The transcripts are AI-generated from the UN's English audio and can contain mistakes. We are checking them against the statements the missions publish; some errors are still expected.
Ladies and gentlemen. We meet today as the world undergoes a profound transformation, not only in the balance of power but in the very concept of power, and the ethics of its use. This transformation is reshaping the meaning of security, the nature of alliances, and the capacity of the international order to uphold the foundations and principles upon which and for which it was established. At the heart of these transformations lies a question that transcends the borders of states and continents: how can we build an international order in which the rule of law is an equal right, not a privilege of the most powerful?
Own country · at 1 min · 2 mentions in this passage
And I'm here not to sell you a product or a policy, or yet another declaration. I am here to sell you an idea. An idea conceived and spearheaded by His Majesty King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, an idea embraced by the people of Bhutan. An idea already being built. That idea is Gelephu Mindfulness City, GMC. And my sales pitch is simple. Come and build it with us. Now, the world has built new cities before financial centers, freeports, technology hubs, special economic zones. But GMC is different. You see, Gelephu Mindfulness City is a special administrative region, an SAR. Under its Royal Charter, GMC exercises full autonomy in governance, legislation and the judiciary. Think one country, two systems. Think of the agility of a microstate. But GMC was not inherited from history. It was not created to manage a transfer of sovereignty. It is being deliberately created by Bhutan within Bhutan on sovereign Bhutanese territory for the future. GMC covers more than 4000km². That is more than five times the size of Singapore. But its greatest opportunity is not its size. Its greatest opportunity is an institutional blank slate. GMC was given something extraordinarily rare the freedom to design an entire city and its operating systems from first principles. So we asked if you could begin again. How would you govern? What laws would you write? How would we regulate business? How would we guarantee an independent judiciary? How would we attract the best talent? How would we use technology and especially artificial intelligence? How would we create wealth while protecting nature? And ultimately, what would all that prosperity be for? These were not theoretical questions. We answered them. And we are making full use of that institutional blank slate. If Singapore has legal principles that work, we learn from Singapore. If Abu Dhabi has financial regulations that work we learn from Abu Dhabi. If leading jurists from the United Kingdom can help us build an independent judiciary, we learn from them. And if international experts can strengthen our institutions, we learn from them. The principle is simple. Search the world for what works. Take the best, adapt it, and make it work for GMC. The result is a core operating system that is now in place, designed to give investors clarity, familiarity, and predictability. But GMC's operating system was designed around a deeper conviction that prosperity and values should reinforce one another. That means rejecting the assumption that we must choose between enterprise and well-being, between technology and humanity between development and nature. At GMC, we believe a balanced approach can deliver substantial profits while protecting the values that make prosperity worthwhile. Balance is not the enemy of profit. It is the foundation of lasting profit. And at GMC, balance is not a slogan. It is built into the operating system. And this matters deeply to Bhutan. You see, Bhutan is peaceful and stable. Our forests are intact. Our culture is alive. Our people are educated. But our economy is small. It cannot yet create enough opportunities for our young people. So too many of them leave home to find opportunity elsewhere. For a country as small as ours, this is not only an economic challenge, it is an existential one. We cannot simply tell them to stay. We must give them a reason to stay and a reason to return. Jobs. Opportunities. Enterprise, a future. So Bhutan must transform. But we refuse to believe that transformation requires us to become somebody else. We want economic growth. We want investment. We want technology. We want successful companies. We want our people to become wealthier. But we also want to protect what makes Bhutan Bhutan. That is the driving force behind His Majesty's vision for GMC. And that is why His Majesty is personally spearheading its development. GMC is not a project on the margins of Bhutan. It is at the heart of our national transformation. Our people have embraced GMC as a people's project and investment in our children, our economy and our shared future. Bhutan is not waiting to see whether the world believes in GMC before committing to it.
What the Palestinian people have endured and continue to endure in terms of suffering, repression and violations, must not become a normalized reality or a protracted crisis managed from one cycle to the other. Securing the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip in accordance with President Trump's and the Sharm el-Sheikh summit peace plan, ensuring full compliance with it, ending daily Israeli violations, completing the withdrawal, guaranteeing the safe and sustainable delivery of humanitarian aid, enabling the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza to carry out its duties and then moving immediately toward early recovery and reconstruction. These are not merely humanitarian steps, they are also the essential gateway to a serious political process that addresses the root causes of the conflict and resolves them. In this context, Egypt reaffirms its categorical rejection of any attempt to displace the Palestinian people from their land, whether from the Gaza Strip or from the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The international community as a whole bears a clear responsibility to stop systematic Israeli violations of international law. Peace cannot be built on uprooting people from their land, believing that stability can be achieved in the region while ignoring the suffering of the Palestinian people and merely managing the occupation rather than ending it is nothing but illusion. The goal remains unequivocally clear the establishment of an independent, sovereign and territorially contiguous Palestinian state on the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital within the framework of the two state solution and in accordance with international legitimacy resolutions. This requires preserving the unity of the Palestinian territory and the Palestinian political system, enabling the Palestinian people to manage their own affairs and build their state, and ensuring that the international community fulfils its responsibility to protect civilians, reject collective punishment and guarantee respect for international humanitarian law. It also requires recognising Palestinian rights as inalienable rights, not as bargaining chips to be granted or withheld according to power balances, political posturing or electoral calculations. Egypt has shouldered its responsibility alongside its partners to secure the ceasefire. It has been the largest provider of humanitarian assistance reaching the Gaza Strip. Egypt will continue to work toward reconstruction and opening a viable political horizon. However, the success of these efforts hinges on an international will capable of transforming legitimacy into decisive international action that moves from managing the tragedy to ending its causes. Mr. president, the experience of our region confirms that managing crises rather than resolving them, does not create stability. Rather, it postpones the explosion and increases its costs accordingly. Egypt remains committed to a clear vision for regional security based on state sovereignty, territorial integrity, respect for national institutions, rejection of the dismantling of states or the creation of parallel entities, and prioritizing political solutions and inclusive national settlements over the logic of force and the imposition of a fait accompli. In every crisis across the broader Middle East, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf, circumstances and details may differ, but the capable national state that embraces all its citizens and legitimate institutions remain the only true foundation for stability. Security is indivisible. The security of one state cannot be built upon the insecurity of its neighbours, or upon threats to shipping, trade and energy routes, or violations of state sovereignty through attacks carried out in violation of international law. Likewise, any regional actor that believes that its political or economic interests can be achieved by undermining national state institutions, supporting militias or promoting separatist agendas and civil conflict clearly becomes part of the problem. Confronting such actors and their practices becomes the responsibility of the international community as a whole. Therefore, regional crises cannot be treated as isolated cases. They must be viewed within an interconnected regional security environment that supports the state's institutions unity and sovereignty, that encourages political settlements and peace building based on the principle of national and regional ownership of solutions ending external interferences and preventing crises from turning into arenas for regional and international competition over the resources and capabilities of the peoples of the region. The protection of states and their sovereignty is inseparable from protecting the resources upon which people's livelihoods depend.
