Interview of Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus Mr. Sergei N. Martynov to the newspaper “Respublika”

- Mr. Martynov, undoubtedly, the main international political event of 2005 was the Summit of the United Nations. What is the significance of this event for the international community as a whole and for our country in particular?

- You are certainly right defining the United Nations Summit as the main political event of the past year. However, it is quite obvious that the significance of this event goes beyond the boundaries of one year or even of several years. I think that the adequate assessment of the Summit will be given with the passing of many years, may be even later, when, as the saying goes, the time will prove who of the world leaders in September 2005 proved to be right in assessing international relations, who clearly foresaw coming events and whose warnings against possible dangers to the world proved to be correct. In order to help the readers better understand the importance of the past Summit against the background of the present time, some parallels and comparisons with similar events from the past can be drawn.

The Summit of 2005 initially was also envisaged to focus on development. Nevertheless, the situation over the five year period, or more precisely, two events that occurred during it substantionally changed the international context as well as the theme of the Summit. First of these events is the terrorist acts in the USA that took place on 11 September 2001. On one hand, the terrorist acts even more heightened the need to address development issues as the main tool in the fight against terrorism. To the majority, regrettably, not to all and not immediately, it became quite clear that the fight should be fought against the root causes of terrorism — poverty, lack of education, social and political estrangement, demographic concerns. On the other hand, the problematique of terrorism was used with hypocrisy by the United States for advancing its parochial interests, including in Iraq.

The second event — the war in Iraq, waged in violation of the UN Charter, has nothing to do with the fight against terrorism. Besides, it laid bare a new phenomenon that has been exerting most significant impact on international relations in the beginning of the XXI century. This phenomenon is the formation and strengthening of a unipolar world. When the domineering and sole leader, which is today the USA, acts only in selfish instead of common interests, the prospects for success in dealing with numerous development problems substantially diminish.

In such a light, we, in Belarus viewed the international situation on the eve of the Summit. Identically thought people in the vast majority of the world's countries. All those who were anxious over the future of our planet expected the meeting at the highest level to be, using the words from the statement of the Belarusian President at the Summit “an honest look at the world”. The majority of countries regarded the upcoming event as a unique opportunity to collectively discuss world problems and to try to find the ways of their resolution.

Undoubtedly, the past Summit is of great importance for the Republic of Belarus too. This is, first and foremost, an opportunity to express from the UN rostrum our understanding and vision of international relations in their evolution, to inform about sizable achievements of our country and to put forward concrete proposals that address most acute world concerns. We believe that such a right grants us the authority of our state, unwavering commitment of Belarus in the course of more than 60 years to the goals and principles of the United Nations, enshrined in its Charter.

- How did the Belarusian diplomacy participate in the preparation to the UN Summit?

- That the focus of the Summit 2005 would go beyond the area of development and would encompass the whole range of global problems became clear by December 2004. By that time a report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Changes had been launched. The panel was established by UN Secretary General Koffi Annan and was tasked with making proposals on UN reform. It was necessitated by the loss of importance and authority of the United Nations that starkly demonstrated itself in its inability to forestall the war in Iraq. In the report the most earnest attempt was undertaken since the foundation of the United Nations to carry out broad reforms of the Organization. The authors of the report made proposals with regard to reforming main UN bodies such as the Security Council, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council as well as strengthening various activities of the United Nations.

The negotiations during the preparation of the Summit reflected differences existing among states and groups of states in relation to their visions of the future of international relations and the role that the UN should play in addressing global challenges. Some states, specifically the USA, regard the United Nations primarily as a vehicle for pursuing their own interests. The vehicle that can be both — utilized and ignored — depending on particular situation. For instance, The United States did not need the UN in order to invade Iraq. And conversely, the USA very much needs the authority and potential of the United Nations for coordinating antiterrorist activities of UN Member States.

