San Marino, 1995

Allow

me to begin my address with a personal consideration.

Before arriving in New York to participate in this fiftieth

session of the General Assembly, I thought over and over

about the possible tangible outcome of this debate. In

particular, I tried to determine the present power and

strength of Member States — and especially of the small

ones like my own — in terms of taking decisive actions

aimed at preventing, monitoring and managing critical and

conflict situations, and, in general, all those circumstances

which run counter to the requirements and objectives of

the United Nations.

There is no need for too many words to describe all

the evils besetting our international community and

reflecting the disturbing and serious changes in its

attitudes, and, above all, in its mentality. I believe, in fact,

that the present situation in the former Yugoslavia alone

summarizes and reflects in detail all of these factors.

First of all, there is the war, which, because of its

long duration, seems to have been generally accepted as

an inevitable condition — a war that is still going on

despite all the efforts to find a peaceful, negotiated and

political solution; a war that has seen few truces — and

those that have existed have not been respected; a war

involving many sophisticated weapons, in spite of all

solemn bans on them; and a war that is the consequence

of speculation and the result of the search for profit at all

costs.

The United Nations must have the strength to take

a stand against war. It is also evident that resolutions,

condemnations, embargoes and the dispatching of peace-

keeping forces — which sometimes prove useless,

becoming innocent victims — are no longer sufficient.

22

Why should we not admit, then, that the United Nations,

especially in the former Yugoslavia, has revealed its

weakness and its inability to stop a massacre?

There must be another solution. Let us reflect on more

effective approaches and adapt the tools at our disposal to

a world that seems to be increasingly pervaded by

arrogance, presumption and evil.

Although the United Nations has to its credit important

achievements and positive results that deserve general

acknowledgment and appreciation, the fiftieth anniversary

of its foundation is not merely a commemorative event and

cannot be regarded as such. This anniversary must also

provide an opportunity to assess, review and, where

necessary, make adjustments.

Some structural changes in important United Nations

bodies have been discussed for a number of years. A debate

is under way on the reform of the Security Council, as is

another — with less interest and vitality — on the

possibilities for the smallest States fully to enjoy, without

limitations, the rights and opportunities granted to them by

the Charter.

These are all important issues in which my country is

deeply interested. Yet should we not give conflict

management and resolution the highest priority? I am

referring not only to international conflicts, but also to

certain domestic situations, because of the serious violations

and the unanimously condemned tragic consequences they

entail. They should be considered matters of global

concern.

In this context, I must mention one of the most serious

aspects of the present situation in the former Yugoslavia,

namely human-rights violations. Those rights, enshrined in

the documents of the United Nations, of the Council of

Europe, of the Organization for Security and Cooperation

in Europe and in other declarations, are all manifestly being

infringed. Offences against human dignity are by far the

gravest of all violations. They are based on a non-

recognition of the human individual and of the freedom to

practise a religion, to belong to a minority, to be different

from the majority or even from the minority.

I believe that the greatest challenge confronting

humankind, as we approach the year 2000, is the practice

of tolerance. War, hunger, the need to find gainful

employment, the natural aspiration of individuals to

improve their living standards, and class conflicts remain.

The quest for supremacy by ethnic groups and minorities,

which often results in practices of mass destruction, is no

different from the old, repudiated theory of racial

superiority, so painfully experienced by Europe during the

last world war. We must remember also the total absence

of protection for children and the lack of respect for

women and their bodies, victims as they are of violence

perpetrated on unbelievable racial grounds. These factors

have made migrations an almost natural component of our

international society.

The United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees has warned us of the onset of a new and

widespread phenomenon — already seen in some African

countries — which will be the logical consequence of the

war in the former Yugoslavia. In its appeal, the Office of

the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

(UNHCR) refers to the new category of internally

displaced persons, who have been forced to leave their

houses, deprived of the little property they had and of

employment opportunities. At the same time, estimates

show a constantly increasing flow of refugees, who have

left their countries of origin in search of a place to live

and of opportunities, however modest, that would enable

them to start a new life.

