Honorable Chairman, 
Minister Geoana, 
Esteemed Colleagues, 
Distinguished Guests,

This annual gathering of the Ministerial Council in Bucharest demonstrates that the OSCE is alive and well. Through its various incarnations, the OSCE has overcome not only radical transformations in the international and particularly European security environment, but it has survived the greatest challenge of them all, skepticism. Over these 25 years, there have been uncertainties about its capacity to adapt, doubts about its flexibility, cynicism about the continuing relevance of its mission. Last year's difficult Ministerial Council, with a meager harvest of consensual documents did not do much to re-instill confidence.

We must admit that the Romanian Chairmanship was given the very difficult task of putting us back on track this year. We wish to express our appreciation for their efforts and for the plan on the Reform of the OSCE adopted here. We hope the measures contained therein will successfully address some of the problems that had gradually hobbled our organization: a lack of equilibrium between the dimensions of our foundational pillars; a gradual marginalization of certain delegations due to the disproportionate weight of new groupings; the problem of credibility which arose from the contradictions between de facto opacity, combined with ritual references to transparency; a lack of balance in the geographic distribution of our field operations, implying an unjustifiable tendency to stigmatize exclusively only certain societies.

As a way of tackling this last problem, our mission has presented a comprehensive proposal on New Types of OSCE Missions. One in particular calls for setting up special task forces which are non-place-based, roving, with a time-limit on operations, pursuing a problem or threat no matter were it takes it. Transnational crime, including drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, and even terrorism, are all perfectly suited candidates for such a working group, no matter where trails lead across the whole OSCE area. We believe it is worth trying this new model, to address the enduring imbalance we refer to, despite the unsettling resistance of participating states unwilling to have field missions on their territory.

Mr. Chairman,

The world has changed since last year's meeting. We are not the first nor the last delegation to observe that this OSCE Ministerial Council is convened in the shadow of September 11. We must repeat that no level of anger or frustration can justify the violence perpetrated against the psyche of all mankind on US soil that day.

The terrorism of September 11 made clear that if the US could be vulnerable, then, we are all vulnerable. The solidarity borne of the real threats to our security was and is genuine. Dangers that do not discriminate between rich and poor, big and small, powerful and weak, East and West or in between made it necessary Հ and easy -- for us to bind together.

The OSCE's Decision on Combating Terrorism and the Bucharest Action Plan is evidence of such solidarity. Nothing less would have done justice to the credibility of our organization. But as we watched the dedicated efforts of those entrusted with the burden of crafting this crucial document uniting us all in the fight against international terrorism, we could not help but notice how hard it is for many of our partners to accept that these new strains of old diseases need new thinking, new attitudes, new tools, new priorities, new paradigms.

Humanity has often suffered by shunning explanations of Ձevilձ for fear of justifying it, thus losing its battle against it. We should not be afraid to understand. Nor should we, determined to fight international terrorism together, be reluctant to examine with a cold eye, the mysteries and the mechanisms of its virulence.

Mr. Chairman,

The threat of terrorism is too real to allow cynical opportunism to take over and ascribe to every political, social or economic adversary the damnation of Ձterroristic practiceձ. Terrorism is the callous taking of innocent life, indiscriminately and recklessly. Armed insurrection against tyranny is no terrorism Հ nor is it always separatism. Neither democracy, nor the rule of law, nor the protection of people's right to freedom and freedom from repression are served by insuring the immutability of oppressive regimes in the name of stability or status quo.

Mr. Chairman,

A more reasonable, accurate, differentiated and therefore effective response is necessary for the other kinds of conflicts, too. I have in mind those conflicts which arise from a people's exigent need to mount a battle for self-defense against military suppression, against a denial of their peacefully sought right to self-determination.

One such conflict in need of peaceful settlement is the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, the resolution of which is one of the OSCE's important mandates through the Minsk process.