Belarus, in its turn, as the vast majority of Member States, in the course of negotiations advocated the central role of the United Nations in the world. We, as other states — supporters of this approach do not contemplate the possibility of pursuing national interests by actions that may contravene UN Charter. Therefore, we do not accept double standards towards UN activities. Similarly, we do not accept questionable ideas that run counter to the Charter: for example, those that condone interference in internal affairs of states under popular slogans of promoting democracy and human rights.

Belarusian diplomats actively participated in the preparation to the Summit. I conveyed the overall position of our country on UN reform to Special Representative of the UN Secretary General, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ireland Dermot Achern during his visit to Minsk in June 2005. UN Secretary General Koffi Annan was informed of our position.

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Belarus to the United Nations has purposefully worked to advance the interests of our country in the Summit Outcome Document. We worked there hand and glove with those countries that share our views on the evolution of international relations and UN reform, namely, with Russia, China, India, Member States of the Non-Aligned Movement. We succeeded in embedding our interests in the Outcome Document, for the main part, with regard to development, human rights and problematique of countries with economy in transition.

We had made particular efforts to include in the Outcome Document the initiatives, which the President of the Republic of Belarus was to enunciate in his statement at the Summit on 15 September.

- Would you tell us, please, about the participation of the President of Belarus in the Summit?

- President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko is one of the few world leaders, who have got the experience of taking part in all three United Nations Summits. During the events Summits the President held a number of meetings with other world leaders as well as with senior officials of the United Nations and other international organizations. An active participation in such high-level events is not just a real contribution to collective efforts that tackle common for the humankind problems, but is also a concrete means to advance national interests.

Noteworthy in this regard is the fact that his vision of the character of the forthcoming Summit and the role of Belarus in this landmark event, the President outlined more than a year before the Summit, in July 2004, at the meeting with the Belarusian senior diplomatic corps. The President has then stated that the high-level event should become a search for ways out of the impasse, which the international community finds itself in as a result of strengthening of the unipolar world. The Republic of Belarus cannot be just a statist in the “crowd”, but must propose to the international community its own vision of the future and its ways to grapple with urgent international concerns. These considerations were uppermost in our minds while we were preparing a visit of the Head of State to the Summit.

The high-level event was in session from 14th to 16th September. The statement of the President of the Republic of Belarus took place on 15th September. I believe that all remember that vivid speech quite well. Commentaries and reactions to it from the whole variety of international public — be it politicians, academia, journalist and ordinary people, regardless of their diverging political views, — right after the Summit and in the course of the past months, by and large were unanimous. The statement of the Belarusian President was assessed as overbold in demonstrating truth, right in providing analyses of international relations, meaningful in contained proposals.

The Head of our State, as few among other world leaders, gave an honest and impartial assessment of the state of international relations at the beginning of the XXI century. He distinctly spoke about our common problems and estimated the situation in the world as deadlocked. Indeed, there is a whole array of problems in the world — poverty, terrorism, trafficking in humans, international crime, spread of diseases, environmental degradation. When the sole world leader does not wish to co-operate in common efforts that address development challenges and moreover, by its unilateral actions destroys the system of international relations, the prospects for progressive human development, unfortunately, look bleak.

In the session of the UN General Assembly the President bravely pointed to hypocrisy and double standards applied by the mighty of the world in pursuit of their selfish interests. Not many leaders would have the courage to speak openly and honestly about what in reality stands behind pretty slogans about the promotion of human rights and the imposition of the so-called “democratization”. But I am sure that the overwhelming number of world leaders participating in the Summit could not help agreeing with the bitter truth spoken by our President. This was confirmed during informal contacts with foreign diplomats in the UN as at the Summit as after it.

The thing here, however, is not only and so much in boldness. The fact of the matter is that without an honest look at the world it is impossible to discern the right ways that may lead the international community out of the impasse.

Particularly remarkable to the delegations of many states was part of the President's speech devoted to the place of Belarus in today's world. The Republic of Belarus is the country with the highly educated and tolerant people, which craves for peace and stability on the planet and achieves everything by its own work. Belarus is the country without internal and external conflicts, where people of all nationalities, races and religions live side by side in peace. Belarus is the country that made more than a worthy contribution to international disarmament, being the first in the world to have relinquished the available nuclear weapons. Belarus is the country committed to international co-operation and respectful of the right of every state to independent development.

