70 session of the General Assembly. What is the UN General Assembly and why is it needed? About the UN General Assembly

20:08 - REGNUM V. Putin: Dear Mr. Chairman! Dear Mr. General Secretary! Dear Heads of State and Government! Ladies and Gentlemen!

The 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to turn to history and talk about our common future. In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined forces to lay a solid foundation for the post-war world order.

Let me remind you that key decisions on the principles of interaction between states, decisions on the creation of the UN were made in our country at the Yalta meeting of the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition. The Yalta system was really gained through suffering, paid for with the lives of tens of millions of people, two world wars that swept the planet in the 20th century, and, let's be objective, it helped humanity go through the turbulent, sometimes dramatic events of the last seven decades, saved the world from large-scale upheavals.

The United Nations is a structure that has no equal in terms of legitimacy, representativeness and universality. Yes, there has been a lot of criticism of the UN lately. Allegedly, it demonstrates insufficient efficiency, and the adoption of fundamental decisions rests on insurmountable contradictions, primarily between the members of the Security Council.

However, I want to note that there have always been disagreements in the UN, throughout the entire 70 years of the existence of the organization. And the right of veto has always been used: it was used by the United States of America, and Great Britain, and France, and China, and the Soviet Union, and later Russia. This is quite natural for such a diverse and representative organization. When the UN was founded, it was not supposed that unanimity would reign here. The essence of the organization, in fact, lies in the search and development of compromises, and its strength lies in taking into account different opinions and points of view.

The decisions discussed at the UN platform are agreed in the form of resolutions or are not agreed upon, as diplomats say: they pass or they do not pass. And any actions of any states in circumvention of this order are illegitimate and contradict the Charter of the United Nations, modern international law.

We all know that since the end of the Cold War—everyone knows this—there has been a single center of domination in the world. And then those who were at the top of this pyramid were tempted to think that if they are so strong and exceptional, then they know best what to do. And consequently, there is no need to reckon with the UN, which often, instead of automatically sanctioning, legitimizing the necessary decision, only interferes, as we say, "gets under one's feet." There was talk that the Organization, in the form in which it was created, was outdated and had fulfilled its historic mission.

Of course, the world is changing, and the UN has to match this natural transformation. Russia, on the basis of a broad consensus, is ready for this work on the further development of the UN with all partners, but we consider attempts to undermine the authority and legitimacy of the UN to be extremely dangerous. This could lead to the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations. Then we really will not have any rules, except for the right of the strong.

It will be a world in which selfishness will dominate instead of collective work, a world in which there will be more dictate and less equality, less real democracy and freedom, a world in which, instead of truly independent states, the number of de facto protectorates controlled from outside will multiply. territories. After all, what is state sovereignty, which colleagues have already spoken about here? This is, first of all, a question of freedom, free choice of one's own destiny for every person, for the people, for the state.

By the way, dear colleagues, the question of the so-called legitimacy of state power is in the same line. You can not play and manipulate words. In international law, in international affairs, each term must be clear, transparent, must have a uniform understanding and uniformly understood criteria. We are all different and should be treated with respect. No one is obliged to adapt to one model of development, recognized by someone once and for all as the only correct one.

We all should not forget the experience of the past. For example, we also remember examples from the history of the Soviet Union. The export of social experiments, attempts to spur changes in certain countries, based on their ideological attitudes, often led to tragic consequences, led not to progress, but to degradation. However, it seems that no one learns from the mistakes of others, but only repeats them. And the export of the now so-called "democratic" revolutions continues.

It is enough to look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as the previous speaker spoke about. Of course, political and social problems in this region have been brewing for a long time, and people there, of course, wanted changes. But what actually happened? Aggressive external interference has led to the fact that instead of reforms, state institutions, and the way of life itself, were simply unceremoniously destroyed. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, there is violence, poverty, a social catastrophe, and human rights, including the right to life, are not put into anything.

I just want to ask those who created this situation: “Do you even understand now what you have done?” But I'm afraid this question will hang in the air, because the policy, which is based on self-confidence, the conviction of one's exclusivity and impunity, has not been abandoned.

It is already obvious that the vacuum of power that arose in a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa led to the formation of zones of anarchy, which immediately began to be filled with extremists and terrorists. Tens of thousands of militants are already fighting under the banner of the so-called Islamic State. Among them are former Iraqi soldiers who were thrown into the streets as a result of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Libya is also a supplier of recruits, whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of Resolution No. 1973 of the UN Security Council. And now members of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition supported by the West are also joining the ranks of the radicals.

