Belarus, 2012

We often

invoke the phrase “the spirit of San Francisco”. We do

that when we speak and think about positive aspects of

international relations. Indeed, the message sent from

the 1945 Conference in San Francisco offered immense

hope to the generation that had just survived the most

horrible war ever experienced — hope for building

a fundamentally new world. Justice was intended

to replace violence, cooperation was to replace

lawlessness. The United Nations, founded in that city,

was called upon to become the key element of a new

order.

Have the hopes, born in San Francisco, come

true? To some extent, they have. After all, today there

is no sign of the sharp ideological confrontation that

characterized the twentieth century. Nor is there the

direct, open conflict between the major Powers that had

marked all previous centuries with its violence. What

is more, such scourges as colonialism, slavery and

apartheid have been irrevocably consigned to oblivion.

But the spirit of San Francisco was about something

more than just preventing the recurring mistakes of

the past. First and foremost, it was a message about a

promising future. Unfortunately, that is precisely what

has failed to become a reality. Why? Reinhold Niebuhr,

an outstanding American philosopher who was writing

in those fateful times, noted that general community

is established only when the knowledge that we need

one another is supplemented by the recognition that the

other form of life, or that unique other community, is

the limit beyond which our ambitions must not run.

Today that point is as insightful as it was then.

Some countries see neither the limits of their foreign

policy nor forms of statehood other than their own.

And that is exactly what gives rise to many of today’s

geopolitical problems. States that refuse to follow

patterns imposed from the outside and choose to defend

their real sovereignty must pay dearly for that right.

Take the case of Cuba. The historic choice to pursue

an independent path of development that was made by its people more than five decades ago encountered

rejection and economic blockade on the part of those

who still believe, in the twenty-first century, that they

can continue to write the history of humankind in the

same manner as they did in the past. And that is not the

only example.

Belarus is fully convinced that any attempt to make

someone do something against their will is doomed to

fail. Are we not learning the lessons of the past? After

all, neither weapons nor wealth constitute the greatest

source of power on Earth. That power stems rather

from the spirit of self-determination. If a nation has

embarked on its own path of peaceful and progressive

development, then no external force is able to stop it in

its tracks. Battles can be won against such a nation, but

never wars.

The time of imperialism, in whatever lofty slogans

it is now being dressed — democracy, human rights,

good governance — is irreversibly past. Furthermore,

today we are weighed down by global economic

challenges, nearly all of which have resulted from a

policy of so-called market fundamentalism relentlessly

pursued by its proponents over the past four decades.

Its major outcome is a steady rise in inequality at

all levels. Essentially we are witnessing the great

divergence. Clearly, the situation resembles a slowly

ticking time-bomb of future mass upheavals fraught

with unpredictable consequences.

Unfortunately, the current economic woes are

structural and therefore unlikely to be quickly and

decisively resolved. That is attested to by the fact that

the crisis persists all over the world four years after

it began. The measures adopted over that period have

failed to do much to remedy the situation. Yet, what

is far more disturbing is that the countries whose

policies had nothing to do with market fundamentalism

have also experienced severe hardships. Because of

the growing global interdependence of all aspects of

international life, they simply have no other option.

We call attention to another chronic ailment of

modernity, of a moral nature. Double standards in the

foreign policy of the world Powers have become a norm.

As a result, those major world players are willing to go to

great lengths to cater to the interests of their “friends”.

Yet they advocate the forced imposition of democracy

and human rights on their adversaries. Guided solely by

their own interests, the players who were shaking hands

with you yesterday openly contribute to your downfall

today. In considering human rights situations in other countries under a microscope, those players have

refused to acknowledge the obvious faults in their own

countries. In other words, we have come to witness the

rise of unscrupulous and barbaric behaviour in foreign

policy that is worthy of the teachings of Machiavelli

himself.

It is unfortunate that the United Nations, by and

large, has been sidelined in that context. Nevertheless,

it has not been the fault of the Organization. The

brainchild of San Francisco has simply not been allowed

to function in the manner conceived by its founders.

Is there a way out of the seemingly hopeless

situation? We are certain that there is. The current

challenges have not become insurmountable yet. We

will be able to overcome them. However, that will

require us to revive the spirit of San Francisco. We

should return to the principles and foundations, which

could serve as the building blocks for a better world

today. Multilateralism, justice and cooperation are as

relevant today as they were in 1945.

