|
Interview of Minister of
Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus
Mr. Sergei N. Martynov to the newspaper “Respublika”
Unfortunately, our time is
complicated, disturbing and sometimes even alarming. There are a lot of hot
spots on the planet. Different military and other conflicts occur. Difficult
consequences of illicit interference of some countries to the internal
affairs of the other ones, constant terrorism acts, poverty and so on make
themselves felt. All these things make us to have a special look at the
United Nations and evaluate in detail its role and place in solving acute
international issues and strengthening cooperation between countries on the
basis of equal and respectful relations as it was decided to be by the
founding Member States after the Second World War.
What is the Belarus’ word and
work in the UN? What policy does our independent and sovereign state pursue?
How does its position correspond to those hopes believed in the UN? How are
our national interests taken into consideration? Today, Mr. S.Martynov, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus, shares its opinion
on these and other issues during his conversation with the reporter of
“Respublica”.
– Mr. Martynov,
undoubtedly, the main international political event of 2005 was the Summit
of the United Nations. What is the significance of this event for the
international community as a whole and for our country in particular?
– You are certainly right
defining the United Nations Summit as the main political event of the past
year. However, it is quite obvious that the significance of this event goes
beyond the boundaries of one year or even of several years. I think that the
adequate assessment of the Summit will be given with the passing of many
years, may be even later, when, as the saying goes, the time will prove who
of the world leaders in September 2005 proved to be right in assessing
international relations, who clearly foresaw coming events and whose
warnings against possible dangers to the world proved to be correct. In
order to help the readers better understand the importance of the past
Summit against the background of the present time, some parallels and
comparisons with similar events from the past can be drawn.
The Summit of 2005 initially
was also envisaged to focus on development. Nevertheless, the situation over
the five year period, or more precisely, two events that occurred during it
substantionally changed the international context as well as the theme of
the Summit. First of these events is the terrorist acts in the USA that took
place on 11 September 2001. On one hand, the terrorist acts even more
heightened the need to address development issues as the main tool in the
fight against terrorism. To the majority, regrettably, not to all and not
immediately, it became quite clear that the fight should be fought against
the root causes of terrorism – poverty, lack of education, social and
political estrangement, demographic concerns. On the other hand, the
problematique of terrorism was used with hypocrisy by the United States for
advancing its parochial interests, including in Iraq.
The second event – the war in
Iraq, waged in violation of the UN Charter, has nothing to do with the fight
against terrorism. Besides, it laid bare a new phenomenon that has been
exerting most significant impact on international relations in the beginning
of the XXI century. This phenomenon is the formation and strengthening of a
unipolar world. When the domineering and sole leader, which is today the
USA, acts only in selfish instead of common interests, the prospects for
success in dealing with numerous development problems substantially
diminish.
In such a light, we, in
Belarus viewed the international situation on the eve of the Summit.
Identically thought people in the vast majority of the world’s countries.
All those who were anxious over the future of our planet expected the
meeting at the highest level to be, using the words from the statement of
the Belarusian President at the Summit “an honest look at the world”. The
majority of countries regarded the upcoming event as a unique opportunity to
collectively discuss world problems and to try to find the ways of their
resolution.
Undoubtedly, the past Summit
is of great importance for the Republic of Belarus too. This is, first and
foremost, an opportunity to express from the UN rostrum our understanding
and vision of international relations in their evolution, to inform about
sizable achievements of our country and to put forward concrete proposals
that address most acute world concerns. We believe that such a right grants
us the authority of our state, unwavering commitment of Belarus in the
course of more than 60 years to the goals and principles of the United
Nations, enshrined in its Charter.
Our active participation
– How did the Belarusian
diplomacy participate in the preparation to the UN Summit?
– That the focus of the
Summit 2005 would go beyond the area of development and would encompass the
whole range of global problems became clear by December 2004. By that time a
report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Changes had been
launched. The panel was established by UN Secretary General Koffi Annan and
was tasked with making proposals on UN reform. It was necessitated by the
loss of importance and authority of the United Nations that starkly
demonstrated itself in its inability to forestall the war in Iraq. In the
report the most earnest attempt was undertaken since the foundation of the
United Nations to carry out broad reforms of the Organization. The authors
of the report made proposals with regard to reforming main UN bodies such as
the Security Council, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council as well
as strengthening various activities of the United Nations.
