Russia, 1996

The agenda of the General Assembly at

the current session reflects all the complexity of the stage

mankind is now going through, the essence of which is

the transition from bloc confrontation to multipolarity,

economic interdependence and the democratization of

international relations.

I would like to emphasize that during the past year

Russia made its contribution to the consolidation of this

very trend. At the domestic level, this means an

uncompromising continuation of the process of reforming

society. The results of the recent presidential elections in

our country have convincingly proved that Russia has

decisively embarked on the road to the future. The

majority of Russians voted for the continuation of

economic reform, for a State of law and for a policy of

openness and cooperation.

In our relations with the other Commonwealth of

Independent States (CIS) countries, we resolutely oppose

both the idea of restoring the Soviet Union, an idea based

on the denial of the sovereignty of the Commonwealth

States, and narrow-minded national isolationism. We

stand for the voluntary integration and unification of the

13

members of the Commonwealth and hold that it should not

be isolated from the rest of the world. We wish to ensure,

and we shall ensure, that the CIS will become an important

centre of world economic development and international

stability.

On a wider international plane, Russia is pursuing a

policy aimed at establishing a new world order firmly based

on the equality of all States, justice and universal security.

However, the establishment of such a world order is a slow

process, influenced by both objective and subjective factors.

It is only natural that the end of the cold war provided a

starting point for the transition to achieving a stable and

predictable peace at the global level.

But zones of regional conflict have expanded

drastically. The upsurge of terrorism has caused universal

shock, and the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction is emerging. The rejection of ideological,

military-force confrontation, brought about by the end of

the cold war, clearly proved insufficient to neutralize all

these dangers and risks.

Let us confess, at least to ourselves, that we will not

succeed here unless, first and foremost, we overcome the

inertia of the political mentality. Unfortunately, the

stereotypes that took root in the minds of several

generations of statesmen during the 40 years of the cold

war have not yet disappeared along with the dismantling of

strategic missiles and the destruction of thousands of tanks.

In this connection, I would like to single out three

conditions for the transformation of international relations

during the post-cold-war period.

First, we should see to it that the old fronts of bloc

confrontation are not replaced with new lines of division.

That is precisely why we accept neither the idea of the

expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO) military infrastructure to the area of the now

defunct Warsaw Treaty nor the efforts to make that alliance

the axis of a new European system. The enormous

possibilities for economic cooperation and the spiritual

enrichment of all the peoples of the continent can be

realized only through the creation of a genuinely

all-European system of international relations. The

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

(OSCE) Lisbon summit must be an important stage in the

construction of such a Europe.

It is important to stress in general that the logic of a

multipolar world in the twenty-first century should differ

qualitatively from the schemes outlined by Metternich and

Bismarck. The way towards the establishment of a system

of comprehensive security is through learning the skills of

equal partnership between the various “poles”, rather than

through the revival of reflexes of rivalry and of balance

of power.

The threat of new lines of division is appearing not

only in Europe, but elsewhere. The understandable

intolerance of the extremism of certain Islamic groups and

factions must not develop into a categorization of the

Muslim world at large as an enemy of modern

civilization. This is probably one of the pressing

requirements of our day.

Russia advocates resolute opposition to extremist and

terrorist forces. They are especially dangerous when they

enjoy State support, and no effort should be spared to

prevent any State from rendering such support. This

cannot be justified. I believe it is time a universal

convention, covering all States without exception, were

elaborated within the United Nations, denying political

asylum anywhere to persons engaged in terrorist

activities. However, no sanctions should be used as a

means to punish peoples or as an instrument to overthrow

Governments. It is far more effective to offer prospects

for a better future to those who renounce extremism and

accept the norms of conduct by the world community.

The second condition for achieving a durable peace

is the emancipation from a mentality based on concepts

of leaders and followers. Such a mentality is fuelled by

illusions that some countries emerged from the cold war

as victors, and others as the vanquished. But this is not

the case. Peoples on both sides of the Iron Curtain jointly

strove to rid themselves of the policy of confrontation.

Meanwhile, the mentality based on leaders and followers

paves the way directly towards the establishment of a

unipolar world. Such a world-order model is unacceptable

today to the overwhelming majority of the international

community.

