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.

Read around it: before · after

Mr. president, the Secretary. General of the UN, the Deputy Secretary General, Excellencies Heads of State and Government, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I extend my warmest congratulations to you, Mr. President, on behalf of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on your election as president of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly and assure you of Nigeria's full cooperation and support. I commend your predecessors stewardship of this assembly. I also salute the Secretary General, His Excellency Antonio Guterres, and the Deputy Secretary General, Amina Mohamed, for sharing the United Nations through storms that have sharpened our awareness of the cost of inaction. None of us can pretend that countries within our borders or in lands far beyond them do not exert a price from us, such as the rich of our interdependence. Such is the urgency of this session sacred duty to restore truth in the international institutions we establish to reconcile our differences and advance our common interests.

Read around it: after

Supply chains built up over decades of interdependence are being reorganized or fragmented as a result of geopolitical tensions. The multilateral trading system has been weakened, and the WTO can no longer fully carry out some of its essential functions. Yet what is at stake here is not merely a technical issue of trade policy. The question is whether relations between states will continue to be governed by common rules, or if they will increasingly depend on the weight and power of each individual state. For Switzerland, this is a fundamental issue. That is because my country is an open economy with few natural resources. A large part of its prosperity, therefore depends on trade, but also on the stability and predictability of the rules that make such trade possible. Economic resilience requires us to diversify relationships, forge new partnerships, and keep trade between different regions of the world as open as possible. This is particularly important for economies with fewer resources or limited market access. Access to markets knowledge and technology can create opportunities that would not otherwise exist. These abstract concepts encompass quite concrete realities a business that can take on an apprentice, a family that can secure a more stable income, a producer who can trade beyond their local market. Young people for whom the range of possibilities suddenly widens. That is also what we mean when we talk about a global economy. Trust is built when the rules offer everyone a genuine opportunity to participate.

Read around it: before · after

Mr. president. All these issues, however far apart they may seem are bound by one fundamental truth. Security and prosperity are not two parallel objectives Instead, they are one single objective pursued along two paths. There can be no prosperity without security and no sustainable security, without interconnected economies and societies in peace. This is not a golf perspective dictated by our geography. Instead, it's a lesson that humanity has learned from its wars, a lesson that Europe learned when it built its peace, not through treaties alone, but on interests so intertwined that separating them became costlier than preserving them. It is in this light that we view freedom of navigation. A waterway is not merely a security issue of concern for coastal states. It is an artery of development through which the food, medicine and energy of entire nations flow. When a single waterway is disrupted, the cost is felt by a family. In a country that does not have a coastline, an economy that is difficult to disrupt is difficult to coerce, and interdependence, once firmly established, becomes a shield against coercion. This approach is not a position shaped by the current circumstances.

Read around it: before · after

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.

Read around it: before · after

Today, however, these ideas are not only being called into question; they are being attacked by political actors and governments that want to take us back to a dark past. And I don't need to point them out; we all know who they are and what their modus operandi is. They start by questioning the rules, then they break them, knowing full well that nobody will dare to hold them accountable. They cut their contributions to multilateral bodies like this one. They point to their leaders and officials. They obstruct these organizations' ability to act, to then write them off as useless entities that we can do without. What they're doing, nevertheless, is a planned and coordinated demolition attempt that is presented as something that we can't stop and that's necessary. However, the reality is that it runs counter to the structural currents of history and is based on three misguided pillars. The first of these pillars is selfishness, the absurd belief that the world is a zero-sum game, where some winning must imply that others losing. The second pillar is ignorance, disregarding scientific evidence and assuming that there are countries that are so powerful that they can abuse all of the others and they don't need anyone else to prosper. And the third pillar, the worst in my opinion, is cruelty. Cruelty that isn't even moved when it sees the ribs of a starving child or a hospital reduced to rubble. Over these 8 years, I've seen these selfish, ignorant, and cruel forces grow. I've seen how they took off their masks and seized power in many places. And then I saw them start illegal wars, massacre innocent civilians. I've seen them treat millions of human beings like livestock and take away aid from those suffering the most, from poverty and disease. I've seen them pollute the atmosphere and also the ocean as if it's their own property, and conspire to destroy this organization and everything it represents. I'm saying this because bearing witness to these things has changed the way that I understand the world. However, it hasn't led me to lose hope. Because also, over these 8 years, I've seen wonderful things that allow me to still have confidence in humanity. For example, I've seen millions of people mobilized to defend nature, peace, and civil rights. I've seen thousands of activists and public servants confront these reactionary powers, knowing full well that they're putting their professional careers and even their own lives at risk. I've seen scientists make progress that we thought was impossible. And I've seen many governments do things right, opting for cooperation, social justice, and environmental sustainability. All of this has taught me something that I want to share with all of you, and that is that humanity is not intrinsically good or bad. Humanity can actually be both. And every day, every year, and in each and every crisis, we must decide how to act. The United Nations is one of these spaces where these decisions are made at the highest level. And the UN doesn't always do it well. Of course, I myself, on several occasions, have called out the contradictions and lackings of this body. However, with the same belief, I must call out the fact that the majority of the voices that today insist on criticizing the United Nations are not describing its failure; what they're doing is trying to cause its failure. And I must also say that multilateralism is the best tool that humanity has to manage its diversity and its interdependence, especially in a globalized and multipolar world like the world we're living in today. And this is why what we need to do is up- ramp up our trust in this organization. We must renew it and strengthen it so that this century it can play the same key role that it played last century. And doing this will not be easy. However, the good news is that all of the guidance we need is right here, in the United Nations Charter. In this charter, they wrote the best chapters. Our forefathers wrote it, the men and women who saw the world burn, and even then, they died to imagine a better future. These men and women laid down their wisdom and their hope in this charter. And they didn't ask us to keep it in a glass case. They asked us to fulfill it. They asked us to defend it, and for us to turn back to it in times of uncertainty and extraordinary difficulty. And today is one of those times. And therefore, it's our duty to rise to the courage and the ambition present in this text, in the United Nations Charter. And this is why, ladies and gentlemen, we need to reform the Security Council so that all of the regions in the world have fair representation, and so that we can do away with the right of veto of the permanent members. Because as the UN Charter sets out, no country should be judged in its own case, no matter how powerful they are. We therefore need to strengthen all of the other main bodies and reorganize the agencies' funds and programs, and provide them with more resources and more executive capacity so that they can have a more decisive impact on the great challenges that beset humanity. We must strengthen bodies like the International Criminal Court so that they can investigate, prosecute, and punish those that break the rules.

