DAILY REPORT ON RUSSIA

AND THE FORMER SOVIET REPUBLICS

INTERCON INTERNATIONAL USA, INC., 725 15th STREET, N.W., SUITE 903,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 -- 202-347-2624 -- FAX 202-347-4631

Daily intelligence briefing on the former Soviet Union

Published every business day since 1993

Friday, May 28, 1999

South Caucasus & Central Asia

Remarks of His Excellency Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze

Houston, Texas April 22, 1999

When I began making preparations for the upcoming session of the Euro Atlantic Partnership Council, I did not think that I would be travelling to Washington via Houston, Texas. But I do not regret that I have made my route a little longer. So many friends have been waiting for me in this city, with whom a most important period of my life and work is connected. Yesterday, a meeting was to take place here with President Clinton. Our relationship over the years has proven to be of vital importance for my country in this extremely difficult period of transition. Regrettably, the meeting was cancelled due to the tragedy which occurred yesterday in Colorado. On behalf of the Government of Georgia, I want to express my profound condolences to the people of the US.

Georgia has been given continued attention by this Administration. Not only because America's, political, economic, financial, and moral support plays a decisive role in determining the place of Georgia and the entire Caucasus region in today's world. But also because the direction in which the post-Socialist world developed especially depends on the United States, its world outlook and vision of the future. Together with you all, I want to greet and express my profoundest regards to one person in this hall whose name is already entered into the annals of 20th Century History. I am grateful to God that during the difficult period at the end of the Cold War, I had the good fortune to work with a like-minded counterpart such as this man. I am referring to Secretary of State James Baker.

The present Abkhaz regime, which perpetrated ethnic cleansing, and remains a particular favorite of

those who want to hold sway over the Caucasus at any cost, continues to ignore with impertinence and impunity the multiple UN Security Council resolutions, final documents of past OSCE Summits, and the will of the entire international community. This protracts a humanitarian tragedy involving hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people.

Now, a question occurs to me, for those of us who dreamt of, transforming the world and exerted such effort, made such sacrifice to lay the groundwork for a new world order. How have we succeeded in reaching our desired end? Let's put it in more simple terms. How accurately is our notion of a new world order reflected in today's reality? Certainly, no one doubts that today's world is a completely new one. But just how orderly is it? If the world is in a state of disorder, then at least two logical questions emerge. Who or what is at fault, and how must we repair this state of affairs? Permit me to consign the task of answering the first question to historians and political scientists, since I am not sifting through past mistakes to find fault or assign blame. This is not my province. For the active politician, past errors are interesting inasmuch as understanding them can help him to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

As for the second question, it is a fundamental problem of international relations—that is, the absence of order in the modern world. It is obvious that the balance of the Cold War achieved on the basis of the fear of nuclear nightmare could hardly be considered stability. Yes, it was an order of a kind, but unfair. It was stability, but a superficial one at best. This balance was reached at the expense of global confrontation. It was a peace, but one which compelled one American Secretary of State to declare "there are things which are more important than peace." And when we determined to change this balance of terror, we were not naive idealists who hoped to reshape humankind overnight, to liken the world to an individual state where public accord

Politics-Economics-Business

Page

Friday

May 28, 1999

Intercon's Daily

regarding fundamental principles is enshrined in the constitutions and a whole array of laws, where threats to public order are handled by law enforcement institutions in accordance with procedure accepted in the given society. We were well aware that, due to cultural and historical diversity of the various peoples of the world, achieving this in the near future would be an impossibility. We aimed, rather, at establishing a more just order than the existing one. An order based on free choice, a collective responsibility for the future, and consensus on at least a limited circle of the most essential issues.

The developments in the Eurasian space concern every thinking person and must be watched closely. They are of particular concern to the United States, the world's most powerful nation, and to Georgia, a tiny but key country in the dynamically developing Caucasus region whose vital interests are interwoven with the future of Europe and Asia. Unfortunately, despite the end of the Cold War, this future is not completely unclouded. However regrettable it may be, it must be stated that these clouds have gathered again according to persisting ideological differences with respect to a number of important issues. It is regrettable because we have already travelled this road once—when we said "no" to ideological confrontation on the eve of the Persian Gulf War, and demonstrated in practice that the Cold War was indeed history. I am justified today, just as I was in December, 1990, to declare that the threat of revanche is real. It endangers the single most important achievement to come out of the victory over the Cold War—the creation of a single ideological space, based on a common, humanistic worldview and a bipolar world of sorts.

A brief ten years have passed since the defeat of bipolarity. This has already brought significant improvement to the international environment. Despite this, however, the world is in a state of anarchy. Attempts to bring order, attempts which have been based on multilateral, collective responsibility, have so far been insufficient to quell it. The necessity for order is becoming evermore obvious, and the advancement of military technologies serves to sharply increase the threat to the very existence of mankind.

