General Assembly Session 49 meeting 9

The President

The Assembly will first hear an address by the President of the Republic of Armenia.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the Republic of Armenia, His Excellency Mr. Levon Ter-Petrossian, and to invite him to address the Assembly.

President Ter-Petrossian (Armenia)

May I begin by warmly congratulating you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the forty-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly. I would also like to express my appreciation to your predecessor, Ambassador Samuel Insanally, and to thank him for his contribution to accomplishing the tasks of the last session. Further, I wish to express our gratitude to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for the vision with which he has guided the Organization and for his tireless efforts to ensure the maintenance of international peace and security.

The collapse of the old order and the emergence of new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe and, soon after, in the former Soviet Union have presented the world with a major challenge. In a period of tremendous change, many difficulties and conflicts have arisen. Some of these difficulties come as immediate by-products of rapid and haphazard transformations, while others are surfacing for the first time after decades of inadequate stop-gap measures. Further, if the reform programmes have so far failed to yield all the benefits expected, this is also due to an under-estimation of the differences in the initial conditions of the countries in transition.

The pace and comprehensiveness of economic reforms will vary from country to country. However, the reform process will inevitably be lengthy, as it involves wholesale changes in price mechanisms, in the concept of property, in industrial structures and in legal, commercial and financial institutions, as well as the creation of social safety nets for the most vulnerable segments of the population, whose situation will be worsened by the high cost of the reforms.

As with all the former Soviet Republics, Armenia's economy has been badly strained by the changes which followed the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the difficult transition to a market economy. It is further crippled by its over-reliance on trade with the former Soviet Republics; the blockade of transportation routes imposed by neighbouring Azerbaijan; an embargo by Turkey; and the damage inflicted by the disastrous earthquake in 1988. Other external conditions, such as the disruption of transport due to the difficulties faced by Georgia, have exacerbated the situation, contributing to the decline in Armenia's industrial productivity. The legacy of the Soviet period, with its inefficiencies and excessive horizontal integration, has worsened the effects of the blockade.

Despite these difficulties, the Armenian Government has begun implementing significant structural reforms to create a healthy market economy, beginning with the privatization process launched soon after the Armenian National Movement came to power in 1990. Indeed, the commitment to transform the centrally planned economy into a market economy stems from the philosophy of the democratic movement in Armenia and is seen as an integral part of the transition to a democratic State.

In turn, a free market economy will flourish in a stable democracy, able to promote and underpin economic development. Armenia today is a country with more than 30 registered political parties. It has proclaimed freedom of the press, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, and it has laws guaranteeing civil and political rights. Three free elections have already been held in Armenia: parliamentary and presidential elections and a referendum on independence. The upcoming referendum on the Constitution and the elections of the National Assembly and the President of the Republic will reaffirm the establishment of a democratic tradition.

Democracy is fundamental to the process of economic transformation, which can be divided into three phases, more or less typical for all countries in transition: institutional reforms; long-term investments and changes of technological structures; and integration into international markets. It is imperative, however, to set priorities and to identify the most pressing issues of the moment. In my opinion, Armenia is at the end of the first phase, which includes the creation of a legal framework for economic reform, within which private economic activity can take place, a framework ensuring that contracts are enforced and that private property is protected; freeing of prices; privatization; adoption of a national currency; financial and budgetary stabilization; and improvement in the balance of payments. We have already accomplished 80 per cent of this phase.

Armenia has distinguished itself as the first among the former Soviet Republics to privatize the ownership of agricultural land and livestock production. The privatization of small and medium businesses as well as large enterprises is well under way. In late 1993, with the collapse of the rouble zone, Armenia faced a monetary crisis. The uncontrollable flow of old Soviet roubles into Armenia and Armenia's subsequent inability to control monetary policy on its own territory forced the Government in November 1993 prematurely to introduce a national currency, the dram. The Government is currently implementing a programme based on controlling and lowering the inflation rate, enforcing a strict budget, controlling fiscal expenditures and targeting assistance to the most vulnerable groups.

Basic reforms have been undertaken in the banking sector, the first of which was to break down the mono-bank system of central planning into a two-tiered system comprising a central bank and a group of commercial banks.

In Armenia, as in all the emerging democracies, there is no historical precedent for the economic transition. It requires lasting commitment and patience as well as the substantial support of the international community. Of course neither short- and medium-term adjustment programmes nor long-term development strategies can hope to succeed fully without sustained growth in the world economy and favourable external conditions.

We recognize that there is no single model of transition to be prescribed for all countries or, even more narrowly, for all post-communist societies as a whole. To ensure success for United Nations efforts in the countries in transition the Organization must tailor its involvement to each country's resources and procedures, giving priority to programmes rather than to projects. That approach essentially boils down to the definition of key objectives for each programme that will reflect the priorities of the national Government and the organization of assistance around the achievement of those goals, which can be accomplished by strengthening the role of the Resident Coordinator system.

Armenia appreciates the Secretary-General's Agenda for Development as an important and necessary complement to "An Agenda for Peace". It is a comprehensive and thoughtful reflection upon the various dimensions of development and the role of the United Nations in that connection. At the recently held world gatherings on development there was broad agreement that the Agenda should be sustained by an action-oriented framework and practical proposals aimed at resolving existing imbalances in the various development areas. We look forward to the further elaboration of the Agenda for Development by the Secretary-General through a number of concrete proposals with regard to the reform of both the United Nations system and the intergovernmental consultative machinery for development, as well as specific recommendations for greater coordination within the United Nations as a whole, including the Bretton Woods institutions and the proposed World Trade Organization. Such an elaboration is needed if the Agenda is to lead to a global partnership for development.

Armenia looks forward to participating in and contributing to the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen. The World Summit, to be held in the United Nations fiftieth anniversary year, is a landmark event and will build upon the commitments of a series of United Nations global gatherings, including the 1990 World Summit for Children, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro and the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, and it will be followed by the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. These are all key events in the process of international consensus-building.

Development and human rights are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. There can be no genuine long-term development without respect for the full spectrum of the rights of individuals. The Vienna Conference on Human Rights held last year deepened the understanding of the significance of human rights for stability, freedom, peace, progress and justice. The establishment of the post of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights was vital to a more effective implementation of the principles of human rights. Member States must continue to work to increase the effectiveness of existing United Nations human-rights mechanisms and to support the High Commissioner in the fulfilment of his mandate.

Armenia considers self-determination in its multitude of manifestations to be an inalienable human right. Armenia's position on the Nagorny Karabakh conflict has been clear and consistent from the start. Armenia has no territorial claims against Azerbaijan. The conflict is between the people of Nagorny Karabakh, who are striving for self-determination, and the Azerbaijani Government, which is refusing to address the rights of the people of Nagorny Karabakh. Armenia provides moral, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance to the people of Nagorny Karabakh, and it cannot accept a military solution which can only mean the genocide or deportation of the population of Nagorny Karabakh.

While the Nagorny Karabakh conflict has gone through periods of both intense fighting and relative calm since I spoke here two years ago, there has never before been a period in the five-year history of the conflict when a cease-fire has taken hold for so long. I am pleased to inform the Assembly today that the cease-fire of 12 May 1994, which was mediated by the Russian Federation, is in general being maintained. But what is more gratifying and encouraging is that, through direct and immediate contacts between the parties to the conflict, the de facto 12 May cease-fire was formalized on 27 July 1994, and on 28 August 1994 the parties reaffirmed their commitment to the cease-fire until such time as a political document has been signed.

Armenia congratulates the main parties to the conflict for their commitment to maintain the cease-fire and to engage in direct dialogue. Armenia views this as an important confidence-building measure, as a major step towards the consolidation of the cease-fire and as a sign of a strong commitment to the successful conclusion of the current negotiations, which in turn will make possible the solution of the problem at the Minsk Conference of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Clearly, the conflict has entered a new phase, in which the parties have demonstrated their desire for peace.

Our new challenge, and the priority for Armenia, is the consolidation of the cease-fire and the establishment of peace. There is a historic opportunity today to end the conflict. But the cause of peace requires the active, unified support of the international community to consolidate the cease-fire. The cumulative impact of the distrust of the past five years, on the one hand, and the lack of international measures to support consolidation, on the other hand, may increase the current uncertainty and threaten the fragile cease-fire.

There is no doubt that, beyond the cessation of hostilities, a lasting peace will mostly depend on the ability of the main parties to the conflict and of the international community to develop innovative and internationally approved mechanisms for its establishment and maintenance.

The primary concern for Armenia has been, and remains, the security of the people of Nagorny Karabakh. Both Armenia and Nagorny Karabakh have repeatedly expressed their readiness to comply with the relevant Security Council resolutions. A lasting peace can be achieved only by ensuring the irreversibility of the peace process through the deployment of international security forces between Azerbaijan and Nagorny Karabakh until such time as a negotiated solution to the problem of Nagorny Karabakh has been reached, with the full participation of Nagorny Karabakh at the CSCE Minsk Conference.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is in direct contradiction of the peacemaking efforts of the United Nations. Armenia considers that only the unconditional and indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will ensure that the Treaty serves its purpose. It is encouraging that negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty have made important progress over the past year, and we hope that a text satisfactory to all can be agreed on soon.

We support the integration of multilateral disarmament with United Nations activities relat to preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and post-conflict peace-building.

The debate in the General Assembly Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council has been very useful. Virtually all States Members of the United Nations favour an increase in the membership of the Security Council to reflect the radical changes in the world and the increase in the Organization's overall membership. However, an increase in membership should not diminish the Council's efficiency. It is necessary here to note that the Council has taken a number of constructive steps to improve its transparency and its communication with non-members. The Security Council should also be better able to respond to emerging threats and disputes before they escalate into armed conflict. With improved coordination of United Nations organizations and agencies devoted to economic and social progress, the Economic and Social Council could better assist the Security Council and advise it of potential emergencies arising out of economic and social conditions. Therefore, Armenia fully supports the call for restructuring of the Economic and Social Council and for the possible establishment of an economic security council.