Mr. Chairman, no amount of ambiguous diplomatic language can mask the fact that the men, women and children of Nagorno Karabagh have earned the right to live peacefully on their historic lands, free of alien domination and foreign occupation. Nagorno Karabagh's secession from Soviet Azerbaijan was both legal, peaceful, and just. During the twilight of a crumbling Soviet Union, a population long oppressed, its rights systematically denied, sought redress. Just as Azerbaijan was no longer willing to accept the Soviet legacy, and withdrew from the Union, Nagorno Karabagh was no longer willing to live under conditions imposed arbitrarily by Stalin decades earlier. The resistance of the people of Nagorno Karabagh to arbitrary and repressive measures brought about further repression and an attempt at military suppression of their legitimate desire and actions for self-defense and self-protection. The present stalemate is the consequence of the war that followed. An uneven battle pitted a state trying to re impose its rule and its sovereignty over a people who refuse to re subjugate themselves to the authority of those they do not trust.

Azerbaijan's claim on Nagorno Karabagh has been legally invalid. Its absolute and blind adherence to the principle of territorial integrity will do it no good, since Nagorno Karabagh has never been a part of independent Azerbaijan. The League of Nations did not accept Azerbaijan's territorial claims then, we do not accept them now. Its claim of sovereignty over the people of Nagorno Karabagh, too, is morally invalid. For decades, it denied them basic social and economic rights, and attacked them violently and repeatedly.

Here lie the difficulties of the negotiation process. Here lie the difficulties confronting the co-Chairs of the Minsk Group in their relentless Հ and much appreciated Հ efforts to push the process forward. Here lies the logic of confidence building measures in the latest phase of stalled negotiations, since once more this year, confidence and trust seem to be the main victims of the seesaw of Azerbaijan's positions and ambivalence about peace and the temptations of war.

Those changing positions, undependable at best, are reflected in the documents produced -- and not produced -- at this meeting. The final statement (which, by the way, we still cannot be sure will be adopted) is significant, as it stands, not so much for what it includes, but for what is left out. Its limited scope, and its questionable fate, is the result of Azerbaijan's unwillingness to sanction the basic, fundamental premise of mutual compromise. So short is Azerbaijan's memory and so shallow its commitment to peace, that it is even unwilling to accept any reference to the Paris and Key West meetings in this statement. Mr. Chairman, what are we to understand if Azerbaijan can not acknowledge the last round of negotiations as a stepping stone to the next round? If our negotiating partner cannot make room for compromise on paper, how are we to expect that it can create it on the ground?

Azerbaijan's revisionism is rampant as it applies labels, invents numbers, creates history, confuses discussion, redefines terms and manufactures charges. It is to address these accusations that the democratically re-elected President of Nagorno Karabagh has issued a blanket invitation to those who wish to assess the veracity of Azerbaijan's unfounded accusations for purposes of propaganda. His letter has been made available to you.

Mr. Chairman,

Armenians continue to be ready to engage in serious give and take, ready for mutual compromise, because we understand that the region is a place where we live together, and not a place where we can stand alone, unwavering and intransigent in an illusory world. We believe that with the help of the co-Chairs, even tentative, incremental, forward movement can be registered, sustained and consolidated.

Mr. Chairman,

We must also avoid the subversion of this opportunity by Azerbaijan and others who believe that the battle against terrorism allows them to wear the mantle of aggrieved victims of terrorists, hence entitled to one-sided compensation. Such delusions make realistic compromises hard to achieve. The international community and the OSCE most particularly, must try hard not to encourage this kind of fiction. Most of the conflicts that have confronted the OSCE in the last decade, have had their share of old, enduring, national myths in fueling animosity and hostility. It would be a pity, if present, tragic circumstances were to carelessly contribute to the manufacture of new myths and self styled martyrs.

Mr. Chairman,

This year represents the 100th anniversary of Alfred Nobel, remembered for two achievements: the invention of dynamite Հ an instrument of destruction -- and the establishment of the Peace Prize which bears his name. Today, he is remembered equally for both seemingly contradictory accomplishments. If the international community, through its various international organizations, including and especially this one, genuinely and persistently addresses the many challenges of September 11, that date too, will be marked for two similarly opposite yet monumental occasions: not just for the terror it wreaked on all mankind, but also for the wisdom demonstrated since that day by a humanity which chose the tough path of understanding and security over the obvious path of cynicism and violence.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman