A/47/PV.49 General Assembly

I call on the representative of Czechoslovakia, to introduce draft resolution A/47/L.ll. Mr. SUCHANEK (Czechoslovakia): The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, current Chairman-in-Office of the Council of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), but acting here in its national capacity, proposed that agenda item 140, "Coordination of the activities of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe", be included in the General Assembly's agenda at this session. Let me take this opportunity to thank all those who supported the proposal, those who are ready to contribute to today's discussion and those who sponsored the draft resolution. Let me also express my satisfaction at having the opportunity to address the United Nations on a CSC~-re1ated matter. If X am not mistaken, this is the first time that we are dealing directly here with this Euro-At1antic body, now expanded to the Asian region and today encompassing 52 participating States. Today I am speaking here as the representative of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. As members already know, the process of the dissolution of my country has started and should soon lead to new constitutional arrangements and the creation of two independent States, as of 1 January 1993. Let me express the hope that both new States, which will respect and assume all the obligations and commitments of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, will be admitted as Members of the United Nations as soon as possible. The collaps9 of communist regimes in our part of the world and the end of the cold-war, hipolar confrontation have, unfortunately, also brought about new dimensions of insecurity. The ongoing period of transition is accompanied by n~~erous threats to stability and regional security, to social peace, to human rights and funda~ental freedoms, to democratic institutions and to the rule of law. New problems and crise21 and the subsequent reactions of various international bodies as instruments of crisis management have brought about a wave of criticism and scepticism as to their capabilities to cope with these problems individually or collectively. As the representative of Czechoslovakia - a Member of the United Nations and a participating State of the CSCE - I must say that both institutions, the United Nations and the CSCE, have actively met these new challenges and are trying in the most responsible manner - though sometimes not without lagging behind developments - to find adequate responses for today and for the future. The scope, complexity and newness of the problems in this rather fluid state of internal development in both institutions might be our only excuse when facing criticism in this respect. In our CSCE region, both the United Nations and the CSCE, among others, are dealing with the same problems with increased intensity, usually from their own perspectives but in tandem. Without appropriate cooperation and coordination, these activities might bring counter-productive results and be seen or interpreted - or even misused - to create some sort of unhealthy competition. In the worst case they might compromise all the efforts of the international community and, to a certain degree, even the organizations themselves. Therefore, we are of the op,inion that the new tasks of the international comm~nity, the United Nations and the CSCE, require clearer rel~tions and closer contacts, as well as enhanced cooperation, coordination and concerted action between the United Nations system and the CSCE~ The basic approach of the United Nations to these new challenge~ is reflected most appropriately in the report of t,he Secretary-General uAn Agenda for Peace", The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic shares the view that the state of world and European affairs makes it urgent to revitalize the possibilities already envisaged in the United Nations Charter. and calls for regional arrangements and organizations to be given a more active and effective role in dealing with reqional problems by making use of their potenti~l for taking on additional responsibilities 1?S a matter of decentralization and cooperation with the United Nations. The basic approach of the CSCE is reflected in the Helsinki 1992 Summit ~..N:zwnel!1t "TheCha119nges of Change" (A/47/361.. annex). The question of interaction between different international bodies, and moat of all between the United Nations and the CSC8, acquired a new dimension for the CSCE countries after the Helsinki Summit. At that Summit Heads of State or Government declarea their anderstanding that the CSCE is a regional arrangement in the sense of Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter - the rights and responsibilities of the United Naticns Security Council remaining unaffected in their entirety - and as such provides an important link between European and global security. The CSCE participating States are, inter alia, of the opinion that it will be essential for the success of efforts to foster democratic changes within the CSCE framework to increase cooperation with other European and transatlantic organizations and institutions. We also believe that a lasting and peaceful order will be built on mutually reinforcing institutions, each with its own area of action and responsibility. The Helsinki Suwmit also opened the way to completely new spheres of CSCE activity in the field of conflict prev.ention and conflict management, including CSCE peace-keeping, and initiatives further to enhance mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes, thus opening up new areas of cooperation between the United Nations and the CSCE. The new CSCE Forum for Security Cooperation represents a further development in this sense. The CSCE's vast experience in promoting and monitoring the implementation of international standards and CSCE commitments, especially in the field of human rights and democratic values and institutions, has been complemented by new elements of early warning and preventive diplomacy, including setting up the post of the CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities 3 by which the CSCE hopes further to strongthen its capabili.ties to promote and to monito~ the implementation of the already well-established CSCE standards. We ccnsidcr that these aspects provide fundamental criteria for assessing the activities of Governments in tllcir relations towards other countries or towardB their own citizens. The viability of n~w, emerging CSCE conflict-prevention and conflict-manaqement capabilities should and will be proven by time and in practice. The more and more complex and universal character of this flexible formation, working on the basis of consensus, destines it to play an important role matters arising in the vast CSCE area reaching beyond Europe itself. To open itself up to these new vistas of cooperation with the United Nations, the CSCB will also have to address institutional and organizational aspects of its development so as to achieve, step by step, greater compatibility with the United Nations. In his statement at the current session of the ijeneral Assembly, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, Mr. Moravcik, stressed that this year's discussion on the issue of cooperation between the United Nations and the CSCE could develop on two levels: first, the conceptual level, to clarify the fundamental political meaning of coordination, both in the immediate future and in the medium and long term; and, secondly, the practical, concrete level, where the activities of the tuo institutions have already begun to overlap, making it possible to draw conclusions. This discussion has already started in both the United Nations and the CSCE~ but, because it is at the initial stage of the first exchanges of ideas, we cannot be more specific on concrete forms of cooperation and coordination, or on any formal patterns of relatiollships between the .United Nations and the CSCE. Only through inbensive discussions will it be possible to produce more specific ideas and proposa)~ for a division of labour between these two bodies, for mechanisms and techniques of consultation, harmonization of approaches, complementarity, joint or supportive undertakings, the exchange of information, and so on. These ideas might then be reflected in a report by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly at its next session, as indicated in draft resolution A/47/L.ll. The draft resolution, entitled "Cooperation between the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe", was worked out in intensive cooperation with the delegations of member States of the CSCE and with many otber States. It was submitted to the General Assembly by the following 35 Member States: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, BUlgaria, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malt.a, Netherlands r Norway, Poland, Portugal, ~epublic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine~ United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America. All these initial sponsors are CSCE members, which should by no means be seen as an effort to egclude States from other geographical regions or arrangements. The following additional States have indicated their interest and have become sponsors: Canada, Croatia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania and Slovenia. The sponsors of the draft resolution bore in mind that the discussion of the agenda item this year represents only the very beginning of its consideration. It was drafted, therefore, in general and fully acceptable terms, trying to express the political importance of the item for regional seeu~ity and the need for enhanced cooperation and coordination between the United Nations and the CSCE. The delegation of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, speaking on behalf of the sponsors, commends the draft resolution for adopticn and expresses the hope that in view of its non-controversial character it will be adopted by consensus. Mr. BREITENSTEIN (Finland): For almost two decades the Conference on Security and Cooperation {C§CE) helped ease the pain of the division of Europe into two antagonisti~ blocs. At the same time, the process begun in Helsinki helped plant and nurture the seeds that in time sprouted through the cracks to break apart the concrete walls of Europe's division. From the very beginning Finland lent the process not only the name of its capital but its full political support. A neutral State 'on the cutting edge of confrontation, Finland had a vital interest in moderating East-West tensions in any way it could. In the new Europe, East-West tensions have given way to hope and cooperation, but also to despair and destruction. Finland sees and seeks a vital role for the CSCE in managing both the promises and problems of post-cold war change in our part of the world. This summer the highest political leaders of the participating States returned to the birthplace of the Helsinki process to take stock and to look ahead. Reaffirming the commitments to the Charter of the United Nations, the leaders declared their understanding that the CSCE is a regional arrangement in the sense of Chapter VII! of the Charter. They went on to state that as such the CSCE provides an important link between European and global security, and pledged that the CSCE will work closely with the United Nations, especially in preventing and settling conflicts. When the capacity of the United Nations to keep the peace and prevent conflicts has been stretched to the limit, it is natural that the capacities of others are looked into. We applaud the Secretary-General's repeated calls for closer cooperation and coordination between the United Nations and regional organizations. The CSCE decision with respect to Chapter VIII of the Charter is fully in line with the concept of mutually supportive roles for the (Mr. Breitenstein, Finland) United Nations and regional organizations, as set out in his report "Agenda for Peace". Keeping in mind the unique CSCE experience of conceptualizing, negotiating and implementing confidence-building measures, we strongly support the Secretary-General's suggestion of periodic consultations between the United Nations and regional arrangements on such measures. We look forward to his early follow-up to this. In order to meet the new post-cold-war challenges which Europe faces, the Helsinki Swm~it of the CSCE put in place a comprehensive programme of conflict prevention and crisis management, including early warning, peace-keeping and the peaceful settlement of disputes. The continuing carnage in some corners of the extended CSCE area has made it abundantly clear that the CSCE needed instruments that can turn it from a promoter of change into a manager of conflict and change. My Government welcomes the strengthening of the executive capability of ~he CSCE; both in terms of the Council and of the Committee of Senior Officials. Likewise, the establishment of the post of the CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities was not only necessary but long overdue. We count on his active engagement in providing early warning and taking early action in regard to tensions involving national minority issues which might develop into a conflict within the CSCE area. The Helsinki Summit decided that peace-keeping constitutes an important element of CSCE ~onflict prevention and management. CSCE peace-keeping does not entail enforcement action, and it requires the consent of the parties directly concerned. According to the Charter, the peaceful settlement of disputes is one of the main functions of regional arrangements. Here again, new mechanisms within the CSCE could serve as an inspiration beyond the (~Breitenstein, Finland) region. Finland, like the other Nordic countries, is of the view that regional arrangements should concentrate on further developing such methods of peaceful settlement as would ensure mandatory involvement by a third. party. The results of the CSCE meeting of, experts on the peaceful settlement of disputes, held in Geneva earlier this month, were also a step forward. With regard to the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, the CSCE is assisting the peace efforts o'f the United Nations and those of the European Community in various ways. In particular, the CSCE seeks to prevent the conflicts in Croatia, as well as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, from spreading to other parts of the former Yugoslavia. Accordingly, CSCE missions will be monitoring the situation in the relevant areas. Under the auspices of the Minsk Conference, the CSCE has shouldered a major role in attempts to. settle the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorny-Karabakh. It is also involved in Moldova and Georgia. In all of these cases, close cooperation with the United Nations continues to be a necessity. We can only regret that the optimism which pervaded Europe only a short while ago has been tempered by the fury of open conflict and aggression. War, mindless destruction and wholesale violation of human rights have returned to Europe under the guise of "ethnic cleansing". The challenges which these conflicts pose may sometimes seem enormous; indeed, they sometimes are enormous. But they must not be seen as impossible to overcome. Coordinated efforts by the United Nations and the CSCE as well as ether European and transatlantic institutions are now required. Inactivity by the international community would be unforgivable. (Mr. Breitenstein, Fin~) My delegation welcomes the initiative of Czechoslovakia, current Chairman-in-Office of the CSCE Council, in putting the question of cooperation between the United Nations and the CSCE on the agenda for this session. We are among the sponsors of draft Tesolution A/47/L.ll, just introduced by the representative of the Czech and ~lGvak Federal Republic. We look forward to its adoption by consensus. The draft resolution stresses the n~ed for enhan~ed cooperation and • cooruination between the CSCE and the United Nations and requests the Secretary-General to report thereon next autumn. We look forward to this report from the Secretary-General. In the meantime, it would in our view be useful to discuss cooperation between the CSCE and the United Nations in an appropriate United Nations forum. The idea has already been put forward in the Charter Committee tha~ representatives of established regional organizations be invited to present their views on various aspects of cooperation between the United Nations and their respective organizations. We are in favour of this and will take it up again when the Charter Committee reconvenes in February. Let me close by quoting the Secretary-General on the subject at hand in his report "An Agenda for Peace": "regional action as a matter of decentralization, delegation and cooperation with United Nations efforts could not only lighten the burden of the [Security] Council but also contribute to a deeper sense of participation, consensus and democratization in international affairs". (A/47/277, para. 64) We could not agree more. The CSCE is beginning to shoulder its share of the burden. United States, I am pleased to speak in support of the draft resolution introduced by the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic regarding cooperation between the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). At the Helsinki CSCE follow-up meeting which ended in July, the CSCE issued a document entitled "The Challenges of Change". The document reflects the recognition by the CSCE participating States of the fact that, while our world has changed, our principles have not. We look to the Helsinki document as a programme to enhance our capabilities for concerted action and to intensify our cooperation for democracy, prosperity and equal rights of security. The CSCE mandate for security and cooperati~n is broad. The United States has always supported the CSCE as a vehicle for advancing human rights and for promoting the growth of democratic institutions. Keeping and restoring peace begins with exactly these endeavours. We now look to the CSCE as well to facilitate increased dialogue and cooperation among its members and to prevent and resolve conflicts. In the Helsinki document, the CSCE participating States reaffirmed their commitment to the Charter of the United Nations and declared that the CSCE is a regional arrangement in the sense of Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. The CSCE mechanisms created in Helsinki are already being employed in places such as the former Yugoslavia and Nagorny-Karabakh. Cooperation and coordination in these locations are necessary elements if the CSCE and the United Nations are to be effective in achieving their common goals. We welcome the initiative of Czechoslovakia, as CSCE Chairman-in-Office, in calling for enhanced cooperation and coordination between the CSCE and the United Nations. We believe that the request for a report from the Secretary-General on United Nations-CSCE cooperation and the inclusion on the agenda of the forty-eighth session of the Assembly of an item related to such cooperation will advance the commitm~nts made by the CSCE participating States in Helsinki. Mr. RICHARDSON (United Kingdom): I am delighted to have the honour to speak OIl behalf of the European Community and its member States on the subject of cooperation between the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). We welcome the initiative taken by the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic as current Cbairman-in-Office of the CSCE, in proposing this new item for the agenda of the General Assembly. This initiative is a timely one. At the Helsinki summit earlier this year, Heads of Government nf the participating States of the CSCE declared their understanding that the CSCE is a regional arrangement under Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. That step, which reflects the developing role and responsibilities of the CSCE, was supported by the European Community and its member States. It is a step which is very much in line with the ideas on the mutually supportive roles of the United Nations and regional organizations set out by the Secretary-General in "An Agenda for Peace". The CSCE was born during the period of the cold war. Many of the challenges it faces now, often springing from rival nationalisms and ethnic conflict, are very different from those that prevailed then. At Helsinki, the (Mr. Richards~, United Kingdom) British Prime Minister, speaking as President of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities, warned against the CSCE being a bystander, a hand-wringing onlooker to Europe's quarrels, It must develop the means and the will to act before a crisis escalates into armed conflict. The Helsinki summit approved a number of measures designed to make the CSCE more effective: the establishment of the post of CSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities, for example. to provide early warning of ethnic conflict and to promote the early settlement of such conflicts. The CSCE can now undertake peace-keeping, a~ area in which it clearly has much to profit from the experience of the United Nations. Participating States of the CSCE regularly assess and monitor each other's implementation of CSCE commitments, including in the vital areas of democracy and human rights. Initiatives are now under discussion within the CSCF. to establish more effective mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes in the areas of s4bitration and conciliation. In the area of preventive diplomacy in particular, the United Nations and the CSCE can support and reinforce each other. In a number of crisis areas - the former Yugoslavia, the conflict in and around Nagorny-Karabakh# Moldova, and Georgia - the CSCE is playing a part alongside the United Nations. IXl the case of the conflict in and around Nagorny-Karabakh the CSCE has taken the lead in the search for a settlement. In the former Yugoslavia it has supported and complemented the efforts of both the United Nations and the European Community. It has dispatched long-term missions to the territories of Kosovo, Sandjak and Vojvodina, and to the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, and it has shared in the investigation of human rights abuses and in assisting neighbouring States in the rigorous enforcement of United Nations sanctions through the deployment of sanctions-assistance missions. The troika of the CSCE is represented on the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the former Yugoslavia. There can be no doubting the scale of the challenges facing the peacemakers in these and other newly arising conflicts. Whether they come from the United Nations or from the CSCE, or indeed from the European Community. they face an uphill task. Mutually supporting endeavours are beginning to emerge. The precise balance may differ from problem to problem. Clearly, there is an ever present need to guard against duplication, and coordination is vital, as those who proposed this agenda item rightly perceived. But there is more than enough work to go round. We warmly welcome the debate which has been initiated here. We anticipate that it will be pursued further in future sessions, and we should like to see the Secretary-General provide a report on cooperation and coordination between the two organizations in time for the next session of the General Assembly. As I have already indicated, there is likely to be increasing room for fruitful cooperation between the United Nations and the CSCE in underpinning stability within the CSCE area. Such stability is vital to world peace, and it is right that the General Assembly should focus on and encourage cooperation between the two organizations. congratulate Brazil, Djibouti, New Zealand, Pakistan