Improving the administrative performance of the United Nations is another priority. Armenia welcomes the current initiatives to streamline the Organization's administrative and management structures and procedures to meet the demands now being made of the United Nations. In particular, we supported the United States initiative, and we are pleased that the General Assembly has created the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

Let me return for a moment to the theme I began with. In this period of unprecedented change, many hardships - both expected and unforeseen - have arisen. The present era, full of challenge and hope, gives us new faith in the United Nations as the best and most appropriate forum for integrating all the interests of the various peoples of the world, which are too fragmented today. Universal harmony can be established only when discords are peacefully resolved and full cooperation between nations is achieved. The United Nations, strengthened by the noble principles and objectives enshrined in its Charter, and facing new responsibilities and tasks, can and must lead the way to a better organized and more harmonious world.

Let me conclude by wishing the General Assembly every success in the demanding work it faces during this session.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the Republic of Armenia for the statement he has just made.

The President

The Assembly will now hear an address by Mr. Franjo Tudjman, President of the Republic of Croatia.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the Republic of Croatia, His Excellency Mr. Franjo Tudjman, and to invite him to address the Assembly.

President Tudjman (Croatia)

It is my particular privilege and pleasure to address the General Assembly of the United Nations at the beginning of its forty-ninth session.

I believe we all agree that the appearance of any statesman before the General Assembly is a great moment for moral and political reconsideration of one's own reflections and responsibilities towards the international public. This applies equally to the representatives of the esteemed founder States and to us who represent young democracies. This is an opportunity to present our views on the problems affecting our countries, but also on all other issues of importance for the global Organization. This is also an opportunity to compare, with the utmost seriousness, the lofty ideals incorporated in the United Nations Charter with the difficulties and intricacies of daily achieving political agreement for their realization.

The noble fundamental principles of the United Nations governing the rights and obligations of individuals, nations and States generally agree with the basic principles underlying all world religions and philosophies, as well as the fundamental laws of individual States. Yet we are still painstakingly seeking a consensus on a new and just international order that would unite and harmonize the lofty goals of the United Nations Charter and the humanistic Weltänschauung with the visions of the new global order and with the specific ideals and interests of individual States. Unfortunately, many countries, such as my own, Croatia, which labours under difficulties owing to the disintegration of one regional international order and the establishment of another new order, are paying the highest human, material and political price for the imperfection of the world in which we live.

In addressing the General Assembly as Head of the Croatian State and the highest representative of the Croatian people, I can note with satisfaction that the international position of Croatia has been strengthened and furthered in spite of all the problems affecting the actions of the international community. In only a few years since its independence and international recognition, Croatia has become a fully fledged and equal international citizen, having reinforced its position in the international community and expanded its network of bilateral relations with almost all States and international agencies. Moreover, Croatia has become a key factor in the establishment of the new regional order in South-eastern Europe and a recognized and important partner of the super-Powers and of the international community as a whole in the resolution of the intricate crisis, currently the most severe international crisis in this part of the world, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The adverse experience of the Croatian people throughout their history, and particularly over the past few years of the renewal of Croatian statehood, has taught us that no sublime principle recorded in the United Nations Charter and in international law is automatically attainable - even less is it guaranteed - if the people concerned are not determined to attain it; if they are not prepared to offer to make a high degree of sacrifice in the achievement of their right to life and freedom; and if they do not succeed, by virtue of their strength and decisions, in bringing their national interests into line with the essential interests of the international community.

Despite the inalienable right of the Croatian people - one of the oldest European peoples - to self-determination and to the renewal of their own State, despite the blatant barbaric aggression aimed at territorial conquest, the genocidal expulsion of the population and the destruction of the most precious cultural heritage of the Croatian people, such as Vukovar and Dubrovnik, the Croats would never have won the right to self-determination, to their State, to freedom and independence, had they not been prepared to make human and material sacrifices, had they not shown a firm nation-building will, with which they have resolutely asserted themselves as a member of the international community, while manifesting their readiness to be a constructive force in the development of the new international order to replace the unviable and failed old system.

It is the duty of all of us - and especially of this, the highest global authority - to take more determined and more effective steps in the quest for means to break this vicious circle of suffering by individuals and peoples wrought by war. As the highest representatives of our States and peoples, we are morally and politically obliged to create an international order, with appropriate mechanisms, capable of efficiently defending the rights of each nation or group, and especially of small and young States. What we need are such mechanisms of the highest global Organization that can resolutely prevent or punish any violation of the fundamental principles of international law.

Obviously, this also implies safeguarding the achievement of such rights and of generally accepted principles in a democratic way, so that each and every right does not have to be won the hardest way, with the blood of innocent lives, because such a way burdens the collective memory with covert hatreds, bias and vengefulness, stirring up new divisions and even more destructive internal and regional crises.

This applies to crises in the areas of the former Yugoslavia, just as it does to those in Rwanda, Somalia, the Caucasus, the Middle East, South Asia, Africa or America. It is precisely the crisis in the former Yugoslavia that has shown the immense evil that can be done by petty political exploitation of historical myths about collective guilt or historical injustice, about a conspiracy of the whole world against a single people, and by the emphasizing of the messianic role of a people to justify their conquest-minded policy, causing a great deal of harm not only to those threatened by such imperialistic policies, but also to the people themselves, who fall victim to their own fallacies and motives, which are unacceptable and detrimental to the international community.

After the collapse of the bloc division of the world and the disintegration of many multinational States, we are faced with the task of building a new international order. All past experience suggests that the task is very difficult. To be successful, we need first and foremost a mechanism for diplomatic and political negotiation, for building confidence and for patiently overcoming real problems stemming from objectively differing interests. In cases where political efforts are obviously futile, the United Nations must have a more efficient mechanism to achieve and even impose solutions serving the interests of international peace and stability. However, for reasons of realpolitik and of the balance of interests and forces, in neither case should this contradict the fundamental principles of this Organization. It should be borne in mind that the mechanism for establishing and defending the new international order should not merely serve the coordination of the interests of the super-Powers, but must reflect their highest responsibility in dealing with regional crises, while being designed and structured to strengthen the security and progress of small or jeopardized members of the international community, which account for the greater part of mankind. The United Nations must be qualified to guarantee, within the international order, equal conditions in terms of freedom, progress and equality for all the members of the international community.

The collapse of communism and of the bipolar division of the world has increased hopes for a world of greater justice and security for all. However, we must be aware of the fact that the collapse of the communist bloc and of multinational States has inevitably produced temporarily destabilizing effects in the international order. In this context, it should be noted that the proclamation of sovereign national States has mainly created positive conditions for the new international order, although in some cases, where nationalism has degenerated into chauvinist-extremist trends, or even into conquest-minded aggression, the effect has been negative. However, the essential point of these historical vicissitudes is the awareness of the fact that the endeavour of small peoples to attain statehood - meaning their political, cultural and economic identity and their personality within the international order - has made the greatest contribution to the collapse of communist totalitarianism and to the democratization of many countries. The full democratization of international relations is not possible without such democratization of internal political systems.

The security of new small States has become today the key to stability in every region and it should provide the groundwork for new collective security systems. Only their complete security and equality can make them equal factors of civilizational and functional integration in specific areas and within the global order as a whole. The peoples of small countries will eagerly accept civilizational integration if it is not to the detriment of the individual quality of their State, culture and economy. Only such safeguarding of national individuality within civilizational integration can produce sound foundations for functional multilateralism in the new international order. Otherwise, the myths and prejudices of the past will continue to provide grounds for new conflicts and even clashes between civilizations. The disturbing scale which differences between civilizations can assume is clearly manifested in the former Yugoslavia, where local aggression threatens to expand even into a conflict involving three civilizational religious blocs unless the crisis, the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is resolutely brought to an end. Croatia has always supported a political solution by accepting the normalization of relations with all neighbours, even those of whose aggression we were victims, in order not only to create, on an equal footing, the prerequisites for a new international order but also to bring about a productive blending of the different civilizations facing one another in this part of the world.

In view of the current state of affairs worldwide, we support a thorough organizational reform of the United Nations in order to improve both its responsibility and its efficiency in dealing with the pressing problems of humankind. Problems such as uneven development, population growth, the ecological balance of the planet, human and collective rights, functional global integration, and particularly crisis points and military hot spots, call for a more effective organization of the highest international agency. We need an Organization which could have a more efficient bearing on establishing equal standards and obligations for all countries, and which would be entitled, in crises or on key issues affecting the development of humankind and life on our planet, "to encroach", on behalf of the global community, upon internal affairs of States. The international community should have, within the United Nations, multilateral mechanisms capable of dealing more efficiently with pressing crises, and developmental, environmental and technological challenges now facing humankind.

In this context careful consideration is required of the role of the General Assembly. Its activity must be credible, but it nevertheless cannot assume the role of a global parliament to the detriment of the sovereignty of Member States. Experience suggests that a clearer division of responsibility among the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council is required.

Regional conflicts have become the chief problem now confronting the international community - not only because of the threat posed to international peace but also because they can cause terrible human disasters such as those in Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Somalia. And, of course, they also block regional developmental processes, and result in scarcely reparable ecological damage and destruction of the natural and cultural heritage of entire areas.

Such a state of affairs requires first a reform of the Security Council.

The new global order can no longer be based only on the coalition of the victors in the Second World War, or on the nuclear club of the great Powers. It must reflect new democratic, economic and regional realities which necessarily lead to permanent Security Council membership and enhanced regional responsibility for countries such as Germany or Japan, and also some regional representatives of the so-called third world. On the other hand, the reform of the Security Council ought to avoid solutions which would, because of the increased number of members, make decision-making more difficult and the Council inefficient. The efficiency and credibility of the Security Council should be substantially strengthened in order to resolve the main problems related to international security, especially in conflicts causing military conflagration, first of all by reducing the gap between the content of the enacted resolutions and the possibility of their enforcement. All States of the world, and particularly the great Powers which have an enhanced responsibility within such a system, should in good faith make adequate economic and military instruments continuously available to the Security Council so that its decisions can be implemented. The peacemaking mediation of the global Organization must evolve from a static freezing of the conflict and curbing its expansion, into a mechanism capable of preventing the development of the crisis in a timely manner and of eliminating the consequences that are already present.

