Qual é o maior desafio à diplomacia brasileira, em décadas? - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

 Qual é o maior desafio à diplomacia brasileira, em décadas? 

 

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Diplomata, professor

(www.pralmeida.org; diplomatizzando.blogspot.com)

Nota sobre a questão do desafio russo e chinês à paz e à segurança internacionais, do ponto de vista do Brasil

  

Não é nem a retomada de sua pretensa liderança na América do Sul, para conduzir um processo exitoso de integração econômica regional (ou minimamente com chances de prosperar), nem sua reinserção no debate global, sobre negociações econômicas globais (na OMC, no G20, na OCDE, quando for o caso), ou sobre debates em torno da sustentabilidade e as metas do desenvolvimento sustentável, coisas que poderão ser feitas com base numa visão realista das possibilidades e no trabalho metódico de sua diplomacia profissional.

O maior desafio à diplomacia brasileira, ao próprio Brasil, como NOS ANOS TRINTA, radica nos conflitos entre grandes potências, atualmente representados pela GUERRA DE AGRESSÃO DA RÚSSIA À UCRÂNIA e no apoio da China a essa ruptura nas relações internacionais da atualidade.

Ou seja, o desenvolvimento "normal" das relações exteriores de quaisquer países é suscetível de passar por grandes desafios, quando algum evento inesperado vem romper os circuitos normais do relacionamento econômico, político e diplomático entre esses países.

Nos anos 1930, esse relacionamento foi conduzido ao ponto de ruptura pelo expansionismo militarista de grandes potências fascistas interessadas em recompor os equilíbrios existentes no mundo, ou seja, interessadas na criação de uma "nova ordem mundial". Esse foi o caso da Alemanha de Weimar – que começou a se rearmar assim que Hitler conquistou o poder –, da Itália fascista – com o projeto de Mussolini de recriar um grande Império, na África e nos Balcãs – e do Japão militarista, querendo fazer um "grande arco de co-prosperidade" na Ásia Pacífico, contra as velhas potências colonialistas europeias.

Atualmente, é o desejo de Putin de tornar a Rússia novamente dominante na Eurásia, recompondo as esferas de poder do antigo império czarista e do finado império soviético.

 

Se Lula e seus petistas amestrados, ou a diplomacia brasileira, não entenderem isso, vão deixar o Brasil totalmente desconectado do principal problema de paz e segurança internacional na atualidade. Nos anos 1930, Oswaldo Aranha soube administrar os desafios ao Brasil e as alianças que convinha manter para garantir um mundo mais propenso ao desenvolvimento do Brasil, assim como o Barão do Rio Branco tinha administrado a transição da antiga hegemonia britânica para o novo poderio americano da melhor forma possível para o Brasil, inclusive em relação à agressividade da Argentina nessa época, evitando entrar em competição naval com ela, o que já ocorria entre a Grã-Bretanha e a Alemanha imperial.

 

Parece que Lula e seus conselheiros "diplomáticos" estão fazendo um cálculo "chinês" da situação atual das relações internacionais, ou seja, um inevitável declínio americano e a abertura de espaço para conquistar "novos espaços" para o Brasil, numa possível nova ordem internacional liderada pelos Brics, o que é uma aposta não apenas hipotética, ou arriscada, como totalmente EQUIVOCADA, ab inicio, ao vincular o Brasil a duas grandes autocracias que não tem NADA A VER – exceto relações comerciais – com o Brasil no terrenos dos princípios, dos valores, dos grandes objetivos humanistas e democráticos da nossa nação como país ocidental, democrático e pacífico.

 

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Brasília, 4330: 28 fevereiro 2023, 2 p.

 

 

Os americanos (Executivo e Legislativo) preparam um "descasamento" bilateral com a China: será possível? - Olivier Knox (WP)

Estranho que as duas maiores economias do mundo sejam "desconectadas" uma da outra. Ou melhor: não é a China que pretende "descasar", ou as grandes companhias americanas, que ganharam muito dinheiro com a China nas últimas três ou quatro décadas, mas sim os americanos, por razões não exatamente econômicas, e sim de competição estratégica.

Os grandes impérios em competição – como a Alemanha e a Grã-Bretanha imperiais, por exemplo, na época da belle époque – realizavam sua corrida armamentista, isto é naval, antes da Grande Guerra, mas mantinham uma interação econômica bastante intensa.

Até onde essa iniciativa de um "falcão" da House vai prosperar, e até que limites ela pode prejudicar os próprios EUA?

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

 

House committee on China starts two-year drive to ‘decouple’ By Olivier Knox with research by Caroline Anders The Washington Post, February 28, 2023

Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) is chair of the House select committee focusing on the U.S.-China relationship.. (REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz)

Rep. Mike Gallagher said he doesn’t blame past leaders for betting that inviting China into the global economy would induce Beijing to follow rules set by liberal industrial powers, notably the United States, and become a good global citizen, perhaps even embrace political reforms. But it’s time to cut our losses. “Everyone made the same basic bet on China,” Gallagher told The Daily 202 in a phone interview on Sunday. “That bet made sense. It was logical. But it failed. So now we’re trying to extricate ourselves.” The Wisconsin Republican, a former Marine counterintelligence officer, chairs the weeks-old House committee on China. The panel holds its first hearing Tuesday, kicking off what he says will be a two-year effort to map a way for America to “selectively decouple” the two economies. The committee will take a big-picture look at Beijing’s military rise, its threats to take over the democratically self-governed island of Taiwan by force, and its overt and covert efforts to influence public opinion by silencing critics and spreading propaganda.

THE FIRST HEARING LINEUP

Gallagher will set the tone with the first hearing, at 7 p.m. on Tuesday. The unusual evening schedule could widen the audience: Most congressional hearings occur during the day, when working Americans have a harder time tuning in.

The witnesses will be:

Matthew Pottinger, a longtime China hawk who served as the top Asia policy official on former president Donald Trump’s National Security Council. H.R. McMaster, a retired U.S. Army Lt. General who served Trump as national security adviser. Tong Yi, a Chinese human rights advocate and former secretary to one of China’s most prominent dissidents, Wei Jingsheng. Gallagher said Tong was “about as credible as any human being” on the topic of China’s domestic repression of critics. Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Gallagher said Paul, added to the list by Democrats, would detail the economic damage to the United States from Chinese competition.

“Our hope is to come away from this with a better sense of why the CCP is a threat and why someone in Northeast Wisconsin or other parts of the country should care about that threat,” Gallagher said, using the abbreviation for the Chinese Communist Party.

WITH 2024 LOOMING, CAN THIS STAY BIPARTISAN?

As The Daily 202 chronicled back in December, Gallagher may have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stitch Republicans and Democrats together on sweeping policy responses to the challenge of China. That doesn’t mean there won’t be disagreements, even profound ones. “We’re not going to agree on 100% of everything,” he said Sunday. “There may be times when I want to go further and more aggressively than the Democrats want to go, and vice versa. But we’re going to try to preserve the bipartisan center of gravity.” Gallagher said “there’s a lot of disagreement about how exactly” America limits its economic relationship with China, but pointed to “a recognition in both parties” that this must happen. “I think we can come up with a coherent framework for selective decoupling that has the buy-in of 70% of Congress,” he said.

A ‘TENSE DIALOGUE' WITH CORPORATE AMERICA

The committee will also look at the troubled and sometimes troubling relationship between corporate America and China, especially instances in which big firms, Hollywood, or the NBA have sometimes bent over backward to accommodate Beijing.

Gallagher said his panel “is going to be calling certain businesses, certain industries, to either testify before, or talk to behind closed doors, the committee, and explain what the trade-offs are to doing business” in China. It could be “a tense dialogue at times.” “I understand why major American companies have a massive presence in China — same reason John Dillinger robbed banks: That’s where the money is,” Gallagher said. “And I get that the ship of state is an aircraft carrier, it doesn’t turn on a dime, so we’re not going to selectively decouple overnight, and I’m not calling for a complete decoupling.” But American taxpayer dollars cannot be “unwittingly funding Communist genocide or PLA [People’s Liberation Army] modernization.”

IS BIDEN A PARTNER? OR SOMEONE TO PRESSURE?

“It depends on the issue,” according to Gallagher, who said he sees an administration “divided” along several lines. The National Security Council and the Pentagon seem more inclined to confront China, he said, while officials whose top priority is fighting climate change believe in “a more cooperative relationship with China.” But there’s room to work together on issues like high tech, clearing a backlog of U.S. weapons shipments to Taiwan, trade, and taxation, he said. And perhaps the committee can help “empower” more hawkish officials inside the executive branch. “The American system is premised on the idea you can have competing views,” Gallagher said. “We’ll preserve room for honest disagreement and debate. It doesn’t need to be holding hands and singing Kumbaya all the time.”

 

A nova ordem econômica global e o Brasil - Rubens Barbosa (OESP)

A NOVA ORDEM ECONÔMICA GLOBAL E O BRASIL

 

Rubens Barbosa

O Estado de S. Paulo, 28/02/2023

Em termos econômicos, desde o fim da Grande Guerra, em 1945, o liberalismo se impôs, com a redução do papel do Estado e a força do livre comércio, com a criação do FMI, Banco Mundial e GATT (depois OMC). A globalização, que aproximou países, empresas e pessoas, possibilitou a proliferação de acordos comerciais e o estabelecimento de cadeias produtivas baseadas na eficiência. O fim da URSS em 1991, com a nova ordem baseada em uma única superpotência, a entrada da China na OMC em 2001 e a realocação das cadeias produtivas para a China, confirmaram a ordem liberal. A volta da China como potência econômica e comercial global, trouxe o elemento geopolítico na cena econômica. Com Donald Trump, em 2017, são introduzidas medidas restritivas dos EUA contra a China, começa o esvaziamento da OMC e a perda de força das regras multilaterais de comércio. Essa tendencia é agravada pela pandemia e mais recentemente pelo conflito Rússia/Ucrânia e pelas tensões entre China e Taiwan, acelerando a configuração de uma nova ordem econômica.