In his statement the President announced two concrete major initiatives. The President called upon the international community to recognize as one of the basic principles of international relations the diversity of paths of development towards progress and urged Member States to apply efficient measures in the fight against trafficking in humans.

- How important for the international community are the initiatives put forward by our Head of State from the UN rostrum?

- The initiatives are very urgent. But before I reveal their essence to the readers, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that these initiatives were preceded by other major international initiatives, which the Head of our State proposed in due course of time. And always these foreign policy steps were a timely response to most urgent issues of international life.

Let us recall 1998. We were on the eve of the first wave of NATO expansion to the East. All attempts of Russia, Belarus and other concerned states to prove the lack of historic necessity of this step could not forestall the process. Seeing the inevitability of Alliance's enlargement, the President of Belarus was searching ways for mitigating negative consequences that would result from the process and proposed to declare Central and Eastern Europe a nuclear-free zone. This initiative had an appeal to all, without exception, countries of the region. The General Assembly has adopted a resolution in the end of 1998, in which it urged all countries to refrain from deploying nuclear weapons in the region of Central and Eastern Europe. Due to moral and political significance of the resolution NATO nuclear member-states up to this date have not resolved to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new member-states of the Alliance.

Many of us still hold fresh in our minds the events of spring of 1999 that are linked to NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. At the very height of bombing our President arrived in Belgrade in an attempt to end the war. The Head of State proposed to establish a UN Mission of civilian observers in Kosovo. Afterwards this initiative was implemented in the settlement: the UN Mission in Kosovo was set up and it is still functioning.

The initiatives put forward by the President at the Summit in September 2005 are not detached from the reality either. They contain answers to the challenges of today. Although these two initiatives are different, they both pursue common noble goals embodied in the UN Charter — maintaining international peace and security, opening up opportunities for all countries and peoples to live freely and to freely develop.

- Let us now, Mr. Minister, have a proper look at the initiatives' essence and significance.

- The first is about recognition of the diversity of countries' and peoples' paths of development towards progress. It is a rebuff to the attempts of the superpower to treat all alike, i.e. to impose on all countries the so-called “liberal democracy” of an American type. There is a strong ground for believing that the imposition of “democracy” from an ad-hoc factor in the US foreign policy is turning into a constant one. Take the National Security Strategy of the USA of 2002. The “advance of democracy and freedom” is one of the fundamental goals of the foreign policy of the United States. At that the document does even conceal the intention to act unilaterally. What is noteworthy is that “democracies” are becoming the ones that are guided and controlled, by the USA, of course.

It is obvious that pragmatic considerations of advancing the interests of the USA, first of all the economic ones, such as getting access to resources and markets of foreign countries, often without regard for the interests of those countries, underlie the policy of “democracy” promotion. It goes without saying that all countries, Belarus and USA alike, have legitimate external interests and seek to uphold them. The question is how? Our point of view is that legitimate interests should be upheld through legitimate means, which correspond to the principles of the UN Charter. And not through the quite opposite tools such as exertion of pressure, hand wringing, staging of coups and aggression. Such policy, understandably, cannot be advertised in its bare form. Therefore, it is presented to the “clients” in a pretty ideological wrapper.

I constantly put the word democracy in inverted commas, because the meaning of it is different for the leaders of some Western states and for the vast majority of other countries. It is obvious that there cannot be a single, even more so a prescribed from “above” form of democracy. Democracy is both many-sided and individual at the same time. In each case her form is the mix result of historical, cultural, social and other factors that have been inherent to a given people in a given time.