and Spain on their election to seats on the Security Council for the period 1993 to 1994. I am convinced that all five countries will make a valuable contribution to the work of the Security Council for the benefit of all the Members of the United Nations. My Government has also asked me to convey especially to New Zealand and Spain our best wishes for every success in their important task. The extension and intensification of cooperation between the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) is an issue of political importance and some urgency. It is also an issue with a number of unresolved practical implications which need to be addressed. The complex problems we are now facing in some parts of Europe in the wake of the collapse of communism require us to develop in a very concrete way the elements of what has been called a network for European security. This is basically what the CSCE is about today. Old structures and interrelationships need to be adjusted and complemented by fresh initiatives in order to enable us to come to grips with new problems. In this context, increased cooperation and coordination between the United Nations and the CSCE is highly desirable. The initiative of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic to propose a special item on the agenda of the General Assembly to discuss cooperation between the United Nations and the CSCE is therefore very timely. In his recent report "An Agenda for Peace" the Secretary-General rightly highlighted the potential for increased cooperation between the United Nations and regional arrangements, as envisaged in the Charter. Sweden has followed with interest and appreciation the recent examples of interaction between the United Nations and various regional organizations, groups of States and individual States in tackling difficult problems in Somalia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua and the former Yugoslavia. We fully share the Secretary-General's view that this potential should be utilized more fully now that the cold war has given way to a new era of opportunity. The CSCE States, for their part, declared last July their understanding that theCSCE is a regional arrangement in the sense of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations and as such provides an important link between European, transatlantic and global security. This decision is, of course, without prejudice to the unique competence of the United Nations as the global guardian of international peace and security. As the CSCE States put it in the 1992 Helsinki Document, "The rights and responsibilities of the United Nations Security Council remain unaffected in their entirety." (A/47/361, annex, p. 42) The basis for strengthening the coordination and cooperation between the United Nations and the CSCE has thus been laid. It should now be compleme~ted by increased practical cooperation. We already have some examples of mutual reinforcement, such as the CSCE's active support for the International Conference on the former Yugoslavia, and the practical cooperation on the ground between the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and the European Community Monitoring Mission, in which some CSCE countries are participating. The CSCE is also making a valuable contribution to the efforts to prevent the conflict from spreading into Kosovo, Vojvodina and Sandjak~as well as into Macedonia and neighbouring countries. Together with others, the CSCE is also assisting neighbouring countries in implementing the United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro through a series of missions. In addition, there have been contacts between the United Nations and the CSCE in the area that is known in the CSCE as the human dimension. These experiences, and the challenges of the crises that are before us, compel us to go further. There is a great need for flexibility and practical thinking. The balance between different elements in the international n~twork of mutually reinforcing institutions is not given once and for all; neither is the division of tasks and responsibilities. In our joint efforts to maintain and strengthen peace in the CSCE area, we must always be open to new approaches and be prepared to devise the modalities of cooperation so as best to meet the exigencies of each particular situation. When Sweden assumes the chairmanship of the CSCE Council of Ministers in December my Government intends to work for the further enhancement of the capacity of the CSCE in the areas of conflict prevention and crisis management and, when appropriate, in cooperation with international organizations, especially the United Nations. I am confident that we may draw on the Organization's unique role and experience in the fields of peacemaking and peace-keeping. I also trust that the CSCE, for its part, can contribute to United Nations efforts to maintain peace and security by, for example, providing early warning and information on problems of common concern, or by lending appropriate assistance to efforts to prevent and solve conflicts and to promote the ideals of d~mocracy and human rights, which are basic tenets of the CSCE process. It is our hope that the question of the interaction between the United Nations and the CSCE will be addressed at the forthcominq meetinq of the Council of Ministers of the CSCE, to be held in Stockholm On 14-15 December. As Chairman-in-Offi(!e of the CSCE next year, Sweden will contribute to the best of its ability to the practical development of a structured relationship between the United Nations and the CSCE. For example, it might be desirable to consider further how to achieve a rationnl division of labou~ between the United Nations and the CSCE in various types of missions. Maybe we can arrive at some rules of thumb in this respect, or we should at least make sure that regular exchange of information takes place so that each party, each interlocking institution, is aware of what the other is doing. To sum up, we believe that flexibility, coordination and mutual presence are key aspects of the relationship between the United Nations and the CSCE. We would welcome a report from the Secretary-General on this subject at the next session ot the General Assembly, as requ~sted in the draft resolution, of which Sweden has the pleasure to be a sponsor. Mr. CAMILLERI (Malta): The subject of regional cooperation is attracting particula~ attention at the current session of the General Assembly. This is in recognition of the fact that, as the Secretary-General has pointed out ,in his report, "An Agenda for Peace", the new international situation has opened up renewed opportunities for linkages between action at the regional and the wider international levels, especially in the context of efforts towards safeguarding global peace and security. The discussions that have taken place in plenary meeting under item 10 of the agenda, and in the Sixth Committee# in connection with the report of the Charter Committee, have already started to explore the many promising yet complex aspects arising from the enhanced role of regional cooperation. These aspects are perhaps most sharply brought out in a consideration of the item before us today: coordination of activities between the CSCE and the United Nations. The CSCE has been in existence for almost 20 years. Yet it is only at this session that it has been found necessary and appropriate for an item on cooperation between the CSCE and the United Nations to be placed for the first time on the agenda of the General Assembly. In his report, "An Agonda for Peace", the Secretary-General reflects upon the fact that for over 45 years, until very lately, the notion of cooperation at the regional ~~val was sometimes conceived more as an alternative than as a complement to action at the wider, international level. Nowhere perhaps is the changed role of regional organizations better highlighted than in the case of the CSCE. Conceived, and effectively developed, as a device of peaceful coexistence in the cold-war era, the CSCE is today dramatically and most successfully transforming itself into a tool of peaceful cooperation, in an era when commonly snared objectives are defined in terms of democracy, prosperity and an equal right to security. Other regional organizations, in Asia, Latin America and Africa, have of course also f.ound in the new world order enhanced opportunities for promoting cooperation at the regional leval as part of the wider, international effort to strengthen democracy, prosperity and security. Yet in the case of other regional organizations the process was essentially one of evolution, not transformation. It is only in Europe, primarily through the CSCE, that cooperation at the regional level has had radically to adapt policies and structures originally aimed at r, w:::.aining the tensions of bipolarity to the challenges of pursuing commonly defined objectives. Aftar an initial period of hesitation, members of the CSCE have shown themselves deeply conscious of the nature and potantial of the transformation that has occurred in their organization. It is for this reason that, as one of its first acts of renewal, in Helsinki last July, the CSCE formally declared itself an "arrangement" under Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. Malta was foremost among those that proposed and promoted this declaration. We saw in this move a necessary affirmation of the changed role and purpose of the CSCE ~ a role and purpose that now closely reflect the essential principles and o~jectives of the Charter and the new spirit of international cooperation. An awareness of its new-found purpose, first laid out in the 1990 Charter of Paris and more clearly elaborated in this year's Helsinki decisions, is therefore one of the strengths of the CSCE. Another strength lies in the flexible and wide-ranging methods and structures that it has carried with it through the process of transformation. For over two decades 'the CSCE slowly and painstakingly sought to develop innovative modalities for action in an extensive number of areas - including confidenceand security-building measures in the military field, action for the protection of human rights, procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes, measures for economic and other cooperation, provision for action at the subregional level, and many others. Even in an embryonic form, these modalities proved effective in serving the purposes of the old world order. Transformed and revitalized, they can certainly be harnessed more effectively in the service of the new. The accelerated programme of institution-building which was launched at the Helsinki summit this year could indeed not have taken place in the absence of a secure foundation rooted in years of experience. Two aspects of the CSCE's accumulated experience in the promotion of action at the regional level are, in this context, of special and universal relevance. In the first instance, there is recognition of the fact that the pursuit of peace and security is a multidimensional exercise involving action not only in the military field but also in the economic, social, humanitarian and other fields. The Sec~etary-General forcefully and effectively underlines this point in his two reports, one entitled "An Agenda for Peace" and the other on the work of the Organization for 1992. The experience of the CSCE provides practical confirmation of this reality. A second relevant aspect of the CSCE experience concerns the issue of collective action as it relates to the question of State sovereignty. In an increasingly interdependent world, the notion of sovereignty could readily give rise to misplaced sensitivities. The CSCE experience teaches us that even in the context of a bipolar world - and much more in a world dedicated to democracy, prosperity and sha~ed security - the notion of sovereignty cannot be permitted to stand inexorably in the way of collective action, especially