a free

country that develops its relations without limitations,

shares its experience, spreads the word about the

benefits derived from our transition to democracy and

extends development and humanitarian aid. We are a

country that has had a positive economic growth rate

for the past 20 years.

Poland’s commitment to the stability of the

European integration process mirrors our understanding

of the process as one that serves the security of all of

Europe and its neighbourhood. That is why we actively

endeavour to bring together the two parts of Europe once

divided by the Cold War. The European Union Eastern

Partnership programme was designed to that end, with

Poland and Sweden as its initiators and promoters.

Poland readily offers support to and shares

experiences with countries and societies embarking

on the road to democracy in North Africa, Asia and

Europe. To the extent we are able, Poland is involved

in developing contact with countries from different

regions and civilizations. Our policy in that regard

arises from the conviction that an effective United

Nations is as urgently needed today as it was in the

days of the Cold War. The world cannot be driven by

a bipolar or multipolar concert of Powers. Of course,

although the Powers will not cease to exist, stability

and regulation of the international legal order will

require the more extensive engagement of multilateral

institutions, as well as norms and mechanisms securing

full observance. Only the United Nations system can

ensure all of those.

In order to improve its effectiveness, we need

to reform the Organization along the way, respect

agreed norms and honour our commitments in good

faith. We recall that a return to a Hobbesian world is

always possible and that some people continue actively

to bring it about. That is why Poland felt sorely tried

under the effects of the twentieth-century dramas.

However, Poland is committed to promoting respect for

the principles, integrity and full implementation of the

output of our Organization. Such action will ensure that

the tasks we propose will be carried out effectively and

the United Nations will meet the expectations we set

out at its very beginning and continue to promote today.