Belarus, 2004

For

decades now we have been hearing very disturbing

questions from this rostrum: Where is our world

heading?, Where is the United Nations going? At the

dawn of the millennium those questions are becoming

increasingly burning issues. The world has changed.

The pendulum of history has swung to the other side.

There is new violence, a wave of terrorism, local wars

and ethnic conflicts, behind which lie growing poverty

and a widening gap in development between countries.

Those are not just someone else’s problems; they are

common global challenges for all of us. What kind of

common house do we want? I believe that we primarily

want a safe house, where our children will not die at

the hands of terrorists or from hunger, sickness, anti-

personnel mines, smart bombs or missiles.

What, then, must we do? The answer is clear: we

must establish a valid system of international security

that includes military, economic, environmental, social

and information elements — a system based on the rule

of law in domestic and international affairs. The

answer is clear, but it is difficult to do it. During the

Assembly’s last session, Belarus made the rule of law

in international relations the main focus of its

statement. The fact that that theme has been a leitmotif

of the present general debate inspires a certain hope in

us, namely, that the goal is a realistic one.

No right-thinking person can remain indifferent

today to the heinous acts of terrorism that have

characterized the start of the twenty-first century. The

usual approaches, based on selfishness and unilateral

advantage, are not enough to crush this evil. We need

non-traditional, long-term, comprehensive solutions.

Who can provide them, and how? Only the United

Nations, by playing its crucial role, can do so. The

Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee

(CTC) must become a real, practical tool for curbing

the growth in international terrorism: strengthening the

anti-terrorism coalition under the auspices of the

United Nations, monitoring the implementation of the

provisions of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001)

and putting an end to the practice of double standards

vis-à-vis terrorists and terrorism.

In practical terms, establishing a direct link

between the CTC and regional organizations and

holding more open Security Council meetings at the

ministerial level could really help in the global struggle

against terrorism, under the banner of the United

Nations. However, such a struggle can be successful

only if our common goal is to strengthen a just and

humane world system. Belarus will do its utmost in

that struggle.

On 1 March 2004, the Convention on the

Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and

Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their

Destruction entered into force in Belarus. We have the

world’s seventh largest stockpile of landmines, which

we inherited from the former Soviet Union. We do not

produce or export mines; nor do we use them at home

or anywhere else in the world. However, guided by our

common concerns and interests, we ratified the Ottawa

Convention and are now counting on assistance from

the international community to destroy our stockpile of

mines.

Tomorrow we will deposit my country’s

instruments of ratification for such important

international disarmament agreements as the

International Convention for the Suppression of the

Financing of Terrorism and the Protocol against the

Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,

Their Parts and Components and Ammunition,

supplementing the United Nations Convention against

Transnational Organized Crime.

Today’s most important challenges include illegal

migration, transborder crime, drug trafficking,

trafficking in persons and the security of energy

infrastructure. In combating those threats, Belarus,

16

which stands at a major European crossroads, is a

significant factor in the stability of Europe. Our

country is also playing a major role in the Europe-Asia

transport of energy resources. Today we call on our

neighbours, NATO and the European Union to organize

regional cooperation to ensure the security of critical

infrastructure, such as oil and gas pipelines and power

stations, including nuclear ones. Belarus has already

announced its readiness to dedicate troops and

resources to international structures in support of those

goals. The contribution of Belarus to regional and

international security, which began in the areas of

nuclear and conventional disarmament in the early

1990s, continues to be a real and significant one. We

are grateful to other countries and to international

organizations for their assistance in the area of border

and customs infrastructure.

Double standards are becoming an increasingly

important problem, and not only vis-à-vis terrorism.

That objectionable instrument is being used primarily

against States that are bold enough to follow their own

foreign policy, rather than submitting to the dictates of

the world’s power centres. A leader is not a dictator,

and certainly not a messiah. The practice of double

standards today applies primarily to the Euro-Atlantic

space. But strenuous efforts are being made to

introduce it in the United Nations. That would present

a danger to the stability and effectiveness of the United

Nations system. Belarus calls on all States that are not

indifferent to the independence of the United Nations

and to the role it plays not to allow that to happen.

Economic security is a very important condition

for sustainable development. That is a very remote

concept for most of the countries of the world. As the

only European State that is a member of the Non-

Aligned Movement, Belarus would like to stress that

the concept of centre versus periphery pits developed

countries against developing countries in the industrial

arena. It is also a concept that is clearly in crisis, and

one that will slow us down in the search for a solution

to problems of economic development.