The negotiations during the
preparation of the Summit reflected differences existing among states and
groups of states in relation to their visions of the future of international
relations and the role that the UN should play in addressing global
challenges. Some states, specifically the USA, regard the United Nations
primarily as a vehicle for pursuing their own interests. The vehicle that
can be both – utilized and ignored – depending on particular situation. For
instance, The United States did not need the UN in order to invade Iraq. And
conversely, the USA very much needs the authority and potential of the
United Nations for coordinating antiterrorist activities of UN Member
States.
Belarus, in its turn, as the
vast majority of Member States, in the course of negotiations advocated the
central role of the United Nations in the world. We, as other states –
supporters of this approach do not contemplate the possibility of pursuing
national interests by actions that may contravene UN Charter. Therefore, we
do not accept double standards towards UN activities. Similarly, we do not
accept questionable ideas that run counter to the Charter: for example,
those that condone interference in internal affairs of states under popular
slogans of promoting democracy and human rights.
Belarusian diplomats actively
participated in the preparation to the Summit. I conveyed the overall
position of our country on UN reform to Special Representative of the UN
Secretary General, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ireland
Dermot Achern during his visit to Minsk in June 2005. UN Secretary General
Koffi Annan was informed of our position.
The Permanent Mission of the
Republic of Belarus to the United Nations has purposefully worked to advance
the interests of our country in the Summit Outcome Document. We worked there
hand and glove with those countries that share our views on the evolution of
international relations and UN reform, namely, with Russia, China, India,
Member States of the Non-Aligned Movement. We succeeded in embedding our
interests in the Outcome Document, for the main part, with regard to
development, human rights and problematique of countries with economy in
transition.
We had made particular
efforts to include in the Outcome Document the initiatives, which the
President of the Republic of Belarus was to enunciate in his statement at
the Summit on 15 September.
Courage, Accuracy and Substance
– Would you tell us,
please, about the participation of the President of Belarus in the Summit?
– President
of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko is one of the few world
leaders, who have got the experience of taking part in all three United
Nations Summits. During the events Summits the President held a number of
meetings with other world leaders as well as with senior officials of the
United Nations and other international organizations. An active
participation in such high-level events is not just a real contribution to
collective efforts that tackle common for the humankind problems, but is
also a concrete means to advance national interests.
Noteworthy in this regard is
the fact that his vision of the character of the forthcoming Summit and the
role of Belarus in this landmark event, the President outlined more than a
year before the Summit, in July 2004, at the meeting with the Belarusian
senior diplomatic corps. The President has then stated that the high-level
event should become a search for ways out of the impasse, which the
international community finds itself in as a result of strengthening of the
unipolar world. The Republic of Belarus cannot be just a statist in the
“crowd”, but must propose to the international community its own vision of
the future and its ways to grapple with urgent international concerns. These
considerations were uppermost in our minds while we were preparing a visit
of the Head of State to the Summit.
The high-level event was in
session from 14th to 16th September. The statement of
the President of the Republic of Belarus took place on 15th
September. I believe that all remember that vivid speech quite well.
Commentaries and reactions to it from the whole variety of international
public – be it politicians, academia, journalist and ordinary people,
regardless of their diverging political views, – right after the Summit and
in the course of the past months, by and large were unanimous. The statement
of the Belarusian President was assessed as overbold in demonstrating truth,
right in providing analyses of international relations, meaningful in
contained proposals.
The Head of our State, as few
among other world leaders, gave an honest and impartial assessment of the
state of international relations at the beginning of the XXI century. He
distinctly spoke about our common problems and estimated the situation in
the world as deadlocked. Indeed, there is a whole array of problems in the
world – poverty, terrorism, trafficking in humans, international crime,
spread of diseases, environmental degradation. When the sole world leader
does not wish to co-operate in common efforts that address development
challenges and moreover, by its unilateral actions destroys the system of
international relations, the prospects for progressive human development,
unfortunately, look bleak.
In the session of the UN
General Assembly the President bravely pointed to hypocrisy and double
standards applied by the mighty of the world in pursuit of their selfish
interests. Not many leaders would have the courage to speak openly and
honestly about what in reality stands behind pretty slogans about the
promotion of human rights and the imposition of the so-called
“democratization”. But I am sure that the overwhelming number of world
leaders participating in the Summit could not help agreeing with the bitter
truth spoken by our President. This was confirmed during informal contacts
with foreign diplomats in the UN as at the Summit as after it.