Even in the face of conflict and grievance, a region may be able to agree on principles that foster cooperation and prevent further conflict. My third observation is that a new economic world order is taking shape. Instruments once used for economic integration, such as trade, technology, energy investment and supply chains, have become instruments of geopolitical competition. There was perhaps, at times, a naive belief that interdependence would bring about stability and peace. Now the focus on opportunities has been replaced by the focus on threats. We've entered a world of coercion where dependencies are vulnerabilities. Countries seek choke points that can be weaponized to pressure others. But dependencies are complex. No nation, not even the biggest ones, can go it alone. All coercive actions come at a cost. And even if a mightier state dominates in one domain, a smaller state can respond in another. In the new geopolitical environment, the economic order of the post World War II era is seeking new forms. A new order must be based on a realistic understanding of the power balance in the world. We in the West must acknowledge that the global South and East are an expanding economic and political force. Many nations around the world have made remarkable advances in competence and know how. We should put this collective expertise to work for the global common good. Countries are right to be wary of dangerous dependencies, but our focus on the threats should not lead us to abandon cooperation. We should strive for an economic world order built on institutions and agreements. Multilateralism is also needed in the global economy. Now, this was the first part. It's all good and well to diagnose the problem.
These are all different fronts of a single, profound transformation. The world order that emerged after World War II is coming apart. It was an imperfect order. It did not prevent wars and justice or suffering. But today, the world balance has been disrupted, and history, which someone has declared has reached its final chapter, is once again moving at a galloping pace. But every race needs a finish line. Our task cannot be to stand and watch passively the fragmentation of our world, but it must be to build a new framework of rules, responsibility, and cooperation capable of governing change. Change that can happen only through political will, through dialogue among nations, through the awareness of peoples, and through the ability of multinational, multilateral institutions to rediscover a mission equal to the challenges of our time. The United Nations cannot simply record the divisions of today. It must have the ambition to imagine the future and recognize its limitations, overcome its paralysis, and reform its instruments without abandoning its deepest raison d'être: to be the place where conflict gives way to dialogue, confrontation to diplomacy, and fear to the search for shared solutions. The United Nations remains the most universal place for pursuing this aspiration, not because it's perfect, but because no other institution can bring together, around the same table, such different interests, cultures, religions, and visions of the world. It is precisely when the world is divided that the value of dialogue grows rather than diminishes.
Mr. President, distinguished Heads of State and Government. Mr. Secretary general, ladies and gentlemen. I have the honour of addressing this August Assembly on behalf of the government and the people of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. Allow me to congratulate Mr. Khalilur Rahman on his election as president of the General Assembly of the United Nations. I am confident that his governmental and diplomatic experience will help guide the work of this Assembly with balance and in a spirit of dialogue. I also commend Miss Annalena Barbosa Barbosa for the dedication she demonstrated during her term of office, and for her efforts to strengthen multilateralism and international cooperation.
Mr. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, to whom I pay tribute for ten years of tireless work in defense of the United Nations charter, international law and multilateralism, heads of state and government, excellencies. Over the past few decades, the international order focused on promoting peace and stability has been essential to prosperity and socioeconomic progress in our societies, wars and geopolitical tensions that characterize our times have had a terrible human toll, undermining international order and consequently, the chance of prosperity. That is why we must explore every opportunity for dialogue, diplomacy and peace in the Middle East. The humanitarian tragedy must end, and we must move towards the two state solution, with Israel and Palestine coexisting as two sovereign states in peace and security. The aggressive actions by Iran and and its associated armed groups must cease, including attacks on neighboring countries, merchant vessels and civilian infrastructures. Similarly, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz must end and freedom of navigation must be guaranteed, including safe and toll free passage, including through the Red Sea in Europe. We must achieve a just and lasting peace that puts an end to the brutal and illegal aggression of Russia against Ukraine. Ukraine is a partner that has the full support of Portugal and European Union. In Sudan, the most dramatic humanitarian crisis we face must come to an end. We must also remain resolute in combating the global threats of terrorism and nuclear weapons. And in the face of the new challenge posed by artificial intelligence, we must find together the right balance between innovation and regulation, one that allows us to harness its potential for the benefit of humanity while preventing it from distorting our very essence. Excellencies, the energy crisis, and the rising fuel prices we are facing due to international conflicts are affecting all our peoples.
In recent days, the debate has acquired a new sense of urgency and gravity. The message from the UN's Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, researchers in leading AI companies, and independent experts is increasingly clear: our ability to govern this technology is not keeping pace with its development. AI can bring enormous benefits to humanity, but without effective safeguards, it can also cause immense harm. We must therefore hold on to a basic principle: human beings must remain in control of technology, not become a subject to it. Technology should advance our common goals, and no system should ever operate beyond human responsibility and accountability. Nor we can allow an unchecked race for technological dominance to determine the future of AI, with the pressure to move first, pushing safety, oversight, and responsibility aside. More than 80 years ago, the Manhattan Project showed how rapidly a scientific breakthrough can transform the balance of power, and how difficult it is for politics and international rules to catch up. Artificial intelligence confronts us with a different technology and different risks, but with a similar lesson: governance that comes only after the fact may come too late. If AI is to serve humanity, it must develop within a framework of international rules. No country and no company can meet this challenge alone. We need common standards, meaningful public oversight, and clear mechanisms of accountability. The choice is not between innovation and rules. It is between innovation governed by rules and innovation governed by the logic of the race. Ladies and gentlemen, artificial intelligence is not the only challenge that no country can manage alone. The same is true of climate change. This year has once again reminded us of the growing impacts of extreme weather affecting people and communities across the globe.
As part of fulfilling our commitment to enhance resilience to climate shock, we were able to produce an improved climate-resilient wheat variety seed. In a very short period, we have transitioned from a wheat importer to one of the largest wheat producers in Africa. At a time where food provision has become a political battleground and the global food supply hangs precariously in the balance, we send a clear message that Africa can feed itself. Since the launch of the Green Legacy Initiative in 2019, we were able to plant 56 billion trees, which is not only expanding our forest coverage but significantly restoring our ecosystem.