In some cases the very decisions of the Security Council will suffice to stop and resolve the crisis, but sometimes a demonstration of firmness will be required.

The international community must develop more systematic mechanisms to punish those States that do not accept or that violate Security Council decisions. The enforcement of international political or economic isolation of the aggressor, with concurrent compensation for neighbouring States which are indirect victims of such isolation, should be made even more effective. Sanctions are becoming an instrument used at an ever increasing rate when there is no political consensus, or will to resort to more energetic means, but they can produce the wanted effect only if implemented consistently within the scope of systematic pressure.

The democratization of the international order entails a greater focus on the protection of human rights, including also punishment for violations of humanitarian law and the law of war. Croatia has endorsed the establishment of the War Crimes Tribunal in the area of the former Yugoslavia. Croatia likewise supports the establishment of a permanent international institution which would deal with the most severe violations of humanitarian law, whether in Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia or Haiti. However, the international community should also devise ways and means to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes from those aggressor countries which refuse to cooperate with the Tribunal.

Croatia proposes the provision of a permanent peace-keeping task force for the intervention requirements of the Security Council, involving special military units made available, through agreement with a specific number of countries for Security Council requirements. We believe that this could forestall the flaring up of many regional crises, or contribute to their rapid prevention. Such international forces should have a broader mandate in terms of the use of force, not only for their own protection but also for the energetic implementation of all Security Council resolutions - from humanitarian objectives to disarmament and demilitarization. The peace-keeping force should be set up so that the national contingents within it implement the decisions of the Security Council and not the specific policies of their countries.

The proliferation of regional crises confronts the United Nations with ever-increasing tasks which the Security Council cannot fulfil successfully with its limited resources. This suggests the need for the Security Council to assign the implementation of its decisions to regional organizations as well. This in turn requires the redefinition and strengthening of the role of regional organizations within the collective security system. Each crisis point should be dealt with by appreciating all specific features and by realistically evaluating the possible scope of regional systems in the implementation of Security Council decisions.

The solutions at which we aim in the regional crisis affecting the area of the former Yugoslavia, as well as elsewhere, must proceed from the fundamental tenets of international law in order to arrive at a just and lasting solution which, in order to be acceptable, also implies compromise in terms of detail, but not in terms of the essential issues.

Croatia is very encouraged by the increasingly successful peace developments in the Middle East, which demonstrate the patience and wisdom of both the Israeli and the Arab sides. We firmly believe that similar positive endeavours are also possible in South-Eastern Europe and the Balkans if they win the necessary united support and determination of the great Powers.

Croatia welcomes the peaceful transfer of power to the majority people in South Africa after decades of internal and regional instability. South Africa is the best proof that there is no alternative to the equality of all citizens of a State.

We also welcome the involvement of the international community in Rwanda, which, although it has not, unfortunately, prevented a human disaster on a scale beyond description, has at least stopped the spiral of death and lawlessness. We continue to support the current efforts to stabilize Rwanda and to prevent the revival and expansion of the conflict.

The agreement of the international community to finally stop the agony of Haiti and establish a democratic order there is also encouraging. We similarly welcome the successful processes of democratization and stabilization throughout Latin and Central America. We have been following attentively the development of functional regional integration in North America, and the stronger integration trends in Europe, differences notwithstanding, as well as the rapprochement between the two largest countries in the European and Asian regions: Russia and China. We also welcome the constructive role of Japan in the Pacific area and the Far East.

Within the scope of such global developments, with the major world Powers aiming not at reciprocal destruction but at positive competition and cooperation, Croatia, as a small country, sees its place, first of all, in West European civilization and in its economic and security system in order to have a guarantee for its independence, security and progress. Croatia sees its welfare and stability in the achievement of full membership in European integrative organizations. Croatia is prepared to responsibly assume its share of the burden in the development of the new international order and to constitute a strong link in the integration chain of a new Europe.

In the very short time since it gained independence, Croatia has become a mature and responsible member of the international community. It is already a pillar of future stability and cooperation in that part of southwestern Europe which is linked to the traditionally agitated Balkans. Croatia has in good faith accepted international mediation and United Nations peace-keeping forces in its territory in order to stop the war and reach a political solution that will simultaneously safeguard its territorial integrity and the rights of national minorities within its borders. Croatia has accepted the well-intentioned advice given it concerning the constitutional position of the Serbian ethnic community in line with the highest standards of international conventions on the rights of national minorities, and has incorporated them into its constitutional law.

Croatia has borne the heaviest brunt of the Bosnian crisis and of the human catastrophe wrought by war in that country. Croatia has provided a home or provisional accommodation to hundreds of thousands of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina. We sustained this effort even during the Croatian-Muslim conflicts that occurred as a result of Serbian aggression, as the victims of that aggression sought space for their survival. We have prompted proposals on a mutual agreement on a federation between the Croats and the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and their confederal alliance with Croatia, which eventually resulted in the signing of the Washington Agreements. We have spared no effort to end the senseless war and renew cooperation between the Muslims and the Croats, who, owing to the indecision of the international community, have been brought to the point of a desperate fight for the remnants of Bosnian living space left after the barbarous Serbian aggression.

In circumstances affected by its intricate ethnic and historical heritage, Croatia has shown the highest degree of cooperation in the search for a peaceful political solution to the crisis in the area of the former Yugoslavia, believing, in spite of all of its negative experiences, in the final victory of the principles of international law and in the necessity to normalize relations between the newly emerged States.

However, this readiness to cooperate and this patience have certain limits. Split into two parts by the occupation of one-fourth of its territory, threatened continuously by outlaw terrorism, burdened by the social pressure posed by displaced persons and the war-exhausted economy, Croatia cannot endlessly agree to fruitless compromise, because the continuation of the crisis threatens the existence of the State and the lives of its citizens, and prevents the reconstruction of the economy destroyed by war. We believe that it would also be in the interest of the international community to give Croatia more determined and more consistent assistance so that it can successfully play its constructive part in the solution of the crisis.

Croatia already is, and wants to remain, a mainstay of the new international order and a bridge of cooperation between the newly emerged States on the basis of mutual recognition. The indecision and aimless manoeuvring of the international community in circumstances distinguished by the presence of militancy in certain circles of the parties in conflict threaten to push Croatia into a new military conflict which could be even worse than the previous one in terms of scope, depth and consequences. The international community should not leave Croatia without a choice, in a position where it would be forced to resort on its own to all means necessary to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity and the right of its citizens - displaced persons - to return to the occupied areas.

We have always been aware that no crisis, particularly one as intricate as this, can be solved without consensus by the international community without a division of responsibility and an agreed approach of the great Powers. Accordingly, we are the first, as with previous peace endeavours, to welcome the efforts of the Contact Group to find an acceptable solution.

Croatia is prepared to continue its high degree of cooperation and partnership with the international community if solutions for Bosnia and Herzegovina and for the occupied Croatian areas are not sought at its expense. Both crises - the one in Croatia and the other in Bosnia and Herzegovina - have the same source: Serbian aggression. Because of this, and in view of the increasingly stronger cooperation between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, a package solution should be sought. Since the sanctions imposed by the international community have forced Belgrade to accept the proposal to end the war and the isolation of the Bosnian Serbs, who oppose it, Belgrade should also be made to desist from supporting the Croatian Serbs, who refuse to agree to the reintegration of occupied Croatian areas and brazenly oppose the implementation of all Security Council resolutions.

In terms of its actual consequences, the 1991 arms embargo was aimed first and foremost at the victims of Serbian aggression. It was accepted at a time when those who formulated global policy mistakenly deceived themselves into thinking that that policy could save Yugoslavia, failing to see that the post-Tito crisis had developed because of the attempt to impose Serbian hegemony over all non-Serbian peoples in that artificial and Communist State formation. Our conditional restraint with regard to the lifting of the embargo is motivated at present exclusively by an endeavour focused on achieving, after all, a peaceful solution over the next few weeks or months. Croatia does not want to be drawn into a new war against its will, but it will be forced to accept it, in cooperation with the other victims of Serbian aggression, if the international community fails to achieve a peaceful solution that would not only put an end to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina but also bring about the reintegration of occupied Croatian areas.

Croatia welcomes Belgrade's announced readiness to isolate the Bosnian Serbs, with their suicidal war option, but expects Belgrade to do the same with regard to the insurgent Serbs in Croatia. Croatia demands that the lifting of sanctions against Serbia (Yugoslavia) be linked also to the cessation of the occupation of Croatian areas, that is, to their reintegration into Croatia's constitutional and legal system. Moreover, the lifting of sanctions can be considered only after we have seen whether the announced isolation is truly enforced and after this has been verified by credible control mechanisms.

In order to promote positive trends, we also understand up to a point the partial symbolic suspension of sanctions in order to encourage in Serbia those currently expressing their commitment to peace. Nevertheless, Croatia will continue to insist that the lifting of certain sanctions against Belgrade, particularly those related to its being fully released from international economic and all other isolation, be linked to the solution of the problem of the occupied Croatian areas.

Croatia has shown a great deal of patience in its dialogue with insurgent Serbs, but now, after three years of occupation, it demands from the international community a redefinition of the UNPROFOR mandate that will provide for the implementation of Security Council resolutions 769 (1992) and 871 (1993), and force the Croatian Serbs to accept gradual normalization and reintegration pursuant to the adopted peace plan.

