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.
Its role has instead boiled down to managing concerns, making appeals to those who have already suffered. And that is, of course, leading to further escalation. The leadership of the European Union is particularly worrying. They have an unbridled desire to preserve their slipping hegemony, and they are attempting to undermine global stability and the maintenance of peace. And to achieve this, they are prepared to sacrifice even the well-being of their own citizens. Do the peoples of the United Europe really crave some sort of revenge against Russia, especially at the cost of their own impoverishment? Of course they don't. Do they want to be cannon fodder in a war that allegedly European politicians are preparing for by 2030? Of course not. And we know this. But in Brussels, someone is very eager to play toy soldiers and to cement their greatness in history. This has happened before, more than once, and we know how it ended. Nevertheless, in the West, they are already beginning to ask questions about their meaning.
This is a fundamental flaw. We must remember the past so as not to repeat it. That is why Lithuania is promoting the concept of historical remembrance. My personal wish is to see the Pan-European Memorial to all victims of 20th century totalitarian regimes, unveiled in Brussels as soon as possible. There is one lesson Lithuania, having survived and overcome numerous occupations and the waves of repression, can share with international community. Freedom can be delayed, but it cannot be extinguished. Justice can be challenged, but it cannot be defeated.
One of my favorite bands when I was growing up was Talking Heads. And little did I know at the time that David Byrne iconic song We Are On a Road to Nowhere would ring so prescient four decades later. For the first time, for the first time in the history of our species, we have created a technology that openly challenges the supremacy of the human mind as the pinnacle of our evolutionary development. I will not dwell on the positive, transformational potential of this revolutionary technology, whether in disease eradication, productivity enhancement or fighting climate change. However, it is simply impossible to ignore the fact that at present, the risks of an unchecked and unregulated advance in artificial intelligence could greatly outweigh its potential benefits. When the people developing the technology tell us openly that, left unchecked, AI could outrun our ability to control the systems, the same people admit that we only understand a tiny fraction of what goes on in these models, alarm bells should ring very loudly for all of us. In simple words, the AI bosses are telling us that they have no idea on how recursive self-improvement, the ability of AI to constantly create better versions of itself, actually works. Add to that the possibility of massive job destruction, the likelihood of unprecedented wealth creation in the hands of very few, and the impact that AI may have on the very nature of human relationships, especially for our kids, and you have all the ingredients of an unprecedented political and social upheaval. The idea that big tech companies will find some voluntary arrangement to self-regulate the development of AI is naive. It flies in the face of everything we know about the history of capitalism. The prize for the winners is simply too great to believe that benign consideration for the well-being of humanity will outweigh the relentless drive of capital to constantly seek better returns. And given that the leading AI models are being developed here in the United States, this is primarily an issue for the US government to address. Fortunately, there are precedents from which we draw lessons. In the 1940s and the 1950s, the American government heavily regulated another technology so powerful that its creators believed it could bring about either a golden age in human flourishing or the end of the world. That technology was nuclear. The same needs to happen now, and it needs to happen fast. AI companies need to be licensed based on specific requirements, adherence to human values, transparency, and most importantly, safety. In order for a new plane to fly, it has to undergo a myriad of rigorous tests approved by the regulator. The same is not true for a frontier artificial intelligence model. At the same time, I take the call by leading AI executives for a voluntary pause in the development of their models very seriously. But only, I repeat only as a temporary measure to buy time for a powerful regulatory authority to be set up. Liberal capitalism has a history of reining in market excesses, whether it was breaking up powerful monopolies, or setting rules and standards to allow the market to operate with an eye on the common good. And the same needs to happen now. And as much as the cooperation of China and the rest of the world is necessary to address this huge challenge, the fate of artificial intelligence and the impact it will have on humanity as a whole will not be decided in Brussels, in Tokyo or Brasilia. It will be decided primarily here in the United States. With great power comes great responsibility.