Finally, the third condition for the successful

movement towards stable peace lies in the coordinated

activities of the international community. Today, one of

the most important tasks is the settlement of regional and

local conflicts. In this regard, significant progress has

been achieved recently. Peace agreements are being

implemented in Bosnia. Initial important agreements have

been achieved for a durable peace in the Middle East. We

have managed to secure ceasefires in Transdniester,

Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorny Karabakh. The

situation has improved somewhat in the conflict zones on

14

the African continent and in Latin America. But as yet no

breakthrough to a durable peace has been achieved in any

of these hotbeds of tension.

The future of the Middle East is a cause for grave

concern. Russia — one of the sponsors of the peace

process — cannot accept the sacrifice to tactical

considerations and internal political manoeuvres of the first

fruits of the peace negotiations, which were won at such a

great cost. The implementation of the Agreements reached

is the only realistic basis for maintaining the peace process.

The only possible way forward is to advance through

negotiation on the basis of the principle of “land for peace”,

Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as

well as resolution 425 (1978), which deals with Lebanon.

It should be clear that the danger of reverting to

confrontation becomes greater as the artificial pause in the

peace process continues. When negotiators are silent, lethal

weapons begin to awake.

We appreciate the peacemaking efforts of the United

States of America, the European Union, France, Egypt and

other members of the international community and we

support an even closer partnership in peacemaking. That is

the most effective way to promote peace-building in the

Middle East.

The Bosnian settlement has entered a new and crucial

stage since the elections of 14 September. The prospects for

a lasting peace have become greater, but the risk of slipping

into a new spiral of hostility and confrontation remains. I

call upon all the Bosnian parties to take full advantage of

the chance for peace created by the international

community. At the same time, the United Nations, the

OSCE, members of the Contact Group and the High

Representative should immediately take a just and balanced

approach to resolving outstanding problems. Assistance for

the social and economic reconstruction of Bosnia and

Herzegovina should be intensified considerably and

conditions created for the return of refugees.

The time has also come to look beyond the horizon of

the Paris agreements. There would seem to be a need for a

large-scale and prolonged civilian peacemaking operation in

which the United Nations and its specialized agencies will

play an important role. The international military and police

presence, to which Russia contributes, should remain a

factor in the peace process for a given period after

December 1996.

The lifting of sanctions against the Federal Republic

of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the Bosnian

Serbs is an indispensable condition for a successful peace

in the former Yugoslavia. I hope that, in the near future,

a Yugoslav delegation will take its place in this Hall, as

it has at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in

Europe.

The programme of disarmament, security and

stability for the twenty-first century should become one of

the major axes of transition period strategy. The adoption

of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is one

huge step in this direction. Russia has just signed the

Treaty and we believe that it is of fundamental

importance for all countries with nuclear capability to

accede to it. However, it should clearly be understood that

testing by any country of a nuclear explosive device

before the Treaty enters into force will radically change

the international situation and greatly prejudice the Treaty

itself, and may compel many countries to revise their

attitude to it.

I should like to draw the attention of the Treaty’s

opponents to the fact that it will not only contribute to the

promotion of nuclear non-proliferation, but will

objectively stimulate a gradual transition to nuclear

disarmament on a multilateral basis. That is the purpose

of President Yeltsin’s proposal to conclude a treaty on

nuclear security and stability with the participation of all

the nuclear Powers. We invite interested States to begin

exchanging views on the issue. Our suggestion that

nuclear arsenals be located only on the territories of the

nuclear Powers in question remains current.

The strengthening of the non-proliferation regime for

weapons of mass destruction depends directly upon

reliable prevention of the illicit traffic in fissile materials.

The Moscow Summit of the Eight on Nuclear Safety and

Security, convened as a result of a Russian initiative,

contributed significantly to a solution of this problem. I

call on all United Nations Member States to become

involved in the implementation of the Moscow

agreements.

The rights of an individual should occupy a central

place in any new concept of international security.

Strengthening the international human-rights protection

mechanism could ensure the observance of these rights.

Its oversight and preventive functions should be

consolidated and made more practical. However,

legitimate efforts to ensure respect for human rights

cannot serve political purposes. It is too delicate an area

to be invaded by political speculation and objectives.

