YouSaid · the spoken record

Yevgeny Primakov

lines on the record: 43
first: 1996-09-24
most recent: 1997-09-24
sittings or episodes: 2
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“We are optimists, and we believe that the United Nations will be able to play a positive role in the ongoing evolution of the international community.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“At the same time, we are convinced that the special leading role of the United Nations among all other universally recognized international organizations must be preserved. We see the United Nations in the twenty-first century as a highly efficient Organization, free from bureaucratic constraints, and as a proactive Organization capable of swiftly responding to the challenges of the contemporary world. I began my remarks by encouraging concerted action by the international community to concentrate on current problems and on the prospects for the coming century. And I shall conclude by citing a well-known saying: “Pessimists are no more than casual observers, it is the optimists who can change the world”.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“Naturally, it is impossible to reform the United Nations in order to increase its effectiveness without overcoming the financial problems. We must note that the financial problems of the United Nations have unfortunately become chronic. It must therefore be emphasized that the responsibility for the financial health of the United Nations is borne by all Member States and that they must all pay their dues properly. We are also in favour of expanding the membership of the Security Council. A decision to that effect is long overdue. But this expansion should not render our Organization less efficient. The reform of the United Nations will take place against the background of the ever increasing role of regional organizations. This is a fully logical process.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“Established over half a century ago, the Organization in general has succeeded in passing the durability test, traversed the thorny road of the bloc-confrontation era, survived both the ice-age period and the thaw in international relations. But today this could be viewed as axiomatic — the United Nations needs a rational renovation, referred to by virtually all the speakers in this debate. The substantive report of Secretary-General Kofi Annan gives clear proof of this need. Today, figuratively speaking, the image of this Organization in the twenty-first century is being shaped. It is our strong conviction that the priority objective of the Organization’s reform is to enhance the usefulness of the United Nations.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“We are convinced that the Russian- Chinese agreements on borders and military détente in the frontier zone, which were also signed by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, will become a long-term factor for stability in that vast region. Russia also holds a number of other Asian countries — including India, Japan and the States of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) — among its priority partners. At the same time, our future in the twenty-first century at both the global and the regional levels depends directly on whether the international community will be able to stop and reverse the economic impoverishment of a great number of the Member States of the United Nations. A central role in resolving the most important tasks facing all the countries of the world today belongs to the United Nations.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“19 I must mention yet another contribution to the strengthening of good-neighbourly relations in Europe. I am referring to the agreements signed recently by Russia, Ukraine and Belarus that have allowed our three countries to take major steps forward in developing mutually beneficial, equitable relations which have strengthened stability in the region. Russia has an interest in the security and stability of its Baltic neighbours and is ready to guarantee their security. Such guarantees could be provided in the form of our commitment backed by an agreement on good- neighbourly relations between Russia and the Baltic States. Such an agreement could become a kind of pact on regional security and stability. The Asia-Pacific dimension is also of great significance to us.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“It is first and foremost in the frame of that forum that it is possible to seek agreement with a view to meeting the new and diverse challenges, which are not necessarily of a military and political nature. A beneficial effect on the improvement of the European climate has already been exerted by the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation, which was born out of the agonizing quest for compromise. This document will have broad international resonance and will doubtless play an essential role in European politics. Of course, the signing of that document has not changed our negative view of NATO’s enlargement, which, on the one hand, totally ignores current realities and, on the other, is fraught with the risk of creating new dividing lines.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“We think that the elimination of the threat of landmines to people, especially to civilian populations, is long overdue. We advocate active, phased efforts and negotiations to resolve it. Stability on a global or regional level is impossible without the establishment of security systems. We have made headway in this direction on the European continent. We feel confident that only a universal organization which brings together all the members of the European family of nations can serve as a foundation for a genuinely durable security system in Europe in the twenty-first century. I am talking here about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“The implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction is getting under way. We consider this document as one of the major instruments designed to eliminate one of the weapons of mass destruction subject to the greatest proliferation. We have been working together with the deputies of the State Duma to ratify the Convention, and we look forward to the early, successful completion of those efforts. But even now it is conventional weaponry that is killing people in local conflicts, often in situations where hostilities have already stopped. In this connection, we are fully aware of the humanitarian dimension of the problem of landmines.