We realize that both sides, after any conflict, have to invest much time and effort into restoring and strengthening mutual confidence. We are also quite aware that no long-term stability and progress is possible in Croatia without guaranteed human and ethnic rights to the Serbian and other minority groups. We have indeed guaranteed such rights by a special constitutional law enacted three years ago, but we urge the international community to create conditions for the implementation of this law in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions. We have also recently taken the decision to speed up the establishment of the human rights tribunal, and are prepared to accept international supervision of compliance with human and ethnic rights. However, the leaders of the Serbian insurgents, and their patrons in Belgrade, should forget their idea of a Greater Serbia and accept the reintegration of occupied Croatian areas on such foundations, to their own benefit and to the benefit of the entire community. We are prepared to accept gradual reintegration through the opening of communications, the return of populations, the reconstruction of destroyed towns and villages, and provisions for social welfare and legal protection. The democratic Government of Croatia is prepared - while urging the resolution of the fundamental political issue: the restoration of the sovereignty of the Croatian State over occupied areas - to genuinely comply with all guarantees related to the rights of the Serbian ethnic community.

In keeping with its peaceful policy, Croatia is also prepared to normalize relations between Belgrade and Zagreb. To this end we shall accept any meeting leading to the recognition of the Republic of Croatia by Belgrade, within its internationally recognized borders, which would make the message to the insurgent Serbs regarding the necessity of gradual reintegration quite unambiguous.

For this reason we have also raised the problem regarding the parts of the Republic of Croatia occupied by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia before the General Assembly, because there is indisputable evidence as to the comprehensive integration - in military, judicial, customs and monetary terms - of occupied Croatian areas into the economic and legal system of Serbia, or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We would like to thank the vast majority of States in the General Assembly that have already given us their support in this matter. If Belgrade should express its readiness to recognize the Croatian State in the meantime, and to genuinely support reintegration and normalization, we would be pleased to spare the General Assembly the task of dealing with this problem any further.

We would also like to thank the General Assembly for its support for the post-war rebuilding of Croatia, and we expect members' continued understanding in this matter.

In particular, we would like to emphasize that any normalization of relations - diplomatic, political or economic - on equal footing between the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will not affect partnership and cooperation between the Croats and the Muslims in the realization of the Washington Agreements on the Croat-Muslim Federation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and its confederation with Croatia.

No peace in the Balkans is possible without the establishment of a balance of forces, nor does the future of any people lie in endless reciprocal military exhaustion or in blocking development throughout the region. We therefore genuinely endorse the normalization of Croat-Serbian relations, but also the implementation of the Washington Agreements, which are in our view not only a tactical manoeuvre by the victims of Serbian aggression but also a development creating the preconditions for ensuring full equality to the Croats as a numerically smaller constituent people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We see in this a pledge of future regional stability and balance of forces. The confederal link between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia provides the foundations for sustaining the sound political and economic relations suggested by history, the geographical link and geopolitical realities. By agreeing to a confederal relationship, Croatia is also prepared, with the assistance of primarily Western countries, to assume its share of the responsibility for curbing the smoldering, extreme national and religious trends on all sides, the spread of which could jeopardize stability not only in this part of South-Eastern Europe but also in the greater area.

Croatia also attaches importance to the strengthening and realization of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its confederation with Croatia, the progress of which depends both on mutual relations and on the action taken by the international community in the coming months, for this establishes a political and economic bridge with the Islamic world. Along these lines we have already established close cooperation with Islamic countries fostering identical aspirations, such as Turkey, Jordan and others.

Decisive weeks and months, in which we must struggle for a peaceful resolution to the grave crisis in the area of the former Yugoslavia, lie ahead of us. Not only the parties in conflict, but first and foremost the principal actors of the international community, bear a huge responsibility at this moment. This involves not only the decision on the fate of the United Nations Protection Force mandate in Bosnia and Herzegovina but also whether the Contact Group will succeed in sustaining a united operational basis for a solution or allow the situation to founder into a new military nightmare. The efforts of the international community focused on building a new international order are now being put to the test, more strikingly than anywhere else, on reversing the consequences of the aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. We can ultimately resolve this crisis if each of us assumes his share of the responsibility. Hatred must give way to happy children's faces in reconstructed Croatian Vukovar, to the restored splendour of medieval Dubrovnik, to peaceful coexistence in long-- suffering and destroyed Sarajevo and Mostar.

In order to achieve this, we must overcome the disastrous war and political crisis by joint efforts and by a well-devised vision of a new international order in this part of the world, in the interest of the entire global order and of the United Nations.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the Republic of Croatia for the important statement he has just made.

Mr. Kingibe (Nigeria)

On behalf of the Nigerian delegation, I wish to congratulate you, Sir, on your election as President of the General Assembly at its forty-ninth session. Your election is a tribute not only to you personally and to your great country, but to Africa as a whole. As a representative of Côte d'Ivoire, a country with which Nigeria enjoys excellent and brotherly relations, you have our full confidence in your ability to successfully discharge the responsibilities of your high office.

I wish to express our sincere appreciation to your predecessor, Mr. Samuel Insanally of Guyana, for the admirable and effective manner in which he conducted the business of the forty-eighth session.

Let me also commend our esteemed Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for the purposeful manner in which he has discharged the duties of his office.

My Government heartily welcomes South Africa back to the General Assembly. For decades, the policy of apartheid kept that great country from participating in the work of the Assembly. Happily, apartheid has now been consigned to history. We salute all those who identified with, and contributed to, the long struggle to eradicate apartheid and racism in South Africa. A special tribute must be paid to our brothers and sisters in South Africa who were the direct victims of that evil system and who led the struggle for its eradication.

We commend the vision and statesmanship of President Nelson Mandela for his effective leadership in managing so skilfully the transition of a once-divided society to a united, non-racial, democratic nation. We commend the courage and the untiring efforts of his Government and the entire people of South Africa to heal the wounds of the past and launch their country on the path of economic growth and prosperity on a foundation of justice and equity for all its citizens. We are confident that the new South Africa will contribute positively to the work of the United Nations.

In the last few years we have witnessed rapid and profound changes on the international scene. Not only have complex challenges arisen, but also new opportunities for the United Nations to redouble its efforts and contributions to the quest for peace and security and to build a world characterized by cooperation and an international community nurtured by a common concern for humanity.

It is a matter of serious concern that the peaceful world expected to be ushered in by the end of the cold war has not materialized. The world continues to face some of the worst forms of conflict and new threats to international peace and security. Violent conflicts arising from resurgent nationalism and religious intolerance between and within States have proliferated. The unresolved situations in Rwanda, Liberia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Cambodia, parts of the former Yugoslavia and parts of the former Soviet Union have caused wanton loss of life and destruction to property and have given rise to humanitarian crises of immense proportions. We must find early and lasting solutions to these conflicts, as they constitute continuing threats to regional stability and to world peace.

Against this backdrop, the United Nations, as the focal point of international cooperation, should seek to redefine its role and establish new structures and mechanisms that can respond effectively to the challenges of crisis management and conflict resolution. The United Nations must retain its primary responsibility for taking the lead in addressing these problems. The Secretary-General's Agenda for Peace provides a novel and imaginative framework towards this end.

In the emerging world order Africa must not continue to remain a continent beset with crises and dependent on others for resolution of its internal conflicts. In realization of this, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) established in 1993 a Central Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Resolution and Management. However, it is evident that the OAU's capacity to effectively mobilize the required financial and logistic resources for this purpose is severely limited. There is, therefore, a necessity for the international community and the United Nations to encourage, through increased financial and logistic support, Africa's efforts at peaceful settlements of disputes through regional and other arrangements, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. We urge the international community to contribute urgently and generously to the Africa Peace Fund, established by the Organization of African Unity.

The capacity of the United Nations to respond promptly and effectively to the demands made on it for peace-keeping operations depends on the willingness of Member States to accept that there is a primary role for the United Nations and that they be ready to contribute the necessary resources to enable it to fulfil such a role. Since our admission 34 years ago, Nigeria has been an active participant in global efforts at peace-keeping, conflict resolution and crisis management. Our experience over the years has convinced us that there is a clear need to re-examine and reorient the peace-keeping efforts of the United Nations. Since initiating in Liberia the Economic Community of West African States Military Observer Group (ECOMOG), a subregional peace-keeping force, Nigeria has become Africa's and, indeed, the world's largest troop contributor to international peace-keeping operations. Even though one or two Member States may choose not to recognize its contribution, the records at the disposal of this Organization will clearly show Nigeria's significant contribution to the shared responsibility of global peace-keeping, with its attendant sacrifices, including loss of Nigerian lives.

That is why we are concerned at the incessant harassment, kidnapping and killing of peace-keeping personnel in various theatres of conflict. As an encouragement to other countries to participate in these costly and often dangerous operations, the United Nations must develop a capacity of effective deterrence against such attacks and adopt appropriate measures to provide prompt and adequate compensation for the victims.

One of the disturbing consequences of the proliferation of conflicts is the increasing incidence of refugees and displaced persons. It is our firm conviction that Governments must create structures and suitable conditions which will enable peoples to live in a secure and safe environment in full enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms. Regrettably, Africa has the largest number of refugees and displaced persons in the world. This imposes additional and enormous financial, material and social burdens on the already distressed economies of receiving States. We commend the efforts of the international community in addressing the refugee problems through the provision of humanitarian assistance. We call on all Governments to eradicate the root causes of the existence of refugees and displaced persons and to create the appropriate conditions for facilitating their voluntary return to their various countries.

Despite the end of the cold war, nuclear weapons continue to pose the greatest threat to international peace and security. Consequently, the need to reduce substantially and ultimately eliminate them must remain our primary goal. Recent reports of a rising trend of trafficking in nuclear materials represent a disturbing new dimension to nuclear proliferation which must be checked as a matter of urgency.