Read around it: before · after

We wish them well, and they as they complete their tenure at the end of this year. Mr. president, fellow, few institutions embody the principle of sovereign equality as visibly as this assembly with the. Within these walls, differences in power, wealth and influence may shape the realities our nations confront, but they do not confer a greater claim to membership or participation. And perhaps more than anywhere else, this assembly reminds us of a simple truth. Our differences are real but so is our interdependence. This is why this organization was created with the understanding that disputes must be resolved through dialogue. Human dignity must be protected, and that nations must work together. If development, peace and human rights are to be sustained. In other words, that our common future requires common institutions. Eight decades later, we must ask ourselves whether we have remained faithful to that insight. And perhaps more importantly, do we still trust one another enough to act on it? Because today, Mr. President, trust is being tested. Geopolitical divisions are widening. Wars have become more protracted, with devastating humanitarian consequences. Respect for the United Nations Charter and international law is under visible strain, with developing countries facing intensifying debt burden. Climate vulnerabilities, huge gaps between commitments made and implementation, and feeling of marginalization and inadequate representation in the global system. Therefore, the task before us is building stronger, better equipped, representative responsive and effective multilateral system and global financial architecture that delivers for all nations and regions. Mr. president, the governments own experience within the. This organization gives us grounds for optimism. We have seen within this very institution that multilateralism can still deliver. During the 80th session of the General Assembly the government had the honor of chairing the second Committee at a time of profound disagreement over some of the most consequential economic and development issues before us. That experience reminded us that multilateralism does not require unanimity on every issue. It requires the willingness to remain at the table to listen, negotiate, and courage to make compromises. Our experience demonstrates that in this period of deep disagreement, progress remains possible.

Read around it: before · after

Whether in the Security Council or in the international financial system, institutions built for another age are being asked to govern a completely different world that we live in today. Restoring trust requires more than defending those institutions. It requires having the courage to reform them. This is not a conversation we are beginning today. For decades, member states have debated how to make the Security Council more representative, legitimate, and effective. In 2008, after years of discussion, this General Assembly moved Security Council reform into intergovernmental negotiations. Those negotiations began the following year. Seventeen years later, we are still negotiating. The central question remains before us: membership, the veto, regional representation, the size and working methods of the Security Council, and its relationship with this General Assembly. The world has not stood still while we have been debating these issues. In the Pact for the Future, member states agreed that redressing the historical injustice against Africa must be a priority in the Security Council reform. We should not accept that reform is impossible because it is difficult. This organization has changed its architecture before. In 1963, this General Assembly adopted amendments to enlarge the Security Council. The council grew from 11 members to 15 because member states recognized that the institution had to respond to a changing membership. What was possible then, ladies and gentlemen, is possible today. Reform must deliver equitable and permanent representation with all the prerogatives and privileges of permanent membership to Africa and other deserving regions. Political reform and financial reform are not separate projects. They ask the same fundamental question: whether the institutions that govern our common future will reflect the sovereign equality they proclaim or preserve inequalities inherited from another age. More than half a century ago, this General Assembly called for a new international economic order founded on sovereign equality, interdependence, and cooperation among states. We need not recreate the debates of another era. But we must ask the question they left unfinished: what does equality among nations require in the world of today? It requires a world in which no continent is permanently excluded from the highest decisions on peace and security. A world in which international law does not change with the identity of the state to which it is applied. A world in which a nation's prospects are not determined by how expensive the world has decided its capital to be. It requires that no child lose a classroom because debt service came first. That no mother finds an empty clinic because essential investment became unaffordable. And that the resources of developing countries became foundations for their prosperity rather than pathways for extraction.

