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.
Mr. president as we enter the home stretch of the 2030 agenda, developing nations that have been squeezed by unsustainable debt, shrinking financial space and mounting external shocks. At the core, this is a crisis of international financial system designed for a different era. Liberia calls for urgent structural reform of the international financial architecture. Developing nations need concessional financing, debt sustainability and predictable development capital, not escalating interest rates that threaten survival. At the heart of this reform must be a fairer voice and a vote for developing countries within the Bretton Woods institution, the world Bank and the International Monetary Fund, whose governance reflects the world of 1945 rather than the world of today. A financial system that decides the fate of billions cannot continue to be governed by the few. Reform of our international financial system is not a technical exercise. It is a precondition for delivering the Sustainable Development Goals and for restoring the very trust this Assembly is meeting to discuss.
As the 2030 Agenda enters its final years, partnership must remain central to accelerating SDG progress. Kiribati recently presented its Second Voluntary National Review (VNR), reaffirming our commitment to the 2030 Agenda. We value our longstanding diplomatic relations with traditional partners and welcome countries seeking new partnerships based on mutual respect, shared interests, transparency, sovereign equality and respect for our national priorities. This year, following the submission of our second VNR, my Government convened its first Development Partners Forum on Kiritimati Island, or Christmas Island, which we highly value as the world’s largest coral atoll and the first island to see each new day’s sunrise. The Forum strengthened partnerships between Kiribati and its Development Partners and showcased two flagship projects critical to accelerating economic growth and sustainable development. Participants included Australia, the People’s Republic of China, the European Union, New Zealand, Japan, the United States of America, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and UN agencies.
Mr. president, as a low lying atoll nation with no higher ground, sea level rise is an immediate and stark reality. This week's UN high level meeting on sea level rise has helped achieve new understanding in international law. It is the seas that are rising around us and not our islands which are sinking. Our boundaries and baselines of today. The political footprint on the map will endure in the face of aggressive sea level rise scenarios. Our collective stability and security as Pacific Islands Forum members and as a UN member state will be now better addressed. As an atoll nation, our tide gauge is proof enough that far more action is needed, and we are acting. Confronted with rising seas on our most vulnerable shorelines. We completed the Ebeye Seawall and Footpath last week. 1.8km of oceanside protection built with support from the World Bank, the Green Climate Fund and our own resources. Engineered for rising seas, it now protects 8,400 people and critical energy infrastructure, reduces annual coastal flooding losses and anchors resilient future development on Ebeye, including schools, housing and the proposed new hospital, while providing a safe public space that strengthens community wellbeing. It cost $75 million, took 70,000 tonnes of rocks, took more than a decade to do, and it is just one island of over a thousand. We are taking action and we urgently need strengthened partnership to better protect our islands before sea level rise overtakes us. Mr. president, my nation underscores the importance of the law of the sea as a key pillar of our future. Even before we were a UN member, we fought closely both to participate in UN law of the sea negotiations and to secure these rights in our Constitution. Pacific Island leadership and that of all small island developing states has defined every multilateral milestone for oceans and fisheries. And we will continue to do so. As an ocean people, the consequences of getting it wrong are not from distant impacts, but adjacent to our waters, particularly in the North Pacific, both within the International Seabed Authority and unilateral actions. Collectively, the people and voices of Micronesia must be heard. We are joined by Guam, Northern Marianas, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau in expressing our alarm at seabed mining actions where the decisions are made before impacts are well understood and where adequate safeguards remain undefined. The Marshall Islands joins 45 nations seeking a moratorium on seabed mining. Responsible and science driven regulations need to be in place. Going on guesswork for global oceans is beyond dangerous. There are no do overs. The Marshall Islands looks forward to the first Conference of Parties to the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, to work across silos to advance high seas protection. We urge wide ratification of the agreement. The Marshall Islands looks forward to supporting its secretariat in a host nation, committed to upholding the law of the sea as a matter of both principle and law, in words and in actions. Mr. president, too often the word geopolitics is considered to refer only to the whims of superpowers and not the reality of our fragile place between them.