That is why the initiative of the President of Belarus is not just a beautiful statement. It demonstrates the deep understanding in an equal degree of both the essence and the specifics of international relations. It is the call to the whole world to realize the fact that we are all different and live so as was determined for each and every people by its history, traditions and culture. Because our form of development is different from the form of another people we should not aspire to change the form of that another people. On the contrary, we must respect the choice of other peoples. The imposition of alien development models upon other countries and peoples is fruitless. Such forms cannot be effectively grafted since they lack historical roots. If the mighty of the world add to their foreign policy arsenal the principle of diversity, then their foreign policy would rid itself of redundant “democratic” and “human rights” rhetoric, which no one except the “masters of puppets” needs. There are a lot of problems in the world and all the states should as never before closely co-operate instead of being at enmity with each other.

The second initiative of the President is the call to the international community to adopt efficient measures in the fight against trafficking in humans. This phenomenon is indeed the disgrace of the civilization. Slavery seems to have irrevocably vanished in the past. At the same time, neo-slavery in the form of trafficking in humans has become a thriving business. Hundreds of thousands of people fall victims to the contemporary slavery every year. This problem has become a matter of special concern for many countries and international organizations. Nevertheless, the measures that have already been taken seem to be insufficient to put an end to this evil. The Head of our State made a proposal to apply an integrated approach to the fight against trafficking in humans, i.e. to wage such fight not only in the states of origin and transit of “live commodity”, but also in the states of destination. With this in mind he proposed to impose legal responsibility on all those involved in the process, including on consumers. This suggestion represents an absolutely new approach to the problem. We are convinced that the application of principles enunciated by our President in the fight against trafficking in humans will enable the international community to make their efforts really comprehensive and effective.

In summarizing what I have just said, I would like to emphasize once more that the Head of our State proposed at the UN General Assembly concrete ways out of specific complex situations. We hope that the international community will take them into their arsenal and we are certain that the community will choose a right path. Much should be done for this, but the starting point for all is to take an honest and impartial look at the world, exactly as the President of Belarus did.

- What are the outcomes of the UN Summit and the prospects of their implementation?

- The past Summit was not as ostensibly effective as the UN Millennium Summit in 2000. Now there were no such resonant results as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were adopted then. But we must be conscious of the fact that the tasks set by the international community before the Summit 2005 were much more difficult and broader than previously. The international situation over the past few years became more complicated than for the whole period since the end of bloc confrontation. The war in Iraq has led to deep cleavages within the international community over such a principled issue as whether it is acceptable or unacceptable that external forces through military action, which, however, is not authorized by the UN, impose upon a given country a different system of government. That is why, on one hand, many held expectations that the Summit would somehow smooth over sharp differences among states and find common ground for dealing with global issues. On the other hand, there was no lack of pessimist predictions either. Many contended that the differences derived from the rise of unipolar world would only grow and it was beyond the Summit's ability to resolve them.

It would be useful to assess the results of the high-level event through the categories of form and content. I suppose, in terms of form the international community can be quite satisfied with the event's result. Almost all of the world leaders took part in the Summit. The very fact of such participation is telling. First of all, this is the reconfirmation by all the leaders that multilateralism along with the central role of the United Nations are the keys to addressing the whole range of current challenges and threats. No President or Prime-minister openly spoke during the Summit in favor of unilateralism and no one questioned the need for preserving the United Nations. On the contrary, all of them in their statements, including those who recently had spoken quite differently, insisted on the opposite — on the need to strengthen multilateral co-operation and the United Nations, in the frame of which such co-operation can be most effectively organized. The fact of public demonstration of these views is very important. Because, for those leaders who do not have a habit to follow their words with deeds, it would be somewhat harder to pursue a policy of hypocrisy, without risking to draw upon themselves censure of the entire world. I would say that in this regard the Summit installed a kind of a moral barrier to further unilateral actions that do not enjoy UN support.

The real content of the high-level event's results various states view in different light. This content is embodied in the Summit Outcome Document. The document, as it is typical, in a compromise form reflects the basic visions of human development in the near to medium perspective. Belarus as well as the vast majority of countries believes that the Outcome Document does not contain sufficient proposals that serve to strengthen the United Nations. The Outcome document might have been richer in content. For instance, the Document does not include disarmament issues, thereby posing a quandary as to what role the UN would assume in the process in the future. Not enough the Document prioritize the issues of development. It does not outline here new measures that would raise our hopes that donor-states are prepared to increase assistance for the world development.

