Belarus, 2009

This

General Assembly Hall is, in fact, the situation room of

the entire world. It seems to me that over the years we

here in this Hall have collectively understood and

known what to do. The main thing now is to agree how

to do it. We all need an effective tool.

There is hope that we are already close to a

common understanding of how and with what tool we

can achieve our goals. For the international community

to emerge from a series of multiple crises and to

overcome multidimensional new threats, we must

achieve a policy of partnership. Modern international

relations are increasingly being built on the basis of

horizontal networks that include all interested and

constructive stakeholders in today’s world — States,

international organizations, civil society and the

private sector. Partnerships are a mechanism of

engagement that has no reasonable alternative in the

context of a pluralistic and contradictory world.

One particular political factor that raises hope

that that approach is a realistic instrument is an

emerging meeting of minds — involving various forces

on different continents — that see in partnerships a link

by which one can extend the chain. By way of

illustration, I will cite the example of the call of

Belarus, from this rostrum two years ago, for systems

based on opposition and confrontation to become new

international ones based on engagement and

partnership (see A/62/PV.11). A year ago, when

opening the sixty-third session of the General

Assembly, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted,

“Nations can no longer protect their interests or

advance the well-being of their peoples without

the partnership of other nations.” (A/63/PV.5,

p. 1)

This year the United States declared its readiness to

“build partnerships and solve problems that no nation

can solve on its own”. The European Union has also

addressed the General Assembly with the same

message of cooperation and partnership. The President

of Russia spoke from this rostrum about a “collective

agenda for unification” () dictated by life

itself.

After a long break it seems that the international

community is starting to think along the same lines on

security, partnership and development and that the

world’s political leaders are beginning to speak the

same language — that of common sense.

An important proof of the principled readiness to

walk the path of partnership is the efforts of the

20 largest world economies to combine their resources

to lead the world out of the global economic crisis. We

welcome in that connection recent meetings of some

regional economic and political groups of States. On a

less positive note, it should be noted that some aspects

of the agreements reached remain to be carried out by

the parties, for example, the rejection and removal of

protectionist measures in international trade. It should

be said that the Group of Twenty format — let alone

the Group of Eight — is too narrow to be considered a

representative partnership. In this regard, engaging

economic regional groupings of States with significant

potential, for example in our region — the Eurasian

Economic Community — would make the format more

representative.

We also believe there is great potential for

dialogue and partnership between the Non-Aligned

Movement (NAM) and other major centres of power,

as was discussed recently at the recent summit of the

Non-Aligned Movement in Egypt. After all, today the

Movement represents a significant international factor.

Its members make tangible contributions to

international security and are important actors on the

international socio-economic stage.

Today I address my colleagues from the European

Union, the United States, Russia and other developed

countries and call upon them to show leadership in

dealing with the unprecedented global challenges

through close partnerships and coordination with all

members of the international community, including

Belarus. Members of the international community,

especially the world’s power centres and leading

political groups, should give practical effect to their

good intentions by developing global partnerships and

crisis strategies.

The greatest potential for responding to global

threats and challenges is clearly here in the United

Nations. As a founding member of the Organization,

09-52592 36

Belarus is convinced of the ability of the United

Nations to play a leading role in generating

partnerships to overcome the most acute global

problems.

Was it not under the aegis of the United Nations

that the foundation was laid for the establishment of an

anti-terrorism coalition and elaboration of a counter-

terrorism strategy after the tragic events of

11 September 2001? And by the way, should the United

Nations not consider proclaiming 11 September as the

day of the fight against terrorism? We would be

interested in hearing States’ reactions to this idea. Have

not the achievement of the General Assembly in

establishing the New Partnership for Africa’s

Development been acknowledged worldwide? The

Millennium Development Goals were also formulated

in the context of a global partnership for development.

United Nations capacities have been strengthened

by some of the progress made in reforming the

Organization. In this regard I note, in particular, a new

positive element, namely, the thematic debates in the

General Assembly.

Bearing in mind the experience and potential of

the United Nations, Belarus has proposed the

establishment of a global thematic partnership against

human trafficking and slavery in the twenty-first

century. An informal mechanism on the topic initially

took shape at the Global Forum to Fight Human

Trafficking in Vienna in February 2008. It must be

institutionalized to work effectively — I stress

institutionalized, not bureaucratized — through the

elaboration and adoption by the General Assembly of a

global plan of action to combat human trafficking.

The idea for such a plan garnered wide support in

May during the thematic debate in the General

Assembly. We have also heard expressions of support

from high ranking participants in this general debate.

We welcome the recent decision by the President of the

General Assembly at its sixty-third session to appoint

the Permanent Representatives of Cape Verde and

Portugal as facilitators of the consultations on the

global plan. We call on all our partners and friends to

engage actively in this work.