We already have knowledge. But what we need now is the will to use them. This year, the United Nations will choose its next Secretary-General. Slovakia supports a transparent and inclusive process based on merit, with due regard to regional diversity and gender balance. And I would also like to thank Secretary-General António Guterres for his dedicated service and leadership during these difficult years. The next Secretary-General will inherit an organization under serious security, geopolitical, institutional, and financial pressure. But the future of the United Nations will not depend on one person alone. It depends on all of us, on our will, courage, and determination.
Ours is a concerning financial situation. It's affecting the UN's operational capacity, and that is prompting questions about how effective the UN really is. Indeed, these questions are being asked about peace operations, just as they are about the SDGs. The implementation of these is lagging behind and significantly so. In view of this reality, it is true that some might be tempted to view multilateralism as a relic and might be tempted to move outside of that of multilateralism to take action in isolation. Senegal does not espouse that view. On the contrary, it is precisely because the world is beset by a whole host of unprecedented crises that we need a UN that is stronger, more representative and more effective. We will not settle crises by allowing the multilateral system to become ever more piecemeal. We will not achieve peace. If we simply stage power struggles. We will not guarantee a just international order. If we ensure that if we see might being right being replaced by might, doing all of that would imperil the very raison d'etre of our organisation that is dialogue, conflict prevention, the peaceful resolution of disputes, cooperation and respect for international law. In this vein, and with this in mind, the UN 80 initiative provides us with a historic opportunity to usher in the structural and normative transformations that we need to see. However, reforming the United Nations must not stymie its ambitions. On the contrary, it must make it less bureaucratic in how it functions. It must remove red tape, make it more agile, and make it more effective in its expenditure. And there must be better synergies between headquarters and the field, so we can better serve the people we represent. Senegal supports that very dynamic. That was the rationale behind our contribution to efforts to strengthen the UN system. We've used our own resources to build a UN house some 30km away from Dakar. This is a cutting edge institution and the site will house all UN system entities in the region, and that will foster greater coherence and effectiveness in the UN's work. However, a stronger organization and ensuring it is stronger also involves member states upholding their financial contribution pledges and making good on their assessed contributions. President, the years are ticking by, but our efforts to reform governance have yet to produce a significant impact. The status quo when it comes to reforming the Security Council bears witness to that fact. We all agree that the composition of the Security Council is out of step with the realities of our time. We agree that the expansion of the Council should not lead to further inertia, but given the fact the Council is lacking legitimacy and that is indeed the hallmark of the Council's current structure, we cannot simply issue observations. We are in at a juncture where there is an urgent need for action. It's a matter of justice, credibility and balance across the international system, and this is indeed the rationale which underpins the SL weenie consensus, which outlines the African position in connection with the so necessary reform of the UN Security Council. In that vein, Senegal is presenting its candidacy to a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for two 2032 2033. However, beyond reform, the organisation also needs experienced leadership to steer its work in these times of crisis and uncertainty. The UN needs a secretary general able to speak to one and all, able to listen and to build bridges between member states. That is the vision embraced and espoused by Macky Sall, former president of the Republic of Senegal. Here I wish once again to express my support for his candidacy. I wish to reiterate Senegal's request that you, as Member states, support his candidacy. Ladies and gentlemen at a time when our organisation is seeking to rebuild trust, Senegal continues to believe in the vision of a world based on peace, justice, the dignity of each and every human being and human brotherhood. The world does not need unilateral posturing. It needs a fairer, more inclusive and more effective multilateralism. Addressing our challenges requires bridges and not walls, dialogue and not confrontation. Cooperation and not isolation and not might. That is the very spirit in which Sen Senegal will host the Youth Olympic Games in Dakar 2026.
It is less about doing things for others than doing things with them. This principle takes on particular significance in the face of current technological revolutions. AI is the most obvious illustration of this. It offers considerable new possibilities in science, the economy, medicine, education, and the management of resources. But it also highlights the risk of a new divide between those who have the skills and infrastructure needed to participate in this transformation, and those who are likely to feel only its effects. We must ensure that technological progress broadens opportunities without widening the gaps. This means that as many countries and societies as possible must be able to benefit from advances in AI, develop their skills and contribute to the debate on the rules that will govern its development and use. This is exactly the aim of the Geneva AI summit, which will take place on the 21st and 22nd of June 2027 under the motto Bridging Innovation and Trust. These two concepts must go hand in hand. Innovation in which societies no longer have confidence risks being rejected. Conversely, rules that would prevent all innovation would deprive us of enormous potential. Our responsibility, therefore, is to strike a balance to enable progress and promote its benefits, while creating the conditions for the reliable and responsible development and use of these technologies. Artificial intelligence thus reminds us of a simple truth. Certain changes are so far reaching and so fast moving, that no single state can manage all of their consequences by itself.
For us, this is a matter of our foreign principle. On behalf of the people of the United Republic of Tanzania, I wish to pay tribute to H.E. António Guterres as he concludes his distinguished tenure as the SecretaryGeneral of the UN. During his tenure, he steered the UN through an exceptionally challenging period marked by conflicts, geopolitical tensions, the COVID-19 pandemic, climate emergencies and growing pressure on multilateralism. In all these situations, he remained firm and undeterred. Tanzania appreciates his support for Africa’s aspirations for peace, sustainable development, climate justice and a fairer international financial architecture, as well as his personal engagement with our country. Similar accolades are for Ambassador Amina Mohammed, Deputy Secretary-General, who has played a pivotal role in advancing the SDGs, advocacy for women, children and those whose voices are too often unheard. We shall miss your contribution, but Africa is proud to welcome its daughter back home. To both of you, we wish you every success and fulfillment in the years ahead. In conclusion, I wish to underscore that the UN must not merely reflect on the balance of power but serve as a platform for justice, solidarity, and progress. As we take stock of its invaluable contribution to the advancement of humanity, maintenance of international peace and security, socioeconomic progress, and sustainable development over the past 81 years, let us be reminded that there are more mountains to climb and milestones to accomplish. Tanzania believes that it is only by respecting and living by the Charter that we can honor the past and build a safer and better future for all. Thank you for your attention.
Distinguished guests. Ladies and gentlemen, the world is undergoing a profound shift in the international order, with many risks and uncertainties. The tendency towards the threat or use of force, and the arms race, especially the modernization of nuclear weapons and the development of new technology weapons, are heightening the risk of confrontation, miscalculation, conflict, and even of large scale wars. At the same time, the global economy is becoming increasingly fragmented amid mounting barriers to trade, investment and technology, supply chain disruptions and economic instability, and narrowing development opportunities for many countries. Climate change, natural disasters, pandemics and emerging technological risk continue to pose direct threats to the lives of the people and their livelihoods, and to the development and stability of many nations. The shift in the balance of power and development inequalities are placing growing strains on international relations.
