YouSaid · the spoken record

Vladimir Makei

lines on the record: 134
first: 2012-09-24
most recent: 2022-09-24
sittings or episodes: 8
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“The pretext is always contrived — alleged violations of human rights by unruly States. Having been subjected to external attacks for many years, countries such as Belarus, Cuba, Iran and Venezuela feel such pressure especially acutely. No less dangerous, however, is another factor. Similar attempts at imposition have been made recently against our identity. Indeed, some have been doing their best to impose on us extraneous cultural preferences. For example, we are being forced to renounce the values of a traditional family and recognize instead the diversity of that institution’s forms. In other words, they are striving to strip us of our own soul. That may be just another way to subdue those who dissent against capital by turning them into soulless slaves. We are convinced that nothing will come out of it, however.”
2014-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 69 (2014)
“We would identify the resistance of the majority of the world’s population to the imposition of external influences as one of the key factors. Indeed, much like in the past, the mighty of the world persist in believing that only their vision and their development model stand as universal. Therefore, they do not ask others whether they like or dislike, for instance, so- called liberal democracy or the Washington consensus. Others are just forced to choose — either they accept our recipes or face the consequences, such as threats, sanctions and colour revolutions. To be honest, we — that is, the majority — have grown accustomed to alien political and economic models being foisted upon us. We know what is going here. Someone wants our nations to feed transnational corporate capital, not ourselves. If we resist, we are punished.”
2014-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 69 (2014)
“Against this background, we do not understand and strongly condemn some attempts to revise the outcome of the Second World War, downplaying the significance of the Great Victory or desecrating the memory of the fallen heroes. The world community must not allow this to happen. Indeed, the verdict of history is unequivocal; if humankind fails to learn the lessons from past tragedies, we are bound to repeat them in the future. Let us ponder the the immediate and distant future, and indeed the present, as we mark the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War. What do current global trends tell us about the future? Undoubtedly, a multitude of factors determine the dynamics of contemporary global politics.”
2014-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 69 (2014)
“Thus, the shot in Sarajevo marked nothing more than the onset of the bloodiest period in the history of humankind. For Belarus, this period was also the bloodiest in the history of its people. Located at the centre of Europe, in the very crucible of geopolitical interests, Belarus lost a third of its population during the Second World War. Even today, with 20 years of unprecedented successful and stable development, we have not recovered from that immense loss, either physically, psychologically or emotionally. This year, as the Republic of Belarus celebrates the seventieth anniversary of its liberation from the Fascist occupiers, is very important and symbolic for the country. Belarus remembers all the victims who paid with their lives for the freedom of the nation.”
2014-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 69 (2014)
“Humankind has only one past, but many options for the future. History is such that we know only the consequences of those actions that have occurred, but not those that did not take place. What would our world look like today if, a century ago, that memorable shot had not been fired in Sarajevo, irrevocably changing the course of history? That shot set in motion a dynamic that has yet to be fully explained. For some key European countries the question of honour contained in that shot overrode both common sense and all other considerations. Millions paid with their lives for that hypocritical honour. Unfortunately, the tragedy did not end there, because the lessons of the First World War have not been learned. As a consequence, other global carnage has claimed even more human lives.”
2014-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 69 (2014)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (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.”
2013-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 68 (2013)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)
“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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (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.”
2012-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 67 (2012)