in such areas as the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The immense upheavals that have taken place in Europe over the last few years are the conditioning factors in the transformation which is taking place in the CSCE, as indeed they have been the catalyst for the emergence of a whole new order in international relations. The challenges, dangers and risks accompanying these welcome upheavals are, understandably, felt nowhere more than within the European region itself, where the old dragons of ethnic hatred and national rivalries have been unleashed through the s&ne processes that have ushered in freedom and democracy. It is in this context that the CSCE has concentrated much of its new-found enthusiasm for institution-building. on the objectives of preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution. The new experiments which were launched in Helsinki, especially through the creation of a post of High Commissioner for National Minorities, the empowering of the CSCE to conduct peace-keeping operations, and the setting up of a Forum for Security Cooperation, were bold and far-reaching. They now need to be nurtured through a formative process which, among other things, will have to flesh out practical issues ranging from questions of coordination and cooperation with other organizations, both regional and global, to more mundane but equally important questions relating to the financing and management of peace-keeping operations. (Mr. Caroilleri. Malta) One can readily see in all these developments a special relevance to the ongoing debate within the United Nations regarding many of the issues raised by the Secretary-General in his "Agenda for Peace", where questions relating to preventive diplomacy and peace-keeping are assigned a high priority. It is for this reason that my delegation sees this year's discussion of the item on the coordination of activities between the CSCE and the United Nations as the beginning of a necessary process - a process which offers encouraging prospects for future development but which must not be forced too quickly through its present formative stage. In this spirit, my delegation supports the draft resolution on this subject which has been presented by the representative of Czechoslovakia and which, together with other members of the CSCE, we are indeed most happy to sponsor. Mr. GRAF ZU RANTZAU (Germany): I have the honour to speak as a member of the present Troika of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). My delegation and my GOvernment fully share the views expressed by the Presidency of the Eut'opean Community earlier today. During its chai~manship of the CSCE, Germany made particular efforts to establish a relationship between the United Nations and the CSCE. We wanted to contribute to creating favourable conditions in a new field of cooperation which will certainly gain increased importance in the context of the Secretary-General's report "An Agenda for Peace". In a time of increased challenge to a world in transition, peace and stability will increasingly depend on strengthened coordination and cooperation between the United Nations and the various regional organizations. The CSCE played a key role in ovarcoming the cold war and in bringing about the change towa~ds democracy in Europe. Within its framework the Germans, in 1990, regained their national unity. The same year, the Charter of Paris laid the groundwork for creating a community of free and democratic nations from Vancouver to Vladivostok. The CSCE considers itself a regional arrangement within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. It bears special responsibility for strengthening security in Europe. There is no rivalry or competition - the mandates of the CSCE and the United Nations complement each other. Since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act, the CSCE has helped gain currency for the purpo~es and principles of the United Nations Charter. In the fields of preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping, peacemaking and conflict resolution, both the United Nations and the CSCE find themselves in a process of evolution. It has become all the more necessary to lay the groundwork for cooperation and coordination on a permanent basis. The efforts of the CSCE notwithstanding, we are still quite far away from the European order of peace which Germany has always championed. The dramatic change in Europe has brought with it social tension, economic downturn, intolerance# xenophobia and aggressive nationalism, all of which underscore the necessity to enforce the values to which all participating States subscribe. To this end, the CSCE has created a body of instruments founded on mutual responsibility. Procedures for conflict prevention and crisis management within the CSCE framework, as adopted this summer in Helsinki, tie in with the instruments I have mentioned. Missions dispatched by the CSCE and the impending activities of the High Commissioner for National Minorities make it possible to identify (Mr. Graf zu Rantzau, Germany) causes of conflict at an early stage and to support efforts towards their resolution. We all know that there is no room for complacency. The instruments the CSCE has created for itself in Helsinki must be imbued with life and must be used sensibly. For the first time in decades, a war is raging in the CSCE region, which demonstrates daily in a most dramatic fashion the need to improve and develop the peace-keeping potential of existinq organizations, including the CSCE. Germany welcomes the draft resolution - which it is co-sponsoring - concerning the coordination of the activities of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. We are looking forward to the report of the Secretary-General and shall actively participate in further discussions. Mr. HUSLID (Norway): Let me start by saying how much we appreciate the initiative taken by the Czech and S10vak Federal Republic, as Chairman-in-Office of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), in proposing this new item on the agenda of the General Assembly. At the Helsinki Summit in July this year, the participating States, reaffirming their commitment to the Charter of the United Nations as subscribed to by them, declared their understanding that the CSCE is a regional arrangement in the sense of Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter and, as such, provides an important link between European and global security. I should think that this is something that should be noted with satisfaction here in the General Assembly also. The CSCE, as the all-European institution, has a vital role to play in achieving a more peaceful and stable Europe. The conflict potential of the 1990s includes, as we know, unfortunately, militant nationalism, xenophobia and intolerance. They pose the gravest threat to our common security. In order to deal with these new security problems, it is of the utmost importance to have effective mechanisms for crisis management and conflict prevention. The CSCE Helsinki follow-up meeting did important work in this area, as reflected in the document adopted at the meeting. Thus, the establishment of a CSCE peace-keeping capability represented an important step forward. This is an area in which the CSCE has much to learn from the United Nations. The option of peace-keeping activities of various kinds should, in our view, be a key element of the overall conflict-prevention and crisis-management capability of the CSCE, and would be a useful supplement to the peace-keeping role of the United Nations. (Mr. Huslid. Norway) The participating States regularly assess and monitor each other's implementation of CSCE commitm~nts, including in the vital areas of democracy and human rightsm To this end, the CSCE h~s further developed structures to ensure political management of crises and has created new instruments of conflict prevention ~,d crisis management. The CSCE's capacities in the field of early warning will be strengthened, in particular by the activities of the newly established office of High Commissioner on National Minorities. The United Nations and the CSCE can support and reinforce each other also in the area of preventive diplomacy. The CSCE has supported the efforts of the United Nations in the tragic conflict in the former Yugoslavia, as we all know. The Norwegian Ambassador, Mr. Tore Bogh, has been charged with the task of heading long-term missions to the Kosovo, Sandjak and Vojvodina. The CSCE has also shared in the investigation of human rights abuses and in assisting neighbouring States in the rigorous enforcement of United Nations sanctions through the deployment of sanctions-assistance missions. I should like to mention one item to which we attach great importance. Security and stability have, in our view, obvious environmental dimensions. In several parts of the CSCE area, environmental hazards stemming from defence-related installations and activities are real and pressing concerns. Multilateral dialogue and cooperative action in this field is urgently required, as a complement to bilateral and multilateral efforts undertaken by the United Nations. The peacemakers of today are facing a big challenge. The United Nations and the CSCE have already established fruitful cooperation in this field. I am convinced that the area of cooperation between the two organizations will (M!:.. Huslid, Norway) expand and will lead to mutual benefit in a world which needs concerted action and the promotion of comprehensive security. As one of the sponsors of the draf~ resolution on this item, we very much lQok forward to receivinq the Secretary-General's report on this aqenda item before next year's session of the General Assembly. Mr. HOHENFELLNER (Austria): Austria supports the Secretary-General's view - expreslsed in "An Aqenda for Peace" that: "reqional arranqements ••• in many cases possess a potential that should be utilized" (A/471277, para. 64) Recent experience has shown that the contributions of reqional arranqements are essential prerequisites for meetinq the tremendous challenqes to the international community in connection with the preservation and restoration of international peace and security. Reqional action could indeed in many cases result in a deeper sense of participation, consensus and democratization in international affairs. Austria therefore welcomes the consideration of the new item "Coordination of the activities of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe". Indeed, the participatinq States in this reqional arranqement, which encon~asses 52 countries and a reqion from Vancouver to Vladivostok, have alr'eady stated, in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, their full and active support for the United Nations and for the enhancement of its role and effectiveness in strenqtheninq international peace, security and justice, and expressed their common will to act in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Thus the CSCE was created in a ~pirit of cooperation and support for the United Nations and with a desire to complement the activities of the United Nations. (Mr. Hohenfellner. Austria) From the heginning, the participating States of the CSCE have implemented many of their commitments regarding economic and environmental cooperation in theframework of the Economic Commission for Europe.