Only seven of the 50 least developed countries

have achieved a 7 per cent growth rate, which is

prerequisite to halving the number of people living in

absolute poverty by the year 2015. One person dies of

hunger every four seconds. That is just a figure, but the

very banality of that statement does reveal the

monstrosity of the problem and how terrible is the

world’s indifference to it. The difficulty of the

undertaking should not stop us from seeking ways to

resolve the problem of poverty. That is why Belarus

supports President Lula da Silva’s initiative to fight

hunger and poverty in the world.

Despite the transitional period and the collapse of

our economy, my country — a large area of the former

Soviet Union — was the first to solve the problem of

malnutrition. Now, we are waging a struggle against

poverty. Since 1995, we have almost halved the

number of people living in poverty in Belarus, with the

figure this year being about 20 per cent.

The difficulties we have experienced have not

stopped us from providing economic assistance to

developing countries. We have unilaterally extended

trade preferences to the overwhelming majority of

developing countries.

We are disturbed by a possible lessening of

United Nations attention to issues involving countries

with economies in transition. Belarus regards the role

of United Nations programmes and funds as important

to the development assistance provided to countries

with economies in transition. However, under current

conditions — in which some States of the region are

approaching the level of the Group of Eight (G-8) and

others have macroeconomic indicators that barely

exceed those of least developed countries — that

assistance must be carefully targeted. That means that,

in planning country programmes, account must be

taken of countries’ socio-economic development and

the degree of their integration into the world economy

and financial institutions. We intend to make that

approach the basis of a draft General Assembly

resolution, and we hope that members will support it.

The problems associated with financing for

development are extremely topical today for

developing countries and countries with economies in

transition. Last year’s two-day High-Level Dialogue on

Financing for Development was not enough to put in

place ongoing monitoring of the implementation of the

decisions of the International Conference on Financing

for Development. That will require an independent

body of the Economic and Social Council.

Belarus believes that the 2005 New York summit

on the implementation of the Millennium Development

Goals will provide real impetus to all initiatives aimed

at stimulating economic development.

17

Narrowing the technological and information

divide between developed and developing countries

must be our common concern.

At the 2003 Geneva World Summit on the

Information Society, the President of the Republic of

Belarus, Mr. Alyaksandr Lukashenka, strongly urged

the establishment of a trust fund to offset losses

incurred by producers who provide software to

developing countries at reduced costs. The format and

mechanism for such a fund should be defined by a task

force within the context of preparing for the 2005

summit.

Having experienced the Chernobyl disaster,

Belarus is acutely aware of one fact: we cannot

disregard the problem of radiation security. The

consequences are too enormous in scope, and too

incompatible with the long-term survival of the human

race. The United Nations must not lessen its attention

to the problem of overcoming the consequences of the

Chernobyl accident. We support the work of the

International Atomic Energy Agency to implement a

nuclear non-proliferation regime and to strengthen

nuclear and radiation security.

Looking to the future to seek ways to ensure

normal living conditions for people living in areas

affected by the Chernobyl disaster: that will be the

theme of an international conference to be held in

Minsk in 2006, on the sad anniversary of the

Chernobyl disaster. We invite all interested States, the

leadership of the Secretariat and international

organizations to participate in the preparations for the

conference and in the event itself.

The United Nations has often been criticized.

There have been many pessimistic analyses of its work

and its potential. A great deal of that has been fair, but

let us look the truth straight in the eyes: there is no

alternative to the United Nations as a mechanism for

collectively resolving global and regional issues. Nor is

there an alternative to multilateralism. The reality of

life convinces us of that more and more each day.

Belarus looks forward with great interest to the

outcome of the work of the High-Level Panel on

Threats, Challenges and Change. As a member of the

Non-Aligned Movement, Belarus urges the Panel to

take account of the consolidated position of the

countries members of the Non-Aligned Movement as it

works on its proposals to enhance the effectiveness of

United Nations reform.

A key purpose of that work must be to correct the

imbalance in the membership of the Security Council

and in the Organization as a whole, as well as to

promote respect for the principle of equitable

geographical distribution of Council seats. We believe

there should be an increase in the category of non-

permanent members, taking account of the interests of

all the regional groups. We also believe in increasing

the number of permanent members, including

representatives from the three developing regions —

Asia, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean —

as well as from two developed States, from Europe and

Asia respectively, that have made the most tangible

contributions to the maintenance of international peace

and security.

Let me return to the disturbing questions I posed

at the beginning of my statement. Where is the world

heading? Where is the United Nations going? The

answer to the first question must be that it depends

upon the United Nations. That is the main point. So far,

however, that has not been reflected in the world

situation. That is a harsh truth, but the truth

nonetheless. We must change that situation. We can do

so. It is in our common interest and in the interest of

small and large States alike, as well as of both rich and

developing countries. It is in the interest of the United

Nations.