YouSaid · the spoken record

Miloš Zeman

lines on the record
18
first
2015-09-24
most recent
2017-09-24
sittings or episodes
3
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

  1. “Everybody who welcomes migrants in Europe agrees that the brain drain exists and that it contributes to the continuing backwardness of those countries. What we need to do is help such countries by providing electricity, hospitals, schools and water resources in order to stabilize the domestic population, but not to support migration. In conclusion, I wish to say that the war against terrorism must be based on historical optimism and the belief that we shall overcome someday. In Barcelona, Spanish people said that they were not afraid, and Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed the need to live free from fear. That is why I should like to quote a sentence from Martin Luther that I believe most beautifully expresses historical optimism: “If I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree”.”

    2017-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 72 (2017)

  2. “I am sure he will be able to solve the problems contributing to worldwide Islamic terrorism. Let me address the other side of the coin — migration. Migration is partly provoked by terrorist actions, as seen in Syria and Iraq. On the other hand, migration is also connected with terrorism because some jihadists pose as migrants. In Europe and elsewhere, they create sleeper cells, encourage lone wolves and so on. I understand those who say that we must welcome migrants, but my opposition arises from the fact that massive migration from African and other countries represents a brain drain. The young, healthy people — mainly male — who leave their countries represent a weakening of the potential of those countries.”

    2017-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 72 (2017)

  3. “On the other hand, I highly appreciate the action of the Secretary- General and the recent creation of the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism, which is a reasonable step towards a practical solution to the fight against world terrorism. The Assembly must know that there are 38 — I repeat, 38 — anti-terrorist organizations and institutions under the umbrella of the United Nations. Thirty-eight — good heavens! I believe that the more such institutions we create, the more terrorist movements are able to flourish. What we need is a single, strong office to fight terrorism, equipped with all the necessary measures, including military force, to fight terrorism and based on Article 47 of the Charter of the United Nations. I appreciate the nomination of Mr. Voronkov, whom I met yesterday.”

    2017-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 72 (2017)

  4. “The typical feature of that civilization is the fact that it is based on terror and nothing more. We see those terrorist actions all over Europe and beyond. We convey our condolences, we express our solidarity with the victims of terrorist actions, we organize protests and demonstrations, but unfortunately we still hesitate to fight against that terrorist anti-civilization with our full power. I must admit that one year ago, I criticized the United Nations here (see A/71/PV.12) for its inability to define the word “terrorism”. The situation has changed. For 70 years, we have not been able to define the word “terrorism”.”

    2017-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 72 (2017)

  5. “When I was a relatively young man, I was deeply influenced by two books. One of them was The End of History and the Last Man, by Francis Fukuyama, and the second was The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, by Samuel Huntington. Fukuyama’s book was a description of a brave new world, a new utopia where every country has the same political system based on a liberal parliamentary democracy — a nice dream, but nothing more. As for Huntington, he was realistic and cynical. He simply predicted the gradual emergence of conflicts among various types of civilizations. By the way, in one of his articles in Foreign Affairs, he also speaks about the bloody borders of Islam. So, now we have a new type of civilization — I should call it anti-civilization — which has emerged over the past two or three decades.”

    2017-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 72 (2017)

  6. “For without those measures, without coordinated military action based on the common will of the permanent members of the Security Council, the spread of terrorism will continue, and we shall be faced with new assassinations, new failed countries and new terrorist actions throughout the world. Let me conclude with the old Roman oratorical phrase uttered frequently by Cato the Elder: “Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam” — “Moreover, I believe that Carthage must be destroyed”. Deep in my heart I believe that someday we will overcome — not Carthage, but international terrorism.”

    2016-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 71 (2016)

  7. “We must attack the brain, not the body. I had hoped that there would be a Security Council resolution on combating terrorism, but again that did not happen. I read the first draft of such a resolution proposed by the Russian Federation, but that proposed draft resolution has not yet been adopted. Unfortunately, many of the Articles of the Charter of the United Nations, beginning with Article 39 and ending with Article 51, go unused. For example, Article 47, on the Military Staff Committee, is, in United Nations terminology, a “sleeping Article” or a “sleeping structure”. Let us therefore awaken it. Since we have those Articles and we have this Charter, we need to use them when the appropriate opportunity arises.”

    2016-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 71 (2016)

  8. “Obviously, this state of affairs is not satisfactory; we do not have the platform we need. Last year, I proposed the creation of an international force, equipped with drones, helicopters and air rangers and using improved communication among national secret services. I was very happy to learn that the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, our French colleague, proposed the same thing: using the experience with drones and helicopters in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to wage the fight against jihadists. What we need is not massive territorial operations — those have led to bad experiences in Iraq, Syria and Libya, where we were able to destroy, but we were not able to build; rather, we must attack the most sensitive points, the nerve centres of international terrorism, without occupying territory.”

    2016-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 71 (2016)

  9. “What we need is a solid, firm, comprehensive United Nations platform on international terrorism. A proposal for such a platform was put forward by India in the year 2000 — 16 years ago. Sixteen years later, we are still discussing how international terrorism should be defined. International lawyers have literally been discussing this issue for 16 years. Thank God I am not an international lawyer. I say that because, for me, a terrorist is anybody who intentionally kills innocent civilian people. It is that simple: “Elementary, my dear Watson”, as they say. Unfortunately, the United Nations has been discussing a programme — and the definition of international terrorism — for 16 years. As a result, I have some doubts about the efficiency of this international Organization. I hope the Acting President will excuse me for being so blunt.”