There are dangers that some provisions of the Outcome Document, squeezed in it by their authors, as a matter of fact may lead in time to the emasculation of fundamental goals and principles of UN Charter as well as of the UN itself. This primarily concerns the concept “responsibility to protect”. No one has any doubt that the internationally community must intervene in cases of genocide and mass killings.

Negotiations on specific forms and methods of implementing Outcome provisions are still underway. The talks are strained enough since the stakes are high. We stand for the level playing field in the process. The situation, when one set of rules applies for some states and another set of rules applies for the other should not take place.

Therefore, the Summit outcomes are perceived differently. Each state will strive to implement those provisions of the Outcome Document that meet its interests and its vision of UN role in the current world. And conversely, every state will oppose the implementation of those provisions, which it has no interest in.

- Would you tell us, please, about the work of the delegation of Belarus in the 60th session of the UN General Assembly in advancing national interests?

- Traditionally the work of the Belarusian Diplomats during the UN General Assembly Sessions subordinates to such basic tasks as building of the just world order, strengthening the central role of the UN and also receiving definite practical benefits for the country.

At the same time we strive for strengthening positive image of the Republic of Belarus. We also clarify the conceptual basis of foreign and home policy of the Republic of Belarus. We oppose to implementation possible initiatives, being able to cause damage to the interests of Belarus and try to direct the UN recourses to those development goals, which correspond to our interests.

The main task of our delegation for the ongoing session became the implementation of the President's initiatives. The forms and means of their implementation are different. The initiative on the recognition of diverse paths of development falls into a category of conceptual and long-term initiatives. It is important that we succeeded in embedding it in the Summit Outcome Document.

The second initiative of our President — on the fight against trafficking in humans — certainly, is of a practical nature. Our goal is to induce the international community to undertake really efficient measures that would bring specific positive results in the fight against this evil. In an effort to elaborate on the President's initiative the Belarusian Minister of Foreign Affairs in his statement at the session made a proposal to establish a “Global partnership against slavery and trafficking in humans in the XXI century”. We foresee the implementation of this initiative through the inclusion of an item on the UN agenda, a comprehensive resolution on the fight against trafficking in humans and the setting up within the UN of a coordinating body such as an interagency group. Our delegation held a press-conference on the issue in UN Headquarters. Many countries, including the USA, Russia, Republic of Korea, Philippines as well as various international organizations and agencies such as UNICEF, International Organization on Migration, UN Office on Drugs and Crime showed interest to the initiative of the President of Belarus. By the way, in 2006 Belarus is the President of the UNICEF's Executive Board. Such keen attention to the initiative gives us hope for its further implementation. And, as a matter of fact, domestic measures taken by the President to effectively combat trafficking in humans place Belarus among lead countries in this area.

During the session the General Assembly adopted initiated by Belarus draft resolutions on the strengthening of international co-operation to study, mitigate and minimize the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster as well as on the prohibition of the development of new types of weapons of mass destruction. The Chernobyl resolution received the record support — 69 Member States became its co-sponsors.

The delegation succeeded in advancing the interests of Belarus as a country with economy in transition in a number of GA economic-oriented resolutions. They enable Belarus to rely on support of UN agencies in the process of our integration into the world economy and our accession to the World Trade Organization.

And finally, our delegation has been very actively participating in the work of various groups on UN reform set up to implement relevant provisions of the Summit Outcome Document. We pay particular attention to reforming UN structures that deal with development issues — Economic and Social Council along with various funds and programmes. Our active efforts are driven by the desire to be elected to ECOSOC so that our country would be in a position to efficiently participate in determining UN policies on development.

- What goals does the diplomatic service of Belarus set for itself to achieve in the future?