They are first armed, trained, and then they go over to the side of the so-called Islamic State. And the "Islamic State" itself did not arise from scratch: it was also initially nurtured as a weapon against objectionable secular regimes. Having created a foothold in Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State is actively expanding its expansion to other regions, aiming at dominance in the Islamic world and not only there. Only these plans are clearly not limited. The situation is more than dangerous.

In such a situation, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including through the drug business, illegal trade in oil, weapons, or try to manipulate extremist groups, put them on your own. service to achieve their own political goals in the hope of somehow dealing with them later, or, simply speaking, liquidating them.

To those who really act like this and think like that, I would like to say: dear gentlemen, you are dealing, of course, with very cruel people, but not stupid or primitive at all, they are no more stupid than you, and it is still unknown who uses whom for your purposes. And the latest data on the transfer of weapons of this most moderate opposition to terrorists is the best confirmation of this.

We consider any attempts to flirt with terrorists, and even more so to arm them, not just short-sighted, but flammable. As a result, the global terrorist threat may critically increase and cover new regions of the planet. Moreover, in the camps of the "Islamic State" militants from many countries, including European ones, are "running in".

Unfortunately, I must say this frankly, dear colleagues, and Russia is no exception here. These thugs, who have already smelled blood, cannot be allowed to return to their home and continue their dirty work there. We don't want this. After all, nobody wants that, right? Russia has always firmly and consistently opposed terrorism in all its forms.

Today we are providing military-technical assistance to both Iraq and Syria, other countries in the region that are fighting terrorist groups. We consider it a huge mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian authorities, the government army, with those who courageously fight terror face to face. We must finally admit that apart from the government forces of President Assad, as well as the Kurdish militia in Syria, no one is really fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. We know all the problems of the region, all the contradictions, but we still need to proceed from the realities.

Dear colleagues! I have to say that lately our honest and direct approach has been used as a pretext to accuse Russia of growing ambitions. As if those who talk about it have no ambition at all. But the point is not in Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but in the fact that it is no longer possible to tolerate the situation that is taking shape in the world.

In reality, we propose to be guided not by ambitions, but by common values ​​and common interests based on international law, to unite efforts to solve the new problems facing us and to create a truly broad international anti-terrorist coalition. Like the anti-Hitler coalition, it could rally in its ranks the most diverse forces, ready to resolutely oppose those who, like the Nazis, sow evil and misanthropy.

And, of course, Muslim countries should become key participants in such a coalition. After all, the "Islamic State" not only poses a direct threat to them, but also desecrates the world's greatest religion, Islam, with its bloody crimes. The militants' ideologues mock Islam and distort its true humanistic values.

I would like to address the Muslim spiritual leaders: both your authority and your mentoring word are very important now. It is necessary to protect the people whom the militants are trying to recruit from rash steps, and those who were deceived and, due to various circumstances, ended up in the ranks of terrorists, must be helped to find the way to a normal life, lay down their arms, and stop the fratricidal war.

In the coming days, Russia, as chairman of the Security Council, is convening a ministerial meeting for a comprehensive analysis of threats in the Middle East. First of all, we propose discussing the possibility of agreeing on a resolution on coordinating the actions of all forces that oppose the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. I repeat, such coordination should be based on the principles of the UN Charter.

We hope that the international community will be able to work out a comprehensive strategy for the political stabilization and socio-economic recovery of the Middle East. Then, dear friends, there will be no need to build refugee camps either. The flow of people forced to leave their native land literally swept first neighboring countries, and then Europe. Here the bill goes to hundreds of thousands, and can go to millions of people. This is, in fact, a new great bitter migration of peoples and a hard lesson for all of us, including Europe.

I would like to emphasize that refugees certainly need compassion and support. However, this problem can be fundamentally solved only by restoring statehood where it was destroyed, by strengthening the institutions of power where they still exist or are being recreated, by providing comprehensive assistance - military, economic, material - to countries in a difficult situation and, of course, those people who, despite all the trials, do not leave their native places.

Of course, any assistance to sovereign states can and should not be imposed, but offered, and only in accordance with the UN Charter. Everything that is being done and will be done in this area in accordance with the norms of international law must be supported by our Organization, and everything that is contrary to the UN Charter must be rejected.

First of all, I consider it extremely important to help restore state structures in Libya, support the new government of Iraq, and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.

Dear colleagues, the key task of the international community led by the UN is to ensure peace, regional and global stability. In our opinion, we should talk about creating a space of equal and indivisible security, security not for the elite, but for everyone. Yes, it is difficult, difficult, long work, but there is no alternative to it.