Next year's review and extension conference of the non-proliferation Treaty, which has so far served the international community rather well, must be pursued with vigour. The review and extension of the Treaty must be consistent with objective reality and the basic expectations of Member States.

Questions of peace and security are inextricably linked to issues of development. We therefore welcome the presentation by the Secretary-General of "An Agenda for Development" (A/48/935), which is a fitting complement to his earlier proposals in "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277). In "An Agenda for Development", the Secretary-General has identified five strands: peace as the foundation for development; the economy as the engine of progress; the environment as a basis for sustainability; justice as a pillar of society; and democracy as good governance. Nigeria welcomes these presentations because we believe that the people must be at the centre of all governmental activity, including the goals of development, peace and security.

Global efforts in addressing the crisis of development have, over the years, reflected a dichotomy of perception between the industrialized countries of the North and the developing countries of the South. We must recognize that development, like peace, is indivisible. It is therefore of vital importance that the North and the South should see cooperation in development in terms of mutuality of interest and partnership. The expectation that the end of the cold war would make more resources available for development, especially in developing countries, has regrettably remained unfulfilled. In the circumstances, the international community should initiate bold and imaginative measures to bridge the widening gap between the rich and the poor nations. Affluence in the midst of poverty provides neither peace nor security either to the rich or to the poor.

Africa continues to face grave economic difficulties, at the heart of which is the debt crisis. The perennial problems of declining investment, capital flight and fall in commodity prices remain. The response of the international community has been feeble and rather inadequate. The United Nations Programme of Action for Africa's Economic Recovery and Development (UNPAAERD) did not achieve its desired objectives. It does not appear that the New Agenda for Africa's Development in the 1990s will meet with much success either. It is therefore imperative that Africa should be enabled to make a fresh start to address these problems effectively through an imaginative solution to the debt crisis and the diversification of its economies.

For our part, we recognize the need for credible macro-economic policies, as well as for fundamental reforms of our political institutions and processes, and we are taking measures in this regard. However, there is a need to evolve new mechanisms and strategies for international cooperation and partnership.

In the wake of the efforts made in structurally reforming our economy and the democratizion of our political institutions, Nigeria, like many other African countries, has come to grips with certain realities, the ramifications of which are usually misconstrued and need to be fully understood.

Political pluralism, as a facet of democratization, is so deeply ingrained in our national way of life that over the years we have tried to evolve appropriate democratic institutions and values arising from and responding to our specific national experiences, circumstances and aspirations. We remain committed to this process, which is on course, despite its difficulties and challenges.

Too often the process of democratization in Nigeria and, indeed, in several other parts of Africa, has not been correctly presented to the international community. Recent advances in information technology and our lack of resources and capacity for information delivery have hampered our ability to objectively project developments occurring in our societies. For instance, in Nigeria, we continue to make impressive progress in rebuilding sustainable democratic structures and institutions. A Constitutional Conference whose members were largely elected and representing a wide spectrum of our society and diverse interests, has been working assiduously to create an environment conducive to mutual trust, confidence and common purpose among our people. The objective of the Conference is to establish appropriate modalities, institutions and frameworks for a viable democratic order, by laying down the ground rules for the formation of political parties, and for conducting free and fair elections at all levels of government. The Constitutional Conference will complete its work by November 1994. Following the progress made so far, political activities have already commenced and full-fledged political party activities leading to general elections will commence early in the new year. The resolve and commitment of the Nigerian people and Government to democracy remain firm and unshakeable in the full realization that the task of democratization is primarily our responsibility and is for the good of our people.

The United Nations has no doubt distinguished itself since its inception as an indispensable forum for harmonizing the actions of nations. We are confident that it will continue to serve in the years ahead as a platform for galvanizing and channelling our collective efforts towards lasting peace and justice. This is especially so if we look inwards with a view to revitalizing and strengthening the Organization itself. The Government of Nigeria endorses the view of the Secretary-General in his report "An Agenda for Peace" to the effect that to meet the challenges of a new era, the United Nations must reinforce its capacity to respond as well as to reorient its approach to issues which confront it. We subscribe to his recommendation that Member States provide the necessary political commitment and financial resources to enable the Organization to expand, adapt and reinvigorate its work.

The reforms undertaken by our Organization so far have been essentially piecemeal and incremental. We have made it clear on several occasions that the time was ripe for a fundamental restructuring of the United Nations system. The present composition and the decision-making process of the Security Council do not adequately reflect current realities brought into sharp relief since the end of the cold war. As an instrument for multilateral cooperation, the United Nations must be transparent, efficient and democratic.

The Security Council, as the most important organ of the United Nations, should embody the global quest for democratization in its structure, composition and decision-making processes. In this regard, Nigeria attaches particular importance to the work of the Open-Ended Working Group on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council. It is our expectation that the recommendations that will emerge will make the United Nations more responsive to the needs of the international community. We also expect that the criteria for permanent membership of the Council should include such considerations as population, capacity to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, and a track record assessed over a period of time in international peace-keeping and peacemaking efforts. All permanent members should enjoy the same status and privileges and assume the responsibilities incumbent on membership. No less important is the imperative of equitable geographical representation, which must include permanent membership for Africa in the Security Council. In this connection, it is appropriate that I reconfirm Nigeria's offer to serve the international community as a permanent member of the Security Council.

In this last decade of the twentieth century, two issues have preoccupied the United Nations: the promotion of peace and security and the intensification of international cooperation for development. On both issues, the United Nations has responded to our collective aspirations with varying degrees of success. As we approach the twenty-first century, we must dedicate ourselves anew to the full realization of these core goals and objectives of our Organization so that mankind can enjoy peace, freedom and prosperity.

The President

I now call on the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, His Excellency Mr. Dick Spring.

Mr. Spring (Ireland)

I warmly congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the forty-ninth session of the General Assembly. You take office at an historic moment for the United Nations on the eve of its fiftieth anniversary.

The past year has been one of progress and great hope for many peoples and States represented in this Assembly. In South Africa, the elections have given birth to a democratic, non-racial society which offers a model of tolerance and reconciliation for others on that tortured continent. In the Middle East, the establishment of a Palestinian administration in Gaza and Jericho paves the way for a comprehensive settlement in a region that several times in living memory has threatened global confrontation. In Germany and in the Baltic States, the withdrawal of foreign troops marks the end of the division of our continent and heralds a Europe free and at peace. And on my own island - the island of Ireland - the declaration by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) of a complete cessation of military operations has opened the prospect of a peaceful resolution which has not existed for a generation.

For many years it has been customary for Irish Foreign Ministers to report to this Assembly on developments in relation to the conflict in Northern Ireland. Too often they have spoken of killing and destruction, the failure of political initiatives and controversies on human rights. It seemed that the Northern Ireland conflict belonged to the category of truly intractable problems destined to outlive all change of circumstance and to defy all attempts at a solution.

I begin my address this year on this question, because my message is now one of hope. The past 12 months have significantly enhanced the prospects for lasting peace and stability on the island of Ireland. It is true that the edifice of a solution still remains to be constructed, but I believe very solid foundations have now been laid.

Mr. Spring (Ireland)

At the origin of the Northern Ireland conflict lies a difference of view as to whether the partition of Ireland earlier this century was or was not a denial of the right of the Irish people to self-determination. This difference was passionately and violently acted out by two communities in Northern Ireland, who were and remain deeply polarized by their division on fundamental constitutional issues. This conflict has been costly for all the people of Northern Ireland and for the British and Irish peoples generally. To deal with it is one of the most urgent and important tasks facing both Governments. Experience has shown that the ability of the two Governments to do so will be directly proportionate to the degree of agreement between us.

It is in the inherited gaps between our positions that terrorism on both sides has taken root. For that reason, cooperation and agreement between the two Governments is vital for any solution. Last December, the Irish and British Governments published a Joint Declaration which significantly consolidated the common ground between us and offered all the parties to the conflict a compelling political alternative to the endless cycle of bloodshed and retribution.

In the Joint Declaration, the British Government recognizes that it is for the people of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland if that is their wish. The Irish Government accepts that the right to self-determination of the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved and exercised with, and subject to, the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

The Declaration seeks to deal with the issue of self-determination in a way which banishes the spectre of coercion. Instead, political consent is now clearly set as the necessary goal and touchstone for any stable arrangement in Ireland, whatever the framework. The Declaration makes clear that the British Government is not the enemy of the Irish nationalist tradition and that the Irish Government is not the enemy of the unionist tradition. A crucial aspect of the Declaration is the acknowledgement that future arrangements in Ireland are for decision and agreement between the Irish people themselves, North and South, and its formal commitment that the role of the British Government will be to promote such agreement.

The Declaration thus marks a decisive break with any notion which has had such dark resonances in Irish history that arrangements in Ireland might be decided as a function of British rights over Ireland. This opens the way, in turn, for a new and more developed acknowledgement by the nationalist tradition of the unquestionable rights of the unionist community, derived from its position as a distinct tradition in Ireland. A considerable section of the Joint Declaration is devoted to this issue.

At the end of August, following a protracted internal debate, the IRA decided in favour of a complete cessation of military operations. That decision has been confirmed by other statements in the interval. Much more important, it has been sustained on the ground. This is a development of very great significance.

It is first and foremost welcome because it saves lives. Secondly, it opens the prospect of comprehensive negotiations, governed by democratic principles, taking place against a background of peace and embracing the entire spectrum of all those involved in the conflict. Such negotiations have the greatest potential for success. Moreover, their outcome is likely to be more authoritative than a less general agreement, which would have had to be enforced against a background of continuing violence and repression.

We still await the end of the campaign of violence carried out by loyalist paramilitaries. I remain hopeful that they, in turn, will come to realize that their violence is repugnant to their own community as well as to others, and counterproductive to their cause. We hope that responsible political leaders in the unionist community will make their voices strongly heard on this issue, as many have done already, and that a complete cessation of violence will ensue on the loyalist side also.

