Belarus

Mr. President,

For decades, this high rostrum has served an important purpose aimed at holding a discussion on how to make life on the planet safer and better.

Unfortunately, over the past decade, this discussion has not translated into concrete positive action.

As a result, the situation in global politics is only worsening. This trend is also negatively affecting all other spheres of international relations.

And what is the role of the United Nations in these processes?

To be merely a platform for discussion?

Many see precisely this as its role.

It is therefore not surprising that the Organization is often accused of inaction and an inability to stop the growing global chaos, to stop the three-dimensional crisis that has already engulfed the entire world!

Such accusations, of course, are not entirely fair.

The UN is all of us!

The Organization can do exactly as much as its Member States allow it to.

On the one hand, this is sound logic.

On the other hand, this is the logic of dangerous determinism.

It implies that the UN is hostage to certain external forces and will be able to effectively fulfill its mandate only once positive changes occur in the external environment.

Doesn't this sound like something we have heard before?

The same attitude prevailed toward the League of Nations on the eve of the Second World War.

Just a century ago, on the shores of Lake Geneva, there was also much discussion about the threats of that time.

However, the discussion had no effect, and the world inexorably slid into the abyss.

And the League of Nations faded into oblivion because of its uselessness.

The United Nations could suffer the same fate if it remains a passive observer.

We are convinced that the overwhelming majority of Member States do not wish for such an outcome.

If that is so, then the UN must not wait, but act!

The Organization must work toward a result that will trigger positive changes in external factors! That will ensure peace, stability and sustainable development on the planet.

This is a very difficult task under the current conditions of "toxic" global politics.

However, if we, as Member States, or the sensible Global Majority, help our Organization, then it will be within the UN's power.

The renowned American diplomat George Kennan, in the context of assessing relations between Soviet Russia and the West a century ago, stated: "Some degree of conflict and antagonism is present in every international relationship, therefore some measure of compromise is necessary everywhere, if political societies are to live together on the same planet."¹

Let us be guided by this wise counsel and, despite the high degree of antagonism in the modern international system, seek compromise and accord everywhere.

And let us act within the framework of the UN!

Footnote 1: Quoted from "Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin" by George Kennan, published by Little, Brown and Company, 1961, p. 259.

We see several key steps.

First, it is necessary to end the policy of ostracism at the UN.

This practice contradicts the very essence of the Organization!

After all, under the UN Charter, all its members are equal!

Let us treat one another with respect and equality!

No one should stoop to insults and disrespectful language, for example, using the word "regime" in reference to the legitimate authorities of Member States.

Similarly, certain countries must abandon their attempts to restrict opportunities for participation in the work of the UN for any other of its members.

Such conduct constitutes a violation of the UN Charter.

Moreover, the entire history of multilateral diplomacy teaches that an overall positive result is achieved only through inclusiveness and cooperation.

Second, individual Member States must stop attempting to turn the UN and the organizations of its system into instruments of their own foreign policy.

Drawing the Organization into politicization only discredits it in the eyes of ordinary people around the world.

After all, the UN was created for cooperation in the interests of the people, not for the settling of scores between one state and another.

We are convinced that problems of a bilateral nature should not be brought before international organizations.

Third, we can and must work successfully within the UN on challenges of a general nature.

At the same time, let us approach their resolution according to the logic of moving "from the simple to the complex."

Security issues undoubtedly belong to the latter category — let us conditionally call them "first-tier" issues.

It is precisely these that constitute the most dangerous "bone of contention" in global politics.

The other areas — "second-tier" issues, such as combating climate change, transnational crime, pandemics and diseases — are easier to resolve.

All countries of the world suffer equally from their consequences.

All are equally interested in effective responses to these challenges.

So let us step up our work in this direction!

Ordinary people around the world are waiting for results!

Let me give a very telling example of how it is possible to work successfully together even amid sharp political disagreements.

At the 32nd session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention held in Vienna in May, the Republic of Belarus initiated a draft resolution on combating trafficking in persons in supply chains.