    2016-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 71 (2016)

  10. “In the 1930s, in Germany, the population was also quite unstable despite the fact that it was a very cultivated population. After all, Germany is the nation of Goethe and Schiller. Over the course of a few years, this very decent nation became one of fanatical Nazis. It only took a few years. We must admit that such radicalization or extremization is also possible today. The third risk stems from our hesitation and our lack of courage in carrying out decisive actions. My country, though small, has troops in Afghanistan, Mali and other parts of the world. That, however, is not enough. What we need is the coordinated action of most if not all States Members of the United Nations. But what can be done until that happens? Let me cite another example.”

    2016-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 71 (2016)

  11. “I admit that there are some limited actions can be taken against terrorism, but they are, in fact, very limited, while terrorism is spreading all the time. There are three main risks in this area. The first is that, in the near future, there will be a new Islamic State in Afghanistan. If there is a reduction of NATO forces in Afghanistan, a victory by the Taliban is highly probable. If that were to happen, we can expect to see the same level of cruelty from the Taliban as that which we have seen from Al-Qaida, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, Boko Haram and the Al-Nusra Front and others. The second risk is the extremization or radicalization of the population, which is still quite unstable. Let me cite one unpleasant example.”

    2016-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 71 (2016)

  12. “One year ago, here in this Hall, I warned the international community of the threat posed by the spread of international terrorism (see A/70/PV.17). What has happened in the year since then? Paris, Brussels, Dhaka, Istanbul, Orlando, Munich, Nice and New York, again, is what happened. A few years ago, the number of countries that were influenced by Islamic terrorism was only six. Now, it is 35. The Islamic State is something like a cancer. But it is not only a tumor. Many cancers have metastases, which are more dangerous than the original tumor itself, and this is what we are observing in the spread of radicalism, terrorism and fanaticism. We must now ask, how long are we to wait before we act? How long are we going to be limited to conveying only condolences? How long will we be constrained to make only declarations of solidarity?”

    2016-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 71 (2016)

  13. “In the second phase, it is disputable, and in the third phase, it is as evident as the Earth’s movement around the sun. I will return next year, and deep in my heart, I do believe that my proposal will be disputable. When I come in 2017, I am sure that this proposal will be evident.”

    2015-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 70 (2015)

  14. “Does anyone really think that the pirates are more dangerous than the terrorists? In the Charter of the United Nations, there are many, many Articles concerning the possibility of military action, and some of them are never activated. They are referred to as the sleeping structures. What we need is to activate them. We need small military units equipped with drones, helicopters, cooperation of secret services, commandos or rangers — some kind of contingent of Blue Helmets — which would eliminate the leaders of terrorist organizations and their nerve centres, and not the occupation of territory. I firmly hope that some of the permanent members might propose such a resolution. If not, as a historical optimist, I might add a conclusion that any idea goes through three phases. In the first phase, it is understood as complete nonsense.”

    2015-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 70 (2015)

  15. “Because unilateral actions are heavily criticized and, what is more, have been completely unsuccessful, as in the case of Iraq, I do not recommend any massive occupation of any territory. What I recommend is a coordinated action, under the umbrella of the Security Council. The five permanent members of the Council have different interests but one common enemy, and nothing unites more than one common enemy — terrorism. Here in New York, we remember 11 September 2001; in Russia, we remember Beslan and Volgograd; in China we remember Xinjiang; in Europe we remember Madrid, London, Paris and Copenhagen; in India we remember Bombay, and so on. There is one good precedent, and it is the unanimously adopted Security Council resolution 2184 (2014), concerning pirates in Somalia, including military action against pirates.”

    2015-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 70 (2015)

  16. “The second illusion is that we can reduce terrorist organizations to the so-called Islamic State only. But there are many other terrorist organizations — for instance, Al-Qaida, the Taliban, Al-Nusra, Boko Haram and others. Two outstanding politicians from the Arab world told me that the cover organization is the Muslim Brotherhood. If so, there is a terrorism network, and that network cannot be reduced simply to the Islamic State. The third illusion is based on a standard form of warfare against terrorism. We know that nearly all generals prepare for the previous war. What I propose 15-29437 23/26 A/70/PV.17 29/09/2015 for the fight against terrorism are no tanks, no infantry, no artillery. We need to seek new forms for the fight.”

    2015-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 70 (2015)

  17. “It is wonderful to organize demonstrations and manifestations against terrorism, and it is nice to prepare declarations protesting terrorism. I am sure that Mr. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, reading such declarations, will be careful. In any case, there are three illusions concerning terrorism. The first illusion is that terrorism will vanish, that it is something like a historical fluctuation, and that we can eliminate or reduce terrorist actions without human endeavour or by using only local means. On the contrary, the terrorist movement is growing like a cancer. There is a diffusion of terrorism, a growing number of so-called failed States, of assassinations, cruelties, murders, annihilation of cultural artefacts, such as the Palmyra ruins, and so on. We cannot deny this growing process.”

    2015-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 70 (2015)

  18. “If a speaker has many topics in a short speech, he has none. If he has many priorities in his speech, he also has none. So let me concentrate on a one topic and one priority — the fight against international terrorism. One may ask: why does the President of a small Central European country speak about terrorism? There are two reasons. First, terrorism is outrage against human civilization and, at the same time, it is the main danger for human civilization. The second reason is that today, as the Assembly is aware, nearly all European countries face a big migration wave that was provoked by and is a consequence of terrorist actions in the Middle East and in Africa. It is wonderful to criticize terrorism.”

    2015-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 70 (2015)