At this juncture of global development, the success of reforms should be reflected by the conflicts prevented development advanced, assistance delivered, and communities strengthened. The selection of the next Secretary-General, therefore, comes at a defining moment. The next holder of the office should be an impartial custodian of the charter. An independent voice for peace, a bridge builder among member states, and an advocate for those whose voices seldom reach these halls. The process should be transparent, inclusive and guided by merit. Equitable geographical representation and gender equality. Above all, the next Secretary-General must bring the United Nations closer to the people. The charter begins with we, the peoples of the United Nations. Those words should guide how the organization listens, how it communicates, and how it measures the success. In conclusion, Zimbabwe will assume its role in the Security Council. Mindful that membership is not a badge of honor, but a commitment to serve the comity of nations. We will serve with balance and integrity, defend the sovereign equality of states, advance Africa's priorities and work constructively with all regions Let this 81st decision be recorded as the session that closed the gap between the promises of the charter and the realities of the daily life, Zimbabwe is ready to play its part in building the future we all want.
Mr. President, Secretary-General, Excellencies. There is an idea that has accompanied Andorra for more than 270 years, and that continues to shape the way that we understand politics. The Manuel Digest, one of the great works of our institutional heritage through which António Guterres condensed and recounted the essence of Andorran identity, reminds us that the legitimate exercise of power only makes sense when it places the common good above any other interest. This idea, written in 1748, long before modern international organizations came into existence, remains remarkably relevant today because multilateralism is nothing more than the application of this same principle to relations among nations: the understanding that the common good of the international community is inseparable from the well-being of each of our countries. In Andorra, this approach toward politics has enabled us to preserve more than seven centuries of peace, dialogue, and coexistence in harmony, not because history has been easier for us, but because we have learned the best way to protect freedom is to build trust, seek balance, and make compromise a form of governance. Perhaps it is precisely this experience that a small country such as ours can share with this great Assembly today.
Unfortunately for us, in the context of the war in Ukraine, this topic is becoming ever more urgent. Resilience and balance within the marine ecosystems of the Black Sea are jeopardized by the harmful consequences of the military conflict. Bulgaria urges political commitment and compliance with Resolution 77/104 of the UN General Assembly, adopted on December 7, 2022, on the protection of the environment during armed conflict. For Bulgaria, investment in education, science, and culture means an investment in the long-term viability of our societies.
Croatia will continue to support merit based EU enlargement. EU membership can turn borders of division into lines of cooperation and reforms on paper, into stronger institutions and better living standards. But European transformation requires honesty about the past. Reconciliation becomes possible when responsibility for the crimes of the past is acknowledged and their glorification rejected. That standard allows no national exceptions. That means respect for victims and clear rejection of historical revisionism, not the glorification of war criminals. Ratko Mladić was a convicted war criminal responsible for the Srebrenica genocide, the first genocide in Europe since the Holocaust. While his criminal record reached its nefarious culmination in Srebrenica, his trail of war crimes stretches further back to the shelling of Croatian cities, the murder of civilians the mining of dams and the destruction of cultural heritage and industrial facilities. The military and official honours accorded to Mladić in Serbia were an affront to his victims and to the judgments of international courts. The participation of state representatives and the public acclaim that accompanied the ceremony is totally incompatible with the values of a Union Serbia seeks to join. The same commitment to equality and reform should guide Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a signatory to the Dayton Peace Accords, and a neighbour and a friend of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia is one of the strongest advocates of its European future. The Dayton Peace Accords ended the war and established the constitutional framework for Bosnia and Herzegovina. One state, two entities and three constituent peoples Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs. That balance is the foundation on which peace was built. Yet the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina are still being denied legitimate representation, including in the presidency of the country. That is unjust, destabilizing and contrary to the spirit of Dayton. The solution is neither division nor domination.
Why does a state such as mine believe so strongly in international law? The answer goes for all. When might makes right. It is the smallest states who are the first to be threatened when force is regulated by the law. All of humanity is protected. Sovereign equality between states, honoring commitments, peacefully settling disputes are therefore not abstract concepts. They are our front line of protection. And yours too. With the balance as is set out by the charter between the three pillars peace and security, development and human rights. Nevertheless, this protection is today under assault. Rearmament is accelerating throughout the world. We are seeing the use of force once again as being another political tool for some Trade is breaking down and we are seeing a race to capture critical resources. The private sector is also part of this. Of these power relations. We are now in the era of the geo economy, and this is fertile ground for disinformation, which undermines people's trust in their institutions and leads them to question verifiable facts. Our belief has never been tried to such an extent since 1945 in Ukraine, the Middle East, Sudan, the Sahel in many other places out of the media spotlight. Civilians are paying the price for conflicts which have discarded the most basic rules of humanity. And never, since 1945 has the very legitimacy of states and multilateral bodies such as the UN, been called into question to such an extent. Given this danger, let us recall our mission. In the words of Dag Hammarskjöld, the second Secretary general of the UN.
A diary that would make its way into the world and inspire millions of people. And I think that one of the reasons people are so inspired by Anne is that she had an unshakable belief in the power of people to turn the tide so that good prevails. She wrote, and I quote, how wonderful it is that nobody needs to wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. And these words are just as powerful and true today. This week is the perfect example of that. And I realize that the United Nations does not carry the most positive associations for everyone. And indeed, there is much that can and must be improved. But let us not forget what lay behind the founding of the United Nations over 80 years ago. The realization that doing nothing had led to the darkest chapters in human history. And we now live in a different time. New generations have arisen, and we face new challenges. But when we look at the world today, we see similar challenges as which preceded the founding of the United Nations. We see that the international legal order is under pressure in more and more places, even though it is a very foundation to our freedom and prosperity. We see the unending human suffering in Gaza, Sudan and so many other places in the world. We see violations of international law and of human rights, which are in stark contrast to the UN's aims. And we see institutions being undermined, institutions that were established to protect people and populations. And we must not be naive about the causes. These constant threats and attempts to dismantle the legal order are fueled by people and groups with their own agenda, an agenda that runs counter to the interests of everyone else. Yes everyone, and even those who don't feel directly threatened because they think it doesn't affect them sooner or later. Everyone is affected. As we saw in the time before the United Nations and when major powers chose to pursue only their own interests. It is tempting to respond defensively, but as Mahatma Gandhi, an eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind. And so it is time for us, the global community, to choose to pursue the common interest, not by trying to build an entirely new world order, but simply by working together. And the middle powers must take the lead in fostering such international cooperation. And everyone must be able to participate, including those countries who are currently too often left on the sidelines. It is time that countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America had a fully fledged place not only on the Equal Earth map, but in the real world too. To start with, here in the UN, improved African representation in the Security Council at the very least. Because if we want. If we want to preserve the UN for the future, we must change the balance of power in line with the changing times and modernize our institutions. And this means that we must focus on core tasks and stable financing, but also that we must work to protect the multilateral order with all our strength. And because international law either works for everyone or for no one. Take the attempts we've seen to undermine the International Criminal Court, which is based in my country, in my city. This undermines the international legal order as a whole, and that affects us all. This court was established to protect us against impunity. This court was built on the foundations of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. In the words of the Nuremberg chief prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, and I quote one of the greatest tributes that power has ever paid to reason. And now, with the ICC under attack, the writing is truly on the wall. After all, how can you possibly be opposed to prosecuting the very worst crimes? And I believe there can be only one response to say, hands off the ICC and all those other institutions that protect the international legal order.