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“Hence the essential need for the entire international community to give a universal dimension to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Those few countries that have so far remained outside the Treaty must, in our view, come to grips with their responsibility. They must realize that their own security is an integral part of global security, and they must assume those obligations to which over 180 States have already committed themselves as parties to the Treaty. The entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) on a global scale, as well as the forthcoming talks to ban the production of weapon-grade fissile materials, figures likewise among those badly needed steps intended to impart stability to global security in the twenty-first century.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“Together with the United States, we have been steadily reducing our national strategic arsenals. President Yeltsin of Russia and President Clinton of the United States have reached an understanding on the basic parameters for agreement in this area. On the agenda now are systematic measures for a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of all the nuclear Powers. But let us be perfectly clear here: the stability of a multipolar world cannot be ensured simply by ending the nuclear-arms race of the past. It is also essential to have guarantees against the re-emergence of that arms race on a new basis, and here I have in mind the desire of individual countries to acquire nuclear weapons. This once again proves the need for urgent measures to relieve tensions in the relations between India and Pakistan.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“However, it is extremely important that peacekeeping activities, whatever their sponsorship, should rely first and foremost on the underlying principles developed within the United Nations framework. We need here to be extremely cautious in dealing with peacekeeping activities. We believe that actions involving force should be carried out solely when authorized by the Security Council and under its direct supervision, as provided for in the Charter of the United Nations. As we move towards a multipolar world in the twenty- first century, it is essential to create conditions that will bring stability to a new world order. To that end, work must be completed to demolish the hurdles of the past and, above all, the legacy of the massive, decades-long arms race. We are moving together along this path, and we are determined to proceed further.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“But I believe that we have quite productively cooperated with the United States and France, which, jointly with Russia, are acting as co- chairmen of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Minsk process to settle the Nagorny Karabakh conflict. The Georgian-Abkhaz conflict offers a similar example. I should now like to say a few words about peacekeeping as a whole. Over the last few years, a trend has been observed towards its decentralization. Naturally, there are objective reasons for this: the financial constraints placed on the United Nations, and the increase 18 in the number of regional organizations working, inter alia, in peacekeeping. We see nothing wrong with such decentralization.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“Nuri, the opposition leader, shows that the agreement is already working. Nevertheless, we want only our fair share of the deal. We note with satisfaction that the attitudes of Russia and the United Nations towards the parameters of the operation in Tajikistan are in concurrence, based on the close cooperation between the United Nations Observer Mission, the collective Commonwealth of Independent States peacekeeping force, and the contingent of Russian border troops. We welcome the intention of the United Nations to expand the mandate of its observers and to increase their number. Nagorny Karabakh provides yet another example. Acting on its own, Russia has done a great deal to stabilize the situation in the region.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“But our stance by no means implies — and I wish to emphasize this — that any individual country that has influence in a zone of conflict or that can exert it over conflicting parties should not make active use of its own potential. It must do so, however, without putting up a high fence around itself to ward off others. I should like in this connection to draw the Assembly’s attention to Russia’s peacekeeping efforts in the Commonwealth of Independent States region. First of all, as concerns Tajikistan, Russia is doing a great deal since we are equipped with the particular tools needed to do the job, in part for historical reasons. Our efforts have proved rather effective. Recently in Moscow an agreement was signed that put an end to the armed strife between the Government and the opposition in that country. The return to Dushanbe of Mr.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“This fully applies as well to the long-standing conflict in the Middle East, where the settlement process has been stalemated. As the saying goes, “it takes two hands to applaud”. Broad-based international efforts are required to undo the taut Middle East knot. Russia, as one of the co- sponsors of the peace process launched in 1991 in Madrid, is prepared actively to cooperate actively with all to attain this goal. For many years, so too has the Cyprus issue been awaiting the effective international cooperation needed for its resolution. A synergy of efforts would provide the shortest cut to the resolution of both long-standing and of relatively new conflicts.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“For example, many of the militants who launched a bloody campaign of terror in a number of countries emerged out of the ongoing armed conflict that still rages in Afghanistan. We strongly support the combat against terrorism, whatever trappings it may don, be it in Ireland or in Israel. Today, we will not be able to prevail in this fight without all States pooling their efforts to combat this greatest of evils. While we oppose the backing of terrorism in any form by any Government, we believe that we cannot stigmatize individual Member States forever as international rogues, irrespective of changes in their policies, simply because of their suspected links to terrorists. In the present-day world, no country can hold a monopoly on any kind of conflict-resolution effort.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“There are many multinational States in the world today, and we support the initiatives designed to prevent their forcible disintegration. The formula for settling such conflicts in today’s world — and, of course, in the twenty-first century — can and must combine the need to preserve the territorial integrity of those States with the provision of the maximum possible number of rights to their national minorities. To abandon any of the principles of this two-track formula would result not only in the continuation but in the dangerous escalation of such conflict situations. Likewise, I wish to draw the Assembly’s particular attention to a dangerous aspect of regional conflicts: their ability to trigger terrorist waves and spread them far and wide beyond the borders of the actual conflict zone.