Global economic development is always driven

by certain engines, which are replaced by new and

more effective ones. For example, coal and steel were

engines for the European industrial revolution; the

engine for the global economy after the Second World

War was oil, which was replaced by information

technologies in the 1990s. The economic engine of the

past decade was finance. It is absolutely obvious that

the global crisis has demonstrated the need to replace

the outdated financial engine. What can and should

replace it? We believe there will be not just one engine

for the future, but a number of elements that include a

leading role for clean, green technologies. Given the

increasing interdependence of energy and environment

and the determining role of energy in global survival, it

cannot be otherwise.

This year we face an especially momentous task:

elaboration of new post-Kyoto agreements to deal with

global warming that include universal introduction of

new and renewable energy sources. This issue was

discussed in depth at the thematic dialogue of the

General Assembly held in June 2009. That was a good

beginning, yet we must move decisively forward. The

increasing topicality of the energy and environment

agenda requires creation of a specific partnership — a

global mechanism to improve the access of developing

countries and countries with economies in transition to

new and renewable energy sources.

This issue must not be shelved. We need to lay

the foundations for a qualitative breakthrough at this

session of the General Assembly. Belarus will initiate a

comprehensive study of this issue with the involvement

of leading international experts and include in its

results conclusions and recommendations for the future

report of the Secretary-General. We believe that, given

current conditions, the strengthening of the economic

potential and political role of middle-income countries

could be yet another motor of economic and social

progress.

Experience has clearly shown that resources and

capacities of a narrow circle of traditional world

leaders are insufficient for overcoming the crisis. The

greatest potential for growth rests with middle-income

countries. To a certain extent, one could draw a parallel

here with the key role played by the middle class in the

stable economic and political development of States. It

is no coincidence that the majority of United States and

European companies are turning their eyes to the Asian

and other developing world markets.

Mindful of such importance, let alone the mere

numerical strength of this group of countries, which

includes more than 100 States, the United Nations

system must take an active role. With this idea in mind

37 09-52592

last year, Belarus, together with its partners, sponsored

the adoption by the General Assembly of a resolution

on cooperation for development with middle-income

countries.

This year, for the first time within these walls, a

substantive discussion was held on how to make the

best use of the capacity of the United Nations system

to assist such countries in addressing their specific

social and economic problems, which are particularly

important for sustainable global development.

We hope that the work of the General Assembly

on that topic will not be seen simply in terms of

competition for the scarce resources of the donor

community and the United Nations. That is not the

point. The larger the number of economically

prosperous States in the world, the stronger and more

predictable the world economy will be. There will be

increased predictability and fewer crises and

catastrophes. There will be more opportunities for

economic growth in the poorer countries and an

increase in international assistance will be generated.

In the long run, everyone will be a winner.

I cannot but turn to the subject of Kyoto and post-

Kyoto, which sets the tone for the current session of

the General Assembly. The possible outcome of the

Copenhagen meeting is, unfortunately, not quite clear.

All of us, big, medium-size and small States, have to

do our utmost to ensure its success. But the perfect

does not have to be the enemy of the good.

Belarus is the only State in the world that, for

several years, has been trying to achieve what may

seem, at first glance, to be a paradoxical goal. That is,

to take on significant commitments to reduce harmful

emissions. The commitments we have taken happen to

be more significant than many of our neighbours, and

even than those of some European Union countries.

Since we are all partners here, I will put it in a

blunt and straightforward way. We do not understand

why many States, including powerful groups of States,

which are, by the way, leading the way in post-Kyoto

advocacy, do not allow us to assume legally binding

and significant Kyoto commitments. I address this call

to partners and colleagues. If we want to strengthen the

Kyoto paradigm, let us not undermine it. I sincerely

hope that the call of Belarus for speedy ratification of

our accession to Kyoto will be heeded.

In a year’s time, here in New York, there will be

the 2010 United Nations Summit. That is the only

forum that has united the heads of State and

Government of the G-8, the G-20, the European Union,

the Non-Aligned Movement, the Commonwealth of

Independent States and others. Belarus proposes

considering the 2010 Summit as a summit of

partnerships, the venue for putting forward and acting

upon the ideas of global partnerships.

We support the intention of the President of the

current session of the General Assembly to start

preparations for the Summit well in advance. At the

Summit itself, we propose the adoption, at the level of

heads of State and Government, of a mechanism, an

algorithm or a plan of close cooperation on the part of

Member States for the years to come on how to

overcome global challenges. And in the next few

months, delegations could make suggestions as to the

substance of such a document. Negotiations on the

document could start in January 2010.

Sixty-five years after the signing of the United

Nations Charter, we can and should make an

honourable attempt to return to the roots of the United

Nations by restoring the original meaning of the word

“united”, which forms part of our name. It all depends

on us.