Belarus, 2013

I will

begin with a simple question: what is the key challenge

facing today’s world? I believe that it is the fact that

humankind’s societal evolution has not kept pace with

globalization. We are constantly lagging behind. Our

failure to adjust quickly and effectively has given rise

to a range of political, economic and social problems.

That mismatch between technological and societal

development has been the norm since the beginning of

the industrial revolution, in the late eighteenth century.

Furthermore, these days it represents a far more serious

threat than ever before. The pace of globalization has

been steadily accelerating, and therefore we have had

to adapt much more quickly.

We need a mechanism that will enable us swiftly

and effectively to address this problem. Such a

mechanism could appropriately be called “a new global

world order”.

Today we can hardly say that we have a global order

at all, as the notion of order implies stability, which

we do not have at present. The old rules are not being

observed, and new ones have not been established.

We permanently find ourselves stricken by various

global crises. The great Powers seek to provide global

governance by means of clubs whose membership

is limited to themselves. Other countries wager on

regionalism, and medium-sized and small countries see

their rights infringed at every turn.

Overall, the current geopolitical situation is

characterized by an increasing dynamic of multilevel

competition as well as by the global governance crisis.

What is even more alarming is that all of this is taking

place against a backdrop of increasing global inequality.

It is clear that if we cannot arrive at an order by design,

anarchy will come to us by default.

Let me state that Belarus has no clear-cut recipe as

to how to build a new global order. After all, this can

hardly be done quickly and simultaneously. The great

Goethe once said:

“Man is not born to solve the problem of the universe,

but to find out what he has to do and to restrain

himself within the limits of his comprehension”.

Let us try to proceed with precisely this logic in

mind. We are convinced of the need to move forward

first and foremost in areas where there is a particular

urgency to do so.

We believe that we should start by strengthening

the role of the State in today’s world. The industrial

revolution once made the State strong and the idea

thereof appealing.

Indeed, the history of the past two centuries has

not been a narrative of military power. Rather, it has

been a story of the growing force of the principle of

self-determination, that is, the aspiration of nations to

establish their own States, which can then effectively

promote the interests of their citizens. It is no wonder

that in times of crisis and uncertainty, the great leaders

of the past saw the strengthening of the State’s role as

a solution. United States President Franklin Roosevelt,

faced with the Great Depression, thought that only

a strong State could address the problems of the

“forgotten man”.

Over the past several decades, globalization,

especially in its unregulated phase, has clearly reduced

the role and importance of the State. We find ourselves

in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, global

processes have curtailed State power. On the other

hand, tackling the growing transnational challenges

sparked by globalization requires strong States. What

do we mean by this?

Let us start from the premise that we all live in

a very diverse world. States, reflecting this range of

diversity, assume very different forms in their domestic

and internal organization. History has shown that it is

impossible to boil all States down to the same level.

We are convinced that it makes sense to assess

States, and let me here resort to philosophy, on their

content rather than their form. In other words, a strong

State is an accountable State, in both domestic and

foreign policy, regardless of its form.

Let us then build relations based on the notion

of content rather than form. Indeed, why does the

domestic political situation of, say, Belarus or Cuba

serve as a basis for some countries to pursue policies of

sanctions and persecution — policies that contravene

international law — against those States? After all,

it was the people of those countries who determined

their form and they do not wish another, because their

Governments pursue accountable policies. By and

large, the people have no objections to them in terms

of content.

The call for a strong State, of course, has nothing in

common with a call for dictatorship. Franklin Roosevelt

said:

“History proves that dictatorships do not grow out

of strong and successful Governments, but out of

weak and helpless ones”.

State weakness is no longer a humanitarian

concern but a problem of international security. It is a

guarantee that we will fail to cope with the mismatch

generated at the global level by the different paces of

the globalization and societal adaptation processes.