We have now an unparalleled opportunity to create the basis for lasting agreement among our different political traditions in Ireland. We can do so, no longer prisoners of the past, but rather learning form our past mistakes on all sides.

Perhaps the greatest such mistake, shared at one time as an unquestioned assumption on both sides, was that this conflict, concentrated in the narrow ground of Northern Ireland, could only end in victory and defeat for one tradition or the other. Compromise was seen as the first step on the road to defeat. We have all learned, through a costly process of trial and error, that in the Northern Ireland situation notions of victory and defeat are an illusion. Each community had the critical mass to thwart the other, but neither can prevail alone. General political consent is therefore a simple practical necessity, as well as an ideal.

The challenge now for the British and Irish Governments is to seize on the momentum for peace. Together with all the political parties in Northern Ireland, we need to build new structures, reflecting the lessons of our experience and building on the principles of the Joint Declaration.

Experience has taught us that a majority "winner-takes-all" system is profoundly unsuited to a society such as Northern Ireland, where divisions are predominantly communal and unchanging - rather than social or economic, and therefore changeable. Let us apply that lesson, making agreement and consensus the kernel of all new arrangements.

Northern Ireland is characterized by a profound lack of consensus on the constitutional issue of whether the legitimate frame of reference is Northern Ireland or the island as a whole. Let us anchor new arrangements in an Agreement acknowledging and reconciling the validity of both.

The political division of Ireland has inhibited many of the constructive political, economic and social interactions which can contribute to the welfare of both parts of the island. Let us set that to rights in effective new structures between North and South.

The choice of sovereignty has hitherto been a kind of symbolic shorthand for the victory or defeat of one community or the other. Let us divorce this notion as far as possible from all partisan or tribal connotations, and agree that the exercise of sovereignty, by whichever Government, will at all times, now and in the future, be qualified by scrupulously equal treatment of the two Northern communities and of their rights, identities and allegiances.

New arrangements on these lines would, I believe, divest the conflict over sovereignty of much of its current confrontation and passion. Under new arrangements on these lines, buttressed and guaranteed by formal agreement between the two Governments, conflict over the choice of sovereignty might cease to become the destabilizing issue it now is. Instead, it might be handled under agreed political ground-rules, scrupulously even and fair to both aspirations, as a question of mutual persuasion and comparative benefit. Northern Ireland could become a place specially dedicated to the protection of the rights of both communities. Then, for the first time, both communities there could be truly themselves, and perhaps find common purpose in many areas where at present there is only division.

The Irish Government will pursue progress towards a lasting accommodation on a number of different levels. We are establishing a Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, to enable all democratic parties in Ireland that are so minded to make recommendations on ways in which agreement and trust between the two traditions in Ireland can be promoted and established. This will not be a negotiating forum, although we are hopeful that its work will contribute positively to the climate in which negotiations take place, and that many of its recommendations can be translated into practice.

Simultaneously, the Irish and British Governments are working on a joint framework document setting out their own views on where a balanced accommodation of the problem may be found. It is our hope that this document, which we will commend to the other parties, but cannot of course impose on them, will give fresh impetus to the process of comprehensive negotiation.

The developments I have outlined have forged a unique opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, just and peaceful resolution of the Northern Ireland problem. It is vital that their potential should be realized through early negotiations and agreement on new political structures. A new beginning for all our relationships in Ireland is within our reach if we have the collective courage and imagination to avail ourselves of the opportunity. The desire for a lasting peace and a political accommodation has never been stronger across the entire population of the island.

If in many parts of the world the message is one of hope, we know that in other places old enmities and ethnic animosities have surfaced, with vicious and indeed deadly consequences.

The conflicts in Somalia, in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda; the gross abuses of human rights in Haiti and East Timor; the suffering of millions who are denied their basic rights to food, water or shelter; these remind us that we cannot let up in the struggle to create a peaceful world and to uphold human dignity.

A characteristic feature of many contemporary crises is that they are essentially conflicts within States, rather than between them.

And this, I believe, is the central question facing the United Nations as it approaches its fiftieth anniversary: can the United Nations, which was born out of the greatest inter-State conflict the world has ever seen, and which is designed specifically to prevent and resolve such conflicts - can this Organization deal adequately with internal crises and civil strife?

I know that there are some who argue that the United Nations has no place in such matters, that many internal conflicts are not amenable to outside intervention. I can understand such arguments and the cautious desire not to get involved in other people's internal quarrels.

But can we let a crisis such as that in the former Yugoslavia escalate to the point where it threatens a wider Balkan conflict?

Can we stand aside while millions are slaughtered by their compatriots in Rwanda?

By what calculus do we divine that death in civil strife counts less than death in inter-State warfare, that those threatened by their own countrymen are less deserving of our efforts than those who are threatened by their neighbours?

I can find no moral justification for such distinctions.

The appalling escalation of terror and violence in Rwanda demonstrates the truth of this. To the names that have come to be associated in recent years with human suffering - Sarajevo, Gorazde, Mogadishu, Baidoa - we can now add Goma, Bukavu and Ngara.

The tragedy of Rwanda has gripped the hearts and minds of the Irish people. Today there are over 100 Irish aid workers in the area. More than 70 Irish public servants and military personnel are working with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the aid agencies.

And our President, Mary Robinson, hopes shortly to visit Rwanda to show solidarity with the people of that troubled land and to emphasize the need for international action.

In its response to the crises in Rwanda and Somalia, the international community has shown a generous willingness to help. Much human suffering has been alleviated. But we have not come near to achieving durable solutions. Nor are we any nearer to constructing a system to prevent similar horrors in the future.

We must ask how the United Nations could have played a more active mediating role in Rwanda.

Could it have prevented the outbreak of genocidal warfare when political unrest rapidly deteriorated into civil strife?

Could it have responded more coherently when genocide was followed by a mass exodus?

How can it now assist in the resolution of the conflict?

I believe that unless we equip the United Nations to deal with these kinds of problems - the most characteristic and pressing of our time - the credibility and relevance of our Organization will increasingly be called into question.

The roots of civil disorder and internal strife are often complex and deep - deeper and more complex, indeed, than the causes of inter-State war. Recent experience has shown that recourse to Chapter VII action alone is inadequate and that outside involvement, unless carefully prepared and sensitively executed, can add to, rather than diminish, the crisis. We must learn the lessons of this and realize that building a United Nations capable of meeting the challenges of the new era will require coordinated action in many areas.

I will mention seven points on which I believe there should be priority action:

We must reform the Security Council to make it more representative of the United Nations greatly expanded membership and to reflect the great changes in international relations of the past 50 years.

We must develop the Organization's capacity for early warning and mediation and for timely intervention in disputes before they escalate out of control.

We must enhance the United Nations peace-keeping capabilities to make them more flexible and responsive when crises erupt.

We must develop the United Nations operational capacity in the area of human rights. In particular, we need a more developed system of human rights monitors.

We must act to establish a permanent international criminal court. We must intensify our efforts to eliminate the root causes of many conflicts - inequality, social injustice, and poverty - by acting on the Secretary-General's agenda for development.

We must restrict the international flow of the instruments of war and oppression by adopting a code of conduct for conventional arms transfers.

There is now widespread agreement on the need for the Security Council to be more representative and more responsive to the needs of the general membership of the United Nations. I believe that early decisions to increase the overall membership of the Council are needed, and that an increase in the permanent membership should reflect the changes in international life over the past 50 years.

Our discussions have shown that concrete decisions will not be easy, but we must avoid getting bogged down in narrow considerations of optimal numbers and the competing claims of regional Powers. One way of handling this would be to build into our decision a commitment to review again the membership of the Security Council at a specific date in the future. In this way we could work for a result that reflects current geopolitical realities, that acknowledges that these realities can change over time and that recognizes that all Member States have the potential to contribute to international peace and security.

Measures already taken to improve transparency are welcome, but more must be done to facilitate interaction between the Security Council and the general membership. And surely the time has also come when we can delete from the Charter references to enemies that no longer exist.

The terrible crises in Rwanda and Somalia have shown that we need to look urgently and more closely at the role and capacity of the United Nations in preventing and defusing conflicts. And we need to consider ways of strengthening the capability of regional organizations to engage in conflict resolution. We must be prepared to avail ourselves in full of the functions bestowed by the Charter on the General Assembly, the Secretary-General and the Economic and Social Council, as well as on the Security Council.

We must ensure that information on economic and social conditions likely to result in a threat to security or stability is brought quickly to the attention of the Organization, and in particular to the Security Council. We have the instrument for this in the Economic and Social Council. We should now act on the Secretary-General's proposal that a reformed Economic and Social Council provide reports to the Security Council on those economic and social developments that may threaten peace and security.

Beyond this, we must strengthen the United Nations capacity for mediation. The Security Council and the General Assembly, despite their undoubted authority under the Charter, are not always the most suitable instruments for the direct mediation of conflict. In practice, the Secretary-General has on many occasions appointed a representative to mediate in particular crises, often with considerable success. I believe that the time has come to put these arrangements on a more organized basis. This could be done by constituting a mediation body to which the Security Council or the Assembly could refer difficult issues. Acting in consultation with the Secretary-General, this body would be distinct from the International Court of Justice, in that it would have the role of political mediation rather than that of pronouncing a verdict in terms of international law. I believe that such a body, drawing on the pool of personnel skilled in mediation, backed by effective staff and properly resourced, could rapidly acquire an expertise and authority that would significantly enhance the peacemaking capabilities of the United Nations.

The United Nations is now conducting more peace-keeping operations and has more personnel in the field than at any time in its history. Ireland is participating in many of these operations and devotes a significant proportion of its defence forces, and of its defence expenditure, to United Nations peace-keeping. That is one reason why my Government is particularly concerned at the under-funding of peace-keeping operations and at the failure of certain Member States to pay their assessed contributions.