Read around it: before · after

Relations among the major powers increasingly shape trade, technology, energy, critical raw materials, transport routes and digital infrastructure. What we called economic interdependence yesterday, we increasingly see today as a matter of national security. Globalization is not disappearing. It is being reshaped. Supply chains are changing. Production is once again becoming a geopolitical question. States are asking not only where something can be produced more cheaply, but who can be trusted, not only where energy comes from, but whether it will be available when crisis strikes. Not only who develops the next generation of technology, but who will set the rules under which it will operate. Alliances, too, are changing under the pressure of this same world. Macedonian citizens know where they belong. We are a NATO ally. The United States are our strategic partner. Full membership in the European Union is our strategic commitment. These are not three separate policies. They are one geopolitical orientation, an orientation grounded in democracy, collective security, the rule of law and an open economy. In a time of uncertainty, our response is not strategic ambiguity. Our response is clarity. But clarity in our alliances does not mean turning away from the world. Quite the opposite.

Read around it: before · after

Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen, The faultlines in our world are widening. Cracks have become canyons. Over the last decade, wars erupted with devastating consequences and dragged on with despicable cruelty. Civilians were targeted. Human rights trampled. Hunger weaponized. Humanitarians killed. International law cast aside. Geopolitical divides have deepened. Inequalities have intensified. Trust has frayed. The climate crisis went from distant warning to daily reality. And artificial intelligence moved at a speed that has blindsided even those who created it. These are not separate crises. They are chapters of the same story. The story of power. Who has it. Who is denied it. How it is used. And how it is changing. Excellencies, Power is being reshaped in three fundamental ways. First, among States. New centres of economic, political and technological influence have emerged. Second, we are witnessing an extraordinary transfer of power away from governments to a handful of private corporations and individuals. Their reach now extends across politics, economies, information flows, technological development, and the civic space on which societies depend. And, third, humans are increasingly handing over power to machines – with Artificial Intelligence agents going rogue, and lethal autonomous weapons going from science fiction to military reality. Yet our institutions and systems of global governance continue to reflect the power realities and interests of a largely bygone age. That is the defining challenge before us. At the very moment when humanity faces an unprecedented convergence of threats, our mechanisms for collective action are under growing strain. Excellencies, We are clearly moving towards a multipolar world. And that movement is irreversible. But there are different ways that multipolarity can take shape. One possibility is a world of fragmentation and transactionalism. A world of rising tensions and deepening mistrust. Of fractured markets and weakened institutions. Of shrinking cooperation and zero-sum calculations. In many respects, that is the trajectory we are on today. But there is another path. A path towards networked multipolarity. A world built on interdependence – and sustained by a dense web of economic, political, social and technological connections. A world in which multiple centres of influence coexist within a common framework of international law and shared rules. Such a world can help us avoid hegemonic tendencies and what I have called the Great Fracture: The division of the world into two rival blocs with separate economic, technological and security systems. A networked world recognizes that no power can solve today’s challenges alone. Of course, competition will remain a permanent feature of international relations. But competition does not have to mean confrontation. Healthy competition can drive innovation, strengthen resilience, and expand opportunity. But only when it operates within frameworks that preserve stability and enable cooperation where cooperation is indispensable. Building a networked future begins with a recognition, especially by superpowers: That their power isn’t so super. That their power has limits. The events of recent years have made that unmistakably clear. Military power alone cannot secure peace. Economic power alone cannot command stability. And technological power alone cannot guarantee security. A networked multipolar world can create the conditions for more balanced and representative global problem-solving. But it requires a multilateral system centred in the UN that is balanced and representative. Strong, effective institutions that reflect the realities and the progressively changing relative weight of countries and economies in today’s world – not the power arrangements of 80 years ago. Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch. We already have a binding foundation: The Charter of the United Nations. And the principles that give it life. The primacy of international law. Upholding human dignity. And the pursuit of justice in all its dimensions. These are the backbone for the effective, legitimate and responsible exercise of power in the 21st century. Excellencies, It comes down to this: Will we act to ensure that power is governed by law or by force? By cooperation or coercion? By responsibility to young people and future generations or indifference to their fate? Because the defining challenges of our age are not separate from the question of power. They are expressions of it. And they will determine whether we drift deeper into division and instability – or move toward cooperation, justice and collective security. Looking ahead, our future will be shaped by how we address four great tests of power: The power over war and peace. The power that concentrates wealth and drives inequality.

Read around it: after