However, the bloc thinking of the Cold War era and the desire to develop new geopolitical spaces still, unfortunately, dominate among some of our colleagues. First, the line on NATO expansion was continued. The question is: why, if the Warsaw bloc ceased to exist, did the Soviet Union collapse? And yet, NATO not only remains, it is also expanding, just like its military infrastructure.

Then they put the post-Soviet countries before a false choice - to be with the West or with the East? Sooner or later, this confrontational logic was bound to turn into a serious geopolitical crisis. This is what happened in Ukraine, where they used the dissatisfaction of a significant part of the population with the current government and provoked an armed coup from the outside. As a result, a civil war broke out.

We are convinced that stopping the bloodshed and finding a way out of the impasse is possible only with the full conscientious implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12 this year. Threats and force of arms cannot ensure the integrity of Ukraine. And you need to do it. We need a real consideration of the interests and rights of people in the Donbass, respect for their choice, coordination with them, as provided for by the Minsk agreements, of the key elements of the political structure of the state. This is the guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized state, as the most important link in building a common space of security and economic cooperation both in Europe and Eurasia.

Ladies and gentlemen, it was not by chance that I just spoke about the common space for economic cooperation. Until recently, it seemed that in an economy where objective market laws operate, we will learn to do without dividing lines, we will act on the basis of transparent, jointly developed rules, including the principles of the WTO, which imply freedom of trade, investment, and open competition. Today, however, unilateral sanctions in circumvention of the UN Charter have become almost the norm. They not only serve political purposes, but also serve as a way to eliminate competitors in the market.

I will note one more symptom of growing economic selfishness. A number of countries have taken the path of closed exclusive economic associations, and negotiations on their creation are behind the scenes, in secret and from their own citizens, from their own business circles, the public, and from other countries. Other states whose interests may be affected are also not informed about anything. Probably, they want to put all of us before the fact that the rules of the game have been rewritten, and rewritten again to please a narrow circle of the elite, and without the participation of the WTO. This is fraught with a complete imbalance of the trading system, fragmentation of the global economic space.

The identified problems affect the interests of all states, affect the prospects for the entire world economy, so we propose to discuss them in the format of the UN, the WTO and the G20. In contrast to the policy of exclusivity, Russia proposes the harmonization of regional economic projects, the so-called integration of integrations, based on the universal transparent principles of international trade. As an example, I will cite our plans to link the Eurasian Economic Union with the Chinese initiative to create an economic belt of the Silk Road. And we still see great prospects in the harmonization of integration processes within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, among the problems that affect the future of all mankind is the challenge of global climate change. We are interested in the results of the UN climate conference to be held in December in Paris.

As part of our national contribution, by 2030 we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70-75 percent of the 1990 level.

However, I propose to look at this problem more broadly. Yes, by setting quotas for harmful emissions and using tactical measures of a different nature, we may, for some time, alleviate the severity of the problem, but, of course, we will not fundamentally solve it. We need qualitatively different approaches. We should talk about the introduction of fundamentally new nature-like technologies that do not cause damage to the surrounding world, but exist in harmony with it and will allow restoring the balance between the biosphere and the technosphere that has been disturbed by man. This is truly a global challenge. I am convinced that humanity has the intellectual potential to answer it.

We propose to convene a special forum under the auspices of the UN to take a comprehensive look at the problems associated with the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change.

We need to unite the efforts and, above all, those states that have a powerful research base, the backlog of fundamental science. We propose to convene a special forum under the auspices of the UN to take a comprehensive look at the problems associated with the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is ready to act as one of the organizers of such a forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, On January 10, 1946, the first session of the UN General Assembly began its work in London. Opening it, the chairman of the preparatory commission for the session, Colombian diplomat Zuleta Angel, in my opinion, very succinctly formulated the principles on which the UN should build its activities. This is good will, contempt for intrigue and cunning, a spirit of cooperation.

Today these words sound like parting words to all of us. Russia believes in the enormous potential of the UN, which should help to avoid a new global confrontation and move towards a strategy of cooperation. Together with other countries, we will work consistently to strengthen the UN's central coordinating role.

I am convinced that, acting together, we will make the world stable and secure and provide conditions for the development of all states and peoples.

Thank you for your attention.

(the organization is banned in Russia), the problems of refugees in Europe and the situation in Ukraine. During the General Assembly, speeches will be made by the leaders of the founding countries of the UN, including Vladimir.

The Russian president, as the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry noted earlier, will talk about Syria and Ukraine. Putin had already delivered a speech at the anniversary UN General Assembly in 2005, but then his speech was quite routine: he raised the topic of adapting the UN to new historical realities and shared plans for Russia's upcoming G8 presidency.