But there is a deeper and more important reason. The Secretary-General has pointed to the difficulty in finding personnel for the many new demands on United Nations peace-keeping. Recent experience has shown that a Security Council mandate no longer ensures that an operation will soon take place. I can think of nothing more serious or more damaging than the failure of the Organization quickly to mount an operation at the outbreak of a crisis. The crisis itself escalates out of control, the credibility of the United Nations is called into question and the authority of the Security Council is undermined.

We must act to ensure that operations are properly resourced, that troop contributors can take decisions on participation, secure in the knowledge that they will be adequately funded, and that there is greater consultation between the Council and troop contributions.

The cost of peacekeeping will always be less than the cost of war. There could be no better way to mark the fiftieth anniversary than to address once and for all this most critical constraint on peacekeeping operations.

As our understanding of civil strife develops, we are coming to see the vital role that action in the area of human rights can play in helping to prevent and resolve conflict. The value of integrating peace-keeping and human rights has proved its worth in Cambodia, in El Salvador and elsewhere, but our approach has been piecemeal and tentative. Even in Rwanda we still await an adequate deployment of human rights monitors. Resources will have to be found for this activity. For its part, Ireland intends to contribute to the voluntary fund for Rwanda established by the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

There is a clear need to put in place an effective system of monitoring and adjudicating human rights violations. One important step would be to develop a standing team of human rights monitors reporting to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This would make it easier to integrate human rights action into peace-keeping operations, and the mandate for peace-keeping operations could include a human rights dimension with clearly established reporting and verification procedures.

In addition, we should move now on the establishment of a permanent international criminal court. The United Nations must demonstrate that it has the will to bring to justice those responsible for crimes against humanity, summary executions, torture, rape and mutilation. If we fail to do this, we will have failed to learn the lessons of Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and we will, of course, risk their repetition.

Our efforts to deal with war and civil strife cannot ignore what the "Agenda for Peace" has described as the root causes of conflict: economic despair, social injustice and political oppression. Maintaining the peace is impossible in an unequal world. Conversely, development is the most secure basis for peace.

It can be no coincidence that Rwanda and Somalia are among the least developed countries of the world. Thus, when the Secretary-General himself tells us that development is in crisis, we are compelled to listen, and we are compelled to agree with him that an alternative to the United Nations in development simply does not exist.

The truth is that the agenda for development and the "Agenda for Peace" are complementary. They are different sides of the same coin, and we must make progress on both if we are to reach our common goals of peace and prosperity.

What has been called a "culture of development" must extend beyond the provision of financial assistance to embrace economic progress, the environment, social justice, democracy and good governance. At next year's World Social Summit and at the Conference on Women we can build on the progress already made in the Conferences on Environment and on Population.

The tragedy of war and civil strife underlines the need to address more seriously the question of disarmament. The easy availability of arms contributes, not just to the scale of the carnage and suffering in conflict, but to the outbreak of conflict itself.

At the global level, the volume of trade in major conventional weapons has declined in recent years. But in some regions large stockpiles have accumulated. In others the arms trade continues to grow.

There is a need for States to exercise greater responsibility and restraint in their arms transfers. Already the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms has led to greater transparency. But I believe that we should now go further. That is why Ireland has proposed that the United Nations elaborate a code of conduct for conventional arms transfers which would set out common principles to be observed in this area. It is my hope that the General Assembly will now decide that work on such a code should be put in hand.

The lives of millions of people have been put at risk and large areas rendered unsafe as a result of the indiscriminate use of land-mines. Since last year many Governments have introduced moratoriums on the export of anti-personnel mines. I welcome President Clinton's call for an agreement to reduce the number and availability of these mines.

I welcome also the very considerable progress made in the reduction of nuclear arsenals and towards a comprehensive test-ban treaty. The threat of nuclear conflict between the major Powers no longer overshadows our daily lives. But there is disturbing evidence that some States still want to acquire a nuclear-weapon capability. Their ability to do so is helped by the growth in the world's stocks of fissile materials and in personnel with the requisite technological skills.

Next year's Conference to review and extend the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons provides an opportunity to address these issues. Ireland wants to see an indefinite extension of the Treaty. We want to see the principles on which the Treaty is founded maintained; the non-proliferation regime strengthened; all States becoming members; and progress made towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, as envisaged in the Treaty.

The agenda for United Nations reform is formidable - for the Organization itself and for the States that make up this Assembly. But whatever the difficulties, reform is a vital and urgent necessity. I am convinced that unless we act in a broad and imaginative way, bringing together the political, peace-keeping, development and human-rights instruments of the United Nations, we will prove inadequate to the great contemporary challenges.

We now have an opportunity such as has not existed for a generation. I urge all of us to grasp it.

The President

I call on the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic, His Excellency Mr. Eduard Kukan.

Mr. Kukan (Slovakia)

I should like to congratulate Mr. Essy of Côte d'Ivoire on his election to the post of President of the General Assembly of the United Nations at its forty-ninth session. I wish him much success in this highly responsible mission.

At the same time, I should like to thank Mr. Essy's predecessor as President, His Excellency Ambassador Insanally, for his great personal contribution to the success of the last session of the General Assembly.

I also avail myself of this opportunity to express deep appreciation of all the work and effort of the Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as the head of the United Nations.

Allow me to open my statement with a personal remark. During the past few years we have witnessed dynamic changes in world politics. The dynamism of development in international life is reflected in my personal life. In the course of the past four years I have represented two States as their Ambassador to the United Nations. Today I am honoured and proud to represent one of them - my native country, Slovakia - as its Minister of Foreign Affairs. The fact that the Permanent Representative to the United Nations was nominated as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of his country is yet another manifestation of the respect that the United Nations enjoys in Slovakia.

The fact that my country, less than two years after its admission to membership of the United Nations, became a full-fledged component of the community of nations is confirmation of the credibility of our foreign policy, which is based on respect for international law and for principles of democratic coexistence among nations. It is also a result of the implementation of our foreign-policy principles, which originate from the hierarchy of values of Slovak society. These values are characterized by respect for democracy, human rights and a free-market economy.

It is evident that Slovakia, as a small country in the geopolitically sensitive central European region, must have a transparent and clearly defined orientation in its foreign policy. We therefore aim our activities at European integrationist trends and strive to join the stable, democratic and prosperous countries. Joining the European Union and participating actively in the elaboration of an efficient model of European security are among the main priorities of Slovak foreign policy.

Our international contacts are, of course, much wider and are of a more multilateral character. We are interested in the best possible relations with neighbouring countries. I am glad to state that we have recently managed to fulfil this aim successfully. We believe that subregional arrangements, such as Visegrad 4 or the central European initiative, also help to strengthen the stability of the whole region. Close contacts with western European countries - and these are being strengthened in respect of economic, political and security matters - also contribute to the fulfilment of this objective.

At the global level, the priority of the Slovak Republic, which is part of the European region, is the maintenance of solid transatlantic relations through the development of intensive cooperation with the United States of America and Canada, both bilaterally and multilaterally. Further, we consider the development of cooperation with our eastern neighbours - Ukraine, the Russian Federation and other countries - as being especially important. Regardless of the fact that Slovakia is a small central European country, we strive to maintain and further develop good relations and cooperation with the countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Pacific region.

Our tasks and goals are very demanding, and their fulfilment depends on sufficient support from the public and on the consensus of the major political parties. I am glad to state that in Slovakia there is wide public and political agreement on the principal issues of our foreign policy. This is a positive signal for foreign countries, which can count on Slovakia as a reliable partner.

As I indicated at the beginning of my statement, today's world is defined by dynamic changes that are due to the growing multipolarity of international relations. Many important events that occurred in the last year advanced the international community towards achievement of the goals of the United Nations - to guarantee the peaceful coexistence of nations - but there have also been events that cannot fill us with optimism.

One positive event has been the peace process in the Middle East. Slovakia has supported this process from the very beginning with the aim of reaching a comprehensive and final peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The conclusion of agreements between the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization on the provision of limited autonomy in the zone of the Gaza Strip and Jericho, and the Jordan-Israeli declaration on terminating the state of war, as well as on measures to settle mutual relations, justified once more the peace efforts of the parties involved, as well as those of the international community, which is convinced that peace can be restored in this region.

We also welcome the democratization of South African society demonstrated by the elections in April of this year. Though South Africa is far from Slovakia, we put special emphasis on the continuation of this development. The visit of the President of the Slovak Republic to South Africa for the inauguration of President Mandela is evidence of this.

On the other hand, even these positive examples will not help us in successfully ending conflicts in other parts of the world. We are deeply concerned over the continuing conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina that is taking place some 300 kilometres from our borders. Slovakia is among the countries that yearn for an end to the continuing tragedy in that country. We wish to underline the superiority of a political solution to a military one, which by definition cannot eliminate the antagonism between the opposing sides.

The Slovak Republic, as a user of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, is a State without nuclear weapons. We therefore support a speedy signing of the comprehensive test-ban treaty. We wish to emphasize that such a treaty should apply to all tests without exception and for an indefinite period, including tests for peaceful purposes. Sustaining the moratorium on nuclear tests by all members of the nuclear club is considered by Slovakia to be the main precondition for concluding such a treaty, and at the same time, it is a clear sign of the real intentions of the nuclear club members.

We consider next year's Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to be closely linked to the nuclear-test ban. The NPT has been playing an important role in the history of humanity, and has managed to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We support unequivocally the unconditional and indefinite extension of the NPT.

The Slovak Republic appreciates the steps undertaken at the United Nations in the sphere of transparency in armaments, whether conventional or chemical and biological. We welcome the first positive universal step regarding conventional weapons: the establishment of the Register of Conventional Arms.

The verification level of the existing multilateral treaties is in most cases either inadequate or incomplete. Many of the multilateral treaties on arms control do not contain verification clauses - and if they do contain such clauses, they do not make full use of verification, as in the case of the NPT. I believe that the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction will be a test case for a new type of multilateral treaty on disarmament. The ratification of this agreement is among the top priorities in the agenda of our Parliament.