But if the West wants to take its rightful place in the emerging multi-polar world, it must change. It must understand that the future of our planet lies in cooperation and not confrontation. Yes, it will have to make room on the global bench of international relations and do so in a meaningful way. It will require abandoning the policies of neocolonialism and putting aside the self-imposed isolation to which the EU is condemning itself by creating a new Iron Curtain along its borders with Belarus and Russia. Now on the UN. Is our organisation keeping pace with the times? No, it does not correspond to today's realities. It cannot keep up with change and it is not reforming significantly. Criticism of our organisation is growing every year and it is fairly justified. The very fact that new international global initiatives are emerging outside the system, for example Trump's Board of Peace or the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, China's project. This confirms that the UN is failing to recognise new trends. That is why new formats of cooperation are emerging. The BRICS, the SCO and regional economic and political alliances and they are gaining momentum. But we in Belarus do not see them as competitors to the UN, but rather as catalysts for necessary reform. We have a recipe for restoring the UN to its intended purpose. And it's very simple. Individual countries must stop using the organisation, our shared organisation, for their own selfish ends, and they must begin to think about the fate of our planet, our shared planet as a whole. Only then will the theme of this session cease to be a romantic wish, and instead become a real programme of action. Concrete structural steps are also necessary. First, reform of the UN Security Council. This body cannot remain in a form that was appropriate for the mid-20th century. The council must be strengthened by expanding the category of permanent members to include the countries of the South, which today play an ever increasing role in world affairs. The voice of the global majority must be heard loud and clear in the Security Council. Second, restoring respect for international law and the UN Charter and specifically respect for the law, not the rules based order. The UN Charter has been and remains the only universal document that recognises the sovereign equality of all states. Third, reform of specialized UN agencies. First and foremost, the international financial institutions, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the International Finance Corporation, the World Trade Organization. They must become fair, transparent, accountable and focused on their mandates. Voting quotas in financial institutions must reflect the demographic and economic realities of the 21st century, rather than the post-war balance of power. The use of these organisations for political purposes must be nipped in the bud. This also applies to the International Labour Organization. One might think that its mission is to promote social dialogue. However, today the ILO, in the finest traditions of the Communist International, is attempting to cultivate revolutionary forces in some countries out of labour unions and not to protect workers rights, but to destabilize the situation in countries that are pursuing independent policies at the behest of certain other countries. And most importantly with each new crisis, ordinary people around the world are asking themselves, why isn't the UN working to establish peace? People aren't interested in the UN's constraints. They want to see action and results, and there are none. It is therefore no surprise that many equate the work of our organisation with its secretariat, which is dominated by representatives of Western countries. And just like in Brussels, this is a world of comfortable offices, of sky high salaries and a lifestyle that is very far removed from the concerns of those in need of assistance in various corners of our planet. Many of those officials have never even been to the conflict zones, and they are much further away from them than any volunteer on the front lines. And this is, of course, not so much a criticism of the Secretariat. Rather, it is a criticism of us, the member States, who have allowed this to become the norm, who have allowed this to happen. The Republic of Belarus is a founding member of the United Nations. We were there at the very beginning of the organisation in 1945, and so it pains us to see the weakening of the UN.
Japan is proposing a vision for strengthening supply chains, which encompasses not only the development of alternative supply sources, but also the enhancement of countries ability to respond to supply disruptions, in particular in the field of critical minerals. One example is the Resilient and Inclusive Supply Chain Enhancement Partnership RISE. Under this initiative, we are cooperating with countries that produce critical minerals to enable them to play a greater role in mining, refining and processing. In June, we established RISE+ under the World Bank Group and pledged a contribution of 20 million USD to help develop the infrastructure essential for critical minerals production.
Yet the measure by which we are assessed sees none of it. It sees income and it sees nothing else. It does not capture the full story of my nation, the true cost of our geographic isolation, the fragility of our limited economic base, or the devastating impact a single disaster can have on our people and our progress. In January 2027, Naoero will be considered a high income country in the OECD system. That does reflect real progress. But progress should not be punished because 58% of our revenue comes from bilateral arrangements that are not ours to renew. 87% of the food our people eat is purchased and imported. We have one runway, one port, one road that connects everywhere. None of that appears in how we are assessed. That is why we strongly support the Multidimensional Vulnerability Index, or MVI, and the United Nations efforts to pilot the tool. Its full implementation is essential to ensuring that countries like ours are fairly assessed and adequately supported. It recognizes that vulnerability is complex and it must be seen, measured and acted upon. Mr. president, we acknowledge the significant progress made by some development partners and financial institutions in adopting vulnerability assessments and reviewing the eligibility criteria. The Asian Development Bank, ADB, weighs vulnerability alongside the income and its own policy names my nation as the clearest example of why income alone conceals what small island states face. As a country that is ranked the fifth most vulnerable country in the world on the index and the most vulnerable in the Pacific, we welcome these developments as positive steps. But a gap remains. Not all have taken the necessary steps to truly recognise our realities. I therefore urge all who have yet to do so, including the World Bank, to weigh vulnerability alongside income in decisions on eligibility, as the ADB already does. If the international community is truly serious about restoring trust and managing transformation, it must demonstrate that commitment where it matters most with those who are most vulnerable.