We deem the next area of focus to be efforts to

ensure global convergence. It is worth pointing out

that such attempts have often been undertaken in the

past. Unfortunately, the areas of application were

inappropriate from the start. Convergence basically

occurred in the context of attempts by the mighty of

the world to impose their own political and economic

models on other countries. That was outright coercion.

As a result, all such attempts have backfired.

In today’s world, completely different approaches

are needed — approaches aimed at unity and stability

rather than disunity and anarchy. We need social

convergence. To put it simply, we must work to create

a robust middle class in every State, without coercion.

After all, all countries have an interest in a sizeable

national middle class. History has clearly shown that

success in that area will ensure the domestic stability

of a State and foster its interest in pursuing a foreign

policy of international stability. We are convinced that

the benefits produced by the middle class at the national

level can have a similar impact at the international level.

A large number of middle-income countries worldwide

would be the best safeguard to ensure a truly multipolar,

fair and stable world. Such a group of States would

seek neither diktat nor dominance over others. What

is more, having just recently emerged from the grip of

poverty and domestic instability, many countries have

fully realized the importance of global development

and of solidarity aimed at the least developed countries.

Building on that understanding, Belarus is keen

to rekindle the topic of middle-income countries at

the international level. In May, we held a regional

conference on middle-income countries in the context

of sustainable development. We witnessed immense

interest in that event. Likewise, Belarus welcomes the

high-level international conference on middle-income

countries held in June in Costa Rica. Those and other

relevant events point to the need for more focused

work within the United Nations system on cooperation

with middle-income countries. At the same time, a

number of ongoing trends are working to prevent the

strengthening of the middle class in those States. The

unfettered globalization ardently carried out by the so-

called market fundamentalists has served to increase

inequality in the world and hollow out the middle class.

Many, in both developed and developing countries,

are already confronting the resulting political and

economic consequences.

We pin our hopes for improvement on the ongoing

effort at the United Nations to design a post-2015

United Nations development agenda. The world is

fast approaching the 2015 completion deadline set for

the Millennium Development Goals. My country’s

current view is that the key lesson to be drawn, even

at this stage, is that there can be no lasting progress

in today’s world in any individual area if other areas

are neglected. That is because everyone and every thing

in the world — people, economies and threats — has

become highly interconnected. For instance, one cannot

succeed in tackling migration without addressing

poverty, conflicts and environmental disasters. That

perception, in turn, points to the need to set the stage

for a comprehensive post-2015 development agenda.

It is highly commendable that the United Nations,

its Member States and many other stakeholders have

already been actively engaged in the preparatory

process. Likewise, it is gratifying that everyone views

the paradigm of sustainable development as the basis

for the future agenda. That is the proper course, as

sustainable development — based on its economic,

social and environmental components — is the best

approach to meeting the global development challenges

in a truly comprehensive manner.

Belarus shares the view that the sustainable

development goals should be at the heart of the next

agenda. We see the need to develop such goals in as

many areas as possible. It is particularly crucial that

they address those areas not covered by the Millennium

Development Goals, such as, for example, migration,

energy and employment. We believe that each and every

goal must be achieved through appropriate thematic

global partnerships among States, international

organizations, civil society and the private sector. A

good example of that is the global partnership against

slavery and trafficking in persons initiative, which is

now being successfully implemented. We hope that a

comprehensive approach to development will help in

controlling globalization and, more important, ensure

that it is fair. After all, it must work in the interests of

all rather than of a few. Drawing on a historical analogy,

one can argue that the post-2015 development agenda

represents our future, comprehensive “new deal” — like

the one launched by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The United

Nations serves as the indispensable platform — thanks

to its unquestionable legitimacy, universal membership

and comprehensive scope — for the international

community to appropriately reconcile and subsequently

implement its interests in terms of the new deal.

The greatest danger in geostrategic uncertainty is

not the uncertainty itself; rather, it is the desire to take

action in a complex setting using yesterday’s logic,

namely, a business-as-usual attitude. We are certain

that only by shaking off such an approach will we be

able to forge a global order to benefit all people on

Earth.