Next December, our country will finish its mandate as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. As we took on this high, lofty task, our premise was clear. We didn't come to the council to choose sides. We came to the council to defend principles: sovereignty, territorial integrity, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and the protection of civilians. They are the rules that protect the very existence of states, particularly the smallest states. I wish to reiterate to this General Assembly the need for Latin America and the Caribbean to have places with greater decision-making power in the Security Council, specifically a permanent seat, a permanent member of the Security Council of this organization. We are a region that plays a protagonist role in food, minerals, biodiversity, and a deep-seated belief in peace and integration. Our contribution is without doubt. The world doesn't need less UN. It needs a United Nations that works better, that acts with preventive diplomacy, and that can yield positive results in the short term. We are at a turning point in our history. The election of the next Secretary-General will be of paramount importance to determine the next agenda, to ensure robust, lasting trust, of course, in the understanding of the new global balance, if you can call it that.
it did not make. The promise of our generation was made 81 years ago with the founding of this United Nations from the ashes of the worst war in human history. Its ideals have proven its worth. No nation is too small to be sovereign, no people too poor to be equal. And the strong should be bound by the same law as the weak. Sad to say, United Nations has drifted from its promise. The Bahamas comes today to insist on it. Mr. president, all week we've been told this is an age of uncertainty. With respect, I do not agree. Uncertainty is the language of those who have already decided and do not wish to say so. Treaties are being torn up, institutions are being starved, rules are giving way to deals, and the benefits of the deals go to whoever holds the most leverage. Once again, we hear the language of spheres of influence, of backyards and hemispheres. For 500 years, the Caribbean was somebody's backyard. We did not win our freedom to once again become somebody's backyard. The message to small nations is very clear be as sovereign as we allow you to be. Mr. President, a sovereignty that must ask permission is not sovereignty. It is a lease. Our ancestors did not break their chains so that their children could become tenants. These are not uncertain times. These times are very certain. The only uncertain thing is how we respond to the opportunities and challenges of this time. People often say that the world lacks political will. I do not agree. The world has never lacked political will. In 2008, when the banks of the richest nations were failing, trillions of dollars were found in a matter of weeks. When a global pandemic reached the capitals of the powerful, the political will returned. The will exists. It is simply pointed elsewhere. Somewhere, a bank is always too big to fail. Similarly, a nation should never be too small to be left behind. What the world lacks is not political will for change. It is political change itself. A change in who writes the rules. A change in whose suffering counts. A change in who decides and who pays. Political will is a feeling. Political change is a decision about who holds the power. And Mr. President, that is what I have come to speak about today. Power. 2500 years ago, the envoys of Athens stood before the small island of Milos and told his people a simple truth about power. The strong will do what they can. The weak will suffer what they must. 81 years ago in San Francisco, humanity wrote a different law: the sovereign equality of nations, not equality of size or wealth, equality of standing. The United Nations was the world's answer to Milos. But in 1945, nearly 1 in 3 people on earth still lived under colonial rule. The people of my islands were among them. The Bahamas was not in that room, but we were on the map. Then came political change for us. Not granted from above, demanded from below. And so on the 18th of September 1973, the Bahamas took its seat in this assembly. Then in 1985, Commonwealth leaders met in my own capital and agreed the Nassau Accord against apartheid. We were told pressure would never work. Less than five years later, Nelson Mandela walked free. None of that happened because the powerful suddenly found their conscience. It happened because the balance of power in the room was changed. That is the lesson of history. Change is not given. It is organized. It is not the small states who are dismantling the rules based order. Small countries cannot dismantle a rules based world, but we will be the first to be crushed beneath its collapse. Great powers can survive the end of the rules. Small states cannot. For us, a rules based world is our shield. The rules have not always been applied fairly. But the answer is not a world without rules. It is rules that bind the strong as firmly as the weak. An international order whose rules apply only to the weak is not order. It is a hierarchy. When the Bahamas defends multilateralism, we're not defending a bureaucracy. We're defending the only successful arrangement in which a nation of 400 000 people can stand at this position as the sovereign equal of a nation of a billion people. A world without rules is not a free world. It is Milos. Mr. president, I do not appeal to conscience. Small states have done that for decades. Today, I appeal to your interests. What is in your best interest? No wall is high enough to keep out rising, warming seas. No border strong enough to stop a pandemic. Narrow self-interest asks what you can take today. Enlightened self-interest asks what kind of world you will have to live in tomorrow. The international rules based order. It benefits all. They're not arbitrary, having been arrived at through lived experience. Every rule you break today is the rule you will need tomorrow. Every institution you starve is one you will want one day. Every small nation you abandon
Madam president, excellencies, the international order is experiencing a period of great instability. The free and open international order, based on the rule of law that we have fostered, is facing difficult challenges on multiple fronts. Amid a shifting balance of power and intensifying geopolitical competition, innocent civilian lives are being lost around the world every day. The stable post-Cold War era is now a thing of the past. The distribution of goods is stagnating. People across the world are suffering from high cost of living. Progress towards development goals is not on track, and human rights issues are rising in various places around the world. Against this backdrop, has the United Nations, now 80 years on since its foundation, been failing to fulfil its role in promoting peace and stability around the world? We are even hearing such concerns today. Madam president, despite these concerns, the United Nations has never been more important than it is today in bringing about peace and stability to the world and enabling the international community to overcome new challenges and prosper. Japan will continue to fulfil its significant responsibilities towards the United Nations, and I am here today to express that resolve. This year marks the 70th anniversary of Japan's accession to the United Nations. In this milestone year, I would first like to address how Japan has been tackling the challenges facing the international community, working hand in hand with the United Nations. Then, together with you all, I would like to take this opportunity to revisit the role of the United Nations in the international community.
