Poland, 2007

I wish to begin by

conveying my respect and gratitude to Ms. Haya

Rashed Al-Khalifa, who presided over the sixty-first

session of the General Assembly. I also sincerely

congratulate her successor, Mr. Srgjan Kerim, the

newly elected President of the General Assembly at its

sixty-second session.

The current session is the best proof that we live

in a world of numerous contradictions and multiple

approaches to the basic issues facing humankind today.

We can say that what some people took to be obvious

following the fall of communism in 1989, which came

to be called the end of history in the academic world,

was not borne out by reality. History is rife with such

contradictions, which are linked above all to

inequalities in economic development between various

countries and regions. Echoes of those inequalities are

heard every year in this Assembly Hall, and we have

heard them today as well.

The problem is closely tied to an issue that has

been discussed in the past few days in the course of the

high-level event on climate change. I thank the

Secretary-General for his initiative of convening that

event. The topic of global warming is one of the key

themes of this session. The problem can be considered

from various perspectives.

First, as President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech

Republic noted, the causes of global warming are not

obvious. A debate is under way concerning those

causes. In my country, some support the theory that

climate change is not caused by human activities, but

those people are in the minority. Most experts in the

field claim that human economic activities, especially

the generation of carbon dioxide, are the factors behind

climate change, which has been dramatically described

by many speakers over the past two days.

The problems and the efforts to resolve them are

intrinsically linked to the contradictions of our world.

When the first climate convention was adopted some

12 years ago, the developed countries were believed to

be the main perpetrators of excessive carbon dioxide

emissions, but much has changed since then. In many

respects, we have observed changes for the better. Two

of the largest countries on the planet, China and India,

have begun to grow dynamically. That growth has

clearly led to increased emissions to carbon dioxide,

which contribute to climate warming.

How can we solve the problem? The 1997 Kyoto

Protocol set out three methods, two of which would

contribute most to limiting the carbon dioxide

emissions of the highly developed countries, while the

third alone promotes, to a certain degree, the mitigation

of such emissions by the less developed. The results of

the Kyoto Protocol have been significant, but they do

not resolve every issue and the Protocol has not been

ratified by every country. Many powerful States have

failed to adopt it, but in any case it will no longer be in

effect after 2012.

Thus, the world is facing a new challenge. On the

one hand, as the representative of a developed

country - though it is not among the most

developed - I would stress that we cannot limit the

less wealthy countries' right to development. On the

other, we must make progress towards resolving the

problems under discussion. We must therefore consider

the best way to achieve progress.

I agree with those who claim, regardless of the

countries they represent, that the problem cannot be

resolved exclusively by methods linked to the pursuit

of profit and the treatment of all goods as

commodities - in other words, by the application of

purely economic instruments. The market economy is

the most efficient means of achieving economic growth

and generating welfare, as attested by the failure of the

communist system. However, market rules cannot be

the sole principle governing not only the economy, but

also social life and international relations. In that

regard, as I did last year, I call for a much higher

degree of solidarity. Without far-reaching assistance

from the highly developed countries to countries that

are rapidly developing or hoping to grow faster, there

is no possibility of success.

What should such assistance consist of? Well,

first of all, the transmission of technologies that

contribute to mitigating emissions. Does the world now

have regional organizations that would provide for the

transfer of resources from country to country on a

major scale? Yes, indeed. We have such countries and

organizations, for instance, the European Union (EU),

which serves as evidence of the existence of such

frameworks. Of course, the EU deals with general

development and the protection against climate change,

but, in this regard, it can serve as an example. It is an

example that needs to be globally followed, where

applicable. The question is who can be the agent

organizing such international solidarity? The

experience of the past sixty years shows that there is

only one such organization, the one in which we are

debating today, the United Nations.

But in order to achieve that objective, the United

Nations must be significantly reformed. Poland has

consistently advocated such reform. The main idea of

the reform consists of the simple adaptation of the

structure of the United Nations system to the

fundamental changes in the political geography of the

globe over the past sixty-two years. This is intrinsically

linked to the reform of the Security Council.

In conclusion, I would like to mention some

experiences of my country, similar to those of the

Czech Republic, represented here today by Mr. Klaus.

We recently did away with Communism. Since then,

we have achieved economic success and, on the way,

we have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per

cent. Therefore, we see that it is, indeed, feasible to do

so. Despite apparent obstacles, the problem is not

insurmountable.

So, what methods can be applied? On the one

hand, certain types of production should be stopped.

On the other hand, we can develop forestation of the

land. In Poland and in other countries, this approach

can generate fantastic results. But, to achieve this,

forests must be under general public control. I

represent a country that operates on the basis of a

market economy, but forests are a public resource.

Some years ago, the problem area we are

discussing today was one of the essential but not

predominant issues. Today, it is a key subject in debate

in the European Union. Today it is also a theme raised

by the United Nations. I believe there are reasons

behind this. Therefore, this subject matter needs to be

pursued further.