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“There is also a need to mention that the transition from a confrontational bipolar world to a multipolar system per se would not provide a solution to these 17 problems. Furthermore, realistically minded people realize that although we are moving farther away from the simplistic stereotypes of the ideological confrontation era, the number of existing risks and threats in the world is not decreasing. Regional conflicts continue to be one of the major sources of instability on the global level; they should not be allowed to continue into the twenty-first century. How can this be achieved? A characteristic of our days is the increasing number of intra-State problems — conflicts of an ethnic rather than social nature.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“New centres of economic and political influence in the world are shaping up, coupled, at the same time, with increased intermeshing of the interests of different States and peoples. The horizons opening up to the international community in the twenty-first century are making new demands. These are the assertion of the ideals of interdependency and partnership in inter-State relations; the prevention of the emergence of new dividing lines or exclusive bloc structures; and strict adherence by all to the principles and rules of international law. As a separate issue, I should like to cite not only the creation of conditions for economic and social progress of all countries, but also the maintenance of environmental balance.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“Mr. President, allow me sincerely to congratulate you, a representative of friendly Ukraine, on your election to this responsible and honoured post. We are confident that under your Presidency, the General Assembly will be able to achieve significant results. In just a little over 800 days, mankind will enter upon the twenty-first century. From a historical point of view, this is indeed no more than a sprinter’s lap, and thus the need to look at what lies ahead, at what awaits us, would appear quite natural. One year ago, in speaking from this rostrum, I spoke about the emerging process of a transition to a multipolar world order. The developments of the past year support that. There is a growing diversity in the political, economic and cultural development of countries.”
1997-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 52 (1997)
“I am confident that this session of the General Assembly will live up to the expectations of Governments and the hopes of peoples: that all of us will take a new step in humankind’s difficult transition towards a world united in its diversity, a world that is open to universal economic and spiritual development, a world that promises security and stability — a world in which States cooperate on an equal footing. Let us work together for the sake of this goal.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“Reform is long overdue, and it is not a single measure that is required but a process that encompasses the entire United Nations system. Reform of the United Nations requires clearly defined goals: first, that it carry out its activities in a timely manner; and secondly, that its structure be optimized in order to enhance the effectiveness of the Organization. 16 A great deal has already been done to implement reform. The Secretary-General has made a considerable contribution to these efforts, and Russia supports the continuation of this difficult and protracted effort. It is a well-established tradition to conclude statements before this Assembly by saying that the current session must play a special role in strengthening peace and that peoples are expecting us to make decisions.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“We are counting on significantly more attention being paid by the United Nations to conflicts in the area of the Commonwealth of Independent States. So far, the major role in this respect has been played by Russia and its Commonwealth partners. In view of present circumstances, Russia calls on the United Nations to address the Afghan conflict. In that multinational and long-suffering country, a truly critical situation has arisen, and we have to do everything possible to prevent the country from disintegrating. The Afghan tragedy, like the endless series of internal conflicts in Rwanda and Liberia, is the most convincing argument for the development of a United Nations policy of national reconciliation diplomacy. To cope with all these tasks, the United Nations itself must be updated and adapted to these new conditions.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“To give impetus to such work Russia has proposed the holding in 1999 of a third peace conference. This idea already has the support of a significant number of States. I believe that the time has come to discuss this initiative in a constructive and substantive manner. Past experience shows the need for new approaches by the United Nations to peacekeeping operations. We can already discern a pyramid regulating the relations of the United Nations with regional organizations. Without the development of such relations the United Nations may not be able to withstand the burden of peacemaking actions. I refer specifically to a pyramid, because it is of fundamental importance to do no harm to the Security Council, which bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“We are convinced that the United Nations should take such measures only in exceptional cases, after all other means have been genuinely exhausted. On the whole, there is a need to modernize the United Nations sanctions mechanisms. Today, for example, no specific procedure is provided for lifting sanctions, and, as experience has demonstrated, this is extremely important. The humanitarian damage caused by sanctions and the damage to third countries should be minimized. It is extremely important to emphasize that the United Nations must be maintained as the sole Organization that can authorize the use of force. Any actions of that nature taken in circumvention of the Security Council must be totally precluded. The United Nations can and must work purposefully towards establishing a new global legal framework.