The transcripts are AI-generated from the UN's English audio and can contain mistakes. We are checking them against the statements the missions publish; some errors are still expected.
It is precisely a state that is confident in its democratic and strategic choices that can engage and cooperate with greater confidence, with countries that have different histories, different interests, and different political perspectives. The world does not need yet another division into permanent camps. It needs competition with limits and rules that all must respect, alliances that take responsibility, and international institutions that remain a space for a dialogue precisely when dialogue is most difficult. That is why the United Nations matters, not because they can resolve every conflict. Clearly they cannot. Not because every resolution is given effect. Clearly, that is not always the case, and that should not discourage us. It should strengthen our determination to protect these United Nations and the rules upon which they are founded, and to stand for multilateralism grounded in values, mutual respect and rules. Because a world without a place where all states, regardless of their size, can sit under the same roof and invoke the same principles, would be even more dangerous than the world we see today. In 1954, Dag Hammarskjöld reminded us of a thought: the United Nations were not created to take us to heaven, but to save us from hell. Seven decades later, it is worth understanding the essence of that statement. We should not demand perfection from United Nations. We should demand relevance, the capacity to prevent and to mediate the capacity to protect human dignity and ultimately, the capacity to uphold principles, even when applying them is politically inconvenient. Today trust in the international system is being jeopardized precisely because too many people have a justified sense that the rules do not apply equally, that power sometimes take precedence over principle, that commitments are conditional, that agreements last only as long as interests remain unchanged. For small sized states, this is an especially dangerous world. Our own history has taught us that international compromises are very difficult and that peace, stability and integration require political courage and hard sacrifices.
Mr. President, Secretary-General, Excellencies. There is an idea that has accompanied Andorra for more than 270 years, and that continues to shape the way that we understand politics. The Manuel Digest, one of the great works of our institutional heritage through which António Guterres condensed and recounted the essence of Andorran identity, reminds us that the legitimate exercise of power only makes sense when it places the common good above any other interest. This idea, written in 1748, long before modern international organizations came into existence, remains remarkably relevant today because multilateralism is nothing more than the application of this same principle to relations among nations: the understanding that the common good of the international community is inseparable from the well-being of each of our countries. In Andorra, this approach toward politics has enabled us to preserve more than seven centuries of peace, dialogue, and coexistence in harmony, not because history has been easier for us, but because we have learned the best way to protect freedom is to build trust, seek balance, and make compromise a form of governance. Perhaps it is precisely this experience that a small country such as ours can share with this great Assembly today.
Indeed, the problem of the Black Sea has gone from regional to global in scale, with negative regional consequences that come from the war in Iran and the drying up of the Danube River. This is leading to a food crisis in the world, especially in the Middle East and Africa. The inability to export grain and fertilizer poses a real risk of famine this winter in a number of countries in these regions and may compromise the harvest of 2027. Bulgaria cannot and will not remain indifferent.
In this context, I wish to state clearly and unequivocally that Egypt's water security is an existential issue that is not open to compromise. The Nile is not merely an economic resource it is the lifeline upon which the existence and development of Egyptian society have depended throughout history. Egypt believes that transboundary water resources should be a field for cooperation and integration, not conflict. We also believe that water security and development are not contradictory objectives, but complementary ones when political will exists, when intentions are sincere, and when international law is respected. We do not oppose the right of any people to development. Rather, we defend a clear and just principle that the development of one party must not be built upon causing harm to others. Shared resources cannot be managed through unilateral measures or fait accompli policies. They must be managed through cooperation, good neighborliness and the conclusion of binding agreements in accordance with international law that preserve the legitimate rights and interests of all parties. In this regard, Egypt reserves its legitimate and internationally recognized right under the charter of the United Nations and International Law to protect its water security and preserve the existential resources of its people. Amid the multiple threats facing our region, we recall the crisis of brotherly Sudan, a crisis whose consequences extend beyond military confrontations to affect the security and safety of civilians and threaten to dismantle the state institutions.
Because at the end of the day, the future of our children is more important than the pockets of these tech oligarchs. And of course, doing all of these things will require compromise, time, strong leadership, being able to build agreements, to listen, to look beyond our known reality, and imagine a better alternative. And what I'm advocating for, for this leadership, is very clear. Nine men have served as Secretary-General of this organization in its 80 years of existence.
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.
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.
Here, I am referring to all the countries that recognize the unilaterally declared independence of the so-called Kosovo, and without any basis whatsoever in international legal documents attempted to seize 14 percent of the territory of the Republic of Serbia. To many of you, this may sound like a distant past, but the wounds inflicted on international public law are becoming ever deeper and more severe. To be completely precise, the order based on respect for the UN Charter and the law founded upon it no longer exists. It was destroyed by those who tore apart the territories of other countries for the sake of their own political and economic interests. They did so unscrupulously, recklessly, and shamelessly. Do you know, do you know, esteemed friends, what was, in fact, the reason, the sole official and formal reason, for the attack on the territory of the Republic of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia carried out by 19 NATO countries? You will not believe it. They told us that they had attacked a sovereign, free, and independent country in order to prevent a potential humanitarian disaster. The humanitarian disaster did not occur, and I have still not managed to hear or see where a similar example has occurred anywhere in the world. The attack against the small, yet free, and freedom-loving country Serbia, of which I am the proud President, was carried out with the intention of finally destroying the UN order established after World War II and of formally and informally confirming the dominance of a that-time unison Western world of United States of America and Europe. Do you know which countries, dear friends, took part in decision-making in the UN Security Council to bomb an independent and sovereign country that had attacked no other country? Just to add, not a single soldier, not a single police officer from Serbia had set foot on the territory of any other country, and yet a decision was made. I am certain that most of you, dear friends, who are among those best informed about world politics, no longer remember much of these either, and especially not the fact of who in the UNSC voted for that decision, or perhaps in the General Assembly. Do not even try, because it is impossible for you to remember. Why? Because such a decision was never made in the first place, and to make things even worse, no one ever even attempted to make such a decision. They were so arrogant and so powerful that they trampled everything in their path, from the Clinton administration to the administration of numerous European countries. That is precisely why Serbia supposed the actions of the administration of President Donald Trump and sees in his work an opportunity for establishing a more just order in the world and more responsible attitude toward Serbia as a close American ally from both world wars. And what they did not know or understand at the time was this: they trampled Serbia, but they did not defeat it. Serbia rose like a phoenix from the ashes, and today, through its example, it shows everyone in the world how the international public order is preserved and how international public law is protected. Nevertheless, the consequences of that brutal attack against Serbia are enormous, and particularly visible here in the UN General Assembly. Admittedly, they are even more visible on the numerous battlefields around the world. Why? Well, because the principles of any kind no longer exist. Those who once trampled them have no moral right to speak about them. And to make the situation even worse, and the hypocrisy even more visible, it is precisely those very people and those very countries who have assumed the position of supreme teacher of morale and every kind of protection of the values of the modern world. The most difficult thing for us in Serbia is when we see in our surroundings the resurgence of Nazism elevated to the position of social prominence, especially in the Republic of Croatia, which is proud of its Nazi past and of the use of Nazi slogans and symbols today. The Serbian people, as people who suffered the most from Nazi hands, cannot accept the revival of the most terrible ghosts from the past responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Roma in monstrous concentration camps like Jasenovac. That is precisely why moral lectures coming from such sources are completely unacceptable to the Serbian people in Serbia. In addition, for four and a half years now, I have been listening to lectures on how many in the West remain last beacon of democracy in the world, the protectors not of Ukraine's but of the rules and principles of international law. And when they raise their voices thinking that they are being highly moral and that their positions are the only right ones, we simply smile and ask ourselves: And how did you treat Kosovo and Metohia and the territorial integrity of Serbia, which is guaranteed by the UN Charter and the resolution of the UNSC 1244? To that, either there is no answer, or they supposedly give us some well-intentioned advice and tell us not to look to the past, but to the future. When we ask them, do you also say to Ukraine that the territories they are fighting for are not important? We end the pointless conversation and move on to another subject. And I want to warn all of you, all of you here who belong to the Global South, pay the utmost attention while signing all the agreements with great powers. That is how we signed the famous Brussels Agreement in 2013, wishing to resolve problems between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo and Metohia by compromise. All the obligations that were to be met by Serbia have been met, and the only one that was to be met by Albanians, the one about the establishment of the community of Serb municipalities, has not been met to this day. It is interesting that the agreement was accepted not only in the presence of the EU, but it was also confirmed with the signature of the EU, but it meant actually nothing. As the President of Serbia, for ten years I have been facing all possible tricks and pressures to give up on full implementation of what was signed. It is a lesson to us Serbs, but also to all others in the world who want to protect their country. In spite of everything, Serbia will defend its country, its territorial integrity, the UN Charter, the UN Security Council resolution 1244. I wish to thank individually every 107 countries, states that have not recognized the unilaterally declared independence of the so-called Kosovo. We know that many of you, that many of those states, have been subjected to pressure, and we know that maintaining a principled position is sometimes far more difficult than it appears from the outside. Thank you for being consistent in not recognizing the independence of a part of Serbia's territory. Excellencies, Serbia is on its European path, and it will have to do many more things in order to become a full-fledged member of the EU.
They are what we allowed, what we still allow, and what we will answer for. There is a painful cry for a better world order as we witness the weakening into irrelevance of multilateral institutions. No country, regardless of size or power, can address today's interconnected challenges alone. Excellencies, leadership is not merely discovering the angriest instinct of the electorate and amplifying it. Leadership is sometimes telling our own supporters that they are wrong. It is explaining complexity when a slogan would be easier. It is asking people to consider tomorrow when they are angry about today. It is persuading citizens that humanity of others who may worship differently, speak another language, or vote for another party does not diminish their own freedoms. Statementship requires patience, persuasion, courage to compromise. And above all, it requires an understanding that power belongs brings responsibility, not exemption. The Charter of the United Nations was not written to make the strong weak. It was written to prevent the strong from making the world unlivable. Soon we will elect a new Secretary-General. The regional rotation precedent must be preserved. Africa had an unprecedented continuous rhetoric: Butrus Butrus-Gali, 1992-1996, Kofi Annan, 1997-2006. Now the Security Council will elect a Latin American as our Secretary-General for 2027-2032. And after more than 80 years of men at the helm of our organization, needless to say, we ought to have enough wisdom and elect a woman with unquestionable integrity, unblemished record, and in defense of human rights, a strong advocacy of gender equality and inclusion, rule of law, democracy, solid experience in senior management in national and multilateral institutions. Mr. President, Excellencies, for developing countries, particularly small island developing states and least developed countries, efficiency must translate into stronger delivery on the ground, not reduced essential support. Timor-Leste urges comprehensive reform, expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, so that developing countries and historically underrepresented regions have a stronger voice in decisions concerning international peace and security. The veto is inconsistent with the sovereign equality of member states. President, Timor-Leste reaffirms the principles of climate justice, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in the light of different national circumstances. Greater climate ambition must be accompanied by accessible, predictable finance: adaptation support, technology transfer, and capacity building. Artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies reshape our societies. Developing countries must actively participate in their governance and development.