• The CSCE has played an important role in bringing about political changes in Central and Eastern Europe by promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as democratic values and institutions. After the breakdown of communism in Central and Eastern Europe and the end of the East-West conflict, the European security architecture is undergoing profound changes. A concept of cooperative security is emerging, with the CSCE as its broadest platform. At the Helsinki Summit on 9 and 10 July 1992, this understanding was underlined by the participating States, which declared that the CSCE was a regional arrangement in the sense of Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter and, as such, would provide an important link between European and global security. Clearly, the main fields for future cooperation between the United Nations and the CSCE will be in preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping, and security matters. (Mr. Bohenfellner, Austria) The decisions taken at this year's CSCE summit established new instruments of conflict prevention. The CSCE Committee of Senior Officials has created a mechanism for monitoring potential conflicts and the possibility of taking preventive measures. Fact-finding and rapporteur missions can also be, and have already been, used as instruments of conflict prevention and crisis management; one of them is <;he mission to Kosovo, Sandjak and Vojvodina. The goal of this mission is to prevent a further expansion of the war in former Yugoslavia and to guarantee a basic standard of human rights within these regions. A similar mission has been sent by the CSCE to Macedonia. The findings of these missions will be transmitted on the basis of a decision of the Committee of Senior Officials to the Geneva Conference, thereby dovetailing with the relevant United Nations efforts. Other examples of CSCE activities in conflict prevention and crisis management are the Minsk peace process regarding Nagorny-Karabakh and the efforts concerning the situation in Transnistra, Moldava. There, too, the endeavours of the United Nations and the CSCE can be most efficient when they are mutually supportive. An important result of the Helsinki summit was the definition of general criteria for CSCE peace-keeping operations. Such CSCE peace-keeping could be conducted in cooperation with other regional and transatlantic organizations. Certainly, the CSCE will benefit greatly from the experience and expertise of the United Nations in this area, which, until recently was a monopoly of the United Nations. This is another field which clearly demonstrates the need for a concrete mechanism for coordination and cooperation. The ongoing negotiati~ns in the framework of the CSCE Forum for Security Cooperation, in Vienna, are particularly relevant for the development of (Mr. Hohenfellner. Austrig) confidence and security building, as well as disarmament. Also in these security matters a steady e~~change of information would be of interest both to the United Nations and to the CSCE. The enlarged tasks and increased activities of the CSCE require enhanced coordination and cooperation with the United Nations. The time may have come to reinforce this relations11ip, to mutual benefit, by establishing a structured liaison mechanis13. Given the fact that most of the relevant CSCE bodies are established in Vienna, and also considering.the proximity of the CSCE secretariat in Prague to the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Warsaw, the United Nations Headquarters in Vienna would offer the most efficient location for such a liaison mechanism. In an era when, finally, the potential of Chapter VIII of the Charter can be utilized it is time to take concrete steps to bring about the mutually and globally advantageous effects of increased coordination and cooperation. Mr. BATIQUK (Ukra.ne) (interpretation from Russian): The upheavals of the past few years have significantly changed the world political landscape and have put an end to a long era of mutual distrust and of confrontation between blocs. What is emerging is a new type of relationship based on peace, partnership, democracy and trust. Today the evidence of )ur own eyes convinces us that the successes of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) are helpful in solving the problems faced by the United Nations and that the achievements of the United Nations are revivifying the pan-European process. As an East European St!te, Ukraine is a consistent advocate of real action aimed at achieving t~e unification of Europe, overcoming the remnants of mistrust and suspicion and finding speedy solutions to the conflicts which have disturbed our European home~ This is all the more so because stability in Europe~ as history has rtlpeatedly reminded us, will determine to a significant extent the political climate all over the world. The cllange from military stability based on confrontation to stability in the new pan-European post-confrontation dimension is a major trend in today'S world. But its realization will not be simple, nor will it be painless, because everything new is born in travail. Ukraine, which does not separate its security from that of Europe as a whole, feels deep concern at the fact that in our region there have arisen a numbor of conflicts in which the basic principles of CSCE are being trampled, obligations in the area of human rights and fundamental freedoms are being violated and the peaceful d3velopment of new democratic States is threatened. This is demonstrated by the tragic events in former Yugoslavia and some areas of the former Soviet Union. Ukraine's contribution to the establishment of a system of collective security in Europe is one of the major aspects ~,~ :~S foreign policy. We feel that participation in such a system is the most reliable guarantee of our national sovereignty, as well as a safeguard for the security of all new democratic States. As we see it, such a system should be universal and all-encompassing. Attempts to establish military-political structures of any kind on a regional or subre}ional basis in the circumstanceB of today'c Europe are fraught with the threat of a return to the 010 bloc mentality. For that reason, we attach great importance to increasing the role of the United Nations in maintaining peace and to the new pan-European security system, which includes elements that are being developed or improved at the present time. One of these key elements is CSCE. Its strengthening (Mr. Batiouk. Ukr~~q} and further institutionalization and the new machinery established by the Chaxter of Paris are of enor.mous significance and are absolutely necessa~y, first and foremost in the area~ of conflict prevention, dispute settlement and crisis situations. A significant step tow\rds ensuring security in Europe exclusively tnrougu political means on a collective basis was the decision adopted on 10 July of this year at the summit meeting of States memb~rs of CSCE to establish a forum on cooper~tion in the sphere of security. We have thus begun work on establishing a flexible system in the European region for the pacific settlement of disputes and for conciliation with the aid of independent arbitration bodies on ~e basis of the norms of international law. Ukraine will actively ~romote the establishment of CSCE institutions that will serve as pan-European ~entres to coordi~ate positions, approaches and activities and to find universally acceptable solutions to today'S European and global problems in close cooperation with other organizations, especially the United Nations. At a time when new opp~rtunities have opened up, regional agreements or bodies can provide useful service combining their activities with the purposes and principles of the Charte~ of the United Nations, and basing their relationship with the United Nations, particularly with the Security Council, on Chapter VIII of the Charter. (Mr. Batiouk, Ukraine) Cooperation in various areas between the United Nations and regional organizations is nothing new. The San Francisco Confer(-'lce, which drafted the Charter of the United Nations, emphasized the importance of regional agreements or bodies for solving problems pertaining to the maintenance of international peace and security. In practical terms such cooperation has already been developing for a long time in many parts of the world•. The United Nations and CSCE have now felt it necessary to coordinate the activities of the two systems, and it is gratifying that the item now before us has been formulated in just this way. As regards Europe, CSCE and the United Nations complement each other and should act together, setting an example for problem-solving. Even though the United Nations is much older than CSCE, it can still borrow from the latter's experience. For example, in CSCE we have found a much fairer approach to solving the problem of apportioning the contributions of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics than the approach currently being recommended in the United Nations. Since the Helsinki summit in July 1992, CSCE has begun to serve as a mechanism for solving European problems by reconciling the parties before they resort to violence. The decisions taken at the Helsinki summit have provided the pan-European process with a large variety ef peacemaking instruments ranging from fact-finding missions to peace-keeping operations, also making use, if necessary, of the potential of such international organizations as the European Community, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Western European Union (WEU). At the same time, the new problems confronting CSCE today require not only the active use of regional peacemaking instruments but also closer (Mr. Batiouk, Ukraine) relations with the United Nations. We are convinced that coordinating the efforts of the United Nations a».d CSCE, which is a regional arrangement within the meaning of Chapter VIII ot the Charter of the United Nations, can and must lead to finding effective solutions for conflict and crisis settlement in the European region. Only then will it be possible to have a reliable relationship between security in Europe and global security. Draft resolution A/47/L.ll, of which Ukraine is a sponsor, is intended to give practical implementation to the provisions of Ch~pter VIII of the Charter, which makes clear the importance of close cooperation between the United Nations and regional arrangements and organizations in crisis prevention and settlement. Our country, regarding participation in European structures as one of the most important areas of its foreign policy, is prepared for the closest possible cooperation in establishing fruitful relations between the United Nations and CSCE. The PRE~IDENT: I should like to propose that the list of speakers in the debate on agenda item 140 should be closed now. It was so decided. Mr. TURK (Slovenia): The current consideration by the General Assembly of questions relating to the coordination of the activities of tha United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) calls for at least two preliminary comments •• * Mr. Hayes (Ireland), Vice-President, took the Chair. (Mr. TUrk. Sloyenia) The first comment concerns the original idea of regional arrangements as enshrined in Articles 52 to 54 of the United Nations Charter, which clearly envisage a role for the regional organizations within the broader framework of the United Nations. According to Article 52, "Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies". Moreover, the Charter deliberately avoids any definition of regional arrangements, thus allowing for very useful flexibility. This feature is important and is duly recognized in the Secretary-General's report "An Agenda for Peace", in paragraph 61. The wording of Articles 52 to 54 of the Charter clearly puts the main accent on the role of regional arrangements in matters falling within the competence of the Security Council. However, it does not, in fact, limit the role of regional arrangements to such matters. Flexibility has been envisaged from the time when the United Nations was created. It is important to accept the fact that the nature of regional arrangements may change-over time - in the context of changed circumstances. Some regional arrangements may become obsolete, while others may gain completely new roles and competence which go beyond the original design. The CSCE is a very good example of such a change. Its recent Summit Declaration and decisions adopted in Helsinki on 10 July 