Political blockbuster instead of "Munich speech"

Today, when Russia found itself in international isolation due to the events in Crimea, the Russian leader uses such a platform as the UN for a richer speech: “Putin has not spoken at sessions for a long time, and this one is also the most difficult for Russia. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that his speech will be meaningful and rich, and it will contain "new peace initiatives," says the Americanist professor.

At the same time, those who expect Putin to repeat the "Munich speech" will be disappointed. “This is not the best place for that, so everything will be peaceful here,” said Zevelev, who expects to hear “something new about Syria.”

In turn, the expert of the EurAsEC Institute, Nadana Friedrichson, characterizes the General Assembly itself as a "political blockbuster", where Russia and the United States will confront each other for influence on European countries in the Syrian crisis. “The US and Russia will fight to win over as many European partners as possible to their position on resolving the Syrian crisis,” says Friedrichson.

The General Assembly will not resolve the Syrian crisis - only the Security Council has the authority to take decisive action, but the speeches will make it possible to hear the different positions of the parties on the crisis in Syria and its consequences in the form of an influx of refugees to Europe. “These two themes have something in common: they both pose a threat to nation-states. Here the task is to identify pain points, and not to develop specific signals, ”says Zevelev.

Working with refugees in various countries of the world is a favorite hobby of various UN organizations and the main one is the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees. True, UN officials admit that the organization does not have money to solve the problems of Syrian refugees. “At the beginning of the year, we asked for help in raising $4.5 billion to help 4 million refugees in neighboring countries. Today is already September, and we have collected no more than 40% of the funds,” the official said in a recent interview with American NPR radio. Donations from national governments and private foundations are the only way to receive funds. In this regard, it is expected that UN officials, both from high rostrums and on the sidelines of the summit, will ask the leaders of states to fork out.

What will Obama say?

The American president will talk about the US efforts to combat the terrorist group ISIS - the US leads a coalition to fight the Islamists. Last year, Obama used the UN platform to talk about the same threat. He personally held a meeting on this issue, which is rare for an American president. True, in that speech he mentioned ISIS only a couple of times, stating that the ideology of this terrorist group "will perish, it is only necessary to bring it to clean water and meet it face to face in the light of day."

Unlike high-flown words about ISIS, the role of Russia in Ukraine was spoken about more specifically. “Russian aggression in Europe is reminiscent of the days when big nations triumphed over small nations driven by territorial ambitions,” Obama said.

It is not yet clear whether the new speech will be so tough on Russia or whether Syria and ISIS will take the main place in it, and Russia will be mentioned only in passing. If this happens, it will mean that the crisis in Ukraine will go by the wayside for the United States.

It is worth noting that this is the last chance for Obama to speak at such a representative session of the General Assembly. He resigns from his post the following year. "It's important if Obama can speak as a world leader, and not just as the president of the United States," says Nikolai, president of the Center for Global Interest in Washington.

According to Zlobin, this General Assembly will show whether it will be possible "to find a common ground for the diplomacy of the West, Russia, the United States and China, or it will emphasize and intensify the split of the world and the isolation of Russia."

A meeting between Putin and Obama on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly may or may not take place. Neither side confirmed that such a meeting had been requested. If it does take place, no breakthroughs should be expected, but even a short handshake or an exchange of views is very important, given the depth of the crisis in relations. It is not yet clear whether Putin will meet with the President of Ukraine. So far, there is no exact information about this, and the Ukrainian side notes that "there are agreements between the capitals."

The Security Council is turning, the Security Council is turning...

During the General Assembly, there will be a lot of talk about the reform of the UN itself. Politicians on both the right and the left have been saying for many years that UN reform is overdue and that one of the main goals is to change the Security Council. Countries such as Germany, Japan, India and Brazil have long been among the contenders for permanent membership in the Security Council. As Sergei Lavrov, the head of the organization, noted in an interview, today there are "two irreconcilable positions" on this issue. “One group of countries absolutely insists on the creation of new permanent seats, and the second believes that it is categorically impossible to allow the creation of new permanent seats and that solutions should be sought through expanding the number of non-permanent members,” the head of Russian diplomacy noted. “At the same time, both groups are in favor of expanding the UN Security Council,” Lavrov said.

In turn, Zlobin from the Center for Global Interests expects that one of the main intrigues of the General Assembly will be precisely the statement of fact: the UN, and even more so the Security Council, are politically dead. “It is unlikely that everyone will celebrate the anniversary and not think about how to create an international organization capable of being an adequate tool for managing the international system in the current conditions. The UN has long turned into a humanitarian organization that is unable to properly resolve any political conflict,” he said.