So, what in practical terms must be done? Belarus

does not pretend to have exhaustive answers. We would

like just to draw attention to four areas that, in our view,

are most crucial: the rule of law, politics, economics

and the environment. First, to establish the rule of law

globally, the system of international law must become

fully functional. Forged through centuries of suffering,

it is the foundation without which all other elements

of modern civilization cannot operate. Having signed

the Charter of the United Nations, the world’s countries

committed themselves to abide by the principles of

international law. In other words, they refused to live

any longer under conditions of destructive anarchy and

lawlessness.

International law has been shaped as a historic

compromise between the interests of all States. It

may be supplemented and revised only if all States

agree to do so. There should be no place for arbitrary

interpretations that seek to subordinate international

law to private interests. Let us bear in mind that such

behaviour leads to infringement of the interests of other

international actors. That is why no trendy concepts

such as humanitarian intervention or responsibility to

protect can justify interference in the internal affairs of

sovereign States.

Secondly, in political terms, we need a stable and

predictable global order. It is up to us whether we will

have one. Global systems cannot establish and manage themselves — they result from human action. At this

point we are living in a system that may be viewed as

a dysfunctional multipolarity. Indeed, we are forced

to witness a rising number of global players that are

proving unable to cope effectively with increasing

global demands.

If we fail to restructure the situation, then we

will most likely end up with a scenario that is even

worse — something that resembles the dark era of the

Middle Ages but aggravated by ever more dangerous

transnational threats and challenges. Thus, again we

return to the perennial question: how is it possible to

build an effective global order in a world that lacks a

global government?We can offer an idea. A response

would involve addressing the structural issue by means

of a functional approach. Let us try to devise an effective

global system by tackling specific functional problems.

After all, is it not the case that all positive-minded

global stakeholders have an interest in addressing fewer

problems or eliminating them altogether?

We are deeply convinced that global partnerships

will provide the means whereby we realize that vision.

They can bring together multiple players on the world

stage in a common effort against specific transnational

threats and challenges. So let us begin working on and

implementing functional partnerships on each of the

issues. Indeed, my country has already been doing just

that, for instance, in the fight against human trafficking

within the framework of the global partnership against

slavery and human trafficking proposed by Belarus

some time ago.

Thirdly, there is the economic dimension. Mass

protests across the world, like the Occupy Wall Street

movement, testify to public rejection of the prevailing

development model. This is hardly surprising; after

all, the model was built with the interests of corporate

capital in mind. Clearly, the classic recipe of Adam Smith

does not work in a modern world. Contrary to general

expectations, the invisible hand of the market has not

led to universal public well-being. The experience of

the past few decades indicates that the invisible hand

contributes to the enrichment of the corporate sector

alone, while impoverishing others.

The global economy of the twenty-first century is

too sophisticated to be left to the whims of market forces.

That economy requires a reasonable balance among

its various elements. As far as the balance per se is

concerned, it cannot be established by default, someone

must do it. Only a State is able to accomplish that task, and more crucially, a strong, socially oriented State that

does not live by borrowing from future generations, as

is currently the case in some advanced countries.We are

convinced that a State-based paradigm, as we suggest,

will permit the severe imbalance to be redressed.

Likewise, it is key to significantly reducing poverty in

the world.

Finally, what is required of us in terms of the

environment? Climate change is the central and

defining challenge of today’s world. This is the wall

that separates current and future generations from a

prosperous future. Our efforts in all other areas will

prove futile if we fail to tackle this core challenge. We

must preserve the life-giving ecosystem of the Earth.

This, therefore, is where there is the greatest need for

comprehensive international cooperation.

The United Nations Conference on Sustainable

Development (Rio+20) was held in June. The

Conference’s decisions essentially marked the start of a

new green deal that is expected to rally all stakeholders

for common action. We need to move forward

decisively to implement its individual elements. It is,

above all, about elaborating sustainable development

goals and ensuring the transfer and integration of

green technologies. In the context of the follow-up to

Rio+20, the formulation of a comprehensive United

Nations energy agenda must be seriously considered.

We believe it would contribute to an urgently needed

comprehensive approach to addressing the interrelated

issues of climate change, energy and food security.

The United Nations is the natural place for the

implementation of all the ideas articulated above. No

other international body possesses such universal

legitimacy. Let us therefore, at last, empower the

United Nations. We are certain that the United Nations

will then be able to realize with dignity the vision set

forth in San Francisco so many years ago.