1992 demonstrate the wide scope of the recent change in Europe and the consequent attempt to adjust Europe's most representative regional arrangement to the new circumstances. This leads me to the second preliminary observation concerning the interpretation of Articles 52 to 54 of the Charter: how should the United Nations utilize the potential of regional arrangements in the changing international environment? An interpretation which would limit this potential to the framework defined in Article 53 of the Charter - that is, utilization of regional arrangements by the Security Council for enforcement action - would certainly fall short of actual needs. In order fully to utilize the potential of these arrangements and to achie,re the maximum effect it is necessary to develop a continuous and productive dialogue focused on those issues which can be best understood within the regional arrangements. Full advantage must be taken of the fact that regional arrangements, as a rule, provide an important opportunity for understanding local circumstances, the roots and the history of a given problem, and possible solutions. It is not necessary that such a dialogue with regional arrangements be made contingent upon any formal stipulation. The important requirement here is that it be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Charter an~ that it yield proper and practical results. The relationship between t'h~ Un'="ted Nations and regional institutions should not be seen as one of subordination but, rather, as one of cooperation and dialogue. As mentioned earlier, the expanding role of the CSCE process expressed the nature of change within that regional arrangement. The 1992 Helsinki Document, entitled "The Challenges of Change", expresses all those characteristics of change. Heads of State and Government of the CSCE participating countries have placed a large part of their expectations on the future development of institutional mechanisms of the CSCE process; on methods of preventive diplomacy; on expanded action in the field of human rights and democracy, including questions relating to minorities; on economic cooperation; and on the protection of the environment. All this has made the CSCE agenda very ambitious and p~omising, and also similar to the agenda before the United Nations. (Mr. TUrk, Slovenia) Clearly, much of this new CSCE agenda is still at the level of relatively " general iaeas or at the initial stage of institutional evolution. Moreover, CSCE has not always been able to succeed in its efforts to translate its objectives and principles into effective international action. Efforts made in the overall context of the Balkan crisis and in other crises in the CSCE area provide examples of the difficulties encountered. The President of the Presidency of Slovenia, Mr. Milan KuMan, in his address to the General Assenmly on 24 Septeltiber 1992, offered an analysis of the limited success of the CSCE in dealing with the Balkan crisis and suggested certain measures which might help in finding a solution. We believe that coordination between the CSCE and the United Nations is important in this context. Turning again to more general questions of coordination between the CSCE and the United Nations, the delegation of Slovenia agrees wi.th the approach to these questions outlined a few weeks ago, in the context of the general debate by his excellency Mr. Jozef Moravcik, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. and current Chairman-in-Office of the CSCE Council of Ministers, who suggested that the discussion on the issue should develop at two levels: first, on the conceptual level, to clarify the fundamental political meaning of coordination, both in the immediate future and in the light of medium and long-term prospects; and. secondly, on the practical and concrete level. that is, those cases where these activities of the United Nations and the CSCE have already begun to overlap. and to draw conclusions from such overlapping. While we generally agree with the approach outlined by Minister Moravcik we wish to point out that the discussion should concentrate on the issues arising at the level of concrete activities which will. in turn. help in devising appropriate approaches at the more general, i.e•• conceptual level. Let us take only two examples. While considering various security questions concerning the CSCE area, the Security Council could take full advantage of the analyses and opinions developed within the CSCE framework. To that effect. it might be useful to invite the representative of the Chairman-in-Office of the CSCE Council of Ministers to participate in deliberations of the Security Council concerning those situations in the CSCE area that are under consideration by the Security Council. The General Assembly could. while considering any situation in the CSCE area. pay particular attention to the opinions that might be expressed by the representative of the Chairman-in-Office of the CSCE Council of Ministers. Another specific example relates to activities in the field of human rights where increasing attention is placed - within both the United Nations and the CSCE - on the issues affecting national minorities. It is interesting that the CSCE participating States have agreed on the establishment of the office of High Commissioner on National Minorities. Undoubtedly, the future high commissioner will be able to draw from experience accumulated in United Nations action in the field of human rights, in particular in such domains as fact-finding and reporting on human rights violations. It seems, therefore, that cooperation between the High Commissioner and the United Nations Centre for Human Rights in Genev& and various United Nations expert bodies would be of great value to the CSCE High Commissioner.- An additional thought which might be considered as relevant, in particular with regard to the latter of the two examplesthe one concerning human rights and minorities - would be recogniti~n of the need to expand the analytical infractructure, general knowledge of the issues at hand, and Secretariat assistance to the newly established organs or to other organs that have been recently endowed with ambitious tasks and serious workloads. Fulfilment of such tasks will not be possible without a ~ertain amount of investment and without mobilization of additional human resources. It would probably be premature to discuss these aspects of the increased international agenda at this stage. However, we believe that at some point they should be considered in the context of discussions on coordination between the United Nations and the CSCE. Let me conclude by saying that Sloveniua joins with pleasure the other sponsors of the draft resolution on coordination between the United Nations and the CSCE proposed by the delegation of Czechoslovakia. Mr. FLOREAN (Romania): The Romanian delegation welcomes the initiative of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic to include on the agenda of the current session of the General Assembly the item entitled: "Coordination of the activities of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe". Indeed, in the context of new trends in the international arena as a result of the cessation of the cold war, the question of interaction between the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) has become very topical and acquired a new dimension, especially after the CSCE Summit in Helsinki in early July 1992. This has been underlined by the representatives of many countries, both in the general debate in the plenary of the General Assembly and in the present debate. In this connection, a valuable source of inspiration and reflection is the important report of the Secretary-General "An Agenda for Peace", in which is highlighted the cooperation between the United Nations and regional arrangements and organizations. The ideas expressed in the report of the Secretary-General reflect the need for both the United Nations and regional organizations to play a greater role in the field of the maintenance of international peace and security, in particular through preventive diplomacy. There is no doubt that the time has come to revitalize Chapter VIII of the Charter by ex&~ining practical ways and means to encourage recourse to regional organizations and, their cooperation with the United Nations in the prevention and settlement of regional conflicts. As was very rightly pointed out in the report of the Secretary-General: "regional arrangements or agencies in many cases possess a potential that should be utilized in serving the functions covered in this report: preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping, peacemaking and post-conflict peace-building. Under the Charter, the Security Council has and will continue to have primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, but regional action as a matter of decentralization, delegation and cooperation with United Nations efforts could not only lighten the burden of the Council but also contribute to a deeper sense of participation, consensus and democratization in international affairs". (A/47/277? para. 64) The consultations envisaged between the United Nations and regional organizations can greatly contribute to building international consensus on the nature ofi a problem or group of problems and the measures required to address them. This is particularly true in the post-cold-war period when regional organizations can play a crucial role in the field of international peace and security if their activities and functioning are conce~ved and undertaken in conformity with the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Charter. In this regard, my delegation shares the hope expressed by other delegations that in the future the CSCE will be more effective in the prevention of conflicts in Europe. The Helsinki document adopted in July this year clearly recognizes that the CSCE is a regional arrangement according to Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter that provides an important link between European and global security. We are encouraged in this sense by the fact that the set of major agreements signed or entered into force this year at the European level - the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), the Vienna Document, the Helsinki Final Act on Conventional Armed Forces, and the open skies Treaty - have laid the foundation for lasting cooperation and stability on the Continent. At the same time, the opening in Vienna in September 1992 of the Forum for Security Cooperation launches a further stage in the dialogue among the CSCE participating States in their joint endeavour for increased security and stability for each and every country in the Euro-Atlantic area. The outcome of Romania's important efforts to restore and consolidate democracy in our country will be closely linked with the international environment, stability and security, both at the European and at the global level. In order to contribute to the strengthening of that stability and security, Romania is actively developing relations of cooperation with all countries on the continent and in particular with its neighbours. Romanian foreign policy is pursued along irrevocable lines defined within the Euro-Atlantic space and its viable institutions. Simultaneously, we are increasing our contribution to building up the Euro-Atlantic community of values and a new continental security order. Romania is engaged in negotiations on an association agreement with the European Community which is about to be conclud9d, and on a cooperation agreement with the European Free Trade Association. At the bilateral level, Romania recently signed new treaties free of ideological clauses with France, Germany, Bulgaria, Spain, Greece and Estonia; negotiations are under way with other States, with the same aim. My delegation would like to stress that Romania is also developing its relationships with regional organizations