The thing here, however, is
not only and so much in boldness. The fact of the matter is that without an
honest look at the world it is impossible to discern the right ways that may
lead the international community out of the impasse.
Particularly remarkable to
the delegations of many states was part of the President’s speech devoted to
the place of Belarus in today’s world. The Republic of Belarus is the
country with the highly educated and tolerant people, which craves for peace
and stability on the planet and achieves everything by its own work. Belarus
is the country without internal and external conflicts, where people of all
nationalities, races and religions live side by side in peace. Belarus is
the country that made more than a worthy contribution to international
disarmament, being the first in the world to have relinquished the available
nuclear weapons. Belarus is the country committed to international
co-operation and respectful of the right of every state to independent
development.
In his statement the
President announced two concrete major initiatives. The President called
upon the international community to recognize as one of the basic principles
of international relations the diversity of paths of development towards
progress and urged Member States to apply efficient measures in the fight
against trafficking in humans.
Response to the Nowadays Challenges
– How important for the
international community are the initiatives put forward by our Head of State
from the UN rostrum?
– The initiatives are very
urgent. But before I reveal their essence to the readers, I would like to
draw your attention to the fact that these initiatives were preceded by
other major international initiatives, which the Head of our State proposed
in due course of time. And always these foreign policy steps were a timely
response to most urgent issues of international life.
Let us recall 1998. We were
on the eve of the first wave of NATO expansion to the East. All attempts of
Russia, Belarus and other concerned states to prove the lack of historic
necessity of this step could not forestall the process. Seeing the
inevitability of Alliance’s enlargement, the President of Belarus was
searching ways for mitigating negative consequences that would result from
the process and proposed to declare Central and Eastern Europe a
nuclear-free zone. This initiative had an appeal to all, without exception,
countries of the region. The General Assembly has adopted a resolution in
the end of 1998, in which it urged all countries to refrain from deploying
nuclear weapons in the region of Central and Eastern Europe. Due to moral
and political significance of the resolution NATO nuclear member-states up
to this date have not resolved to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of
new member-states of the Alliance.
Many of us still hold fresh
in our minds the events of spring of 1999 that are linked to NATO aggression
against Yugoslavia. At the very height of bombing our President arrived in
Belgrade in an attempt to end the war. The Head of State proposed to
establish a UN Mission of civilian observers in Kosovo. Afterwards this
initiative was implemented in the settlement: the UN Mission in Kosovo was
set up and it is still functioning.
The initiatives put forward
by the President at the Summit in September 2005 are not detached from the
reality either. They contain answers to the challenges of today. Although
these two initiatives are different, they both pursue common noble goals
embodied in the UN Charter – maintaining international peace and security,
opening up opportunities for all countries and peoples to live freely and to
freely develop.
Appeal to the Whole World
– Let us now, Mr.
Minister, have a proper look at the initiatives’ essence and significance.
– The first is about
recognition of the diversity of countries’ and peoples’ paths of development
towards progress. It is a rebuff to the attempts of the superpower to treat
all alike, i.e. to impose on all countries the so-called “liberal democracy”
of an American type. There is a strong ground for believing that the
imposition of “democracy” from an ad-hoc factor in the US foreign policy is
turning into a constant one. Take the National Security Strategy of the USA
of 2002. The “advance of democracy and freedom” is one of the fundamental
goals of the foreign policy of the United States. At that the document does
even conceal the intention to act unilaterally. What is noteworthy is that
“democracies” are becoming the ones that are guided and controlled, by the
USA, of course.
It is obvious that pragmatic
considerations of advancing the interests of the USA, first of all the
economic ones, such as getting access to resources and markets of foreign
countries, often without regard for the interests of those countries,
underlie the policy of “democracy” promotion. It goes without saying that
all countries, Belarus and USA alike, have legitimate external interests and
seek to uphold them. The question is how? Our point of view is that
legitimate interests should be upheld through legitimate means, which
correspond to the principles of the UN Charter. And not through the quite
opposite tools such as exertion of pressure, hand wringing, staging of coups
and aggression. Such policy, understandably, cannot be advertised in its
bare form. Therefore, it is presented to the “clients” in a pretty
ideological wrapper.
I constantly put the word
democracy in inverted commas, because the meaning of it is different for the
leaders of some Western states and for the vast majority of other countries.
It is obvious that there cannot be a single, even more so a prescribed from
“above” form of democracy. Democracy is both many-sided and individual at
the same time. In each case her form is the mix result of historical,
cultural, social and other factors that have been inherent to a given people
in a given time.