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“In such circumstances, the significance of the United Nations as a centre for coordinating the actions of States is increasing. During the formation of a multipolar system, the United Nations is called upon to serve as a kind of safety net, minimizing the destructive effects of the changes and directing them towards democratic evolution. The major task of the United Nations remains the maintenance of international peace and security. Furthermore, the principal tools available to the Organization must be political and diplomatic. I remind the Assembly of this fact because, during the past few years within the United Nations, a “sanctions syndrome” has begun to emerge: a desire to apply sanctions and other coercive measures more broadly and actively, sometimes ignoring existing political and diplomatic avenues.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“While recognizing the sovereignty of those countries and their territorial integrity, Russia cannot remain indifferent to the discriminatory practices pursued against the Russian-speaking populations in Estonia and Latvia. While acknowledging measures that have already been taken to improve the situation, we believe that the United Nations and other international organizations should intensify and systematize their work for the protection of the rights of national minorities. How do we implement this strategy for creating a new world order? Despite the importance of bilateral relations and successful regional organizations, the United Nations remains the principal mechanism capable of ensuring the transition from a bipolar and confrontational world to a multipolar and democratic one.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“Its oversight and preventive functions should be consolidated and made more practical. However, legitimate efforts to ensure respect for human rights cannot serve political purposes. It is too delicate an area to be invaded by political speculation and objectives. 15 My comments apply fully to the protection of the rights of national minorities. The relevance of this problem is evident in today’s world. The complexity of the situation — let us be frank — requires a link between the protection of the rights of national minorities and observance of the principle of the territorial integrity of States. Russia is directing its policy at precisely such a link. My comments also apply to the Baltic States.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“Our suggestion that nuclear arsenals be located only on the territories of the nuclear Powers in question remains current. The strengthening of the non-proliferation regime for weapons of mass destruction depends directly upon reliable prevention of the illicit traffic in fissile materials. The Moscow Summit of the Eight on Nuclear Safety and Security, convened as a result of a Russian initiative, contributed significantly to a solution of this problem. I call on all United Nations Member States to become involved in the implementation of the Moscow agreements. The rights of an individual should occupy a central place in any new concept of international security. Strengthening the international human-rights protection mechanism could ensure the observance of these rights.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“However, it should clearly be understood that testing by any country of a nuclear explosive device before the Treaty enters into force will radically change the international situation and greatly prejudice the Treaty itself, and may compel many countries to revise their attitude to it. I should like to draw the attention of the Treaty’s opponents to the fact that it will not only contribute to the promotion of nuclear non-proliferation, but will objectively stimulate a gradual transition to nuclear disarmament on a multilateral basis. That is the purpose of President Yeltsin’s proposal to conclude a treaty on nuclear security and stability with the participation of all the nuclear Powers. We invite interested States to begin exchanging views on the issue.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“The lifting of sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the Bosnian Serbs is an indispensable condition for a successful peace in the former Yugoslavia. I hope that, in the near future, a Yugoslav delegation will take its place in this Hall, as it has at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The programme of disarmament, security and stability for the twenty-first century should become one of the major axes of transition period strategy. The adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is one huge step in this direction. Russia has just signed the Treaty and we believe that it is of fundamental importance for all countries with nuclear capability to accede to it.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“At the same time, the United Nations, the OSCE, members of the Contact Group and the High Representative should immediately take a just and balanced approach to resolving outstanding problems. Assistance for the social and economic reconstruction of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be intensified considerably and conditions created for the return of refugees. The time has also come to look beyond the horizon of the Paris agreements. There would seem to be a need for a large-scale and prolonged civilian peacemaking operation in which the United Nations and its specialized agencies will play an important role. The international military and police presence, to which Russia contributes, should remain a factor in the peace process for a given period after December 1996.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“It should be clear that the danger of reverting to confrontation becomes greater as the artificial pause in the peace process continues. When negotiators are silent, lethal weapons begin to awake. We appreciate the peacemaking efforts of the United States of America, the European Union, France, Egypt and other members of the international community and we support an even closer partnership in peacemaking. That is the most effective way to promote peace-building in the Middle East. The Bosnian settlement has entered a new and crucial stage since the elections of 14 September. The prospects for a lasting peace have become greater, but the risk of slipping into a new spiral of hostility and confrontation remains. I call upon all the Bosnian parties to take full advantage of the chance for peace created by the international community.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“But as yet no breakthrough to a durable peace has been achieved in any of these hotbeds of tension. The future of the Middle East is a cause for grave concern. Russia — one of the sponsors of the peace process — cannot accept the sacrifice to tactical considerations and internal political manoeuvres of the first fruits of the peace negotiations, which were won at such a great cost. The implementation of the Agreements reached is the only realistic basis for maintaining the peace process. The only possible way forward is to advance through negotiation on the basis of the principle of “land for peace”, Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as well as resolution 425 (1978), which deals with Lebanon.