from other continents, mindful of their contribution to the maintainance of international peace and security. We value the activities of the Organization of American States, in which Romania is an observer, as well as the efforts of the Organization for African Unity, the Association of South-East Asian Nations and the League of Arab States to promote cooperation in their respective regions. In fact, the item we are discussing today is just one of a series of similar subjects before the General Assembly. I have !.n mind the items concerning the organizations I have just mentioned, as well as the item devoted to cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The Forum created at the Helsinki ~,ummit is a siqnificant step towards ensuring, as part of an overall approach, resolute concentration of political attention at the regional level on security issues. It provides for efforts in areas such as arms control and disarmament, confidenceand security-building measures, implementation and verification of existing treaties in this field, conversion of military complexes, and the establishment of flexible forms of cooperation with other European and Euro-Atlantic structures. The CSCE Forum for security through cooperation should seek balanced solutions which would benefit general European security, the security of all subregions of Europe and the security of all participant States. All these activites and efforts are conceived as an integral part of world security and of United Nations endeavours in that direction. In fact, as we said, the security of any country of the region is inconceivable today except as a result of harmonious interaction among the United Nations, the CSCE, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Western European Union, along with increased efforts at the subregional level. That is why the initiative of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic to bring before the General Assembly the subject of coordinating the activities of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe is very useful and of high topicality. Romania is a sponsor of the draft resolution submitted on this matter, which emphasizes that the new tasks before the CSCE require enhanced coordination and cooperation with international organizations, in particular with the United Nations. Our delegation is fully convinced, having seen the spirit of today's debate and the great interest shown by many delegations which have advanced ideas stimulating further reflection, that the conclusions that will come from the consideration of this item will be very useful for the Secretary-General as he prepares the report on this item to be submitted to the General Assembly at its fourty-eighth session. We are confident that, by opening today a new way for exploring the best means for harmonious interaction between the United Nations and the CSCE, we will all together be contributing to the creation of a universal system of collective security and to the enhancement of the effectiveness of the world Organization. Mrs. FRECHETTE (Canada): The draft resolution before us today addresses the issue of cooperation between the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). The draft resolution, of which Canada is a sponsor, reflects the growing expectation - indeed, the growing reality - that regional organizations will in the future be mandated to carry out and be capable of carrying out greater peace and security functions such as peacemaking, peace-keeping and peace-building. Already the proliferation of tensions and conflicts across Europe has tested the mutually supportive efforts of the CSCE and the United Nations. In the former Yugoslavia, in the conflict in Nagorny-Karabakh, in Moldova and in Georgia, the CSCE currently plays a key role alongside the United Nations. In the specific case of Nagorny-Karabakh, the CSCE has taken a lead role in the search for a settlement. In its 1992 Helsinki document, the CSCE declared itself a regional arrangement within the framework of Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. The definition of the CSCE's role within the broader context of the Charter is particularly important. Canada has always envisaged a close relationship between the CSCE and the United Nations: a relationship in which the CSCE reinforces regionally United Nations peace and security efforts as well as broader United Nations efforts on democracy and human rights. Within the CSCE, our efforts have been concentrated on developing the means for effective conflict-management mechanisms by establishing a range of instruments from fact-finding and good offices to mediation. Canada pioneered the idea of CSCE peace-keeping as a necessary element in the spectrum of CSCE conflict-management mechanisms. We have sought with other CSCE partners to strengthen commitments on minorities, tolerance and democratic development. We believe this approach complements the type of conflict-management proposals outlined in "An Agenda for Peace". Documentation of the CSCE recognizes the primacy of United Nations Charter commitments and the centrality of the United Nations role in peacemaking, peace-keeping and peace-building. The CSCE's role in support of the United Nations is especially important when one considers the recent establishment of a framework for CSCE peace-keeping: CSCE peace-keeping will be undertaken with due regard for the responsibilities of the United Nations in this field. It is Canada's belief that that the CSCE's Y~st effective work in terms of conflict management can likely be accomplished in the area of preventive diplomacy. The CSCE provides a flexible instrument for the quick dispatch of fact-finding and observer missions, as shown by the manner in which the CSCE was able in early September quickly to mobilize observers to detention camps in Bosnia and Herzegovina and expeditiously report its findings. My delegation welcomes the initiative taken by the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, as current Chairman-in-Office of the CSCE, in proposing this new agenda item for the General Assembly. The initiative is very much in line with the ideas espoused by the Secretary-General on the mutually supportive roles of the United Nations and regional organizations, ideas which are set out in "An Agenda for Peace". Thus, we welcome the debate which has been initiated today. In a statement to this Assembly earlier this month, my delegation offered suggestions for establishing practical ties between the United Nations and regional organizations with a view to developing a shared sense of commitment to global peace, security and development. We anticipate that the debate initiated here today will be pursued further in future sessions. It is our hope that these discussions will help develop tangible ways for the United Nations to forge links with regional organizations. Mr. WLOSOWICZ (Poland): After the initial enthusiasm following the fundamental transformations in the world, the international ~ommunity soon realized that it had to adjust itself, its structures and its institutions to the new situation. In various parts Gf the world those profound changes have been accompanied by instability, outbreaks of local conflicts and the unleashing of extreme nationalism. Such developments seriously challenge the existing systems of collective security. The disappearance of the immediate threat of a global military conflict has also considerably changed the perception of security. Not only has it become more regional-oriented, but it now also encompasses other, mainly non-military, aspects. As the number and complexity of challenges have increased, the international community - above all the United Nations - has begun consideration of ways and means to strengthen its ability to respond to them more quickly and in a more comprehensive manner. A number of regional organizations, as well as groups of States, have followed suit. Multiple and parallel efforts have been made to deal with the same tensions or conflicts. Since similar developments have also taken place in Europe, the idea has emerged that it would be advisable to coordinate the efforts and activities of the organizations involved - in this case the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). In this connection, Poland values highly the example of coordination initiated by the London Conference concerning the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Today, thanks to the Czech and Slovak Feder~l Republic, which formulated the idea and initiated the process of its inclusion on the agenda of the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly, we have an opportunity to consider certain aspo~ts of the coordination of activities of the United Nations and the CSCE. (Mr, Wlosowicz, Polapd) The present political climate permits a more effective exercise of th~ United Nations function of preserving global peace and security. This task of the United Nations has to be consolidated. However, the Organization cannot, for practical reasons, assume full responsibility for dealing with each and every regional conflict. Therefore, a regionalization of efforts seems to be required. Paragraph 25 of the Helsinki Summit Declaration should be seen in this context. That is also consistent with section VII of "An Agenda for Peace", in particular with paragraph 64, which speaks of decentralization, delegation and cooperation, and a contribution to a deeper sense of participation, consensus and democratization in international affairs. Poland supports efforts to develop and strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations or arrangements. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland, Mr. Krzysz~~! Skubisze~ki, stated in the general debate, such harmonious and constructive i~taraction might well constitute an important element in making the United Nations more effective in the field of peace and security. In this connection, he suggested that "In crisis situations, where several organizations are acting simultar'-ously, it could be advisable to set up, on an ad-hoc basis, a single cuordinati:.ng framework", thus helping "to avoid duplication, overlapping or dissifation of efforts." (A/47/PV.7, p. 79) The United Nations should observe closely the development of CSCE mechanisms and structures, especially those for peaceful settlement of disputes, such as the new prQcedures agreed upQn at the CSCE meeting in Geneva this month, as well as thQse fQr cQnflict prevention and crisis management. I WQuld like to recall that the CSCE has dispatched, or is about to dispatch, a number Qf missions - fact-finding, rappQrteur and monitoring missiQns - in the former Yugoslavia, Moldova, southern Ossetia and Nagorny-Karabakh. CSCE peace-keeping operatiQns are also envisaged. One could anticipate that new types of relatiQnships between the Security Council and other United Nations institutions on the one hand and the CSCE on the other will emerge. A regular assessment of the evolution of relations between the United Nations and the CSCE would serve the purpose of their optimal shaping and use. This would not imply any direct dependence of the CSCE on the United Nations, but would simply constitute a means of channelling information Qn matters of interest to both the CSCE and the United NatiQns. Other regiQnal arrangements and organizations might also consider using this experience. Consequently, the General Assembly might appeal to other regional organizations to contemplate the possibility of tightening their liaisQn with the United Nations, taking into account the CSCE experience. It has to be stated clearly that the purpose of this decentralization is tQ use the most efficient means tQ solve regiQnal problems. In many instances regional means may prQve to be adequate. We believe that the CSCE has the necessary potential to address complex issues in a satisfactory manner. This WQuld also lighten the burden on the United