Initially, Western countries reacted negatively to Belarus's initiative for political reasons.

However, having nonetheless become engaged in the negotiation process, they came to understand the importance of the initiative and began working toward a positive outcome.

The resolution was adopted by consensus, and all interested parties have begun its implementation.

Let us apply this approach to all other "second-tier" problems as well!

In particular, we expect the same constructive work at this session on Belarus's biennial resolution entitled "Improving the coordination of efforts against trafficking in persons."

However, where common sense is especially needed by all of us is in finding ways to resolve the global food crisis.

Let us proceed from the fact that there is enough food in the world for everyone.

At the same time, millions of people around the planet are going hungry.

This "contradiction" is the result of unilateral illegal sanctions that Western states impose in violation of the UN Charter against countries they disfavor, or in order to gain advantages in competitive economic struggle.

Sanctions, in turn, restrict opportunities for exporting fertilizers and food to developing states that need them more than others.

Consequently, the global food crisis is man-made, not systemic.

As such, it can easily be resolved — one need only remove the illegal barriers.

The countries that have erected these obstacles must remove them!

And this concerns not only global food security, but all areas of international life.

The unilateral coercive measures imposed by the West, directly or indirectly, against virtually all states of the rest of the world must be lifted immediately!

This is demanded both by common sense and by the shared interests of all people on the planet!

We are convinced that progress in resolving global "second-tier" problems within the UN will help create a backdrop of mutual trust for joint and effective work on the bloc of security issues.

In this area, we observe a "power shift" from the West to the Rest of the world.

Such "shifts" have often been accompanied by wars throughout history.

However, it is within our power to steer this process onto a peaceful course.

The best way to do this is to expand the category of permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The Council does not reflect today's geopolitical realities.

Three of its five permanent members represent the West.

They have no interest in changing the status quo in the world.

As a result, the Council is not fulfilling its functions of maintaining international peace and security.

Only a more representative and democratic body can cope with this task.

Therefore, expanding the category of permanent membership to include major developing states of Asia, Africa and Latin America is an imperative of our time.

It is gratifying that China and Russia support such a reform of the Council, as they have repeatedly stated.

We call on the remaining three permanent members of the Security Council to recognize the new realities and agree to their consolidation in a renewed body.

Mr. President,

Back in 2017, the President of the Republic of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko, put forward an initiative to "launch" a global dialogue on security.

This initiative was an attempt to prevent a negative spiral from unwinding in global politics.

Unfortunately, some key "players" were unwilling to heed this reasonable call.

As a result, the security architecture in Europe broke down.

But it is never too late to do what is right.

If we all want to make life on the planet safer and better — as is constantly proclaimed from this rostrum — we have no choice but to conduct dialogue and reach agreements.

The Head of the Belarusian State consistently emphasizes the importance of organizing such a dialogue in the spirit of San Francisco.

Indeed, the Conference in San Francisco gave life to our Organization and hope to the entire world for a better future.

We need that same hope today!

We are convinced that the UN is the platform where this initiative should be realized.

We regard as a contribution to the process of global dialogue the international conference on the theme "Eurasian Security: Reality and Prospects," which Belarus is holding in Minsk on 26–27 October 2023.

Mr. President,

Belarus cannot fail to touch upon the topic of the conflict in the neighboring country — Ukraine.

It is very painful for us to watch people close to us suffer for a year and a half already.

Unfortunately, Ukraine and its people have become a bargaining chip in the West's "Great Game" to preserve its global hegemony.

It is obvious that, by increasing arms supplies to this country, the West is set on "continuing the war to the last Ukrainian."

But does Ukraine want this? Do Ukrainians need a war of attrition?

We are convinced — no!

Belarus, for its part, has always advocated peace in the neighboring country and has taken all necessary measures.

As the President of Belarus has noted, we remain ready, even now, to do everything within our power.

Thank you for your attention.