                A nova ordem econômica mostra que a eficiência na definição de políticas econômicas é substituída por objetivos de segurança, soberania e poder. Evidências disso são o ataque ao livre comércio, a negociação de acordos comerciais regionais (não bilaterais), a realocação das cadeias produtivas, o crescente número de restrições comerciais por razões políticas e a busca de autossuficiência. A globalização passa por importantes ajustes com a descentralização das cadeias de produção, pelo aumento dos subsídios, do custo transporte e pela desorganização e os altos preços nos mercados agrícola e energético. Considerações sobre meio ambiente e mudança de clima passaram a ter impacto sobre as negociações comerciais. O nacionalismo representado pelo fortalecimento das economias domésticas para conseguir uma autonomia soberana em áreas consideradas estratégicas e a definição de novas políticas industriais nos EUA afetaram diretamente o liberalismo e o livre comércio, gerando tensões, com impactos globais. O populismo fortaleceu o intervencionismo protecionista. Considerações de poder, com base na segurança nacional passaram a influir na aplicação de controle de exportações como arma política, como as sanções, que incluíram, entre outras, a limitação do comércio dos semicondutores, a retirada de empresas chinesas da Bolsa de NY e o congelamento de reservas. Assim, a emergência da China e da Ásia como eixos de poder econômico, a disputa com os EUA, a guerra Rússia/Ucrânia, podem levar a uma nova Guerra Fria, em outras bases, com divisão do mundo (Ocidente/Eurásia), não em função de disputa ideológica ou militar, mas econômica, tecnológica e comercial.

                Em resumo, a nova ordem econômica está baseada na segurança de abastecimento e não no “just in time”; na realocação das cadeias produtivas, na segurança energética, no controle de investimentos, na formação de blocos regionais, na utilização da moeda como arma geopolítica e no mundo com crescimento reduzido e alta inflação.

                Qual o impacto da nova ordem sobre o Brasil? Colocando a casa em ordem, com políticas econômicas que respondam com eficiência aos desafios internos de aumento da produtividade e competitividade, e com uma visão pragmática em relação as transformações econômicas e políticas que estão correndo, poderíamos ser um dos beneficiários das novas circunstâncias internacionais.

A emergência da China e da Asia, sob o aspecto econômico, foi muito favorável aos produtos agrícolas brasileiros que encontraram novos mercado e preços elevados, tornando o Brasil um dos três maiores exportadores mundiais de alimentos. A realocação das cadeias de produção poderá abrir oportunidades para o Brasil em nível regional com investimentos em áreas de nosso interesse. O mercado de carbono, com a adequada proteção do meio ambiente, em especial da Floresta Amazônica, poderá representar ganhos financeiros significativos para empresas e para o país.

Esse é o pano de fundo quando se diz que o mundo mudou, coincidindo com o início do novo governo. São muitas as consequências negativas da nova ordem econômica sobre o Brasil. Estarão elas sendo levadas em conta pelo atual governo com visão estratégica? Como enfrentar o enfraquecimento do multilateralismo, com a perda de relevância da OMC, deixando países como o Brasil sem proteção jurídica para o desrespeito das regras internacionais? Como enfrentar as restrições comerciais políticas, os altos custos, a transformações tecnológicas com o 5G e a Inteligência Artificial? Como serão respondidas as restrições às exportações brasileiras, sobretudo pela política ambiental em relação à Amazonia, assim como aquelas em função da aprovação de nova regulamentação europeia de desmatamento? Como reduzir a vulnerabilidade, representada pela concentração das exportações em poucos mercados e produtos, e a dependência dos semicondutores, fertilizantes e insumos farmacêuticos. E a política para a reindustrialização?

Estamos voltados aos temas do século passado como a conclusão das negociações do Acordo de Livre Comércio entre o Mercosul e a União Europeia, o ingresso na OCDE e o financiamento de projetos em países vizinhos. 

Acorda Brasil!

 

Rubens Barbosa, presidente do IRICE e ex-embaixador em Londres e Washington

É impossível compreender a guerra na Ucrânia sem conhecer a História - Timothy Snider (O Estado de S. Paulo)

É impossível compreender a guerra na Ucrânia sem conhecer a História

Timothy Snider

O Estado de S. Paulo, 28/02/2023

Enquanto dava uma aula de história ucraniana no semestre passado, senti um gosto do surreal. A guerra na Ucrânia já estava em andamento há meio ano quando comecei. Uma potência nuclear tinha atacado um país que abriu mão de suas armas nucleares. Um império tentava deter a integração europeia. Uma tirania tentava esmagar uma democracia vizinha. Nos territórios ocupados, a Rússia cometeu atrocidades genocidas com claras expressões de intenção genocida.

E ainda assim, a Ucrânia estava reagindo. Os ucranianos resistiram à chantagem nuclear, desprezaram o império fanfarrão e assumiram riscos em nome da sua democracia. Em Kiev, Kharkiv e, mais tarde, Kherson, eles derrotaram os russos, detendo a tortura, o assassinato e a deportação.

Estávamos em um ponto de inflexão histórica. Mas onde estava a história? As telas de TV mostravam continuamente a Ucrânia, e a única coisa que um espectador poderia dizer com alguma certeza é que os comentaristas jamais estudaram a Ucrânia. Ouvi de antigos alunos meus, atualmente empregados no governo ou no jornalismo, o quanto estavam felizes por terem feito o curso de história do Leste Europeu. Disseram estar um pouco menos surpresos que os outros com a guerra; disseram ter mais pontos de referência.

O contraste entre a importância histórica dessa guerra e a falta de lição de casa em história revela um problema maior. Conhecemos muito pouco da história. Projetamos o ensino para envolver questões técnicas: como fazer. E solucionar os problemas do cotidiano é muito importante.

Mas, se nos privamos da história, tudo é uma surpresa: o 11/9, a crise financeira, a invasão do Capitólio, a invasão da Ucrânia. Quando somos chocados todos os dias mas não temos história, tateamos em busca de pontos de referência, e nos tornamos vulneráveis a pessoas que nos dão respostas fáceis. Então o passado se torna a dimensão do mito, na qual aqueles que ocupam o poder geram as narrativas que julgam mais convenientes.

O presidente russo Vladimir Putin contou uma história a respeito do passado que nada tem a ver com a História. De acordo com ele, Rússia e Ucrânia foram criadas juntas, no batismo de um governante mil anos atrás. Partilham a mesma cultura, e portanto devem ser governadas pela mesma pessoa. Se parecer que algo diferente aconteceu, não seria de fato um capítulo dessa história. Se os ucranianos acreditarem que não são russos, isso seria resultado da obra nefasta de forasteiros. Putin não se limitou a dizer essas coisas: ele aprovou leis da memória para evitar que os russos sejam questionados pela história, e chegou a riscar dos manuais a palavra “Ucrânia”.

Em termos de lógica, é algo circular; e enquanto política, é algo tirânico. Se eu pudesse afirmar que os canadenses são americanos porque falam a mesma língua, ou porque partilhamos uma história em comum, isso nos pareceria um motivo idiota para dar início a uma invasão. Quando um ditador reivindica o poder de definir a identidade de outro povo, a questão da liberdade desse povo jamais vem à tona. Se a identidade for congelada para sempre pelos desígnios de um governante, os cidadãos logo se veem sem escolha.

Enquanto observamos onde essa lógica levou os russos, começamos a questionar a validade dessas histórias. Mas não deveria ser necessário uma atrocidade tão óbvia para nos fazer duvidar. Até recentemente, era grande demais o número de comentaristas que se contentavam em seguir a versão de Putin: Rússia e Ucrânia eram eternamente semelhantes de alguma forma, pessoas que falam russo são russas de alguma forma, e a cultura de acordo com as definições de um ditador seria o seu destino.

Foi surreal, de maneira bem diferente, quando milhões de pessoas vieram participar da minha aula online. Os americanos tinham percebido que havia algo de errado no mito russo, mas não sabiam como preencher a lacuna. Foi animador ouvir, nos milhares de e-mails que recebi, que essa lacuna poderia ser preenchida pela história. Foi um semestre muito animado; a história estava fazendo os estudantes pensarem. Quando pensamos historicamente, reconhecemos que as comunidades políticas têm ascensão e queda, e que as escolhas humanas — incluindo as escolhas perversas de tiranos militaristas — são sempre parte da história. Aprendemos a absorver melhor os eventos. Despertamos para as vivências dos outros. Para mim, pessoalmente, foi tocante ouvir relatos dos próprios ucranianos, incluindo soldados da linha de frente, que acompanharam a aula online.

A história ucraniana dá mais sentido ao mundo de hoje. Toda a trajetória da nossa civilização ocidental, dos gregos em diante, fica mais clara se entendermos que Atenas era alimentada pelo que é atualmente o sul da Ucrânia. A fantástica história dos vikings torna-se ainda mais surpreendente quando entendemos que eles fundaram um estado em Kiev. A era da exploração toma novas dimensões quando reconhecemos que potências polonesas e russas construíram seus impérios penetrando a leste na massa terrestre eurasiana, onde finalmente encontrariam a Ucrânia. A era dos impérios é concluída com os projetos neo-imperiais nazista e soviético, que tinham ambos o seu foco na Ucrânia. Esse conflito horrivelmente sangrento fez da Ucrânia o lugar mais perigoso do mundo durante a era totalitária de 1933 a 1945. Esse capítulo e a russificação que se seguiu tornaram a história da Ucrânia difícil de contar, até mesmo para os ucranianos.

Mas isso está mudando agora. Praticamente tudo que eu disse nas minhas aulas veio da obra de historiadores ucranianos. Iaroslav Hritsak, um dos melhores dentre eles, diz há décadas que a Ucrânia vai sobreviver quando uma nova geração amadurecer. Agora, isso ocorreu, não somente na minha área, mas no jornalismo, na sociedade civil, nos negócios e na política. A Ucrânia é diferente da Rússia por causa de sua história distinta, incluindo a história dos 30 anos mais recentes, desde o fim da União Soviética. Enquanto Putin empurrava seu país para a areia movediça dos mitos, os ucranianos — com seus votos, seus protestos e sua resistência — abriram caminho para chegar a uma noção mais confiante de si mesmos e de quem são.

Ao fazerem história, eles nos lembram que precisamos da história para compreendê-los melhor, para compreender melhor a guerra — e também para entender melhor a nós mesmos. Como os ucranianos, vivemos um ponto de inflexão histórica. Como eles, teremos que aprender história e desafiar os mitos para alcançar um futuro democrático.

TRADUÇÃO DE AUGUSTO CALIL

* Timothy Snyder é professor de história na Universidade Yale e autor de “The Road to Unfreedom” e “Bloodlands” Sua edição atualizada em áudio de “On Tyranny” inclui novas aulas abordando a Ucrânia.

https://www.estadao.com.br/internacional/e-impossivel-compreender-a-guerra-na-ucrania-sem-conhecer-a-historia/

 

Back to work, again; new books from Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Terei de retomar a escrita pedagógica numa área que pensava já pacificada?

Meu primeiro livro contra o bolsolavismo diplomático se chamou Miséria da Diplomacia (2019), de um total de cinco, até o Apogeu e Demolição da Política Externa (2021). 

Antes teve o Nunca Antes na Diplomacia (2014), sobre o lulopetismo na política externa, seguido de Contra a Corrente: ensaios contrarianistas sobre a política externa (2019).

Será que vou ter de reincidir agora, numa mesma linha de argumentos? 

Sugestões de título para o primeiro de uma nova série?

Não vale “Diplomatices: a doença infantil do Populismo Diplomático”, ainda mais evidente do que algo do tipo “O Que Fazer na Política Externa?”.

Tem também “O Eterno Retorno na Política Externa”, “Diplomacia Prática para Reincidentes” ou ainda “Brazilian Diplomacy for Dummies”.

C’est l’embaras du choix…

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Brasília, 27/02/2023

Os 12 pontos do "Plano de Paz" da China para a guerra de agressão da Rússia contra Ucrânia: explicitação Paulo Roberto de Almeida

 Não é um verdadeiro plano de paz, mas declarações genéricas por parte da China. Elas, ainda assim, constituem uma grave acusação à Rússia, algumas advertências ao Ocidente (Otan e EUA) e uma tentativa de ficar bem como todo mundo

Os 12 points podem ser resumidos como segue:

1) Respect sovereignty.

Quem não respeitou a soberania da Ucrânia foi a Rússia. Assim, ela tem de partir.

2) Legitimate security interests should be valued and properly addressed.

Aparentemente dirigido contra a OTAN, que chegou às fronteiras da Rússia. Mas cabe registrar que foram os países vizinhos que imploraram para ingressar na OTAN, pois temiam novas incursões do antigo império czarista ou soviético, com razão. Os que assim fizeram não foram atacados.

3) Stop the shooting.

Ou seja, “Cessar fogo". Mas quem começou atirando foi a Rússia; ela deve parar. Se a Ucrânia deixar de atirar, ela será simplesmente submergida.

4) Start the talking.

Quem sempre se recusou a conversar foi Putin. Os chineses podem dizer isso a ele.

5) Alleviate the humanitarian crisis.

Quem está violando as leis da guerra e os tratados humanitários é a Rússia.

6) Implement the international codes regarding war.

São acordos muito antigos relativos à população civil e prisioneiros de guerra (alguns tem sido trocados), mas a Rússia atira contra alvos civis, inclusive hospitais e creches, e já sequestrou milhares de crianças ucranianas, transferindo-as para a Rússia. São crimes de guerra e crimes contra a humanidade.

7) All parties should agree to abide by Convention on Nuclear Safety.

Ponto muito importante, que não tem sido respeitado pela Rússia em Zaphorizia, como já atestou a AIEA.

8) Parties must not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against each other.

Foi Putin quem primeiro mencionou a possível utilização de "todo tipo de arma", o que inclui não apenas armas nucleares, mas também químicas e bacteriológicas.

9) Guarantee the safe transportation of food under existing agreements.

Foi a Rússia quem bloqueou os portos do Mar Negro e do Mar de Azov, impede barcos ucranianos de sair e roubou toneladas de grãos dos entrepostos ucranianos.

10) Stop unilateral sanctions.

Sim, está dirigido contra os EUA e todos os demais países que impuseram sanções contra a Rússia, mas elas estão inteiramente dentro da linha da Carta da ONU, e só são unilaterais porque a Rússia usa abusivamente do direito de veto no CSNU.

11) Ensure the stability of the industrial chain supply chain.

Os setores de infraestrutura – energia, comunicações, transportes – já foram terrivelmente afetados pelos ataques indiscriminados (ou talvez dirigidos) da Rússia, o que perturba a economia da Europa central e do mundo em geral.

12) Promote post-war reconstruction.

A AGNU já aprovou em outubro de 2022 uma resolução que responsabiliza a Rússia pela destruição provocada na Ucrânia. Ela terá de assumir responsabilidade pelo custo das reparações, mas o debate sobre a utilização das reservas russas congeladas está apenas começando. Recorde-se que o Iraque teve de assumir os custos da sua invasão no Kwaite, como descontos controlados pela ONU sobre suas exportações de petróleo.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Brasilia, 27 de fevereiro de 2023

O declínio chinês já começou, pela demografia - Yi Fu-xian (Taipei Times)

 The Chinese era is already over

• Yi Fu-xian

  Taipei Times, Mon, Feb 27, 2023 page 8

  https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2023/02/27/2003795096

  Last month, China officially acknowledged that its population began to decline last year — about nine years earlier than Chinese demographers and the UN had projected. 

  The implications of this are hard to overstate. It means that all of China’s economic, foreign and defense policies are based on faulty demographic data.

  For example, Chinese government economists have predicted that by 2049, China’s per capita GDP could reach half or even three-quarters of that of the US, while its overall GDP could grow to twice or even three times that of its rival. 

  However, these forecasts assumed that China’s population would be four times that of the US in 2049. 

  The real figures tell a very different story. Assuming that China is lucky enough to stabilize its fertility rate at 1.1 children per woman, its population in 2049 would be just 2.9 times that of the US, and all its key indicators of demographic and economic vitality would be much worse.

  The faulty predictions do not affect only China. They imply a geopolitical butterfly effect that could ultimately destroy the existing global order. 

  Chinese authorities have been acting in accordance with their longstanding belief in a rising East and declining West. 

  Similarly, Russian President Vladimir Putin believed that as long as Russia maintained stable relations with a rising China, the declining West would be powerless to hold him accountable for his aggression against Ukraine. 

  In its haste to abandon Afghanistan to focus its resources on China, the US might have unwittingly emboldened Putin further.

  Population aging is likely to have a permanent, major drag on China’s economy. As Italy’s experience shows, the old-age dependency ratio — the number of people older than 64, divided by those aged 15 to 64 — has a strong negative correlation with GDP growth, as does the median age and the proportion of people older than 64.

  In 1950, Japan’s median age was 21, compared with 29 in the US. As one would expect, Japan subsequently benefited from years of faster economic growth. 

  However, by 1994, the prime-age labor force — people aged 15 to 59 — began to decline, whereas the US working-age population is not expected to fall until 2048.

  By 1992, Japan’s median age was 5.5 years above that of the US, and its old-age dependency ratio began to exceed that of the US. Not surprisingly, its GDP growth has been lower than the US’ ever since.

  Japan’s per capita GDP rose from 16 percent of the US level in 1960 to 154 percent in 1995. 

  However, by last year, that figure had fallen to 46 percent, and it is likely to fall below 35 percent.

  Similarly, owing to their young populations, Taiwan and South Korea achieved rapid economic convergence for more than five decades, with per capita GDP soaring from 5 percent of the US level in 1960 to 42 percent and 53 percent respectively in 2014. 

  However, both economies have since stagnated as their workforces have shrunk, putting them on track to fall below 30 percent of US per capita GDP.

  In China’s case, the median age in 1980 was 21, eight years younger than the US’, and from 1979 to 2011, its GDP grew at an average annual rate of 10 percent.

  However, China’s prime-age labor force — people aged 15 to 59 — began to shrink in 2012, and by 2015, GDP growth had decelerated to 7 percent before slowing to 3 percent last year. 

  An average of 23.4 million births per year from 1962 to 1990 made China “the world’s factory.” 

  However, even China’s own exaggerated official figures put last year’s births at just 9.56 million. Chinese manufacturing could continue to decline as a result, creating new inflationary pressures in the US and elsewhere.

  While China’s population was 1.5 times larger than India’s in 1975, even the Chinese government’s exaggerated official figures show that it was smaller last year — 1.411 billion compared with 1.417 billion.

  In reality, India’s population surpassed China’s a decade ago, and it remains on track to be about 1.5 times larger than China’s in 2050, with a median age of 39 — a full generation younger than China’s, at 57.

  By 2030, China’s median age would already be 5.5 years higher than that of the US, and by 2033, its old-age dependency ratio would begin to exceed the US’.

  Its GDP growth rate would begin to fall below the US’ from 2031 to 2035, at which point its per capita GDP would hardly have reached 30 percent of its rival’s — let alone the 50 percent to 75 percent predicted by Chinese official economists. 

  If the US is overtaken as the world’s largest economy, it would be by India, not China.

  China is investing heavily in artificial intelligence and robotics to offset the economic drag of aging. 

  However, these efforts can go only so far, because continuing innovation relies on young minds. 

  Moreover, robot workers do not consume, and consumption is the major driver of any economy.

  China’s decline is likely to be gradual. It could remain the world’s second or third-largest economy for decades.

  However, the huge gap between its waning demographic and economic strength and its expanding political ambitions could make it vulnerable to strategic misjudgements. 

  Memories of past glory or fear of lost status could lead it down the same dangerous path that Russia has taken in Ukraine.

  China’s leaders should heed the lessons of Russia’s botched invasion and wake up from their unrealistic “Chinese Dream” of national rejuvenation. 

  The Chinese government’s policy approach is a formula for demographic and civilizational collapse.

  The US also has lessons to learn, given its apparent failure to manage a declining Russia. 

  The US and its allies — including Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and the UK – would also be dealing with societal aging and resulting economic slowdowns.

  Their combined share of the global economy already fell from 77 percent in 2002 to 56 percent in 2021, and that trend is likely to continue.

  The geopolitical implications should be obvious. If the major powers are wise, they will cooperate in good faith to forge an enduring global order before they no longer have the power to do so.

  Yi Fuxian is a senior scientist in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

  Copyright: Project Syndicate

Rui Barbosa, diplomata, livro de Carlos Henrique Cardim: A Raiz das Coisas: Rui Barbosa, o Brasil no Mundo, agora em 2a edição - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Assista no YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Heb66YWvo24 

Ao ensejo da publicação da 2a. edição da obra do embaixador Carlos Henrique Cardim, permito-me reproduzir a resenha que fiz quando da publicação da 1a. edição. Farei nova quando receber o livro recentemente publicado, com acréscimos e atualizações: 

1849. “Rui Barbosa, diplomata”, Buenos Aires, 6 janeiro 2008, 3 p. Resenha do livro de Carlos Henrique Cardim: A Raiz das Coisas: Rui Barbosa, o Brasil no Mundo (Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2007, 350 p.). Revista Desafios do Desenvolvimento (Brasília: IPEA, ano 5, n. 39, janeiro 2008, p. 62). Relação de Publicados n. 811.

Rui Barbosa, diplomata

 

Carlos Henrique Cardim

A Raiz das Coisas: Rui Barbosa, o Brasil no Mundo

Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2007, 350 p.