That is why the initiative of
the President of Belarus is not just a beautiful statement. It demonstrates
the deep understanding in an equal degree of both the essence and the
specifics of international relations. It is the call to the whole world to
realize the fact that we are all different and live so as was determined for
each and every people by its history, traditions and culture. Because our
form of development is different from the form of another people we should
not aspire to change the form of that another people. On the contrary, we
must respect the choice of other peoples. The imposition of alien
development models upon other countries and peoples is fruitless. Such forms
cannot be effectively grafted since they lack historical roots. If the
mighty of the world add to their foreign policy arsenal the principle of
diversity, then their foreign policy would rid itself of redundant
“democratic” and “human rights” rhetoric, which no one except the “masters
of puppets” needs. There are a lot of problems in the world and all the
states should as never before closely co-operate instead of being at enmity
with each other.
The second initiative of the
President is the call to the international community to adopt efficient
measures in the fight against trafficking in humans. This phenomenon is
indeed the disgrace of the civilization. Slavery seems to have irrevocably
vanished in the past. At the same time, neo-slavery in the form of
trafficking in humans has become a thriving business. Hundreds of thousands
of people fall victims to the contemporary slavery every year. This problem
has become a matter of special concern for many countries and international
organizations. Nevertheless, the measures that have already been taken seem
to be insufficient to put an end to this evil. The Head of our State made a
proposal to apply an integrated approach to the fight against trafficking in
humans, i.e. to wage such fight not only in the states of origin and transit
of “live commodity”, but also in the states of destination. With this in
mind he proposed to impose legal responsibility on all those involved in the
process, including on consumers. This suggestion represents an absolutely
new approach to the problem. We are convinced that the application of
principles enunciated by our President in the fight against trafficking in
humans will enable the international community to make their efforts really
comprehensive and effective.
In summarizing what I have
just said, I would like to emphasize once more that the Head of our State
proposed at the UN General Assembly concrete ways out of specific complex
situations. We hope that the international community will take them into
their arsenal and we are certain that the community will choose a right
path. Much should be done for this, but the starting point for all is to
take an honest and impartial look at the world, exactly as the President of
Belarus did.
No Game on Double Rules
– What are the outcomes of
the UN Summit and the prospects of their implementation?
– The past Summit was not as
ostensibly effective as the UN Millennium Summit in 2000. Now there were no
such resonant results as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were
adopted then. But we must be conscious of the fact that the tasks set by the
international community before the Summit 2005 were much more difficult and
broader than previously. The international situation over the past few years
became more complicated than for the whole period since the end of bloc
confrontation. The war in Iraq has led to deep cleavages within the
international community over such a principled issue as whether it is
acceptable or unacceptable that external forces through military action,
which, however, is not authorized by the UN, impose upon a given country a
different system of government. That is why, on one hand, many held
expectations that the Summit would somehow smooth over sharp differences
among states and find common ground for dealing with global issues. On the
other hand, there was no lack of pessimist predictions either. Many
contended that the differences derived from the rise of unipolar world would
only grow and it was beyond the Summit’s ability to resolve them.
It would be useful to assess
the results of the high-level event through the categories of form and
content. I suppose, in terms of form the international community can be
quite satisfied with the event’s result. Almost all of the world leaders
took part in the Summit. The very fact of such participation is telling.
First of all, this is the reconfirmation by all the leaders that
multilateralism along with the central role of the United Nations are the
keys to addressing the whole range of current challenges and threats. No
President or Prime-minister openly spoke during the Summit in favor of
unilateralism and no one questioned the need for preserving the United
Nations. On the contrary, all of them in their statements, including those
who recently had spoken quite differently, insisted on the opposite – on the
need to strengthen multilateral co-operation and the United Nations, in the
frame of which such co-operation can be most effectively organized. The fact
of public demonstration of these views is very important. Because, for those
leaders who do not have a habit to follow their words with deeds, it would
be somewhat harder to pursue a policy of hypocrisy, without risking to draw
upon themselves censure of the entire world. I would say that in this regard
the Summit installed a kind of a moral barrier to further unilateral actions
that do not enjoy UN support.
