Mr. Chairman,

First, I would like to join all of my other colleagues in congratulating Yugoslavia on joining the OSCE, and also commend the OSCE chairmanship for providing leadership throughout the year and for the excellent organization of this meeting.

The coincidence of multiple anniversaries is cause for more than simple celebration. It is true; there is much to celebrate since the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris. The first was crafted during the Cold War, to defuse the antagonism and bring the sides around common values when in fact the perception was that values were what divided the protagonists. We are all the beneficiaries today of that paradox; the veneer has become the substance, and the OSCE is the expression of that transformation.

The Charter of Paris continued the vision that to ensure security and cooperation among sovereign states, there must be respect for such basic principles as human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

Furthermore, the Charter for European Security adopted by the Heads of States in 1999 makes it very clear that denials of such rights can result in threats to security. To shield such political or administrative abuses as strictly in the realm of "internal affairs" rings more and more hollow. Security can be endangered as much from what goes on inside states as from what goes on between states. But compliance with foundational norms and principles is no easy task for anybody. And therein lies the greatest challenge facing the OSCE: To find a reasonable balance between providing remedial assistance to countries where these norms and principles have had a deficient history of implementation while at the same time, not losing sight of the more essential, core problems which need addressing as we try to build a coherent, compatible, cooperative, secure Europe.

There is no doubt that the Nagorno Karabagh conflict is a serious threat to the stability in our region and therefore in all of Europe. Despite the commitment of the parties to reach a compromise solution, not much success has been registered in that direction. Whatever the final form of that compromise, we believe it will be found by striking the right balance between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity. At no time in history has Nagorno Karabagh been a part of Azerbaijan, with the exception of the Soviet period. Despite this reality, and the realities of the past 10 years - orderly and legal secession, full control of its territory, a government duly elected by its population - despite all these, Armenians in Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh are willing to sit around a negotiating table and agree on a status which is also acceptable to Azerbaijan so that we can reach and maintain the goal of long-term peace and stability in NK and in the region. Unfortunately, on this aspect, we have not been met half-way by Azerbaijan. We often hear Azerbaijan's many accusations about today's situation without reference to Azerbaijan's own attempts - just a few years ago - to resort to use of force, ethnic cleansing and a military solution to the root political causes of the conflict. We do not believe such language and thinking is helpful to the process. We believe there is no alternative but to put the rhetoric behind us and as I said earlier, pursue a resolution by finding the right balance. And this is where the OSCE can be very instrumental.

We should not wait for renewed war, new bloodshed and further fragmentation before finding imaginative and effective strategies to help our region emerge from its stalemate. Unsettled conflicts are also festering conflicts. Crisis management and conflict resolution and post-conflict rehabilitation must be contemplated simultaneously. Linear approaches will not do, and it is time for the OSCE to look at a new set of tools and initiatives, unorthodox though they may sound, to unblock so called "frozen" situations.

It is the attempt to artificially prevent adaptive change that leads to pressures that erupt in violence and explosion. In Nagorno Karabagh as elsewhere we have been more concerned with reconstruction than developing the design rules for new structures. Perhaps this lack of initiative to explore new rules comes from a pervasive sense of fear, an apprehension that tinkering with the existing rules may endanger the whole edifice, challenge the assumptions of our existing architecture.

On this issue, we are not as convinced that the edifice whose foundations are almost 350 years old, cannot use some retrofitting, some judicious, well-reasoned, selective tinkering. After all, in the last 50 years, Europe has been a great laboratory, a bold experiment in exploring and institutionalizing new concepts of association, integration, complementarity and subsidiarity that test the limits of sovereignty and national identity, community interests, borders and territoriality and collective decision making. The OSCE must take on the challenge of managing change, not preventing it if it is to maintain its relevance in the face of old and new challenges. Competing and conflicting principles in the Final Act, such as self-determination and territorial integrity, must not be seen on a linear continuum, as either/or, as the two variables of a zero-sum game. New, dynamic ingredients must be sought, weighed, introduced to enrich the range of options, to allow for adaptation, to diffuse pressure and to reinforce solutions.

We are confident that the OSCE is distinctly qualified to undertake this exploration as an other milestone in its pursuit of political tools, for a more resilient architecture of security and cooperation in Europe. There are some who will undoubtedly argue that unconventional solutions are best explored on an ad hoc and case-by-case basis. True. Eventually, every solution must be responsive to the specificity of each conflict. Nevertheless, general rules, flexible rules, adaptive rules, enabling, empowering rules rather than strictly restrictive principles that proscribe deviance, make it easier to customize settlements that threaten the dogma of even uninvolved member states.

For us, peace in Nagorno Karabagh is of course the promise of transforming the situation of hostility and confrontation with our neighbor into one of cooperation and mutually reinforced security. We would like to think of the day when Nagorno Karabagh is transformed from being a chasm separating our countries to being a bridge built for the benefit of all the populations concerned.

Thank you.