The Palestinian people continue to suffer under difficult living conditions caused by policies of displacement, arrests and settlement. We call for the full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Plan and its subsequent phase adopted by Security Council Resolution 2803. This includes the complete withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from Gaza, the assurance of humanitarian aid, access, and the return of the Palestinian Authority to the Gaza Strip. We affirm that the Gaza Strip is an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territory. In this regard, we welcome the measures and decisions taken by the United Kingdom, France and several other nations to condemn settlement activities and to impose sanctions against settlers involved in acts of violence and terrorism against Palestinians, as well as banning the import of goods and products originating from the settlements. The State of Kuwait reiterates that a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region remains contingent upon an end to the Israeli occupation of all Arab territories, as well as enabling the Palestinian people to exercise their legitimate and inalienable rights. It also rests upon the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the borders of June 4th, 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Mr. president, the sisterly Republic of Yemen is witnessing a serious military escalation as a result of the attacks by Houthi militias against several governorates and areas along the West Coast aimed at threatening navigation in the Bab el Mandeb Strait. In this regard, the state of Kuwait reiterates its full support for UN led efforts aimed at a comprehensive, sustainable and Yemeni led settlement. In accordance with the three agreed references and the relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 2216. The State of Kuwait affirms that any political settlement must safeguard Yemen's unity, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. A settlement must end the suffering of the Yemeni people and must open prospects for security, stability and economic development. We also stress the need to preserve the security and safety of maritime navigation in the Red sea and the Bab el Mandeb Strait. We also condemn in the strongest terms the attacks by the Houthis against the sisterly kingdom of Saudi Arabia, targeting civilian and economic facilities in several cities. In this context, we affirm that the security of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an integral part of the security of the State of Kuwait and the security of the GCC states. Mr. president, the State of Kuwait reiterates its solidarity with the sisterly Syrian Arab Republic. We welcome the measures taken by the international community to lift the sanctions against Syria and to remove Syria's name from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. We also affirm our support for all efforts aimed at rebuilding state institutions and aimed at advancing a Syrian led, comprehensive, inclusive political process led by the Syrians. With the active participation of all segments of society in Syria and aimed at fulfilling their aspirations for security, stability and a life of dignity. In this context, we stress the need to respect Syria's sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity We condemn and reject the attacks and incursions by Israeli occupation forces into Syrian territory. These acts are a serious escalation and a violation of the 1974 Disengagement of Forces agreement. They undermine security and stability in the region. With regards to the sisterly Lebanese Republic, the state of Kuwait affirms the importance of Lebanese state institutions and the need to extend their full authority over the entire territory of Lebanon, and to restrict the possession of arms exclusively to the state, thereby reinforcing Lebanon's sovereignty and preserving its security and stability. Here, we also emphasize the importance of maintaining an international presence along the blue line to ensure the full implementation of UN resolution 1701, and we reiterate our demand for Israel's withdrawal from all occupied Lebanese territories. And with regards to developments in the Republic of Sudan, the Federal Republic of Somalia and the state of Libya, we affirm the need to adhere to peaceful resolution and to engage in political dialogue to resolve disputes as per the relevant Security Council resolutions and the principles of international law, so as to protect the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of these sisterly nations. Mr. president, since Kuwait's independence, our foreign policy was based on firm principles, namely moderation and balance, and a firm commitment to the charter of the United Nations and International law, and on support for multilateralism and the belief that dialogue and the peaceful settlement of disputes are the best means to maintain international peace and security. The State of Kuwait also believes in a complementary relationship between security and development. There can be no security without development and no development without security.
Today, Central Asia is becoming an example of constructive inter-state cooperation as well as economic, infrastructural and technological development. In this regard, we are ready to share the experience we have accumulated along this path. Distinguished heads of delegations. For the first time in its history, Kyrgyzstan has been elected as a member of the United Nations Security Council for the 2027 2028 term. Taking this opportunity, I would like to express my profound gratitude to all countries that supported our candidacy. The support of 142 member states not only confirms Kyrgyzstan's readiness to contribute to international affairs, but also demonstrates the growing role of the Central Asian region in international relations. This achievement is clear evidence that even small states can make a meaningful contribution to addressing global challenges. We fully understand that membership in the Security Council is not a privilege or reward. It is a great responsibility. One year ago, standing at this stage, I stated with confidence that Kyrgyzstan is among those states whose experience enables them to put forward substantive issues for consideration by the Security Council. We do not forget the promises we have made and will make every effort to implement them fully. Therefore, I would like to reiterate Kyrgyzstan firmly adheres to international law, justice and the protection of human rights and supports the multilateral system based on mutual respect, balance of interest and responsibility towards future generations. We intend to work closely with every country and remain committed to productive cooperation. Distinguished colleagues as you all may know, since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, its member states and leaders have attempted to undertake systematic reforms. Reforms have ranged from expanding the membership of the Security Council to modernizing mechanisms of governance, peacekeeping and the protection of human rights. These initiatives continue to be actively discussed at the international level. However, despite numerous efforts and years of discussion, the institutional structure of our organization continues to face various challenges. Therefore, I believe that expanding the membership of the Security Council is one of the reforms that the international community expects. I consider it fair to grant two permanent seats to the African continent, with a population of more than 1 billion people and one permanent seat to Latin America. Today, the world has changed. At the same time, a number of developed countries have also expressed their aspiration to become members of the Security Council. I believe that the request of this country should be also considered. Another issue, in my view, the weakness of effective mechanisms for ensuring the implementation of the decisions of the organization. The systematic failure to implement the organization's decisions undermines the legitimacy of multilateralism concept, creates the impression that international law is not binding and encourages disregard for international obligations. Therefore, we must expand and strengthen the authority of the United Nations. In this regard, we propose to develop the United Nations mechanism for the implementation of decisions and accountability. First, it is necessary to establish, within the framework of the General Assembly, the permanent Public registry of the implementation of resolutions and obligations by Member States. This registry could include the following information and ensure the implementation of such mechanisms as. First, systematically record and verify the level of implementation of adopted decisions. Second, establish the obligation for Member States to regularly submit report in accordance with the agreed standards. Third, provide analytical reviews on sectors and regions. Fourth, ensure transparency and equal access to information for all states. The registry could be administered by the United Nations Secretariat with the support of independent experts. If decisions of the organization are systematically not implemented, I propose the gradual response mechanisms. The first stage an official notification to the concerned state, followed by consultations with the relevant bodies of the organization. The second stage deployment of a monitoring mission to the country concerned to assess the objective obstacles, preventing the implementation of the decision and to prepare recommendations. The third stage consideration of the case right here at a plenary meeting of the General Assembly to determine the status of the concerned state in terms of its systematic implementation or non implementation of United Nations decisions. The fourth stage, the initiation of appropriate procedures under the charter of the United Nations with regard to states that fail to comply with the requirements. In particular, the matter could be referred to the United Nations Security Council for consideration of restrictive measures provided for under international law, including the first temporary restriction on participation in United Nations programs. The second, recommendations to review existing formats of cooperation and other diplomatic measures, where appropriate. Distinguished colleagues, I believe that when cases of systematic non-implementation of United Nations decisions are considered, the permanent members of the Security Council should voluntarily refrain from using the veto. If a mechanism designed to ensure the implementation of the organization's decisions is systematically blocked by permanent members through the use of the veto, such practice would no longer be consistent with the spirit of the UN charter and the principle of equal responsibility of Member States. Therefore, we should once again consider the possibility of voluntarily restraining to use the veto in matters related to the implementation of the organization's decisions. This approach could promote universality, the equality of all states, regardless of their size, the primacy of diplomacy, and avoid the double standards. In order to implement this initiative, I propose establishing to open a working group within the General Assembly with the participation of the interested Member States. The working group could conduct inter-governmental consultations and prepare a report on possible models for the proposed mechanism. Following these consultations, the General Assembly and the Security Council should consider adopting the relevant resolutions and decisions. The strategic objective of this initiative is to ensure that the decisions of the organization are treated not merely as political recommendations, but as genuine international obligations. Improvement of their implementation would strengthen the rule of international law and reinforce confidence in the United Nations. Kyrgyzstan is ready to initiate interstate discussions on the development of such a mechanism. Starting from the 1st January 2027, as a member of the United Nations Security Council, we intend to formally submit all these proposals to the relevant committee. Distinguished colleagues, I would like to address separately the issues of sanctions. As we have all observed today, sanctions are in some cases, used by individual countries as an instrument to interference to the internal affairs of sovereign states.