- Belarusian diplomats clearly see strategic goals for our country pertaining to the United Nations. In implementing these goals the Ministry of Foreign Affairs takes into account the guidance of the President of the Republic of Belarus, when he stated at the meeting with the national senior diplomatic corps that “it is necessary to concentrate our not big diplomatic and other capacities on those areas, where we can achieve not virtual, but practical result: financial, organizational, political”. Indeed, Belarus, being a middle European state, cannot pursue in the UN such grand goals as major states, first of all, permanent members of the Security Council can. Our goals must be based on our capabilities. At the same time, in implementing our long-term goals we should bear in mind such consideration as the degree to which our goals meet the objectives of other Member States. It is understandable that the bigger the degree is, the higher the chances for the implementation of our goals are.

Two long-term goals can be singled out in the context of our policy towards the United Nations. The first is creating a favorable external environment conducive to national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Belarus. The second is channeling UN assistance to sustainable domestic development, be it in economic, social, cultural or other fields.

The first goal that can be called political presupposes the pursuit of the next tasks:

enhancing the international authority of the Republic of Belarus as a peace-loving state committed to the UN Charter and international law, an active participant of multilateral international co-operation;

strengthening the central role of the United Nations in international affairs.

The second goal, of an economic and social nature, also foresees the implementation of two tasks that bring practical benefits to the country:

strengthening UN capabilities in areas of interest to Belarus: security and disarmament, economy, Chernobyl problematique, fight against illegal migration, crime and terrorism, operational, humanitarian, scientific and normative activities;

bringing in the Republic of Belarus financial, technical, humanitarian aid from organizations and agencies of the UN system. We possess specific tools, with which we intend to implement both goals and tasks.

In the process of implementation of the long-term goals Belarusian diplomats will be closely co-operating with our main partners, first of all, Member States of the Non-Aligned Movement and of the Commonwealth of Independent States. They share many of our tasks, especially those related to strengthening UN role in the world and Organization's capabilities in the main areas of its activities. At the same time we are open to co-operation with all UN Member States on the basis of equality and mutual respect with the view to both strengthening the UN and advancing national interests.

- What role and place do you foresee for the United Nations in the future?

- The Organization must effectively discharge the obligations placed on it by its Member States and carry out its activities in accordance with its Charter provisions. This is the most important thing. The United Nations, of course, should not become an arena for settling scores among states only because some of them may experience bilateral problems. Those problems must be addressed at bilateral level, surely, in full accordance with the principles of the UN Charter, and should not divert the Organization's focus and resources for the purpose of advancing parochial national political interests.

The UN must remain a neutral and impartial international institution, in whose activities all Member States equally take part and which does not place the interests of some states or groups of states above the interests of others.

The United Nations should be free from corruption scandals, indecency, lack of scruple and low professionalism of its personnel.

In today's world the role of the Organization has become greater in some other respect. Its new important function is to provide fair access for all countries to the benefits of globalization and to address problems stemming from the processes. Probably, all would agree that these processes cannot be left to themselves. The consequences would be both irreversible and catastrophic.

The Republic of Belarus would like to see the UN reinvigorated, financially and materially strengthened, depoliticized in its activities and being ready to tackle the whole range of issues on its agenda. Its Secretariat must comprise responsible and professional staff. As the President of Belarus said in his statement at the Summit: “the UN must end up with internal corruption scandals and deal with the pain and plights of the world”. Indeed, there are many persistent problems. Inaction only makes them more urgent. No one except us — all countries of the world — can harness the negative consequences of globalization.

We would also like to see the United Nations united — a genuine forum of multilateralism and collective action — in spite of the diversity of political, economic and cultural development of world's countries. In this regard the words of our Head of State spoken at the Summit that if we, UN Member States implement the principles of multipolarity, diversity and freedom of choice, then we shall defend the world from terrorism, weak, women and children from slavery and protect all those unprotected, are particularly poignant.

The United Nations, even given its all deficiencies, is the best collective tool at the service of the mankind in its entire history. This tool enables the international community to address the problems of contemporary time together. If all the states come to the realization both theoretical and practical that there is neither now and nor will be in the future an alternative to the UN, then the United Nations will be able to occupy that deserving place and to discharge that responsible role that were prescribed to it by its founders, including Belarus, in 1945.

“Respublica”
Minsk