The real content of the
high-level event’s results various states view in different light. This
content is embodied in the Summit Outcome Document. The document, as it is
typical, in a compromise form reflects the basic visions of human
development in the near to medium perspective. Belarus as well as the vast
majority of countries believes that the Outcome Document does not contain
sufficient proposals that serve to strengthen the United Nations. The
Outcome document might have been richer in content. For instance, the
Document does not include disarmament issues, thereby posing a quandary as
to what role the UN would assume in the process in the future. Not enough
the Document prioritize the issues of development. It does not outline here
new measures that would raise our hopes that donor-states are prepared to
increase assistance for the world development.
There are dangers that some
provisions of the Outcome Document, squeezed in it by their authors, as a
matter of fact may lead in time to the emasculation of fundamental goals and
principles of UN Charter as well as of the UN itself. This primarily
concerns the concept “responsibility to protect”. No one has any doubt that
the internationally community must intervene in cases of genocide and mass
killings.
Negotiations on specific
forms and methods of implementing Outcome provisions are still underway. The
talks are strained enough since the stakes are high. We stand for the level
playing field in the process. The situation, when one set of rules applies
for some states and another set of rules applies for the other should not
take place.
Therefore, the Summit
outcomes are perceived differently. Each state will strive to implement
those provisions of the Outcome Document that meet its interests and its
vision of UN role in the current world. And conversely, every state will
oppose the implementation of those provisions, which it has no interest in.
The UN and Our Interests
– Would you tell us,
please, about the work of the delegation of Belarus in the 60th
session of the UN General Assembly in advancing national interests?
– Traditionally the work of
the Belarusian Diplomats during the UN General Assembly Sessions
subordinates to such basic tasks as building of the just world order,
strengthening the central role of the UN and also receiving definite
practical benefits for the country.
At the same time we strive
for strengthening positive image of the Republic of Belarus. We also clarify
the conceptual basis of foreign and home policy of the Republic of Belarus.
We oppose to implementation possible initiatives, being able to cause damage
to the interests of Belarus and try to direct the UN recourses to those
development goals, which correspond to our interests.
The main task of our
delegation for the ongoing session became the implementation of the
President’s initiatives. The forms and means of their implementation are
different. The initiative on the recognition of diverse paths of development
falls into a category of conceptual and long-term initiatives. It is
important that we succeeded in embedding it in the Summit Outcome Document.
The second initiative of our
President – on the fight against trafficking in humans – certainly, is of a
practical nature. Our goal is to induce the international community to
undertake really efficient measures that would bring specific positive
results in the fight against this evil. In an effort to elaborate on the
President’s initiative the Belarusian Minister of Foreign Affairs in his
statement at the session made a proposal to establish a “Global partnership
against slavery and trafficking in humans in the XXI century”. We foresee
the implementation of this initiative through the inclusion of an item on
the UN agenda, a comprehensive resolution on the fight against trafficking
in humans and the setting up within the UN of a coordinating body such as an
interagency group. Our delegation held a press-conference on the issue in UN
Headquarters. Many countries, including the USA, Russia, Republic of Korea,
Philippines as well as various international organizations and agencies such
as UNICEF, International Organization on Migration, UN Office on Drugs and
Crime showed interest to the initiative of the President of Belarus. By the
way, in 2006 Belarus is the President of the UNICEF’s Executive Board. Such
keen attention to the initiative gives us hope for its further
implementation. And, as a matter of fact, domestic measures taken by the
President to effectively combat trafficking in humans place Belarus among
lead countries in this area.
During the session the
General Assembly adopted initiated by Belarus draft resolutions on the
strengthening of international co-operation to study, mitigate and minimize
the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster as well as on the prohibition of
the development of new types of weapons of mass destruction. The Chernobyl
resolution received the record support – 69 Member States became its
co-sponsors.
The delegation succeeded in
advancing the interests of Belarus as a country with economy in transition
in a number of GA economic-oriented resolutions. They enable Belarus to rely
on support of UN agencies in the process of our integration into the world
economy and our accession to the World Trade Organization.
And finally, our delegation
has been very actively participating in the work of various groups on UN
reform set up to implement relevant provisions of the Summit Outcome
Document. We pay particular attention to reforming UN structures that deal
with development issues – Economic and Social Council along with various
funds and programmes. Our active efforts are driven by the desire to be
elected to ECOSOC so that our country would be in a position to efficiently
participate in determining UN policies on development.
– What goals does the
diplomatic service of Belarus set for itself to achieve in the future?