The most important single trends today are globalization and mounting interdependence. These, in turn, presuppose an increased collective responsibility for the fate of humankind. It has become clear

that most modern threats cannot be contained within national borders. They have adopted a global scale and character which no country can combat alone. Especially dangerous are those types of global threat that carry an element of violence. If only hardly visible today, there is a tendency for these violent forces to merge. They may ultimately turn nuclear and bring the world to the brink of catastrophe. It is a source of grave concern that the very organizations and fora considered most authoritative in pursuing global law and order seem to be helpless in the face of this trend.

Why is this? Why is it that sanctions against regimes who neglect the will of the international community, reached through great effort and compromise, nevertheless fail to assure that major powers are in fact prepared to go further than mere words and take steps to forcibly compel. Declaring commitment to common principles is one thing. Actual commitment is another matter altogether. It can only be demonstrated by putting the words into action, as was the case in 1990, during the Persian Gulf crisis. Recent events in Iraq and Yugoslavia, especially, demonstrate that confrontation over basic principles on the international scene has acquired a more latent form. True, it cannot compare with the openness of the Cold War confrontation, but it is no less alarming. Look at the Balkans today. This is where we will decide whether or not we will become resigned to the grave crimes ethnic cleansing, ethnically charged murder, obstinate noncompliance with and indifference to the will of the international community, and spots of potential and perpetual instability.

One often hears that current NATO actions in the Balkans may in fact promote aggressive separatism. This is especially relevant to Georgia since maintaining territorial integrity has been one of the biggest problems throughout my country's history. But let's look at this matter from a different angle. Does it make any difference who perpetrates mass violation of human rights, ethnic killings, whether a separatist movement ostensibly acting on behalf of the regions majority trying to fragment the state, a group of criminals acting on behalf of an allegedly oppressed minority, behind whom stand external forces obsessed with the desire to regain lost influence in the region, or whether this is done by a central authority who for the sake of preserving territorial integrity is prepared to trample fundamental rights of an entire

When you need to know it as it happens

Politics-Economics-Business

Page

Friday

May 28, 1999

Intercon's Daily

people?

If diplomacy backed by force suffers defeat, and if the joint use of force and compulsion do not yield desireable results, it will send a dangerous signal to other similar regimes in the post Soviet space. As I have said above, it happens increasingly often that decisions are taken to denounce and sanction regimes which commit violations. Nevertheless the body expressing the will of the entire international community—the UN which must act as law enforcer—finds its hands tied by its own charter and insufficient political unanimity among permanent members of the Security Council.

What is the solution? Aware of the dangers of anarchy and impunity, individual states or alliances, in certain cases take the responsibility and use force, that is, do the "dirty work" to ensure compliance with resolutions passed by the UN security council and punish the disturbers of the peace. No one has the moral right to reprimand those who do the "dirty work," least so those whose inaction has actually prompted the violator to new heights of impunity. Although in this context NATO's position toward Iraq and Yugoslavia should not be subject to any doubt, such unilateral actions understandably do not promote unity of the world in the face of formidable challenges. Moreover, perpetual disagreement around these issues can induce a recurrence of bipolarity. The responsibility for acts of enforcement must be a collective responsibility. That is, if not the entire world community, at least the UN Security Council Permanent Members must assume equal shares of responsibility and understand that global security is the ultimate consideration. And that even a slight compromise prompted by individual sympathies, antipathies, or even serious economic interests, is wholly impermissible.

It is obvious now that rules adopted decades ago no are no longer adequate to the present reality. The institution of the "veto", which in itself is a positive thing, is nevertheless the product of an epoch when the world was sliced into two confronting camps, two systems between which maintaining a balance was the most important problem. Neither is the composition of the Security Council adequate to today's reality. A growth in the number of Permanent Members is inevitable, with the addition of world's major economic powers. Besides, if in the future, the development of a mechanism ensuring timely and

unconditional compliance with the decisions of the international community, including the Security Council resolutions, does not become possible, the world will cross the line and enter a zone of rampant anarchy whence the only road is that of annihilation.

Thus, new mechanisms must be developed. The present mechanisms were developed for the bipolar world and the transition from the Cold War to the new world order, a passage which may last even decades, requires completely new instruments. Yet Georgia and other small countries cannot indulge in the luxury of inactivity during this transition period, merely waiting for global harmony to set in. On the whole, the post-Communist space is one of the weakest links in the chain of global international security today. If the newly independent countries further fail to establish state stability, this will pose a threat not only to those peoples living within the post-communist sphere, but to the entire world.