One of the most anticipated speeches will be the speech of Vladimir Putin, who will visit the United States for the first time since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis. Our correspondent Nina Vishneva more.

The United Nations has opened a new season of stormy discussions and possibly life-changing decisions belatedly. Even the special anniversary date had no effect. However, the first meeting of any session of the UN General Assembly is just the initial one for resolving internal issues, including with discipline and punctuality. celebratory speeches and congratulations - all this will come later.

The traditional moment of silence at the beginning "for prayer and reflection", as written in the UN Charter. Also, according to the charter, the General Assembly has a new chairman. Mogens Lykketoft is the Speaker of the Danish Parliament at the time of his election.

"I declare open the regular 70th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations."

No sooner had I taken a chair than I had to deal with not the most pleasant questions about non-payment of dues. 5 of the 193 states that make up the international community are bad debtors.

Mogens Lukketoft, President of the 70th Session of the UN General Assembly:"I remind you of the charter: UN member states that are in arrears do not have the right to vote in the General Assembly."

During the coming year, the meetings of the General Assembly will consider about 170 issues related to the maintenance of peace and security, as well as economic growth and disarmament. It will culminate in a high-level session from 28 September to 3 October. It promises to become one of the most representative in history, to bring together the maximum number of leaders of states. And the most anticipated by politicians, experts, the press, of course, is the speech of the President of Russia. He will take part in the general political discussion and at the UN summit on sustainable development. This is Vladimir Putin's first visit to the United States since the start of the Syrian and Ukrainian crises.

Each participant of the General Assembly, including the Russian President, will have such a brochure "Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly" on the table. This is, at the moment, a set of main laws for all countries that are part of the international community. The Rules, like all UN working documents, are issued in the five official languages ​​of the UN, including Russian. The last time changes and additions to these rules were made in 2006. In the list of issues that will be raised by the anniversary session, there is also the point of adjusting the rules in accordance with the changing situation in the world.

This season, the campaign for the election of the UN Secretary General officially starts. Ban Ki-moon's term ends on December 31, 2016.

Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General:"There's a lot of work to be done as world leaders come together to establish a landmark 2030 sustainable development agenda and an agreement on climate change."

A key aspect of the international agenda during all meetings of the General Assembly should also be issues related to joint efforts to combat terrorism, as well as the situation with refugees to Europe from the countries of the Middle East and Africa.

The Russian delegation at the anniversary session of the General Assembly will hold not only a number of landmark meetings in the Security Council, but also numerous diplomatic meetings, as they call it, "on the sidelines" and on the sidelines. But it will not do without a holiday - on October 24, the 70th birthday of the United Nations will be celebrated.

In fact, it officially opened on September 15, but only on September 28 did its most important part begin - the general debate, which will last until October 3. Why did all the "political heavyweights" come to New York? More than 140 heads of state and government are going to speak (despite the fact that today 193 states are members of the UN).

Over the past few days, the world politicians have been waiting for the speeches of Barack Obama, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin - and they have had to speak almost one after another. Will world leaders be able to offer effective steps to ease tensions on the planet, which really threatens to escalate into a major war? In our opinion, some short-term detente in relations between the United States and Russia is quite possible - primarily on the basis of the need to somehow counteract the spread of ISIS and the destruction of Europe under the pressure of refugees. But to believe in "peace and friendship" is stupid and naive: the contradictions are too deep. The US claims to maintain monopoly global leadership and the strengthening of Russia, China and their BRICS partners are incompatible moments. New collisions are inevitable.

Incidentally, the Chinese celebrate Confucius's birthday on September 28, which could be an inspiration for Mr. Xi, who is making his debut at such forums. On September 3, China fully demonstrated its increased military and political power at a grand parade, after which, in particular, during the visit of the President of the People's Republic of China to the United States, it began to show its readiness for peaceful cooperation and smoothing out frictions. But what is significant, Barack Obama, upon arriving in New York, did not, as was customary, stay at the hotel, which was recently bought out by businessmen from the Middle Kingdom.

However, the Chinese are cunning and patient, which allows them to achieve their goals, not paying attention to all sorts of small injections. I recently read an interesting statement by the Russian Sinologist Sergei Tikhvinsky: “Chinese diplomacy has adhered to the “silkworm doctrine” since ancient times. This worm quietly, imperceptibly, but constantly eats, eats, eats a mulberry leaf. And as a result, it gnaws at the whole tree, and there are no leaves left on it. The factor of time works for China - five millennia of continuous development of culture. China has digested everyone – the Huns, the Uyghurs, the Manchus – everyone.” Yes, and he will also “digest” America!