I can assure the Assembly that Slovakia is fulfilling responsibly and in a timely manner the obligations concerning confidence building, security, control of armaments and disarmament that have been undertaken at universal and regional negotiating forums. We firmly support all disarmament activities; hence we are well aware of the important role of the Conference on Disarmament in this field. I would like to confirm the permanent interest of the Slovak Republic in resolving the issue of its membership in the Conference, since the former Czechoslovak federation was a founding member of the Conference. It is truly a paradox that a country in which arms production decreased to 9 per cent of its 1989 level is not yet a member of the Conference.

We are aware of the need to improve existing organizational structures and strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) as a regional arrangement in the sense of Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. The CSCE continues to adapt to the new realities. Slovakia, however, is of the opinion that the basic character of the CSCE should not change. It should remain a wide political forum and its basic principle - the adoption of decisions by consensus - should be maintained.

Peace-keeping operations are currently at a level that is perhaps the highest that the international community can provide and sustain. They drain our financial resources, while not even sparing human lives. The original enthusiasm for peace-keeping operations has gradually cooled down with the knowledge that there are many obstacles that the United Nations cannot overcome. The tragic situation in Rwanda, where even the presence of United Nations forces could not avert a civil war and massacres, is a clear example. The United Nations peace-keeping operation on the territory of the former Yugoslavia has also encountered serious problems. The Slovak Republic has a contingent of 600 soldiers in the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) - members of the engineering unit who among their military tasks provide highly specialized expert work and assistance in restoring that country, which has suffered so much tribulation. Along with their efforts in the maintenance of peace, they have undertaken the dangerous task of removing mines from the country.

Slovakia strongly supports President Clinton's appeal in his statement before the General Assembly on Monday for the conclusion of an agreement that would reduce the number and availability of anti-personnel land-mines. I would like to mention that Slovakia, in accordance with resolution 48/75 K, has already implemented, on 17 April 1994, a moratorium on the export of anti-personnel land-mines for an indefinite period.

In connection with United Nations efforts to resolve several problems that have arisen in the field of peace-keeping operations, the Slovak Republic welcomes the decision to establish stand-by forces that can be dispatched on short notice and under the command of the United Nations. We have declared our interest in contributing to these units with engineers of the Slovak Army. Such units need highly specialized and thorough preparation and training designed for specific purposes. My country is in the process of building such a training centre and has already used it to train more than 1,200 members of United Nations peace-keeping forces since May of this year.

Experience has shown that the traditional type of peace-keeping operation is no longer sufficient. If a peace-keeping operation is to succeed it should contain a humanitarian element. Slovakia is of the opinion that in any operation under United Nations auspices and with United Nations coordination it is necessary to respect the principle of the priority of United Nations command.

In connection with the increased number of attacks against United Nations personnel, the Slovak Republic appreciates the Assembly's decision at its forty-eighth session to elaborate an international convention dealing with the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel. The next step the United Nations should consider is providing proper armament and other matériel for members of peace-keeping missions so that they might be able to react more appropriately to changing conditions and if necessary be able to defend themselves.

The Slovak Republic respects human rights and welcomes all international initiatives which could bring results in this sphere. We highly appreciate the commencement of the activities of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. We believe that this post will be an active United Nations instrument to guarantee the protection of human rights, especially where they are most flagrantly violated. At the beginning of 1994 we opened the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights in Bratislava. In this connection, I wish to express our gratitude to the Netherlands for its assistance in establishing this institution.

The gravity of the problem of refugees continues to increase. I express the hope that the United Nations will not underestimate this problem and that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will no longer have to fight financial problems in future.

The Slovak Republic supports the reform of the United Nations. It considers the revitalization and restructuring of the Security Council to be one of the crucial issues. We hope that the solution adopted will increase the efficiency of the Security Council and will contribute to the overall strengthening of the United Nations. We are of the opinion that new permanent members of the Security Council must have a global responsibility and be able to meet the ensuing financial obligations.

When the mandate of the Security Council is fulfilled and sanctions are implemented, more attention should be paid to possible adverse impacts on third countries. We are convinced that effective mechanisms of assistance to affected third countries should be seriously considered and established as soon as possible.

Slovakia encounters many problems connected with the transformation of society. It is crucial to solve the economic and social issues of a transition process unprecedented in scale and method. The United Nations, with its organs and specialized agencies, has an irreplaceable role in assisting their solution.

I should now like to give some facts on the economic situation of the Slovak Republic. Now that the first, basic steps of transformation have been taken, the main goal of the Slovak economy is to create permanent macroeconomic stability and conditions for substantial economic growth in the years to come. My country, with 5.3 million inhabitants and with exports about 50 per cent of gross domestic product, can be considered a small, open economy. The Slovak Government is concentrating on speeding up those reforms which should result in the quick transformation of ownership relations. Considerable progress has been made in macroeconomic stabilization in the first six months of 1994. Real gross domestic product has increased by 4.4 per cent. The State budget deficit represents only 3.8 per cent of gross domestic product, and is considered a positive indicator. Thanks to cooperation with, and assistance from, the International Monetary Fund, the foreign currency reserves of the Central Bank have increased. These data are considered to be the first sign of economic revival.

Economic cooperation and, within its framework, international assistance are prerequisites for further development of economies in transition. United Nations organs and specialized agencies cooperate intensively with my Government. Thanks to this cooperation, the economic situation is substantially better than had been anticipated, and the Slovak Republic has become an accepted international partner in economic cooperation.

The Slovak Republic welcomes the increased attention by, and efforts of, the United Nations aimed at bringing the issues of development and economic cooperation to the foreground. We hope that the agenda for development will initiate concrete steps in this sphere. We particularly appreciate the efforts of the United Nations in helping to resolve problems and difficulties encountered by the countries transforming their economies, and we are of the opinion that within the United Nations framework there are more opportunities to facilitate and speed up the integration of these economies into the world economy.

In the past decade the number of least developed countries has increased horrendously. This results in an urgent appeal to all mankind, but especially the industrially developed countries. However, at the same time we cannot avoid the primary responsibility of the least developed countries for their own destiny. The Slovak Republic offers assistance, within its own means and possibilities, especially through the participation of Slovak experts in development programmes - for example, in education and health care. Slovakia is prepared to engage in organizational work for the International Year for the Eradication of Poverty, 1996.

I should also like to emphasize the importance of the recently concluded International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo. The fact that it succeeded in reaching an agreement and adopting the Final Document is a signal that the international community is aware of its responsibility for global issues of humanity, and that international conferences and discussions are the only right battlefield for the solution of problems, no matter how sensitive and complicated they may be.

As can be seen from the facts I have set out, Slovakia, as one of the youngest Members of the United Nations, wishes not only to "take", but also intends to be actively involved in United Nations programmes, and has the capabilities. My country has much to offer developing countries. Slovak experts, with their know-how and experience, are prepared actively to participate in United Nations development programmes. Slovak products and technologies tested under demanding conditions could contribute to the efficiency of these development programmes. In the sphere of the development of human resources, Slovakia, with a long tradition in this field, offers a variety of courses at universities.

My country has a difficult task to carry out: transformation of the economy. The United Nations also has a difficult task; that of adapting itself to the new realities and adjusting its structure and activities accordingly. I wish to assure the Assembly that the Slovak Republic is prepared to do its utmost to carry out the first task and to participate actively in the activities of the United Nations.

I wish to conclude my statement by wishing much success to this year's session of the General Assembly.

The President

I now call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Estonia, His Excellency Mr. Jüri Luik.

Mr. Lüik (Estonia)

I should like to congratulate Mr. Essy on his election as President of this, the forty-ninth, session of the General Assembly. The Estonian people wish him all the best in this post.

Today is a day of national mourning in my country. Late last night, amid stormy autumn winds, the passenger and car ferry Estonia, sailing from Tallinn to Stockholm, sank at high sea. Nearly 100 people have been saved, and rescue efforts are continuing. But most of the over 850 people who were aboard the Estonia are presumed to be dead. I should like to thank the President and all those who have expressed their sorrow and sent condolences.

In this painful loss, we can draw some solace from the global teamwork we have seen in the rescue efforts. Last night demonstrated beyond a doubt that the Baltic Sea is a sea of cooperation. Swedish, Finnish, Danish and Estonian rescue units worked together, and we had offers of help from Russia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and countless others. On behalf of my Government, I thank all of those who helped us with the rescue effort. The spirit of international cooperation sets a fine example for all of us here today.

Today my country comes before this forum for the first time in half a century unfettered by the problem of the presence of foreign troops on our soil. The role the United Nations played in helping to remove the last vestiges of the Second World War was not small. It is therefore a special privilege for me to speak here today.

It is also not insignificant that this new era in the history of Estonia, Latvia and Germany coincides with the upcoming fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. These two events would seem to call for solemn reflection on the past or at least a joyous celebration of the moment. But most of all, this new era requires new approaches. Post-war security - be the war hot or cold - still hangs in a delicate balance. Because it is up to all of us, collectively, to decide which way the scales tip, I wish to focus on the future, on how we in Estonia are approaching this new era, and on some of the ideas enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations that we believe deserve special attention in the next few years.

On 31 August, we marked the withdrawal of troops. The celebrations and commemorations of this event symbolized the end of one era and the beginning of another. The withdrawal of the troops has had a tremendous effect in bringing us closer to normalization of relations with the Russian Federation, and we sincerely hope that the problem of officers who were demobilized on our territory against the spirit and the letter of the troop-withdrawal treaty will be solved. The troop withdrawal was also a major step towards achieving security in the Baltic region. But the problem of Baltic security has not yet been solved - far from it.

One dimension of moving towards bona fide security undoubtedly lies in trying to improve relations with the Russian Federation. The potential for good will is in the air, and it is our duty, on both sides of the 1920 Tartu Peace Treaty, to seize the moment and make that pe