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.
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 that the time that David Byrne iconic song We Are On a Road to Nowhere would ring so prescient for 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. Unfortunately, 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 a 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. It will be also shaped in laboratories, in schools, in factories, in energy grids, in data centers, and in the ability of societies to make sense of the changes that technology is bringing. Artificial intelligence is no longer a subject of the future. It is infrastructure for today, for the present. Today, the world is once again recognising the value of resilience, of reliable energy, of infrastructure, of diversified transport routes, of nearby and trusted supply chains. For us, the intensified development of Corridor VIII and Corridor X is a part of broader European vision to better connect the Adriatic, Ionian, the Black Sea, the Aegean and Central Europe to provide goods, energy and people with more routes and greater connectivity, and to ensure that the region becomes interconnected in the infrastructure rather than remaining on the geopolitical periphery. Our geography does not have to be our destiny. It can be our advantage if we build the institutions and infrastructure that transform our geographical position into connectivity. At the same time, we must also approach migration differently. Migration begins where there is no security, no employment, no education, no access to water, no prospects or no confidence that tomorrow will be better than today. It is not simply a matter of borders. Responsible policy must bring together security, human dignity, development and the real needs of labour markets. Climate policy, too, will have to become more grounded in reality. The green transition is essential, but if we make it socially unsustainable, we will lose the political support that is necessary to implement it. If we make it technologically dependent on a handful of sources, we will create new challenges while addressing old ones. If we expect poorer countries to move at the same pace without providing them with equal access to capital and technology, we will create injustice instead of a transition. That is why future climate policy must at the same time be environmental policy, economic policy and social policy. Mr. president, all of this brings us back to the central theme of this session: trust.
Here, I am referring to all the countries that recognize the unilaterally declared independence of the so-called Kosovo, and without any basis whatsoever in international legal documents attempted to seize 14 percent of the territory of the Republic of Serbia. To many of you, this may sound like a distant past, but the wounds inflicted on international public law are becoming ever deeper and more severe. To be completely precise, the order based on respect for the UN Charter and the law founded upon it no longer exists. It was destroyed by those who tore apart the territories of other countries for the sake of their own political and economic interests. They did so unscrupulously, recklessly, and shamelessly. Do you know, do you know, esteemed friends, what was, in fact, the reason, the sole official and formal reason, for the attack on the territory of the Republic of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia carried out by 19 NATO countries? You will not believe it. They told us that they had attacked a sovereign, free, and independent country in order to prevent a potential humanitarian disaster. The humanitarian disaster did not occur, and I have still not managed to hear or see where a similar example has occurred anywhere in the world. The attack against the small, yet free, and freedom-loving country Serbia, of which I am the proud President, was carried out with the intention of finally destroying the UN order established after World War II and of formally and informally confirming the dominance of a that-time unison Western world of United States of America and Europe. Do you know which countries, dear friends, took part in decision-making in the UN Security Council to bomb an independent and sovereign country that had attacked no other country? Just to add, not a single soldier, not a single police officer from Serbia had set foot on the territory of any other country, and yet a decision was made. I am certain that most of you, dear friends, who are among those best informed about world politics, no longer remember much of these either, and especially not the fact of who in the UNSC voted for that decision, or perhaps in the General Assembly. Do not even try, because it is impossible for you to remember. Why? Because such a decision was never made in the first place, and to make things even worse, no one ever even attempted to make such a decision. They were so arrogant and so powerful that they trampled everything in their path, from the Clinton administration to the administration of numerous European countries. That is precisely why Serbia supposed the actions of the administration of President Donald Trump and sees in his work an opportunity for establishing a more just order in the world and more responsible attitude toward Serbia as a close American ally from both world wars. And what they did not know or understand at the time was this: they trampled Serbia, but they did not defeat it. Serbia rose like a phoenix from the ashes, and today, through its example, it shows everyone in the world how the international public order is preserved and how international public law is protected. Nevertheless, the consequences of that brutal attack against Serbia are enormous, and particularly visible here in the UN General Assembly. Admittedly, they are even more visible on the numerous battlefields around the world. Why? Well, because the principles of any kind no longer exist. Those who once trampled them have no moral right to speak about them. And to make the situation even worse, and the hypocrisy even more visible, it is precisely those very people and those very countries who have assumed the position of supreme teacher of morale and every kind of protection of the values of the modern world. The most difficult thing for us in Serbia is when we see in our surroundings the resurgence of Nazism elevated to the position of social prominence, especially in the Republic of Croatia, which is proud of its Nazi past and of the use of Nazi slogans and symbols today. The Serbian people, as people who suffered the most from Nazi hands, cannot accept the revival of the most terrible ghosts from the past responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Roma in monstrous concentration camps like Jasenovac. That is precisely why moral lectures coming from such sources are completely unacceptable to the Serbian people in Serbia. 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 Metohia 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 Metohia 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.
