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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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.