Belarus

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