Across climate action, sea level rise and ocean governance, one reality remains: resilience has a cost. For decades, small island developing states have argued that income is not the same as resilience. Mr. President, per capita income cannot show exposure to hurricanes, droughts, pandemic shipping disruptions, energy shocks, conflict, or tourist collapse, nor how quickly one shock can erase years of investment. This year, Saint Kitts and Nevis stood before the United Nations and completed the Pilot Vulnerability and Resilience Country profile under the Multidimensional Vulnerability Index framework. And what did we learn? We learned what our grandparents always knew: a house can look strong from the road and still have rot in the rafters. Vulnerability is not a statistic. It is a roof that was destroyed in a hurricane Beryl. It is a school that became a shelter. It is a family rebuilding for the third time in a decade, because storms have no patience for GNI per capita. Mr. President, we are not asking that gross national income be discarded. We are asking that it stop being expected to tell a story it was never designed to tell. GNI can count our coconuts and our cruise ships. It cannot count our courage, and it cannot count the price we pay to simply remain. It cannot capture the cost of rebuilding the same bridge, clinic, or seawall again and again, while nations twice our size and half of our vulnerability borrowed cheaper than we do. We therefore call on the World Bank, the IMF, development banks, climate funds, and every partner here to incorporate MVI into the architecture of financing, not as charity but as arithmetic and justice made real.
Sovereignty for all peoples across the board. My third conviction is that we must not yield to a divided world. Many describe this rift. Many talk about this rift between the North and the South. We won't be able to tackle any of the challenges our planet faces if we give in to this rift, and it is fueled by double standards, this rift. However, we need the North and the South to reconcile so that they can tackle climate health development challenges. And that's why over the last few years, we've launched many more initiatives. and the African Union. When it came to shoring up economies together with the International Monetary Fund to reform special drawing rights and make progress for African economies. And we held our word $100 billion in special drawing rights allocated to helping African countries. We must stay the course, ensuring that we remain united without pitting anyone against anyone else. That is why it's important that the global health infrastructure must remain intact. We will continue reforming that architecture, but we will never weaken the WHO. We must put the finishing touches on the Pandemics Treaty. Africa CDC should be in a position to combat Ebola ever more effectively. We must be clear sighted as we reform our official development assistance, ODA. We must ensure that our investments exhibit greater solidarity, that they're more effective. This is what we did with the Paris Pact for people and Planet in 2023. Also at the Africa Summit in Nairobi, we also agreed to build a new consensus around investment that stands in solidarity with other states. Countries are allocating funds, and yet the needs of the countries of the global South are growing as well. We need to go faster and go further to help the IMF and the World Bank To be more effective, we must bolster the effectiveness of the instruments at their disposal so that we can mobilize the private sector better, creating guarantee mechanisms to ensure that in emerging economies, middle income countries and developing countries, a more effective response can be mounted to the problems they face. This is the kind of new partnership we must forge in order to ensure that there is no gap, no division, between the North and the South. In a similar vein, this north south partnership requires and will require us to wield our capacity to reopen a dialogue about our common history, our cultural relationships and remembrance. This is what France has tried to do over the last few years, working on the basis of joint scientific works we've instituted a number of bills to ensure that we restitute cultural artifacts in a way, forging a partnership in the name of culture, history and remembrance. And this with a number of countries of the South, for instance, with Ghana and together with all interested parties, all interested partners, we will work on restorative justice reparations. This is a matter of respect, and it is on this respect that the partnership between the North and the South will be built. Moving on global trade, it needs to be more effective and more equitable. This is what we sought to achieve at the G7 meeting France convened, bringing together countries of the South, ensuring that there is common ground, a dialogue going beyond the G7 with China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Kenya the list goes on so that we can improve our collective organization, ensure that we work on rare earth minerals, rare earth metals, critical minerals. As well as other areas. At the end of the day, we must shoulder this responsibility, ensuring that there is no rift between these two blocks. And in a similar fashion, we must not yield on the climate and biodiversity. We've done a great deal over the last few years, ever since the Paris Agreement 11 years ago. The principles are still valid today and must be defended. We must stay the course. But I understand the doubts some harbour on this front. Let us not cede. If we are to defend our planet, defend the climate, defend biodiversity, we need proactive multilateralism and this is what we try to achieve at the One Planet Summit.