Nations structures. The CSCE, as a regional arrangement in the sense of Chapter VIII of the Charter, is establishing a pattern of relationships with other EurOpeatl and transatlantic organisms. This is also conducive to the emergence Qf an (Mr. WlosQwiez, Poland) efficient system of European security - for example, a system of mutually reinforcing European institutions. The way in which European institutions handle this issue may also be of interest to the United Nations, as well as to other regions. Mr. LOZINSKIY (Russian Federation) (interpretation from Russian): The question of cooperation and coordination between the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) is particularly timely today. CSCE is destined to become a leading pan-European organization and a centre for coordinating the interests of European States in the political, economic, humanitarian, ,environmental and other areas. The decisions taken at the Helsinki meeting of Heads of State and Government of member StctGS of CSCE imbue the pan-European p~ocess with new substantive content in all major areas of its activity. In CSCE we are establishing and putting into operation machinery for conflict and crisis prevention and settlement through collective efforts. The proclamation of CSCE as a regional arrangement within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations necessitates close coordination between the two organizations in peace-keeping. At the present stage the most important questions in cooperation between the United Nations and eSCE are urgent practical questions pertaining first and foremost to the need for settling the increasing and extremely painfUl conflicts in the European region, as well as in Asian countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. The experience of international peace-keeping activities in Yugoslavia, Nagorny-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the Dniester region shows that the effectiveness of the efforts undertaken will depend to a great extent on the degree of coordination and cooperation between various international structures. Of course, the subject of cooperation between the United Natio~8 and CSCE should not be limited to peacemaking activities, although they are its major aspect. There is considerable pGtential for joint action in other areas as well: the protection of human rights and the promotion of democratic institutions and a market economy in countries which are in a period of transition. Accordingly, we might consider granting CSCE Observer status in the United Nations, thereby enabling representatives of the Conference to participate in the work of the General Assembly and its subsidiary organs and also promoting harmony in the growing cooperation between the two organizations. A central element of the interaction, as we see it, should be mutual support in maintaining peace and security in Europe and throughout the world. It seems essential that the rights and obligations of the united Nations Security Council should remain fully inviolable and that its capabilities should be increased through the growing potential of CSCE. One of the key areas of such cooperation is that of CSCE peace-keeping operations, which should be carried out with due regard for the role of the United Nations, in full conformity with the purposes and principles of its Charter. At Russia's initiative, the Helsinki decisions included a provision pursuant to which the Chairman of the Council of CSCE will fully inform the Security Council of CSC& peace-keeping missions. In our view, in conducting such operations, it would be appropriate to take maximum account of the wealth of experience accumulated in the conduct of such operations by the United Nations. To that end, we believe it useful to hold a workinq meeting between experts of CSCE and the United Nations in order (Mr. Lozinskiy, Russian Federation) to exchange relevant information. Obviously, we should also consider the broa~er participation in this work of experts from other international organizations, in particular the Commonwealth of Independent States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Community and the Western European Union. In the future, we might perhaps think also about conducting joint United Nations-CSCE peace-keeping operations in the European region. Also timely is the issue of combining United Nations and CSCE peacemaking missions. It is no secret that in a number of cases some overlapping of those missions has been found. We believe that there is some justification for establishing, on the basis of the Vienna Conflict Prevention Centre, an appropriate coordination mechanism to achieve some sort of division of labour between the United Nations and CSCE. In the future, we might also consider putting into practice instructions or recommendations of the United Nations to eSCE as a regional organization in peace-keeping matters. There is Cl. perceived need to strengthen cooperation through CSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, headquartered at Warsaw, and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. A broader and more efficient exchange of information between them will help to enhance the effectiveness of their work. Another promising area for interaction between the United Nations and CSCE might be cooperation between CSCE's Economic Forum, which is part of the Committee of Senior Officials, and the United Nations Enonomic Commission for Europe, in particular with a view to assisting States members of CSCE in carrying out economic reforms. We would deem it appropriate for United Nations experts to participate in the work of the meeting of the CSCE Economic Forum to be held at Prague from 16 to 18 March 1993. (Mr. L02inskiy. Russian Federation) Also of gr~at importance ~oul~ be the establishment of a regular exchange of information between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the CSCE secretariat. It seems useful to include items pertaining to basic areas of CSCE activity in the agenda of various United Nations organs on a regular basis. We might also consider est~~lishing it as a practice that the Chairman of CSCE should make statements at the sessions of the General Assembly and appointing plenipotentiary representatives of CSCE to United Nations Headquarters at New York and of the United Nations to the CSCE secretariat at Prague. We are convinced that the adoption of the General Assembly resolution on this item (Al47/L.ll), of which the Russian Federation is a sponsor, will be an important step in setting into motion machinery for cooperation and coordination between the two organizations. Mr. ERDeS (Hungary) (interpretation from French): The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) has come a long way from the Helsinki Final Act in 1915 to the Helsinki Document of 1992. In the 1992 Document, the Heads of State or Government of the States participating in CSCE declared that they consider the Conference to be a regional arrangement in the sense of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. Over the past 17 years of its existence, the Helsinki process has become an integral part of European relations and an indispensable and inseparable component of them. Following a process of detente that began in the early 1970s, and in the conditions that have prevailed in a Europe affected by the Yalta divisions and living in the shadow of the nuclear threat, the leaders of 35 countries signed a comprehensive document, unique of its kind, covering political, security, economic, environmental, humanitarian and human-rights issues, thus encomp~ssing every possible dimension of security. In retrospect, it may seem paradoxical that it was precisely a bipolar Europe, subject to an ideological confrontation unequaled in history, that was the first among the regions of the world to be able to achieve such a degree of consensus and cooperation, which, while not serving as a model or a gauge, co~ld become a source of inspiration for the other continents of our world. The decalogue of principles of the Final Act governing relations among the participating States has become a true code of conduct for pan-European cooperation. In this context, I should like in particular to point out that the Document signed at the Finnish capital over a decade and a half ago has proved to be a useful tool in the efforts to break through the spiritual and physical ramparts surrounding the closed societies of Eastern Europe - efforts which ultimately led to th~ crumbling of those fossilized structures. Contrary to everyone's expectations, the Helsinki Final Act thus became a tool not for freezing but for negating the socio-political status quo that emerged from the Yalta accords. Today we must fully recognize these undeniable historic merits of CSCE. The Helsinki process played an irreplaceable role in the early 1980s, when the Follow-up Meeting and the Expert Meeting of CSCE served, despite the ups and downs of the period, to maintain the East-West dialogue. The adoption of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe in November 1990, proclaiming the vision of a free, united, democratic and prosperous Europe, already reflected the winds of change that were sweeping the old totalitarian structures from the continent. been fully aware of the close links between peace and security in Europe and in the world. They have on more than one occasion affirmed their full support for the United Nations and for the strengthening of its role and its effectiveness in consolidating international peace, security and justice. In the Paris Charter, the participants in the CSCE reiterated their commitment to the United Nations and emphasized the commonality of the destinies of their own nations and of all the nations the world over. The expressed their solidarity with all the other countries of the world and declared themselves ready to embark with them on a joint effort to protect and promote common, fundamental human values. The historic changes that have taken place in the world, particularly in Europe, have created fundamentally new conditions for the CSCE to operate. Since it began, the Helsinki process has demonstrated its ability to be flexible, to adapt and to innovate. Today, now that the cold war is over, Chapter VIII of the Charter is regaining its true meaning and its place in the armamentarium available to the United Nations for settling conflicts. Regional agreements and bodies can now play a primary role in the settlement of local conflicts. We believe that the CSCE is a high-quality instrument whose capabilities are still to be explored and which will be capable of rising to the new challenges and of bringing its own, stabilizing contribution to bear in its own region. The latest international developments have made coordination and cooperation between the United Nations and the CSCE even more imperative. I need mention as an example only the activities of the United Nations and the CSCE in the former Yugoslavia, in the Karabakh region and in Georgia. It is clear that, with the re~italizationof United Nations acti~ities and the spotlighting of the regional organizations, we must accord ourselves the necessary means to harmonize the sometimes simultaneous operations of the United Nations and the CSCE in order to avoid duplication and to ensure that the steps they take complement each other effectively. A study of these issues would have a beneficial effect on the capacity of the international community to respond to the demands that await it in the sphere of activity of the CSCE, but it would also make it easier to solve the similar problems which are arising or will arise in all other parts of the world and require the support of other regional organizations or arrangements. Hungary, a sponsor of the draft resolution contained in document A/47/L.ll, which has just been introduced by Czechoslovakia, recommends it to the General Assembly. The meeting rose at 12.45 p.m.