Poland

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.