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“Such a world-order model is unacceptable today to the overwhelming majority of the international community. Finally, the third condition for the successful movement towards stable peace lies in the coordinated activities of the international community. Today, one of the most important tasks is the settlement of regional and local conflicts. In this regard, significant progress has been achieved recently. Peace agreements are being implemented in Bosnia. Initial important agreements have been achieved for a durable peace in the Middle East. We have managed to secure ceasefires in Transdniester, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorny Karabakh. The situation has improved somewhat in the conflict zones on 14 the African continent and in Latin America.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“However, no sanctions should be used as a means to punish peoples or as an instrument to overthrow Governments. It is far more effective to offer prospects for a better future to those who renounce extremism and accept the norms of conduct by the world community. The second condition for achieving a durable peace is the emancipation from a mentality based on concepts of leaders and followers. Such a mentality is fuelled by illusions that some countries emerged from the cold war as victors, and others as the vanquished. But this is not the case. Peoples on both sides of the Iron Curtain jointly strove to rid themselves of the policy of confrontation. Meanwhile, the mentality based on leaders and followers paves the way directly towards the establishment of a unipolar world.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“The threat of new lines of division is appearing not only in Europe, but elsewhere. The understandable intolerance of the extremism of certain Islamic groups and factions must not develop into a categorization of the Muslim world at large as an enemy of modern civilization. This is probably one of the pressing requirements of our day. Russia advocates resolute opposition to extremist and terrorist forces. They are especially dangerous when they enjoy State support, and no effort should be spared to prevent any State from rendering such support. This cannot be justified. I believe it is time a universal convention, covering all States without exception, were elaborated within the United Nations, denying political asylum anywhere to persons engaged in terrorist activities.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“The enormous possibilities for economic cooperation and the spiritual enrichment of all the peoples of the continent can be realized only through the creation of a genuinely all-European system of international relations. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Lisbon summit must be an important stage in the construction of such a Europe. It is important to stress in general that the logic of a multipolar world in the twenty-first century should differ qualitatively from the schemes outlined by Metternich and Bismarck. The way towards the establishment of a system of comprehensive security is through learning the skills of equal partnership between the various “poles”, rather than through the revival of reflexes of rivalry and of balance of power.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“Unfortunately, the stereotypes that took root in the minds of several generations of statesmen during the 40 years of the cold war have not yet disappeared along with the dismantling of strategic missiles and the destruction of thousands of tanks. In this connection, I would like to single out three conditions for the transformation of international relations during the post-cold-war period. First, we should see to it that the old fronts of bloc confrontation are not replaced with new lines of division. That is precisely why we accept neither the idea of the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military infrastructure to the area of the now defunct Warsaw Treaty nor the efforts to make that alliance the axis of a new European system.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“However, the establishment of such a world order is a slow process, influenced by both objective and subjective factors. It is only natural that the end of the cold war provided a starting point for the transition to achieving a stable and predictable peace at the global level. But zones of regional conflict have expanded drastically. The upsurge of terrorism has caused universal shock, and the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is emerging. The rejection of ideological, military-force confrontation, brought about by the end of the cold war, clearly proved insufficient to neutralize all these dangers and risks. Let us confess, at least to ourselves, that we will not succeed here unless, first and foremost, we overcome the inertia of the political mentality.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“In our relations with the other Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, we resolutely oppose both the idea of restoring the Soviet Union, an idea based on the denial of the sovereignty of the Commonwealth States, and narrow-minded national isolationism. We stand for the voluntary integration and unification of the 13 members of the Commonwealth and hold that it should not be isolated from the rest of the world. We wish to ensure, and we shall ensure, that the CIS will become an important centre of world economic development and international stability. On a wider international plane, Russia is pursuing a policy aimed at establishing a new world order firmly based on the equality of all States, justice and universal security.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)
“The agenda of the General Assembly at the current session reflects all the complexity of the stage mankind is now going through, the essence of which is the transition from bloc confrontation to multipolarity, economic interdependence and the democratization of international relations. I would like to emphasize that during the past year Russia made its contribution to the consolidation of this very trend. At the domestic level, this means an uncompromising continuation of the process of reforming society. The results of the recent presidential elections in our country have convincingly proved that Russia has decisively embarked on the road to the future. The majority of Russians voted for the continuation of economic reform, for a State of law and for a policy of openness and cooperation.”
1996-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 51 (1996)