Raul Castro, who is also scheduled to meet with Obama and Putin, will also speak at the General Assembly for the first time. Vivid speeches at the UN by his brother and Che Guevara entered the annals of history. So, Fidel Castro's speech at the 15th session of 1960 (at the very one during which N. Khrushchev promised to show the Americans "Kuzkin's mother"!) entitled "When the philosophy of robbery disappears, then the philosophy of war will also disappear" lasted 4 hours 29 minutes and entered the Guinness Book of Records.

Now the role of the frantic Fidel has been assumed by the President of the Republic of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, who spoke from the UN rostrum on September 27. "Old Man" furiously walked through the American policy that led to the bloody wars in Iraq and Syria. The world, he says, is divided today as never before in the last 30 years. “We still have not been able to restore the balance of power that was lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union. There is no balance of power, no peace, no stability. This is a systemic crisis, ”Alexander Grigorievich made such a conclusion.

The global crisis and prospects for reforming the UN

Ideas of deep reform of the UN, in particular the Security Council, have been thrown up lately, up to the exclusion of some of its permanent members from there or the abolition of the right of veto. Let us tell the supporters of such ideas at once and directly: this is impossible. It must always be borne in mind that the UN is a product of the Second World War, that it was founded by the main participants in the anti-Hitler coalition ("United Nations") in order to consolidate the status quo created as a result of that war, which would provide any kind of world.

Therefore, in order to radically change the structure of the UN, for this it is necessary to conduct another world war and, based on its results, expel all the losers from the Security Council. Or even abolish the UN and establish something else in its place, just as the Second World War ended the League of Nations, born of the First World War. Naturally, not a single person of sound mind wants to shovel up the system of international collective security in this way, which the UN is primarily called upon to serve.

The significance of the right of veto for the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (“the principle of unanimity”) is that it is the basis of the checks and balances mechanism that allows the five great nuclear powers to pursue their interests in a purely peaceful and legal way. If the veto was lifted, I'm afraid that sooner or later someone would have to use another convincing argument in the form of a nuclear bomb to defend their interests. And so Russia, the United States and other permanent members have to seek consensus on all critical issues.

The very attempt to deprive one of them of the right to veto would become something akin to declaring war on this power - with all the ensuing consequences.

Now, as regards the claims of specific states to obtain a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council. By the way, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, at a meeting with colleagues from Japan, India and Brazil, raised the issue of reforming the Security Council. But just Germany and Japan, with their economic strength and great political influence (especially Germany in the European Union), do not have the moral right to claim permanent seats in the Security Council - because they lost the Second World War, because they were guilty of unleashing it and without a statute of limitations responsibility for tens of millions of victims of that war.

Brazil is not yet a great power, especially since it does not have nuclear weapons - and this, whatever one may say, is an important reason for claiming the right of veto. Brazil is still nothing more than an influential regional subpower.

Personally, only the claims of India seem convincing to me. She has a whole set of weighty arguments: this country is the second most populous and one of the largest economies in the world; it has nuclear weapons - albeit without the presence of full-fledged strategic delivery vehicles; it has four millennia of civilization development, considerable merits in the victory in World War II and a leading role in the non-aligned movement since J. Nehru. However, its introduction into the club of permanent members of the UN Security Council with the right of veto would mean a sharp strengthening of the positions of the BRICS, which, of course, the United States and its allies will never agree to.

Nevertheless, in the context of the global crisis and a fundamental change in the balance of power on the world stage, the need to reform the UN is clearly overdue - and everyone understands this. Most likely, the reform will be limited to an increase in the number of members of the Security Council in general with an increase in quotas for those regions of the planet whose weight in the world economy and politics is growing (Latin America, Southeast Asia, etc.). I would suggest introducing a special category of permanent members of the UN Security Council without the right to veto - in my opinion, this would be a good compromise.

Good intentions of the summits

On September 25-27, the UN held a Global Development Summit, which approved the “Sustainable Development Goals” of humanity until 2030. This fundamental document was agreed upon for three whole years, and it replaced similar goals (“Millennium Development Goals”, MDGs) that were adopted at the “Summit Millennium” in 2000. According to Ban Ki-moon, this new program “one can be proud of”. “Now we have to make it [the agreed agenda - KD] a reality for the people,” said the UN Secretary General. True, to implement it, trillions of dollars will be needed, and annually!

The document defines 17 goals with 169 targets. The main goals are numbered 1 and 2: "End poverty in all its forms throughout the world" and "End hunger ...". The MDGs were similar. The final report on their implementation notes progress in resolving the problem of poverty: the number of people living on less than $ 1.25 a day has decreased in the world from 1.9 billion people. in 1990 to 836 million people. now. However, China and India have made the greatest contribution to this matter, while in many African countries the problem is not being solved at all. More than 800 million people in the world still live in poverty and hunger. Children under 15 who are not attending school have halved, but there are still 43 million. The fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria is going on with difficulty.