Mr. president, allow me to conclude by returning once more to the theme of this session of the General Assembly, Restoring Trust and Managing Transformation for a United Nations that delivers for all. The truth is that we cannot call on the states of the world to change their conduct, while failing to make the necessary changes within our own organization so that it delivers the results expected of it and regains the trust of the peoples of the world. The reality is that the world has changed profoundly since 1945. The membership of the United Nations has grown nearly fourfold. Colonialism has ended Africa has risen. Asia has been transformed and new powers have emerged. The balance of the global economy has shifted. Yet the basic composition of the Security Council remains captive to a historical moment dating back to the end of the Second World War. Africa and the Arab world cannot remain without permanent representation on the Council, nor can small and medium sized states remain mere spectators to decisions that concern their security and their future. We know that Security Council reform is a complex matter, but the difficulty of reform is no argument against its necessity. Indeed, reform of the United Nations must begin here with the Security Council. For it is the Security Council that bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. I therefore once again add Lebanon's voice to that of the majority of the members of our organisation in calling for an expansion of the Security Council that achieves more inclusive and equitable representation. Being realists, we do not call for the abolition of the veto. Rather, we call for restraint in its use in cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law. We insist on reform of the United Nations only because we want it to be more representative, more democratic and more effective organization We want an organisation true to the purposes and principles of its charter, yet ever renewed, so that it may rise to the challenges of our rapidly changing world and meet the aspirations of our peoples and their new generations.
It is precisely at such times that we must honestly confront our setbacks, however profound, not with blame, cynicism or blind hope, but with action, sober reflection, clear-eyed realism and pragmatism. That is how we chart these turbulent waters. And that is how we rebuild trust in this institution, the central focus of this 81st session. (BRIEF PAUSE) So how do we build back trust? Trust is not given. It is earned. And we earn trust, I believe, in three ways. First, by being unapologetically realistic about where we are falling behind; Second, by taking a foundational look at the reforms of the Organization to deliver better; and Third, by making our work more inclusive and engaging all relevant stakeholders for effective delivery. Let me elaborate. (BRIEF PAUSE) On my first point, we must be frank about where the challenges lie and what needs to be fixed, even when the necessary changes may prove painful. Consider peace and security. Under the UN Charter, the Security Council bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Yet when the Council is unable to act, Member States turn to the General Assembly. We saw this as early as 1950 with the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, and we have seen it more recently through the Assembly’s Veto Initiative. These two principal organs of our Organization are complementary, not competing. The Charter provides for an appropriate balance between them. Both chambers must do their respective part. To be fair, the Security Council, when it acts, proves its strength and effectiveness. It helped liberate Kuwait, ended civil war in El Salvador, supported Namibia’s independence, led rebuilding of Cambodia, and stabilized conflict-affected countries through peacekeeping. Yet when the Council is unable to act on important matters, the effectiveness of our Organization as a whole is called into question. In 1945, humanity placed its trust in the Council in good faith, giving it the extraordinary responsibility of maintaining international peace. The Council accepted that responsibility and entered into a compact. It must now hold up its end of the bargain. This is what the people of the world expect. And in their eyes, when the Security Council works, the United Nations works. The promise of 1945 still binds us today. I call on the Security Council to step up, to lead as we need it to lead and to act when we need it to act. Linked to this is the question of Security Council reform. I will support the General Assembly-led Intergovernmental Negotiations in its work to make the Council more representative, transparent and reflective of the geopolitical realities of our time. Ensuring fair representation for underrepresented regions must remain a priority. Nowhere is this more important, right now, than in Africa. After eight decades, the largest region by number of Member States and a key focus of UN Peacekeeping, is underrepresented on the Security Council. Africa needs to be at the table, not on the menu. Africa cannot be asked to wait indefinitely for its rightful place on the Council. Ending Africa’s underrepresentation, now, is a question of fairness, justice and, ultimately, the credibility of this Organization. (BRIEF PAUSE) Turning to development, and particularly the Sustainable Development Goals, we are right to focus on the challenges.
We must champion timelines for decarbonization, but actually doing that in a forced or imposed way is a direct threat to food security, employment, and production. We must avoid industrial collapses, the breakdown of production, and avoid energy costs which people cannot afford. As such, energy security is vital if we are to ensure the survival of the international economy and to buttress development. There is no doubt whatsoever that Venezuela plays—and will play— a crucial role in these international efforts. Here, I wish to point to the recent agreement signed between the United States and Venezuela as one of the most all-encompassing and significant ever signed. It will contribute to ensuring the energy balance of the hemisphere and the well-being of our economy. Six, I now wish to refer to artificial intelligence. It is a genuine technological revolution.