– Belarusian diplomats
clearly see strategic goals for our country pertaining to the United
Nations. In implementing these goals the Ministry of Foreign Affairs takes
into account the guidance of the President of the Republic of Belarus, when
he stated at the meeting with the national senior diplomatic corps that “it
is necessary to concentrate our not big diplomatic and other capacities on
those areas, where we can achieve not virtual, but practical result:
financial, organizational, political”. Indeed, Belarus, being a middle
European state, cannot pursue in the UN such grand goals as major states,
first of all, permanent members of the Security Council can. Our goals must
be based on our capabilities. At the same time, in implementing our
long-term goals we should bear in mind such consideration as the degree to
which our goals meet the objectives of other Member States. It is
understandable that the bigger the degree is, the higher the chances for the
implementation of our goals are.
Two long-term goals can be
singled out in the context of our policy towards the United Nations. The
first is creating a favorable external environment conducive to national
security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Belarus.
The second is channeling UN assistance to sustainable domestic development,
be it in economic, social, cultural or other fields.
The first goal that can be
called political presupposes the pursuit of the next tasks:
enhancing the international
authority of the Republic of Belarus as a peace-loving state committed to
the UN Charter and international law, an active participant of multilateral
international co-operation;
strengthening the central
role of the United Nations in international affairs.
The second goal, of an
economic and social nature, also foresees the implementation of two tasks
that bring practical benefits to the country:
strengthening UN capabilities
in areas of interest to Belarus: security and disarmament, economy,
Chernobyl problematique, fight against illegal migration, crime and
terrorism, operational, humanitarian, scientific and normative activities;
bringing in the Republic of
Belarus financial, technical, humanitarian aid from organizations and
agencies of the UN system. We possess specific tools, with which we intend
to implement both goals and tasks.
In the process of
implementation of the long-term goals Belarusian diplomats will be closely
co-operating with our main partners, first of all, Member States of the
Non-Aligned Movement and of the Commonwealth of Independent States. They
share many of our tasks, especially those related to strengthening UN role
in the world and Organization’s capabilities in the main areas of its
activities. At the same time we are open to co-operation with all UN Member
States on the basis of equality and mutual respect with the view to both
strengthening the UN and advancing national interests.
The UN means us
– What role and place do
you foresee for the United Nations in the future?
– The Organization must
effectively discharge the obligations placed on it by its Member States and
carry out its activities in accordance with its Charter provisions. This is
the most important thing. The United Nations, of course, should not become
an arena for settling scores among states only because some of them may
experience bilateral problems. Those problems must be addressed at bilateral
level, surely, in full accordance with the principles of the UN Charter, and
should not divert the Organization’s focus and resources for the purpose of
advancing parochial national political interests.
The UN must remain a neutral
and impartial international institution, in whose activities all Member
States equally take part and which does not place the interests of some
states or groups of states above the interests of others.
The United Nations should be
free from corruption scandals, indecency, lack of scruple and low
professionalism of its personnel.
In today’s world the role of
the Organization has become greater in some other respect. Its new important
function is to provide fair access for all countries to the benefits of
globalization and to address problems stemming from the processes. Probably,
all would agree that these processes cannot be left to themselves. The
consequences would be both irreversible and catastrophic.
The Republic of Belarus would
like to see the UN reinvigorated, financially and materially strengthened,
depoliticized in its activities and being ready to tackle the whole range of
issues on its agenda. Its Secretariat must comprise responsible and
professional staff. As the President of Belarus said in his statement at the
Summit: “the UN must end up with internal
corruption scandals and deal with the pain and plights of the world”.
Indeed, there are many persistent problems. Inaction only makes them more
urgent. No one except us – all countries of the world – can harness the
negative consequences of globalization.
We would
also like to see the United Nations united – a genuine forum of
multilateralism and collective action – in spite of the diversity of
political, economic and cultural development of world’s countries. In this
regard the words of our Head of State spoken at the Summit that if we, UN
Member States implement the principles of multipolarity, diversity and
freedom of choice, then we shall defend the world from terrorism, weak,
women and children from slavery and protect all those unprotected, are
particularly poignant.
The
United Nations, even given its all deficiencies, is the best collective tool
at the service of the mankind in its entire history. This tool enables the
international community to address the problems of contemporary time
together. If all the states come to the realization both theoretical and
practical that there is neither now and nor will be in the future an
alternative to the UN, then the United Nations will be able to occupy that
deserving place and to discharge that responsible role that were prescribed
to it by its founders, including Belarus, in 1945.
|