 

O patrono incontestável da diplomacia brasileira é o “sacrossanto” Barão do Rio Branco, que deve figurar num pedestal do Itamaraty, à direita de Deus Pai, sem qualquer concorrente à sua esquerda (e nenhum iconoclasta se apresentou até hoje). No entanto, o famoso Juca Paranhos atingiu a categoria de mito, mais por ter protagonizado algumas bem-sucedidas negociações de fronteiras, numa fase de consolidação dos limites geográficos da pátria, do que por ter formulado, propriamente, as bases conceituais da moderna diplomacia brasileira. Por certo, ele sempre é referido quando se trata da escolha sábia de procurar manter boas relações com o gigante hemisférico, ao mesmo tempo em que se buscava cultivar, numa boa barganha de equilibrista, nossa interação com a Europa, de maneira a preservar o rico patrimônio histórico trazido pelos novos imigrantes da fase pós-escravidão. Isso tudo, alertava o Barão, sem alienar nosso capital de altos e baixos com a Argentina, que ele pretendia o mais alto possível, desde que garantida a “relação especial” com os EUA da era Teddy Roosevelt, o tal que recomendava falar macio, mas carregar um grande porrete para convencer os mais recalcitrantes. Rio Branco nunca o desaprovou, pelo menos explicitamente.

Poucos se dão conta de que Rui Barbosa, o primeiro ministro da Fazenda da República, deveria ser considerado o “pai intelectual” da moderna diplomacia brasileira: ele deixou um legado de posições, hoje devidamente constitucionalizadas nos primeiros artigos da Carta de 1988. Rui nunca foi um diplomata profissional, mas se o fosse, poderia ser facilmente acomodado, com sua figura esguia e franzina, à esquerda de Deus itamaratiano, como um legítimo complemento ao redondo Barão. Esta monografia do Embaixador Cardim comprova que Rui foi muito maior do que o registrado na literatura da nossa política externa, mesmo sem ter deixado alguma grande obra centrada nessa problemática das relações internacionais. Aliás, parece incrível, mas Rui não deixou nenhum livro publicado, sobre qualquer tema, a despeito de suas “obras completas” – na verdade, coletâneas de artigos e textos diversos – perfazerem 160 volumes, cuidadosamente compilados pela Fundação que leva no seu nome no Rio de Janeiro. Foi lá que Cardim mergulhou para escrever a mais completa obra sobre o “diplomata” Rui Barbosa, um orador exímio.

Sua obra de ativo “internacionalista” está dispersa em centenas de artigos, pareceres, discursos, orações e preleções jurídicas, tendo sido jurisconsulto, consultor e advogado das boas causas: defendeu, por exemplo, o direito da primeira mulher que passou no concurso do velho MRE a ingressar na carreira diplomática, numa fase de misoginia explícita contra as poucas e corajosas candidatas. Sua mais importante ação diplomática está contida em telegramas, na condição de chefe da delegação à segunda conferência internacional sobre a paz mundial, realizada na Haia em 1907. Ele fez uma “dobradinha” de alta qualidade com o Barão, que trocava freqüentes impressões com ele, em telegramas cifrados, sobre os rumos dessa conferência e as posições que o Brasil deveria mais convenientemente adotar, em face do verdadeiro monopólio que as grandes potências exerciam sobre a agenda internacional. Cardim selecionou os expedientes e organizou um dossiê abrangente sobre a atividade e o pensamento de Rui em temas internacionais, numa obra que já nasce clássica, se a distinção se aplica. 

Sua importância não parece ter sido reconhecida na diplomacia brasileira até recentemente, quando uma sala, com o seu nome, foi inaugurada no novo palácio dos Arcos em Brasília, bem mais conhecido como Itamaraty. Curioso que, a despeito da preeminência do Barão nos anais da Casa, nenhuma de duas pesquisas recentes sobre as grandes personalidades da história brasileira colocou Juca Paranhos entre os cinco primeiros. Em ambas, figura Rui; numa delas em primeiro lugar, um justo reconhecimento pelo seu mérito de verdadeiro modernizador do Brasil, desde cedo um opositor da tutela militar que insistiu em preservar o poder moderador durante a maior parte da República. Cardim nos traz aqui não exatamente o tribuno civilista e defensor da legalidade democrática, mas o defensor da igualdade soberana das nações, que ocupa lugar de destaque na moderna diplomacia brasileira. Poucos são os textos conhecidos dessa vertente diplomática do famoso jurista baiano, que aqui aparecem pela primeira vez resumidos e interpretados por um diplomata bibliófilo, que também é um acadêmico exemplar e um dos grandes editores de livros acadêmicos já conhecidos na história editorial brasileira. 

O livro ainda traz belas imagens de época – fotos e uma saborosa iconografia com charges dos mais famosos humoristas brasileiros de um século atrás – e anuncia, além de tudo, novos volumes sobre Rui Barbosa, internacionalista brasileiro, que a Fundação que leva o seu nome publicará. Mas este, já é um livro de coleção...

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

[Buenos Aires, 6 de janeiro de 2008]

Revista Desafios do Desenvolvimento (Brasília: IPEA, ano 5, n. 39, janeiro 2008, p. 62). Relação de Publicados n. 811. 

===============

Cardim também foi o coordenador da reprodução do intercâmbio telegráfico entre Rui e o Barão do Rio Branco quando da segunda Conferência da Paz da Haia, em 1907, sobre a qual também fiz uma pequena nota: 

Centro de História e Documentação Diplomática: II Conferência da Paz, Haia, 1907: a correspondência telegráfica entre o Barão do Rio Branco e Rui Barbosa (Brasília: FUNAG, 2014, 272 p.): 

Carlos Henrique Cardim, que apresentou tese e tem livro publicado sobre Rui diplomata, assina um prefácio de 18 páginas para introduzir o intercâmbio mantido a propósito do que ele chama de “estreia do Brasil no mundo”, consubstanciada na defesa da “dignidade da nação”, nas palavras de Rio Branco, que Rui interpretou como defesa intransigente da igualdade soberana das nações, entrando por isso em choque com as posições das nações mais poderosas. Seguem 240 páginas de telegramas entre os dois homens, desde 13 de março, ainda no Brasil, até 26 de dezembro, no Recife, a caminho do Rio, depois dos meses passados em Scheveningen, com trocas diárias de mensagens, informações e impressões de ambos sobre as posições dos demais participantes e sobre a que convinha ao país adotar. Matéria prima indispensável para os estudiosos.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Hartford, 15 de fevereiro de 2015

 

 ==========

Por fim, permito-me informar que, em meu mais recente livro, Construtores da Nação: projetos para o Brasil, de Cairu a Merquior (São Paulo: LVM Editora, 2022, 304 p.), consta um extenso capítulo sobre Rui Barbosa, descrito como "O defensor do Estado de Direito: Rui Barbosa". 

Sumário 

Construtores da Nação: projetos para o Brasil, de Cairu a Merquior

 

Prefácio

       Arnaldo Godoy, 11

Apresentação

Nos ombros dos verdadeiros estadistas, Paulo Roberto de Almeida, 19

 

Introdução

Da construção do Estado à construção da Democracia, 25

 

Primeira parte: a construção do Estado

     O Estado antes da Ordem e da própria Nação, 35

1.  As vantagens comparativas de José da Silva Lisboa (Cairu), 43

2.  Por uma monarquia constitucional liberal: Hipólito da Costa, 52

3.  Civilizar os índios, eliminar o tráfico: José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva, 66

4.  Um Memorial para reformar a nação: Francisco Adolfo de Varnhagen, 77

 

Segunda parte: a construção da Ordem

     Uma Ordem patrimonialista e oligárquica, 97

5.  Os liberais conservadores: Bernardo, Paulino e Paranhos, 99

6.  Um aristocrata radical: Joaquim Nabuco, 111

7.  Bases conceituais da diplomacia: o paradigma Rio Branco, 119

8.  O defensor do Estado de Direito: Rui Barbosa, 128

 

Terceira parte: a construção do Progresso

     O Progresso pelo Estado, com o Estado, para o Estado, 141

9.  Um empreendedor liberal numa terra de estatistas: Mauá, 150

10. Um inglês imaginário e o nacionalista do petróleo: Monteiro Lobato, 158

11. O revolucionário modernizador: Oswaldo Aranha, 170

12. Duas almas pouco gêmeas: Roberto Simonsen e Eugenio Gudin, 181

 

Quarta parte: a construção da Democracia

     A Democracia carente de união nacional, 193

13. Em busca de uma esquerda democrática: San Tiago Dantas, 196

14. O militante do parlamentarismo: Afonso Arinos de Melo Franco, 209

15. As oportunidades perdidas do Brasil: Roberto Campos, 219

16. O liberalismo social de José Guilherme Merquior, 230

 

A construção da Nação: um itinerário de 200 anos de história, 253

 

Posfácio

O que a intelligentsia brasileira construiu em dois séculos de ideias e ações?  261

 

Referências Bibliográficas para os Construtores da Nação, 269

Nota sobre o autor, 301

"O voto inquietante do governo Lula na ONU" - Editorial bolchevique do 247, o reduto dos petistas furibundos

O Editorial do 247, o mais fiel e sabujo seguidor dos neobolcheviques do petismo sectário, começa disparando petardos contra o chanceler Mauro Vieira, em virtude de sua atitude relativamente correta de não deixar de reconhecer que a Rússia cometeu CRIMES (mas ele não vai muito longe na condenação formal da guerra de agressão do tirano Putin). O 247 pretende que o Brasil de Lula fique do lado da Rússia e da China, ou seja, do lado da violação da Carta da ONU e do desrespeito às leis da guerra e convenções humanitárias. Os celerados aceitam tudo, desde que seja contra o "imperialismo estadunidense". 

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

O voto inquietante do governo Lula na ONU

Do ponto de vista diplomático, a mudança de voto do Brasil significa uma vitória dos Estados Unidos.

Editorial 26/02/2023

https://www.brasil247.com/editoriais247/o-voto-inquietante-do-governo-lula-na-onu

 O voto de adesão do governo brasileiro à recente resolução da Assembleia Geral da ONU condenando a Rússia e exigindo que Moscou "retire imediata, completa e incondicionalmente todas as suas forças militares do território da Ucrânia dentro das suas fronteiras internacionalmente reconhecidas" representou uma tomada de posição do governo Lula em relação ao conflito, que completa um ano.

Do ponto de vista diplomático, a mudança da atitude brasileira significa uma vitória dos Estados Unidos.

Até que as autoridades de Brasília rompam o silêncio é difícil intuir os meandros que levaram a essa decisão.