When a border can be changed by force, every border becomes less secure. No one in this room needs reminding that international politics is shaped by power and by interests. The charter doesn't wish those realities away. It draws a line around what power may be allowed to do. And for Belgium, ladies and gentlemen, that line matters in very practical terms. We are an open economy with an economy tied to the world and a security bound up with that of our partners. We depend on states keeping their word, on agreements surviving changes in the balance of power and on borders not being redrawn at gunpoint. International law reflects our values, certainly. It also protects our interests. This is why Belgium stands firmly with Ukraine. Any lasting peace must be grounded in the charter of the United Nations and in respect for Ukraine's sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity. But we cannot uphold these principles on my continent alone in Europe, and treat them as optional elsewhere. Sovereignty, territorial integrity and the right of peoples to determine their own future do not change meaning when we cross the borders of a continent. The same standards must guide us when it comes to international humanitarian law. Its rules do not apply only when they suit us. They exist precisely for the moment when respecting them becomes difficult. In the state of Palestine, in Sudan, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti and so many other places scarred by war or armed violence, the circumstances differ. But no human life is worth less than another. Civilians remain civilians. They must be protected. Humanitarian aid must be allowed to reach them everywhere.
If small sized states are expected to comply with the rules, then the rules must also provide them with predictability. If candidates for membership in an organisation are required to meet certain criteria, then meeting those criteria must lead to progress. If we ask citizens to trust institutions, then institutions must demonstrate that their word has value and that their commitments endure. The rule that applies today cannot be different tomorrow, simply because the balance of powers has changed, and a commitment undertaken cannot be a temporary political convenience. It must be a foundation on which people can plan their future. We ask our citizens to believe in cooperation, in good neighbourly relations, in compromises and in mutual respect. We tell them that lasting peace is worth more than a short term political victory, that respecting agreements is a sign of strength and wisdom, and that it is the right thing to do, not a sign of weakness. The European and Euro-Atlantic integration means accepting rules that apply equally to all. But that argument becomes much harder to sustain when citizens see that in international relations, principle sometimes gives way to power, that criteria can change while the process is already underway, or that some are expected to demonstrate consistency that others do not always demand of themselves. We cannot tell people trust the rules when they can see that the rules do not apply equally. We cannot convince them that compromise is a virtue if every compromise produces a new demand, and we cannot expect trust in international institutions if citizens come to believe that their fate is created more often by the political weight of their state than by the strength of an agreed principle. This is a question of legitimacy, because our authority as elected leaders does not derive from the office itself. It derives from the people who elect us, who hold us to account, and who every day compare what we tell them with what they see. And today they see more than ever before. We live in an age in which information travels around the world in seconds. Never before has humanity had access to so much knowledge, but never before has it been exposed to so much manipulation, half truths, fabricated images, propaganda, and organised disinformation. That is precisely why politics is entering a new, more difficult and more complex era. Our task is no longer simply to inform our citizens.
Choose dialogue and peaceful settlement wherever possible. Remember ordinary families when making major economic decisions. Balance commercial interests with the welfare of people. Use technology to advance human dignity and not diminish it. Protect our planet while pursuing development and place the interests of our children and future generations at the heart of decisions we make today. Leadership is not measured only by the power of a nation. I beg your pardon again. Leadership is not defined only by the power you possess as a leader of a powerful nation. Leadership is also measured by the responsibility that comes with how you exercise that power. Papua New Guinea does not claim to have all the answers. We still are developing nations. Just a few years ago, we became a middle income earning nation. We have our own challenges, but perhaps our position as a Pacific nation allows us to remind the larger powers of a simple reality. No nation is so powerful that it can live apart from the earth. No nation is so small that its people should be forgotten when decisions affecting humanity are made. Military strength of a nation does not make the rights of another nation less important. The size of an economy does not make the dignity of a poorer person less important. Technological advancement does not diminish our obligations to protect human freedom. The size of a religious majority does not reduce the rights of a minority. Power in all forms must be exercised with responsibility and care. Mr. president, in PNG we have many tribes. We have many languages. We have many churches. We have many cultures. But we are one nation. Perhaps this lesson can be taught to everyone. Papua New Guinea puts this to the assembly. You do not have to believe what I believe in for you to defend human rights of another person. Let governments govern for people. Let churches preach and preach love to each other. Let mosque pray faithfully. Let temples welcome the worshippers. Let people search their own conscience. Let the economy serve humanity. Let technology serve humanity. Let powerful nations exercise their power responsibly. Let nations resolve their differences peacefully, wherever possible. And I pause here, especially all Christian nations, all Christian nations, our Lord and Savior Jesus talks about peace and not war. Those who are promoting peace are sons of God. You don't promote peace, you are not sons of God. And may this be known to every Christian nation. Let no state compel the human soul. Mr. president, we may have different religions. We may have different political systems. We have different cultures and national interests. We may be. We may be big nations or small nations. We may be rich or poor. We may possess different levels of military, economic and technological power. But beneath those differences, we share something greater. We share our humanity. We share one earth. This is our home. We must protect it. We must protect each other. We must leave our children a better world than the one we are presently living in. Papua New Guinea will remain proudly, proudly Christian, but we will also remain committed to the freedom of conscience, thought and religion. For ultimately, faith cannot be governed or commanded by government. Faith must come from the heart. God has given humanity the capacity to choose that freedom, and that freedom must be respected. God has entrusted this earth to our generation for only a short time. Let us use it wisely and pass it to the next generation. Let us pursue peace. Let us uphold the charter of United Nations. Let us respect the rights and dignity of every human being. Let us work together. Big or small nations. Let us ensure that power, whether military, economic, technology, or religious, is never used to suppress the rights of others. Let us protect our common home.
This cannot be fair. So that, believe me when I say that change is possible. As we have seen consistently with measures from the Bridgetown Initiative in less than one year, Barbados as chair of the climate Vulnerable countries, the G20 countries, along with the OPEC fund for International Development, designed and launched the Vulnerability to Viability Compact on four pillars, bringing about 74 countries along with 16 development finance institutions globally, to expand access to affordable long term capital for education projects, health projects and water infrastructure. The Cvf also had its governors of the central bank meet to establish the lifeline Fund, which will shortly be operationalized. It seeks to provide rapid liquidity when climate shocks create balance of payments pressures for countries. So we are moving to help ourselves. We have been resolute, and the reason for it is that we know that you cannot build hospitals and schools and water infrastructure with ten and 15 year money. It crowds out critical investments for our people and leaves you flat footed. And that is why this important initiative represents real progress. But mechanisms such as this one cannot, on their own, address the underlying flaws of the international financial architecture. I repeat that for almost five years, the Bridgetown Initiative has consistently argued that climate resilience, debt sustainability and access to affordable finance cannot be treated separately. For many vulnerable countries, the problem is not simply the availability of capital, but whether we have the fiscal space to borrow and to invest on reasonable terms.