And very often the countries with the least economic room to maneuver bear the greatest burden in proportionate terms. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea confers rights, but it also imposes obligations. The safety of navigation, the protection of the marine environment, and respect for the rights of coastal states. A smaller navy doesn't mean fewer rights, nor does a larger one confer the right to impose its will. No country should have to surrender the rights the law gives simply because another can send more ships. That is why maritime disputes must be settled by law, not by intimidation. And that is why freedom of navigation depends on common rules, so that every country can exercise its rights while respecting those of others, but keeping our sea routes open also means keeping them safe all the way into our ports. The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, the famous ISPS code offers a very concrete example of what multilateralism can achieve when it works. Piracy, terrorism and crime are scourges that we must fight together, and that code must be strengthened. Belgium understands its importance. Freedom and security are not opposing ideas. Security is a condition of freedom. I dwell on freedom of navigation because it illustrates something larger. Sovereignty doesn't require isolation. We can defend our interests while accepting that others have rights too. And when rules are clear and predictable enough, a space of competition can still remain a space of cooperation. The ocean, moreover, are far more than the highways of our trades. They feed populations, regulate our climates, and absorb much of the excess heat caused by global warming. For many small island states, rising sea levels affect the land on which the citizens live, in some cases, the culture and the very ability to remain where the families have lived for generations. The freedom to use the ocean, therefore, comes with a responsibility to preserve it. And on this point, allow me to be optimistic. The BBNJ Agreement entered into force this year after almost 20 years of negotiations, almost 20 years. Measured against a political cycle, this is close to an eternity. Measured against the building of international law, it is sometimes the time needed to reach a compromise strong enough to last. The agreement proves that even today, we continue to build international law rather than dismantle it, and Belgium has invested greatly in this process. It helped launch the Blue Leaders, a coalition of countries working to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030 and secure an ambitious high sea treaty. The agreement now gives us an essential tool to advance toward that protection goal. But 20 years of negotiations must not be followed by years of waiting. It is in that spirit that Belgium is offering to host the treaty's future secretariat in Brussels. We are ready to enable it to work from day one. It will be able to draw on our scientific expertise and on a community that brings together international organizations, embassies and civil society so that we have agreed together becomes real protection at sea. Beneath those same oceans run other vital routes: the cables that connect the continents and carry much of our digital communications and energy. Here too, our interdependence is plain to see. A break, an act of sabotage or an attack can have consequences thousands of kilometers away. Protecting those connections is essential, but our responsibility in the digital world doesn't end with infrastructure.
It applies to the international system and it applies to Europe. We will not abandon the European idea because the European path has been difficult. The European Union remains for us our natural political, economic and institutional home, and we have work to do at home. We must strengthen the rule of law, build more effective institutions, build a more competitive economy and strengthen our citizens' confidence in their own state. That is our responsibility, and we will not shift it to Brussels. At the same time, we expect European integration to remain a merit based process based on measurable criteria, not a process in which bilateral issues can continually move the goalposts. We are not asking for an easier path. We are asking for a path governed by rules. We are not asking for lower standards. We are asking for standards to remain standards. This is equally important for Europe's credibility at a time when its geopolitical weight will increasingly depend on its ability to translate its commitments into tangible political outcome, and on its resolve to uphold the values it espouses and to remain steadfast in advancing them despite the many challenges it faces. Excellencies, the future international order will not be shaped only on battlefields or in diplomatic halls.
In addition, for four and a half years now, I have been listening to lectures on how many in the West remain last beacon of democracy in the world, the protectors not of Ukraine's but of the rules and principles of international law. And when they raise their voices thinking that they are being highly moral and that their positions are the only right ones, we simply smile and ask ourselves: And how did you treat Kosovo and Metohija and the territorial integrity of Serbia, which is guaranteed by the UN Charter and the resolution of the UNSC 1244? To that, either there is no answer, or they supposedly give us some well-intentioned advice and tell us not to look to the past, but to the future. When we ask them, do you also say to Ukraine that the territories they are fighting for are not important?, we end the pointless conversation and move on to another subject. And I want to warn all of you, all of you here who belong to the Global South, pay the utmost attention while signing all the agreements with great powers. That is how we signed the famous Brussels Agreement in 2013, wishing to resolve problems between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija by compromise. All the obligations that were to be met by Serbia have been met, and the only one that was to be met by Albanians, the one about the establishment of the community of Serb municipalities, has not been met to this day. It is interesting that the agreement was accepted not only in the presence of the EU, but it was also confirmed with the signature of the EU, but it meant actually nothing. As the President of Serbia, for ten years I have been facing all possible tricks and pressures to give up on full implementation of what was signed. It is a lesson to us Serbs, but also to all others in the world who want to protect their country. In spite of everything, Serbia will defend its country, its territorial integrity, the UN Charter, the UN Security Council resolution 1244. I wish to thank individually every 107 countries, states that have not recognized the unilaterally declared independence of the so-called Kosovo. We know that many of you, that many of those states, have been subjected to pressure, and we know that maintaining a principled position is sometimes far more difficult than it appears from the outside. Thank you for being consistent in not recognizing the independence of a part of Serbia's territory. Excellencies, Serbia is on its European path, and it will have to do many more things in order to become a full-fledged member of the EU.