Also, what cannot be established on a global level can more easily be implemented on a regional level. It is the regional co-operation, perhaps integration, that should become the action plan for the NIS in today's not-very-orderly world. Thus, for these small countries, the answer to one of the most commonly asked questions "what shall we do?" is obvious. Unite around your common interests. This will enable you to make the environment in which you exist more stable, predictable and fair. At least on a regional level.

The dynamic processes that you all know very well, the ones that attract growing international interest toward the Caspian and Black Sea region are the product of such thinking. As in the case of any other enterprise, "In the beginning was the word…" In summer 1993, we visited Brussels and let me add that this was the most difficult year in Georgia's modern history. I shared with the leaders of the European Commission some of my thoughts on a revitalized ancient silk road. As a matter of fact, this issue had attracted my attention much earlier, as early as 1990, when as Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, I stopped in Vladivostok on my way to Japan, and mentioned the idea in my remarks. Later, we had discussed the viability of A New Great Silk Road in Brussels on many occasions. The Europeans, well versed in overcoming difficulties with perseverance, were not scared off. But if, in those years, any region of the vast Eurasian space was singularly unfit for the

When you need to know it as it happens

Politics-Economics-Business

Page

Friday

May 28, 1999

Intercon's Daily

implementation of a transport and communications project connecting Europe and Asia, it was the Caucasus, then engulfed in wars and strife. Still we decided that the mutuality of interests creates a mutuality of responsibility. The EU sponsored TRACECA Project (Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia) was born. The transport of Kazakh and Azeri oil through Georgia, Turkey, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine, two ferry links between the east and west coasts of the Black sea came into operation, and the turnover of goods has significantly increased. The Trans-Caspian gas project issued from this, which will provide Turkmen gas via Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey. The first phase of creating a single space of common interests was crowned at last year's Summit of the Revived Great Silk Road Countries in Baku where 14 heads of state signed the Baku Declaration. Coming back to the Transit Corridor, let me remind you that the American Congress is currently considering a piece of legislation called the Silk Road Strategy Bill, introduced by Senator Sam Brownbeck and his colleagues. If passed, it will help nations in the region to consolidate their independence and enhance their economic growth. The example of Europe demonstrates that such a convergence of economic interest will eventually lead to a convergence of political interests. As an example, GUAM, the alliance of Georgia Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova hasone voice at international organisations and forums. Military co-operation, started recently as a joint exercise for protection of transit communications, was held in Georgia with Georgian, Ukrainian and Azeri units participating.

The world's leading nations and international organizations are becoming increasingly aware that the nature and scale of security problems of the Newly Independent States pose a threat to international peace and security, since it is precisely the post-Soviet states that are most vulnerable to the foregoing problems. These states have emerged in a special historical period. Along with economic problems, they face the enormous and complex task of

building their statehood at a time when the erosion of a traditional nation-state has already begun. No matter how we assess the future chances of the traditional nation-state, and the transformation it currently undergoes, it is clear that, for the time being, this form of political organisation is the only one capable of guaranteeing the inviolability of forms of ownership and internal security of a nation. It is also the actor in global and regional integration processes, thus contributing to international security. Therefore, the newly independent states of the post-communist and post Soviet space require special attention and assistance in the process of nation building. We therefore deem it necessary that efforts of the post communist countries to build modern democratic societies should be given specialconsideration by the international community. It is in the post communist space that the principles of international law should be most effectively enforced, while the accepted norms and rules of conduct be strictly observed. Not only will this avert the collapse of the new sovereign states in the region, but it will also prevent a formation of a vast feckless, unstable and "conflictogenic" belt. Such steps are being taken. It encourages and inspires us with hope that our vision of the world's future architecture essentially does not differ from you and I imagined it at the end of the last decade. Only the road has been far more thorny and longer than we had originally anticipated. But we will walk the whole of it, just as we did at the end of the Cold War. The only difference is that you have many more allies today who share America's aspirations toward freedom and democracy. One of them is my homeland, Georgia.

The Daily Report on Russia and Former Soviet Republics will not be published the week of May 31st to June 9th in observance of Memorial Day and to install computer upgrades to our systems equipment.

Paul M. Joyal, President, Editor in Chief Clifton F. von Kann, Publisher Jennifer M. Rhodes, Principal Editor

Daily Report on Russia is published Monday-Friday (excluding holidays), by Intercon International, USA. Subscription price for Washington, D.C. Metro area: $950.00 per year. A discount is

available for non-profit institutions.

Daily Report on Russia is for the exclusive use of the subscriber only. Reproduction and/or distribution is not permitted without the expressed written consent of Intercon. Daily Report on Russia Ó copyright 1999, Intercon International, USA.

When you need to know it as it happens

Politics-Economics-Business

Page