And, in general, it is hardly possible to say that since 2000 the world has become more prosperous and safer for ordinary people. All measures taken by international institutions to solve the global problems of mankind lead to no more than "half-results". These measures are capable of reducing the scale of poverty and hunger, but they are not able to eradicate them, to end them, as the Goals declare.

The reasons for this were touched upon in his speech at the Summit by Alexis Tsipras: it is impossible to eradicate poverty with neo-liberal thinking. In his words, “We must move away from the neo-liberal mindset that markets are the only allocator of resources in the economy. And we cannot talk about a stable tax system based on the global financial system that encourages tax havens and the creation of offshore companies.” The Greek prime minister summed up his speech with a quote from John Maynard Keynes: "The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in moving away from old ones."

Post Scriptum. Speeches by world leaders - first impressions

Briefly, thesis, the most important and revealing thoughts of the speakers.

Ban Ki-moon, of course, talked a lot about the "Goals". He noted that trillions of dollars in the world are spent on armaments, and not for the benefit of people. Today there are 100 million people on the planet who require urgent humanitarian assistance, 60 million refugees - and they need 200 billion dollars of assistance. Speaking about the problem of refugees, the UN Secretary General said that "in this millennium we should not build walls and fences."

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff also raised the issue of refugees, saying that in a world where the free movement of goods and capital is declared, it is absurd to prevent the movement of people as well. Brazil is a multi-ethnic country "made by refugees" and is open to anyone who needs asylum.

D. Rousseff reaffirmed the demand to expand the Security Council through both permanent and non-permanent members, stressed the important role of BRICS in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, and also welcomed the resumption of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba and advocated the lifting of US sanctions against Havana.

In B. Obama's speech, a large place was occupied by lengthy discussions about democracy, human rights and popular uprisings against "dictatorial regimes" and corruption, which are provided by the development of communication technologies, but are in no way connected with the activities of American NGOs. The President of the United States defended the existing world order, thanks to which, allegedly, "millions of people were lifted out of the shackles of poverty." At the same time, however, the President of the United States recognized the polarization of society, frightened by the growth of "far-right and ultra-left."

Barack Obama put pressure not only on Russia, but also on China, recalling the disputes over the ownership of the islands of the South China Sea - and, as you know, it is on this basis that the Americans put together an “anti-Chinese arc”, trying to lure not only the Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand there but also socialist Vietnam.

Barack Obama expressed confidence that Congress would lift the embargo against Cuba, which "should not exist." These words drew applause.

Xi Jinping began by recalling the victory in World War II. Called for a rejection of the "Cold War mentality". He defended the right of all countries - large and small - to choose their own political system and their own path of development. Big countries should treat small ones as equals.

The Chinese leader recalled the 2008 crisis: when capital pursues only profit, this leads to big problems. It is impossible to rely only on the "invisible hand of the market" - the firm hand of state regulation is also needed! The widening gap between wealth and poverty is unfair.

As the Chairman of the People's Republic of China stated, his country will never follow the path of hegemony, expansion and establishment of spheres of influence. It is necessary to increase the representation of developing countries, incl. African, in the governing bodies of the UN.

Vladimir Putin's speech can be described as restrained and tough. He, like Xi Jinping, began his speech with the origins of the UN, leading its history from the Victory and the Yalta Conference. The Yalta system was paid for with tens of millions of lives. The UN is a structure that has no equal. Its essence is to work out compromises. All attempts to undermine the legitimacy of this organization (a hint of the idea of ​​lifting the veto!) are extremely dangerous - this would lead to a slide into the "dictatorship of force."

No one is obliged to adapt to the model of social structure that someone considers the only correct one. V. Putin compared the current export of “democratic” revolutions with the “export of revolution” during the Soviet era. No one, he said, learns from mistakes, but only repeats them.

Islamists, no matter how cruel they may be, are by no means dumber than the leaders of the West, and it is not yet known who is using whom for their own purposes. The Russian president compared the creation of a coalition against ISIS with the anti-Hitler coalition.

Vladimir Putin devoted a minimum of time to Ukraine in his speech - it is obvious that Moscow is trying to shift the focus of the world community from Ukraine to Syria, and use the Middle East issues to build bridges with the West. The reason for the war in Ukraine: the "confrontational thinking" of the West, which puts the post-Soviet countries in front of a "false choice": "to be with the West or with Russia." Vladimir Putin stressed the need to preserve the integrity of Ukraine.