A guinada envolveu uma certa precipitação, pois implicou a escolha, ao que parece definitiva, de um lado no conflito russo-ucraniano, o que pode gerar efeitos opostos, vindo a  prejudicar a anunciada intenção do presidente Lula de servir como mediador da paz no conflito.

Lula poderia manter a neutralidade alegando que o Brasil havia herdado essa porta já arrombada pelo posicionamento do governo Bolsonaro em votações anteriores na ONU. 

A atitude brasileira até este voto parecia procurar equilibrar o compromisso com o fim das hostilidades com uma recusa a defender a posição de Moscou ou de Kiev na guerra. 

No front diplomático, o país buscava apoiar-se em seus parceiros do Brics, numa espécie de "alinhamento aos não-alinhados". 

Pelo canal dos Brics vinham se abrindo relações próximas com o principal parceiro comercial do Brasil, a China.

Ao que parece, o Brasil está se colocando numa posição incômoda, pois a guerra na Ucrânia cada vez mais se revela como instância de um confronto mais geral entre EUA e China, sendo esta uma aliada cada vez mais estratégica da Rússia. 

No afã de atender o parceiro estadunidense, o Brasil fragiliza suas relações não apenas com o maior parceiro econômico, mas também  se isola,  como o único país do Brics a apoiar a resolução contrária à Rússia.

Do lado chinês, as consequências podem vir na forma de um rebaixamento do status da visita do presidente Lula a Pequim, ou no prolongamento das restrições à importação de carne brasileira ou mesmo na forma de obstáculos para a projetada nomeação da ex-presidente Dilma Rousseff na direção do banco do Brics.

Estão ainda por ser esclarecidos quais foram os benefícios obtidos pela diplomacia brasileira em troca dessa concessão a Washington.

Ela vai de encontro ao tom das promessas de equidistância do presidente Lula durante a campanha eleitoral e gera desconforto junto a parcela ponderável de seus apoiadores.

Não se apagaram da memória os episódios de  espionagem promovida por Washington (ao tempo em que Obama era presidente e Joe Biden seu vice) sobre o governo da própria Dilma.

Também não foi  esquecida a participação de Washington na gênese e desenvolvimento da Operação Lava-Jato.

Não ao inaceitável “Não Alinhamento Ativo” - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Não ao inaceitável “Não Alinhamento Ativo”, que só significa um Desalinhamento Passivo e Inativo.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Quando a cegueira sobre o futuro e a postura “não é comigo”, ou a do “não me importo com injustiças longínquas” prevalecem, pode-se esperar o pior para todos. 

O tal de “Não Alinhamento Ativo”, que alguns querem fazer a postura diplomática por excelência de um fantasmagórico Sul Global”, é a coisa mais parecida com falta de responsabilidade que já se viu desde o entre guerras. 

É o silêncio e a inação em face do ativismo dos maus, a típica atitude que prevaleceu nos anos 1930 e que levou quase toda a humanidade ao maior desastre humanitário e civilizatório de toda a história humana. 

Pretendem fazer desse INACEITÁVEL “Não Alinhamento Ativo” a legitimação da postura hipocritamente “neutra” em face da tragédia ucraniana resultante da guerra de agressão conduzida pelo tirano de Moscou, como se a violação da Carta da ONU e das normas mais elementares do Direito Internacional, dos tratados humanitários e das próprias transgressões às leis das guerras, fossem um assunto exclusivamente europeu.

A diplomacia brasileira não pode se esconder atrás dessa atitude covarde de não escolha, de não participação, de indiferença, de uma neutralidade que só serve ao agressor, sob risco de negar seus mais solenes compromissos com o Estado de Direito no plano internacional.

Brasília, 26/02/2023

Resolução aprovada pela AGNU pede retirada imediata das forças russas da Ucrânia (ONU, 23.02.2023)

 Eleventh Emergency Special Session,

18th & 19th Meetings (AM & PM)

GA/12492

23 February 2023

Hours Before Ukraine Conflict Enters Second Year, General Assembly Adopts Resolution Demanding Russian Federation Withdraw Military Forces, Adjourning Emergency Session 

Delegates Reject Two Draft Amendments Submitted by Belarus

The General Assembly adjourned its emergency special session on Ukraine today on the eve of the first anniversary of the Russian Federation’s invasion of that country, adopting a resolution that underscored the need to urgently reach peace, demanded that the Russian Federation withdraw its military forces and emphasized the need to ensure accountability for crimes committed on Ukraine’s territory.

The text — “Principles of the Charter of the United Nations underlying a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine” — was adopted by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 7 against (Belarus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua, Russian Federation and Syria), with 32 abstentions.

By its terms, the General Assembly underscored the need to reach — as soon as possible — a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine in line with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, also calling on Member States and international organizations to redouble support for diplomatic efforts towards this end.  Further, reaffirming its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders — extending to its territorial waters — the Assembly reiterated its demand that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw its military forces from Ukraine’s territory and called for a cessation of hostilities.

The Assembly also demanded that the treatment by the parties to the armed conflict of all prisoners of war be in accordance with certain international conventions, and called for the complete exchange of such prisoners, the release of all unlawfully detained persons and the return of all internees and civilians forcibly transferred and deported.  Through the text, the Assembly called for full adherence by such parties to their obligations under international humanitarian law to spare the civilian population and civilian objects; to ensure safe, unhindered humanitarian access to those in need; and to immediately cease attacks on Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. 

The resolution also saw the Assembly emphasize the need to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law committed on Ukraine’s territory through appropriate, fair and independent investigations and prosecutions at the national or international level.  Further, it urged all Member States to cooperate to address the war’s global impact on food security, energy, finance, the environment and nuclear security and safety.

Prior to adopting the resolution, the Assembly, by recorded vote, rejected two resolutions submitted by Belarus.  Among other changes, such amendments would have replaced certain preambular language referencing “aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, including continuous attacks against critical infrastructure across Ukraine” with “hostilities in Ukraine”.  They also would have inserted new operative language to condemn statements made by certain leaders regarding their true intentions when devising the Minsk agreements as well to call on Member States to address the root causes of the conflict and to refrain from sending weapons into the conflict zone.

Before the General Assembly took action on those texts, Member States delivered statements in continuation of the debate that began on 22 February (for background, see GA/12491).

“We did not want this war,” said Hadja Lahbib, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belgium, underscoring that “this is not a war of the West against Russia”.  Ukraine was attacked on its sovereign territory, and its very existence is being threatened.  Stressing that the misinformation and false equivalencies spread by the Russian Federation for almost a year are not backed up by facts, she said that “justice will find the right word” to describe the suffering of Ukrainian children and the cities forever marked by horror.

Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, also speaking for Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, held up a copy of the Charter of the United Nations and said that the instrument clearly prohibits aggression and wars of conquest — like the Russian Federation’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine.  Stating that today’s vote provides an opportunity to vote for peace, he added:  “let us not miss this opportunity”.

Iran’s representative, however, said the text neither comprehensively and impartially addresses the issue nor acknowledges the provocations that have contributed to this crisis.  All parties involved must abandon their military ambitions, and he called for an immediate ceasefire.  Further, he urged the United Nations to establish a cross-regional group of impartial countries to facilitate constructive dialogue and identify solutions to the current impasse.

Péter Szijjártó, Hungary’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, also called on the international community to focus on establishing an immediate ceasefire and helping to launch peace talks as soon as possible.  The most-important duty is to save lives, which is accomplished neither through the delivery of weapons nor the imposition of sanctions.  He added that wherever there is a conflict between East and West, “we in Central Europe have always lost”, calling for connectivity and cooperation instead of blocs.

The speaker for China, similarly, stressed that the international community’s top priority should be to facilitate a ceasefire and a cessation of hostilities without delay as the longer the brutality continues, the greater the human suffering will be.  He also observed that sending weapons will not bring peace and urged the countries concerned to stop abusing sanctions and act in a manner conducive to de-escalation.  The parties must prevent this crisis from worsening, he said, underscoring that “nuclear weapons cannot be used and that nuclear war cannot be fought”.

On that point, Catherine Colonna, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France, pointed out that no country other than the Russian Federation has used nuclear rhetoric.  Joining other delegations in stressing that this war is everybody’s business, she said that it denies the existence of borders.  Neutrality is therefore not a possibility, and letting Moscow dictate the terms would represent a failure of the international order.

Yoshimasa Hayashi, Japan’s Minister for Foreign Affairs echoed that, stating that it would be a victory for the aggressor if its actions were tolerated.  Peace must be based on principles, he pointed out, adding that while hostilities must immediately stop, this will not necessarily produce a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.  “What if a permanent member of the Security Council launched an aggression against your homeland, grabbed your territory, and then ceased hostilities, calling for peace?” he asked, calling such a peace unjust.

Annalena Baerbock, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, spotlighted “the peace plan right here in front of us — called the Charter of the United Nations”.  Moscow must withdraw its troops from Ukraine, stop its bombing and return to the Charter, as there is no peace if an aggressor is rewarded for its ruthless violence.  Echoing others that “we did not choose this war”, she said that the international community would rather focus its energy on fixing schools, fighting the climate crisis and strengthening social justice.

Gabrielius Landsbergis, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, noted that his country’s citizens have donated over €40 million in support of Ukraine’s defensive efforts and that its Government has provided protection and humanitarian relief to tens of thousands of Ukrainians.  “But none of that is sufficient to stop Russia’s war,” he stressed, noting that Moscow continues its aggression because it enjoys impunity.  The Security Council is paralyzed because the Russian Federation wields veto power in that organ and, therefore, the role of the General Assembly becomes more important.  As such, he called on Member States to rise to the occasion and support Ukraine’s peace formula. 

Following the morning’s statements, several delegations offered explanations of vote both before and after the Assembly adopted the resolution.  Some representatives — like those of Nigeria and Angola — objected to language in the text pertaining to ensuring accountability for crimes committed on Ukraine’s territory.  Others, such as the speakers for South Africa, Lesotho and India, stressed that the resolution does not serve to bring the parties closer to peace. 

The representative of South Sudan, noting that his Government has continuously abstained on this issue over the past year, said that it voted in favour today for the sole reason that the conflict must stop.

Also speaking during the morning’s debate were Ministers and representatives of Albania, Slovakia, Croatia, Poland, Czech Republic, North Macedonia, Netherlands, Latvia, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Ireland, Finland, Colombia, Uruguay and Romania, along with an observer for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

Also delivering explanations of vote were representatives of Djibouti, Nepal, Thailand, Brazil, Malaysia, United Kingdom, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan.

The representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Pakistan and the Republic of Korea spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

Pursuant to the adopted resolution, the eleventh emergency special session of the General Assembly temporarily adjourned, with its President authorized to resume its meetings upon request from Member States.

Statements

LARS LØKKE RASMUSSEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, also speaking for Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, pointed out that the Russian Federation is waging a brutal war that includes systematic violations of international law, inhumane attacks on civilians and critical infrastructure, sexual violence and forced deportation and adoption.  Underlining the international community’s joint responsibility to stand up against all violations of international law, he stressed the need to ensure that war crimes and other atrocities are investigated, and their perpetrators held to account.  He noted that, today, “a resolution for peace will be put before us”, which asks Member States to denounce this brutal aggression; support comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on the Charter of the United Nations; and demand that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.  It also urges cooperation to address the war’s global impact.

Holding up a copy of the Charter, he said that the instrument clearly prohibits aggression and wars of conquest — like the Russian Federation’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine.  Urging those present “to be honest about the issue before us”, he said that today’s vote is about standing up for international law, the Charter and peace and underscored that the countries for whom he speaks will not be neutral when asked to stand on the side of the Charter and the victim of aggression.  Ukraine’s right to protect itself is inherent in Article 51 of the Charter, while the Russian Federation’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine has no justification.  This war must end, this violence must end, and respect for the Charter must be restored to ensure that similar horrors do not happen again.  Reiterating that today’s vote provides an opportunity to vote for peace, he added:  “let us not miss this opportunity”.

PÉTER SZIJJÁRTÓ, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary, noting that his country is a direct neighbor of Ukraine, said it lives with the tragic consequences of this brutal war.  Hungary is carrying out the largest humanitarian operation ever in its history, having received more than a million refugees who have full and equal access to education and health care.  It is heartbreaking to see the torn-apart families arriving to Hungary on a daily basis, he said, adding that this war has no winners, only losers.  Stressing that the most important duty of the international community is to save lives, he said neither delivery of weapons nor sanctions save lives.  Instead, they contribute to the prolongation and the risk of escalation of this war.  He called on the international community to focus on establishing an immediate ceasefire and help launch peace talks as soon as possible.

If channels of communication are being cut, he added, then it means that the hope for peace is given up as well.  Highlighting the role of the United Nations, he said it must serve as a platform for talks between the Russian Federation and the United States.  In the neighborhood of the war, “we are in the twenty-fifth hour”, he said.  Though Hungarian people are not responsible, they have already paid a high price for this war, and not just in skyrocketing inflation or high energy bills, but with the lives of those Hungarians in Ukraine who have died on the frontline.  The big and strong countries have not lost any lives, he said, but in Central Europe, the lesson of history is clear.  Whenever there is a conflict between East and West, “we in central Europe have always lost”, he said, calling for connectivity and cooperation instead of blocs. 

OLTA XHAÇKA, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of Albania, said that those present “would do well to remember” that this war is occurring for no other reason than the choice of the President of the Russian Federation.  Ukraine neither attacked nor threatened that country, and she stressed that assertions to this end “are just as ludicrous today — when the whole world has seen the weakness of the Russian army — as they were last year, when the world expected the Russian army to succeed in a manner of days”.  And it is not just the global evaluation of the military capacity of that army that has changed over the past year — the brutality of this force has now become apparent to all.  Noting the war crimes that have been committed in Ukraine over the past year — including indiscriminate bombings, rape and executions — she said that such acts are “perhaps the best indictment of the true nature of Russia’s war”.

She went on to stress that, while this war has had dramatic consequences for the entire world, “what we have seen until now is nothing compared to what we will see if Russia is allowed to prevail in this conflict”.  No country will be safer if the Charter of the United Nations and international law are allowed to be trampled upon in the manner Moscow has, and a world where “might makes right” will not benefit anyone.  “This practically would mean going back to the logic of the 1930s,” she stressed.  Therefore, Albania fully supports today’s resolution, and the General Assembly must do the same.  She also opposed the “hostile” amendments proposed by Belarus as attempts to shield the aggressor, calling on all to vote against the same and noting that her country requests a recorded vote thereon.

CATHERINE COLONNA, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France, said that the Russian Federation’s brutal war violates the most fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter as well as its own commitments.  This has been a year of war marked by successive abuses and crimes so serious and systematic that the International Criminal Court has launched investigations into war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, she said.  The international community must not turn a blind eye to executions, torture, sexual violence as a weapon of war, kidnappings and deportations of children.  Highlighting the admirable resistance of Ukraine, she expressed her country’s absolute determination to support that country’s right to defend itself.

Stressing that this war is everybody’s business, she said it denies the existence of borders.  Neutrality is not a possibility; letting the Russian Federation dictate the terms would represent a failure of the international order.  “None of us would be able to sleep easy in such a world,” she said, adding that the war poses a risk to food security in vulnerable countries.  No other country has used nuclear rhetoric, she pointed out, noting the International Court of Justice’s demand for an end to the aggression last March.  The current draft marks a clear desire for a just and lasting peace.

RASTISLAV KÁČER, Minister for Foreign and European Affairs of Slovakia, aligning himself with the European Union, observed that effective multilateralism is falling apart, while one Member State is blatantly violating the fundamental principles and values of the United Nations.  Condemning the Russian Federation’s ongoing, unprovoked and unjustified military aggression against Ukraine, he demanded the unconditional withdrawal of all Russian troops from the whole territory of Ukraine.  Further, while Moscow continues with its misleading rhetoric, propaganda and distortion of facts on the ground, the international community must take a fierce stand against the spreading of lies and deceptive narratives.

Noting that more than 100,000 Ukrainians have found temporary refuge in Slovakia, he said that the international community has gathered in New York with one goal — to reaffirm steadfast commitment to the values and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.  “Russia’s ignorant attempt at redrawing the internationally recognized borders of a sovereign country presents a grave threat not only to Europe,” he underscored.  This conflict is not only about Ukraine — tomorrow, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of any country might be at stake.  Underlining the duty to protect effective multilateralism — which is under severe threat — he urged those present to vote in favour of today’s resolution.

GORDAN GRLIĆ-RADMAN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Croatia, noting that it has been a year since the Russian Federation began to carry out its “special military operation”, which is in fact a brutal aggression against Ukraine, said this can also be seen as an escalation which started in 2014 with the illegal annexation of Crimea.  The Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law and the Charter by a permanent member of the Security Council and a nuclear-weapon State no less.  Stressing that its logic of war and impunity has brought about immense human suffering, death and injury of hundreds of thousands as well as mass displacement of people, he also pointed to the targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure.  It has also impacted livelihoods around the globe, as it disrupted the global economic flows, and instigated worldwide energy and food insecurity, he pointed out. 

“We must not stand silent,” he said, in the face of those who destroy and violate the most fundamental human and sovereign rights of States.  Voicing support for efforts to establish accountability for crimes committed in Ukraine, he welcomed the International Court of Justice’s Order seeking the Russian Federation to immediately suspend its so-called “military operation”.  By standing with Ukraine, the international community is standing in defense of the pillars of its system and demonstrating resolve to protect the Charter.  The draft resolution is a further demonstration of that resolve, he said.

ZBIGNIEW RAU, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, stating that “we gather here to call for peace”, said that today’s resolution defines the steps needed to achieve it.  A comprehensive, just and lasting peace is the only acceptable option to end the war in Ukraine, and this is possible only when that country’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are reconfirmed.  The Russian Federation must therefore withdraw its forces from Ukraine’s territory and, further, Moscow must be held accountable for the crimes it has committed in Ukraine.  In light of the Russian Federation’s total disregard for international law and United Nations principles, the international community must reaffirm its commitment to the basic rules of international order.

Pointing out that Ukrainians, in standing up to the Russian Federation, are defending the rules-based international order, he stressed that the “brave Ukrainian nation” deserves compassion, support and solidarity.  For its part, Poland will continue to assist Ukraine for as long as it takes, and will continue as the main support gateway for that country as long as needed.  For the Russian Federation, this war is about imperial ambition and desire.  For Ukraine, it is about defending the inalienable right to sovereignty and territorial integrity.  “For all of us gathered here, this war is about the most fundamental United Nations principles,” he added, urging those present to “not render them irrelevant”.

HAYASHI YOSHIMASA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, stressed that the draft resolution is about peace.  Peace must be based on principles, he pointed out, adding that while hostilities must immediately stop, this would not necessarily produce a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.  “What if a permanent member of the Security Council launched an aggression against your homeland, grabbed your territory, and then ceased hostilities, calling for peace?” he asked, calling such a peace unjust.  It would be a victory for the aggressor if such actions were tolerated and would set a terrible precedent for the rest of the planet, he said, adding that the world would revert to the jungle, whether on land or at sea.  Calling on the Russian Federation to withdraw its troops immediately and unconditionally from Ukraine, he noted that the General Assembly has demanded it, as has the Secretary-General and the International Court of Justice． 

Unfortunately, he added, “Russia seemingly cannot care less about the General Assembly resolutions and the International Court of Justice orders, as if they were just pieces of wastepaper,” he said, highlighting also its abuse of the veto power and its irresponsible rhetoric as a nuclear weapon State.  Other Member States should also refrain from supporting the aggression either directly or indirectly, he said, adding that the proposed amendments by Belarus are an attempt to distract the attention of the Member States from the fact that the Russian Federation’s aggression is in violation of the very principles of the United Nations Charter.  Also stressing that it is essential to restore trust in the United Nations, he called for reform of the Security Council, and enhanced roles for the General Assembly, the Secretary-General, the Economic and Social Council, the Peacebuilding Commission, and other bodies of the United Nations.

HADJA LAHBIB, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belgium, stressed that “we did not want this war — we wanted to live in peace”.  All Member States made a commitment under Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations to respect territorial integrity and to settle disputes peacefully — all of which was flouted by the Russian Federation on 24 February 2022.  Underscoring that “this is not a war of the West against Russia”, she pointed out that Ukraine was attacked on its territory and that its very existence is threatened.  Further, Moscow’s aggression undermines the international order; impacts food, financial and energy security; sows doubt; increases nuclear risk; and negatively affects the environment.  Against that backdrop, she expressed hope that today’s resolution “will bring us even closer together tomorrow”, emphasizing that Member States do not want a world where uncertainty, danger and threats are the norm.