15

My comments apply fully to the protection of the

rights of national minorities. The relevance of this problem

is evident in today’s world. The complexity of the

situation — let us be frank — requires a link between the

protection of the rights of national minorities and

observance of the principle of the territorial integrity of

States. Russia is directing its policy at precisely such a link.

My comments also apply to the Baltic States. While

recognizing the sovereignty of those countries and their

territorial integrity, Russia cannot remain indifferent to the

discriminatory practices pursued against the

Russian-speaking populations in Estonia and Latvia. While

acknowledging measures that have already been taken to

improve the situation, we believe that the United Nations

and other international organizations should intensify and

systematize their work for the protection of the rights of

national minorities.

How do we implement this strategy for creating a new

world order? Despite the importance of bilateral relations

and successful regional organizations, the United Nations

remains the principal mechanism capable of ensuring the

transition from a bipolar and confrontational world to a

multipolar and democratic one. In such circumstances, the

significance of the United Nations as a centre for

coordinating the actions of States is increasing. During the

formation of a multipolar system, the United Nations is

called upon to serve as a kind of safety net, minimizing the

destructive effects of the changes and directing them

towards democratic evolution.

The major task of the United Nations remains the

maintenance of international peace and security.

Furthermore, the principal tools available to the

Organization must be political and diplomatic. I remind the

Assembly of this fact because, during the past few years

within the United Nations, a “sanctions syndrome” has

begun to emerge: a desire to apply sanctions and other

coercive measures more broadly and actively, sometimes

ignoring existing political and diplomatic avenues. We are

convinced that the United Nations should take such

measures only in exceptional cases, after all other means

have been genuinely exhausted.

On the whole, there is a need to modernize the United

Nations sanctions mechanisms. Today, for example, no

specific procedure is provided for lifting sanctions, and, as

experience has demonstrated, this is extremely important.

The humanitarian damage caused by sanctions and the

damage to third countries should be minimized.

It is extremely important to emphasize that the

United Nations must be maintained as the sole

Organization that can authorize the use of force. Any

actions of that nature taken in circumvention of the

Security Council must be totally precluded.

The United Nations can and must work purposefully

towards establishing a new global legal framework. To

give impetus to such work Russia has proposed the

holding in 1999 of a third peace conference. This idea

already has the support of a significant number of States.

I believe that the time has come to discuss this initiative

in a constructive and substantive manner.

Past experience shows the need for new approaches

by the United Nations to peacekeeping operations. We

can already discern a pyramid regulating the relations of

the United Nations with regional organizations. Without

the development of such relations the United Nations may

not be able to withstand the burden of peacemaking

actions. I refer specifically to a pyramid, because it is of

fundamental importance to do no harm to the Security

Council, which bears the primary responsibility for the

maintenance of international peace.

We are counting on significantly more attention

being paid by the United Nations to conflicts in the area

of the Commonwealth of Independent States. So far, the

major role in this respect has been played by Russia and

its Commonwealth partners.

In view of present circumstances, Russia calls on the

United Nations to address the Afghan conflict. In that

multinational and long-suffering country, a truly critical

situation has arisen, and we have to do everything

possible to prevent the country from disintegrating. The

Afghan tragedy, like the endless series of internal

conflicts in Rwanda and Liberia, is the most convincing

argument for the development of a United Nations policy

of national reconciliation diplomacy.

To cope with all these tasks, the United Nations

itself must be updated and adapted to these new

conditions. Reform is long overdue, and it is not a single

measure that is required but a process that encompasses

the entire United Nations system. Reform of the United

Nations requires clearly defined goals: first, that it carry

out its activities in a timely manner; and secondly, that its

structure be optimized in order to enhance the

effectiveness of the Organization.

16

A great deal has already been done to implement

reform. The Secretary-General has made a considerable

contribution to these efforts, and Russia supports the

continuation of this difficult and protracted effort.

It is a well-established tradition to conclude statements

before this Assembly by saying that the current session

must play a special role in strengthening peace and that

peoples are expecting us to make decisions. I am confident

that this session of the General Assembly will live up to the

expectations of Governments and the hopes of peoples: that

all of us will take a new step in humankind’s difficult

transition towards a world united in its diversity, a world

that is open to universal economic and spiritual

development, a world that promises security and stability —

a world in which States cooperate on an equal footing. Let

us work together for the sake of this goal.