Thus, future generations will inevitably live in a

different society from our own. Their neighbours or

colleagues might be of a different colour or race, practise

a different religion, perform traditional rites unknown to

us, have different habits and approach problems, and life

in general, in a completely different way. To ensure a just

and peaceful coexistence, future generations will have to

learn how to adapt to this new reality, to understand and

accept the principle that people are all equal and free to

be different.

Solidarity must stem from this conviction and be

translated into consistent behaviour. Solidarity should not

be expressed merely through acts of charity or donations

of superfluous things, with care taken not to lose one’s

privileged economic position. There must be a

commitment on the part of all States to make solidarity

among them a way of life. Hunger, natural disasters and

man-made environmental destruction, wars, famines, the

endemic poverty of some regions and peoples — which

is caused, or aggravated, by bad management on the part

of those governing them — are no longer occasional

events requiring an outburst of generosity. Today, these

factors have become ever-present in the world and call for

a concerted and lasting commitment.

23

Rich countries should make the necessary

contributions to helping poor countries eradicate deeply

rooted causes of distress by formulating a common, global,

responsible and transparent policy. Due precaution must be

taken not to overburden programmes agreed upon with

administrative infrastructures which could be detrimental to

financial resources and delay prompt intervention because

of bureaucratic hurdles.

San Marino believes that many other issues deserve

attentive consideration and utmost priority.

San Marino believes that it is high time to rethink the

tool of the embargo, its effectiveness and, above all, its

consequences. In the absence of armed conflicts, the

international isolation of a State represents a valid political

and moral instrument with which to exert pressure on that

State as well as a strong incentive for it to change,

especially if it has an anti-democratic regime and does not

recognize or respect the rights of its citizens or the rights

set forth by international law in its conduct towards other

nations.

However, when an embargo is imposed on a country

for long periods, it also affects its social and commercial

sectors. In this case, the main victim is not the regime but

the population, which is already suffering from that system

and probably has neither the strength nor the means to

change or overthrow it. This is unacceptable.

When the imposition of an embargo results in the

misery of a population and in the deterioration of a

country’s basic structures, including its health-care system,

then that embargo must be reconsidered and adjusted to

meet human-rights requirements.

Capital punishment is another issue that is extremely

important to my country and that has been repeatedly

debated in the General Assembly. It is not difficult to

understand that certain countries — principally those with

a large territory and population — require strong deterrents

in order to maintain order and protect their citizens’ lives,

property and tranquillity. It is also generally recognized that

some crimes, atrocities and grave offences need to be

severely punished. Nevertheless, the death penalty is too

grave a reaction and too great an offence to be accepted by

those countries that believe in the right to life, in the

possibility of true repentance and, above all, in the

possibility of an error on the part of the individual

pronouncing the verdict.

The Republic of San Marino cannot disguise its deep

anxiety with regard to the problem of armaments and

their increase and, in particular, nuclear weapons. We

hope for global, controlled and irreversible disarmament.

Recourse to the rule of law, to the peaceful settlement of

disputes, to mediation and to international forums is the

indispensable foundation of a really advanced and

civilized society. Unfortunately, the threat and use of

force are still considered by many as the only instruments

to be used in the survival of a State.

Furthermore, the production and stockpiling of

nuclear weapons, as well as nuclear tests, have become a

pervasive feature of the contemporary world, posing a

serious threat to the security of States, to the safeguarding

of the environment and to the existence of many

individuals. The concept of nuclear power as a deterrent

is an elegant expression concealing its real danger. It is a

shield dissimulating the desire for supremacy on the part

of some States. In short, this is one of the old theories on

which anti-democratic and anti-liberal regimes are based.

It is our duty to save future generations from the threat of

nuclear weapons. San Marino hopes that the opinion of

the International Court of Justice requested by the General

Assembly may promote the attainment of that objective.