Underscoring that the misinformation and false equivalencies spread by the Russian Federation for almost a year are not backed up by facts, she said that “justice will find the right word” to describe the suffering of Ukrainian children and the cities forever marked by horror.  These crimes cannot go unpunished, and she supported investigation by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, calling for a world where the rule of law prevails over the principle of “might makes right”.  She also supported today’s resolution — which was drafted in an inclusive, transparent manner — and joined those calling for a complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory.  She added that until peace is attained, Belgium will support Ukraine for as long as is necessary to preserve the full meaning of the term “collective security”, which lies at the heart of the Charter and peace.

JAN LIPAVSKÝ, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, expressing support for the Black Sea Grain Initiative and the United Nations efforts to achieve its extension in March 2023, voiced appreciation for the Peace Formula presented by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  He drew attention to the tragic experience of the Central Europe region with the imperial policy of the Russian Federation and underscored the importance of saying “no” to that country’s “imperialist scheme”.  Expressing concerns about the continued attacks of the Russian Federation’s armed forces around Ukrainian nuclear sites and the illegal seizure of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, he called for full accountability for war crimes and the crime of aggression.  In this regard, he supported creation of a special tribunal, calling on the United Nations to ensure maximum legitimacy.

Recognizing the heartbreaking humanitarian toll of the war, he said that the Russian Federation’s “barbaric full-scale war brings back horrors of the Second World War”.  Recalling that the war forced over 8 million Ukrainians to flee abroad, he said that the Czech Republic granted temporary protection to more than 500,000 Ukrainians, most of them women and children, and remains the country hosting the highest number of Ukrainian refugees per capita. “Even though it brings some challenges for the State and our citizens, especially at the time of economic and energy crises, our country and people have demonstrated an unprecedented wave of solidarity,” he said, adding that it also has provided in-kind and material support so that people affected by the war in freezing temperatures have access to health care, drinking water, electricity and heating.  He strongly supported the draft resolution.  Appealing to “all those who might be tempted today to take a “neutral” stance and to those who believe that it is not “their” war, he said:  “If we don’t act now, we are accepting a new international order based on use of brutal force, based on colonialism.”

GABRIELIUS LANDSBERGIS, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, noting that this is not the first time the Russian Federation has attacked its neighbours, said that Moscow’s crime of aggression against Ukraine was followed by war crimes and violations of international law that have caused far-reaching crises across the globe.  Lithuania is appalled by mounting evidence of genocide committed by the armed forces and mercenaries of the Russian Federation, and these brutal atrocities are a clear expression of that country’s total disregard for the principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty, human rights and international humanitarian law.  Applauding Ukraine’s heroic defensive efforts, he said that Lithuania’s citizens have donated over €40 million in support of such efforts and that the Government has provided protection and humanitarian relief to tens of thousands of Ukrainians.

“But none of that is sufficient to stop Russia’s war,” he stressed, noting that, while Moscow engages in blame games, its real objective is to create spheres of influence and domination that harken back to colonial times.  It continues its aggression because it enjoys impunity — the Security Council is paralyzed because the Russian Federation wields veto power in that organ.  The role of the General Assembly, therefore, becomes more important, and Member States should rise to this challenge and support Ukraine’s peace formula.  He therefore urged those present to demand the full withdrawal of the Russian Federation’s forces, seek full accountability for the perpetrators of atrocities and explore all means to ensure that Russian assets are used to compensate for all material damages caused by Moscow’s aggression.

BUJAR OSMANI, Minister for Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia, reiterated that his country cannot allow or admit territorial conquest and changes of borders caused by war, neither can it accept the return of spheres of influence and rule of force.  He, thus, urged the Russian Federation to end the war and withdraw its troops from Ukraine.  Pointing out that food and energy insecurity worldwide are only some of the direct consequences of the aggression, he emphasized that a bigger danger lies in challenging the rules-based international order.  In this regard, expressing support for the investigation of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine, he pointed out that the international human rights mechanism should be implemented in fighting impunity and holding accountable the ones responsible for the war crimes and other violations.

Recalling that North Macedonia is one of the initial co-sponsors of the resolution, he said that “a vision of a world we want to live in is at stake”, calling on Member States to ensure peaceful coexistence and cooperation among nations, free from menaces of war and aggression.  “It’s up to each and every one present in this august Assembly to decide on behalf of the nations we represent,” he stressed.  Noting North Macedonia assumed the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Chairpersonship on 1 January, he said the Russian Federation’s aggression erodes OSCE’s foundations by violating the Helsinki Final Act.  During his recent visit as OSCE Chair to Ukraine, he witnessed the war’s devastating consequences on the displaced population in Borodyanka, near Kyiv.  “What is the sense of our political actions, nationally and internationally, if we stay idle in front of human sufferings, caused not by natural disasters, but by deliberate war of aggression?” he asked, stressing: “Accountability today is a moral imperative as it is the most to avoid this happening again, in another place, to another sovereign State, to another people.”

WOPKE HOEKSTRA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, said that the war is not only an attack on Ukraine, but an attack on the principle of sovereignty and on the Charter; an attack on what the international community stands for despite all the differences.  Turning a blind eye to the Russian Federation’s aggression will not only allow it to trample on the United Nations Charter, but will also cause more hardship, instability and suffering, he stressed.  He went on to say that the only way forward is to commit to the agreements made, ensuring that Ukraine survives as a State within its internationally recognized borders, and to work to achieve a lasting peace.  In this regard, he outlined that the Netherlands is taking on a leading role in supporting Ukraine with humanitarian aid, sanctions against the aggressor, weapons and training.  “We will do everything in our power to ensure that Russia is held to account and that justice will be done,” he said. 

Expressing support for the Ukrainian Prosecutor General and the International Criminal Court, he said that his country will be sending two more forensic investigation teams in 2023 and will host the new International Center for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression and the Damages Register in The Hague.  Noting that the road to peace is simple, he said that “this war can end today if Russia sends its soldiers home”.  

EDGARS RINKĒVIČS, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Latvia, pointing out that the actions of the Russian Federation are driven by its imperial and colonial ambitions, noted that country recently suspended its participation in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).  Underscoring that Latvia’s assistance to Ukraine has exceeded 1 per cent of his country’s gross domestic product (GDP), he said that the provided support will set the pace for further reconstruction process, adding that his country is involved in the reconstruction of Chernihiv region.  Condemning the illegal deportation of Ukrainian civilians to the Russian Federation; forced illegal adoption of Ukrainian children; the forcing of Ukrainians to obtain Russian passports; and forced conscription of the Ukrainian citizens into the armed forces of the Russian Federation, he commended efforts of the International Court of Justice to investigate atrocity crimes.  

Noting that the International Criminal Court and national judicial systems cannot exercise jurisdiction to prosecute the crime of aggression, he called for establishment of an ad hoc international tribunal under the auspices of the United Nations.  Highlighting the importance of resisting disinformation and propaganda, he reiterated Latvia’s support for independent media.  Commending the Black Sea Grain Initiative and expressing support to the World Food Programme (WFP), he recalled that in 2022 the Government decided to unblock fertilizers from the Russian Federation at Latvian ports and donate them to countries of the Global South.  Welcoming Ukrainian President Volodymy Zelenskyy’s 10-point peace formula, he reiterated support to the Ukrainian leader’s vision of peace.

IGNAZIO CASSIS, Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, said the human cost of this disastrous war is impossible to quantify. In addition to the thousands of dead, wounded and missing on the ground, more than 8 million people have had to flee their homes.  That figure represents the entire population of his country, he said, adding that last year, he saw with his own eyes the destruction and suffering in and around Kyiv.  The inhumane images of the war are on everyone’s minds, he said, adding that such horrors are taking place just as the international community is about to commemorate the 75 years of the Geneva Conventions next year.  “With these Conventions we wanted to raise the law above barbarism”, he said, adding that the General Assembly has repeatedly stated that war must never happen again. Yet, the Russian Federation’s military aggression against Ukraine “shows us once again that we are not safe”, he said.

Turning to the draft resolution, he said it is a strong message of peace and respect for international law.  Strongly condemning the serious violations of humanitarian and human rights law committed in Ukraine, he said that Ukrainians have the right to live in peace.  Such a peace must be built on the fundamental principles of international law such as the prohibition of the use of force, territorial integrity and national sovereignty.  Reaffirming his country’s commitment to playing its part, he said the international community must show respect for the importance of the United Nations Charter.  Major challenges require urgent global solutions, he said, also pointing to the problems posed by energy shortages, food insecurity, inflation, climate change and migration.

KOSTADIN KODZHABASHEV, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, aligning himself with the European Union, called on Member States to continue to fiercely defend the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the rules-based order “because they are our only guarantee for peace”.  Bulgaria will not recognize the Russian Federation’s attempted annexations and illegal referendum and is deeply concerned over the continued worsening humanitarian situation.  It has kept and will continue to keep its borders open to everyone fleeing the war in Ukraine without any discrimination.  He welcomed the Black Sea Grain Initiative and the leadership of the Secretary-General in restoring the grain exports from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, calling for the renewal of the former in March and for its unimpeded implementation.

The Russian Federation bares full responsibility for this aggression and all the destruction and loss of life, and it must and will be held accountable in accordance with international law.  Only through ensuring justice for all victims, will the international community stand a chance to prevent such crimes in the future.  Citing the historic responsibility of the General Assembly to stand for peace, he noted Bulgaria is proud to have co-sponsored the draft resolution “Principles of the Charter of the United Nations underlying a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine”.  Stressing its purpose is to help bring this conflict to an end and to reaffirm collective support for the international principles upon which a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace must be based, he urged all Member States to vote in favour of the text.

PETER BURKE, Minister for European Affairs of Ireland, aligning himself with the European Union, underscored that “this invasion was unprovoked and entirely of Russia’s making” and that Ireland will continue to stand fully with Ukraine and its people amidst this brutal aggression.  Detailing the war’s negative effects on the Ukrainian people, he also observed that it has “seen a generation of Russian youth sacrificed to President Putin’s imperialist fantasies”.  The Russian Federation’s war is also having a global impact, as its actions have seen the world’s most vulnerable suffer from increased food and economic insecurity, along with rising costs for energy and commodities.  Ireland and the European Union are responding to these global effects, including through “Solidarity Lanes” and the “Team Europe” response to global food insecurity.

He went on to note that the war has seen reckless Russian attacks on Ukrainian nuclear facilities, along with Moscow’s threats to use nuclear weapons on those that might come to Ukraine’s aid.  As such, it is worrying that the Russian Federation has now chosen to suspend its participation in a nuclear-arms-reduction treaty with the United States.  Calling on the Russian Federation to refrain from further threats or the use of force of any kind — including nuclear weapons — against Ukraine or any other Member State, he stressed that Moscow’s actions are not just a threat to Ukraine, but to the entirety of the United Nations membership.  Today’s resolution calls for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in line with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, he said, urging all Member States to support the text.