Comparing the speeches of the three world leaders, again, suggests that Russia and China are looking for common ground in confrontation with America. Many thoughts of Xi Jinping and V. Putin clearly echoed each other and were opposed to the much more "quarrelsome" rhetoric of the US president. Although Obama in his speech still left "windows" for negotiations and cooperation.

The speeches by the heads of the United States, China and Russia set the tone for the stubborn struggle that will most certainly unfold at the opening session of the General Assembly. In any case, a tough diplomatic struggle is better than an open war - unless diplomacy prepares this war and does not grow into it. It is likely that in the coming years a reform of the organizational structure of the UN will take place.

Negotiations and agreements around this are extremely important in terms of which of the world powers will be able to put the countries of the Third World on their side. Xi Jinping, in my opinion, quite clearly stated that his country is the best friend of developing nations, that it is - in contrast to the dictates of the United States and the planting of its puppets through "color revolutions" - is focused on "soft expansion". That's why he is a "silk worm"!

www.sologubovskiy.ru/articles/2219/?clear_cache=Y
So will the US fight against terrorism or not?

The speech of the President of Russia at the UN is discussed by all world media
ISIS did not arise from scratch, it was nurtured as a weapon against objectionable regimes, the Russian President said
*********
We all should not forget the experience of the past. For example, we also remember examples from the history of the Soviet Union. The export of social experiments, attempts to spur changes in certain countries, based on their ideological attitudes, often led to tragic consequences, led not to progress, but to degradation. However, it seems that no one learns from the mistakes of others, but only repeats them, and the export of revolutions, now so-called "democratic", continues.
********
The point is not Russia's ambitions; it is impossible to endure the situation that is taking shape in the world.
*********
Together, we will make the world stable and secure.
*******
They want to put us all before the fact that the rules of the game have been rewritten in the interests of a narrow circle of people
*******
Decisions discussed at the UN platform are agreed in the form of resolutions, or they are not agreed upon. Or, as diplomats say, they pass or they don't pass. And any actions of any states bypassing this order are illegitimate and contradict the UN Charter, modern international law.
********
Aggressive external interference has led to the fact that instead of reforming state institutions, the way of life was simply unceremoniously destroyed. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, there is violence, poverty, a social catastrophe, and human rights, including the right to life, are not put into anything.
*******
One would like to ask those who created such a situation - do you even understand now what you have done? I'm afraid this question will hang in the air, because the policy, which is based on self-confidence in its exclusivity and impunity, has not been abandoned.
******
We are all different and should be treated with respect. No one is obliged to adapt to one development model, recognized by someone once and for all as the only correct one.
Recall that before Putin, the Presidents of Brazil, the United States, Poland, China and the King of Jordan made speeches at the UN General Assembly. US leader Barack Obama said that the use of sanctions against Moscow is not evidence of the US desire to return to the Cold War. At the same time, Obama stressed that the United States is ready to protect its partners and can use force "unilaterally."
The Jubilee Assembly began its work on September 16. On its side, Vladimir Putin is to meet with US President Barack Obama. It is assumed that the main topic of conversation will be the situation in Syria. The parties also planned to discuss the conflict in Ukraine.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtP5IEHhfq8
Vladimir Putin, in his speech at the UN General Assembly, called to account those who created the conflict situation in the Middle East and allowed the spread of terrorism.
"Political and social problems have been brewing in this region for a long time, people there, of course, wanted changes. But what happened in reality? Aggressive external interference led to the fact that instead of reforms, state institutions, and the very way of life, were simply unceremoniously destroyed. Instead of triumph democracy and progress - violence, poverty, social catastrophe, and human rights, including the right to life, are not put in anything, - Putin said in a speech that was broadcast on the air of the Russia 24 channel, - I just want to ask those who created this situation: do you even understand now what you have done?"
The President of Russia drew attention to the danger of exporting "democratic" revolutions. "The export of revolutions, now so-called democratic ones, continues," Putin said. He clarified that in all countries where this happened, the situation did not progress, but degraded.
www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2669282&cid=5
It is no longer possible to tolerate the situation that is taking shape in the world. This was stated by Russian President Vladimir Putin during his speech at the UN General Assembly. This applies to both the situation in the Middle East and the crisis in Ukraine. According to him, the coup d'état in Ukraine was provoked from outside. As for Syria, Vladimir Putin called for support for the legitimate government of Bashar al-Assad, as well as support for the governments of Libya and Iraq.
Original article: russian.rt.com/article/119710#ixzz3n3LbIisW