JOHANNA SUMUVUOR, State Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, aligning herself with the European Union and the Nordic countries, reminded all that war and destruction were the Russian Federation’s choice.  Instead of upholding its obligations for maintaining peace and security as a permanent Council member, Moscow is flagrantly violating international law, most notably the laws of war.  That Government has targeted Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure, causing immeasurable damage and suffering.  Testimonies from Ukraine and the areas liberated from the Russian Federation’s occupation tell the gruesome tale of torture, extrajudicial executions and sexual violence, she noted.  While the transfer of civilians including children by force has been a devasting tragedy for Ukrainian families, for Moscow, these are just part of the attempts to deny Ukraine a national identity.  

Perpetrators of the most serious international crimes must be held accountable for their actions, she stressed, underscoring that justice for Ukraine is justice for the whole world.  When the rules-based international order comes under attack, it is the Assembly’s duty to defend it together, she emphasized.  To achieve comprehensive, lasting and just peace, the Russian Federation must immediately end its brutal and illegal invasion, respect Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity, stop the missile strikes on that country’s cities and withdraw its forces, she said.

ARLENE BETH TICKNER (Colombia) rejected the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country, which violates both international law and the Charter of the United Nations.  She also rejected any unprovoked aggression by one State against another, as this only entails adverse consequences for the civilian population, including loss of life, material damage, food and energy shortages and rising poverty.  In line with Colombia’s “total peace” policy, she called on the parties to seek a negotiated, peaceful and lasting settlement to the conflict in Ukraine and stated that her country stands with the victims claimed by this conflict.

CARLOS AMORÍN (Uruguay), joining his voice to that of numerous delegates that have made calls for an end to the hostilities, condemned the military invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation as a clear violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter.  All Member States must not only respect but also comply with and enforce that document, he said, urging the Russian Federation to cease its military operations and stop the aggression against Ukraine.  Further, both parties to the conflict must make their utmost efforts to return to the negotiating table in order to resolve their differences peacefully, he said, underscoring that it is illegal to acquire territory through the use of force or other mechanisms.  This rule of international law is in the Charter and endorsed by the General Assembly, the Security Council and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, he pointed out, expressing support for peaceful settlement of disputes. 

DAI BING (China) noted that his country’s policy towards this conflict has been consistent and clear — namely, that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected, that the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations should be observed and that the legitimate security concerns of all countries should be taken seriously.  The top priority is to facilitate a ceasefire and a cessation of hostilities without delay, as the longer the brutality continues, the greater the human suffering will be.  He therefore called on the parties to prevent this crisis from worsening, also underscoring that “nuclear weapons cannot be used and that nuclear war cannot be fought”.  Dialogue and negotiation are the only viable ways to resolve the Ukraine crisis and, noting that peace talks have stalled, he urged that “the reason behind this warrants deep reflection”.  The international community should jointly work to facilitate peace talks as — one year into the Ukraine crisis — brutal facts offer ample proof that sending weapons will not bring peace.  Urging the countries concerned to stop abusing unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction, he called on the same to act in a way conducive to de-escalation.  He added that China stands on the side of peace and dialogue, and will soon issue a position paper on a political solution for the Ukraine crisis.

AMIR SAEID IRAVANI (Iran), expressing commitment to a peaceful resolution and lasting peace in Ukraine, said this must be done in accordance with the principles outlined in the Charter of the United Nations, including those of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States.  Urging all parties to fully comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the need to take constant precautions to protect civilians and critical infrastructure, he said it is crucial for all parties involved to abandon their military ambitions and prioritize finding a peaceful and diplomatic solution.  In order to do so, the United Nations must leverage the Secretary-General’s role and establish a cross-regional group of impartial countries to facilitate constructive dialogue and assist in identifying solutions to the current impasse.  Calling for an immediate ceasefire coupled with access to humanitarian aid for those in need, he said the draft under consideration falls short of comprehensively and impartially addressing the issue.  Further, it does not acknowledge the provocations that have contributed to this crisis, he said, adding that his delegation will abstain from voting on this draft.

BOGDAN LUCIAN AURESCU, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Romania, aligning himself with the European Union, cited the human rights and humanitarian consequences of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine, including the continuous attacks against its critical infrastructure.  The hybrid war proliferated by the Russian Federation — even more intense through fake news, disinformation and malign interference — aims not only to destabilize the region and the most vulnerable States but also to undermine unity, mutual trust and solidarity.  The Russian Federation is testing the resolve of the world to stand up for its norms and values, requiring the full force, determination and legitimacy of the General Assembly to reaffirm that international law and the Charter of the United Nations matter.  

Romania, he noted, is fully engaged in international efforts to end the Russian Federation’s impunity.  A multidimensional effort has been ongoing the past year to accelerate the transfer of some 13 million tons of Ukrainian grain through Romanian territory, reaching countries in the Global South that have been greatly impacted by food insecurity.  Approximately 3.6 million Ukrainian citizens have entered Romania; among these, over 110,000 remain in the country, receiving humanitarian aid.  Calling for a peace based on the principles of the Charter, with negotiations starting only when Ukraine is ready, he demanded that the Russian Federation reverse its illegal actions and unconditionally withdraw its military forces from territory of Ukraine.  He called on the entire United Nations membership to vote in favour of the resolution.

AMANDA PIRUTTI SOUREK, observer for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, urged the Russian Federation to immediately and unequivocally withdraw from Ukraine’s territory; until then, she welcomed the international community’s adoption, enforcement and continued escalation of sanctions against Moscow.  She also encouraged the Secretary-General to continue working to advance ceasefire talks and to support increased humanitarian access to civilians in areas affected by the war.  Noting that today’s resolution calls for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine, she stressed that this objective is inextricably linked to the democratic ambitions of the Ukrainian people.  “This conflict is about democracy as much as it is about sovereignty,” she observed, stating that, over many years and despite many obstacles, Ukrainians have repeatedly affirmed their commitment to democratic values.  The result has been a steady improvement across a variety of indicators but, today, hard-won progress hangs in the balance.  Underscoring that Ukraine has chosen democracy, she added that “a democratic Russia would not have unleashed this tragedy”. 

ANNALENA BAERBOCK, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, noted it takes 45 seconds for Russian missiles to hit the city of Kharkiv after the air-raid sirens are heard.  The Russian Federation’s war of aggression has not only brought terrible suffering to the people of Ukraine, but has slashed gaping wounds across the world, with families on all continents unable to make ends meet because of rising food and energy prices.  In ending the year, she cited “the peace plan right here in front of us — called the Charter of the United Nations”.  Moscow must withdraw its troops from Ukraine, stop the bombing and return to the Charter, as there is no peace if an aggressor is rewarded for its ruthless violence. 

Noting that some speakers have stated that by arming Ukraine, “we are pouring oil into the fire”, she affirmed:  “We did not choose this war.”  The international community would rather focus its energy and money on fixing schools, fighting the climate crisis, and strengthening social justice.  But the truth is if the Russian Federation stops fighting, this war ends, while “if Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends”.  The human suffering would continue:  abduction, rape, torture, with children counting to 45 every single day to save their lives.  The war’s global trail of devastation would continue:  inflation, energy shortages and hunger.  “That’s why today’s vote is about all our future,” she stressed:  “to stand isolated with the oppressor or to unite for peace”.

Action

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Djibouti expressed concern about the continuing deterioration in the security situation and the increasing violence, warlike rhetoric and threat of use of nuclear weapons.  Stressing the importance of a just and lasting peace, and reaffirming the need for peaceful settlement of disputes, he expressed support for the draft resolution.

The representative of Nigeria expressed reservations about operative paragraph 9.  Recognizing that mechanisms for investigation and prosecution are unclear in the text, he expressed concern as to how the General Assembly would be distinguishing which kinds of aggression should be treated in the same manner, and which ones should be prioritized.  Notwithstanding its reservations regarding this paragraph, his delegation will support the resolution, he said.

The representative of Nepal, recognizing that the draft resolution is aimed at protecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine and bringing peace, said that his delegation will support the text. 

The representative of South Africa, expressing regret at the loss of life and displacement caused by the war, said its impact has resonated around the globe, heightening the food and fuel crisis.  Reaffirming the need for urgent actions to end the war, she added that the international community has been unable to come up with concrete proposals to do the same.  The current draft comes amidst an influx of arms to the region, she said, also noting the threat of nuclear war.  While expressing support for the draft’s focus on the principles of the Charter, she noted that it does not bring the international community closer to a sustainable peace. 

The representative of Thailand, urging the United Nations to dispense its effort in preventive diplomacy, called on all parties to step up diplomatic effort and engage in dialogue to stop the Ukraine conflict.  Pointing out that wars can only be settled by engagement, dialogue and pragmatism, and not by the winner-take-all mindset, he stressed that “it is now time for all nations to come and reason together”. 

The representative of Angola said that today’s resolution represents progress, in that the international community is demonstrating support for the process of seeking a peaceful solution to the conflict.  However, she said that her country will abstain, as operative paragraph 9 is not conducive to creating an environment conducive to the start of peaceful negotiations.

The representative of Brazil said that his delegation will vote in favour of the resolution, as the General Assembly must uphold the core principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law.  Stressing that the most important element of the text is its call for the international community to redouble efforts to achieve just, lasting peace in Ukraine, he said that his country considers the call for a cessation of hostilities in operative paragraph 5 an appeal to both sides to halt the violence without preconditions.

The representative of Malaysia, pointing to the suffering of civilians, urged all parties to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law.  Noting the complex geopolitical context, he called for dialogue and peaceful means of dispute settlement.  His delegation will vote in favour of the resolution, he said, expressing regret at the Council’s unwillingness to discharge its primary responsibility. 

The representative of the United Kingdom said the amendments proposed have been put forward by a State that supported the Russian Federation’s invasion.  They attempt to create false equivalence between the Russian Federation’s aggression and Ukraine’s self-defence, she said.  They were not proposed in good faith, she said, urging States to vote against the amendments and in favour of the draft resolution.

Before the vote, the General Assembly decided by consensus that a two thirds majority of members present and voting was required for the adoption of the draft resolution entitled “Principles of the Charter of the United Nations underlying a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine” (document A/ES-11/L.7), as well as the draft amendments thereto (documents A/ES-11/L.8 and A/ES-11/L.9).

The Assembly rejected the draft amendments “L.8” and “L.9” by recorded votes of, respectively, 11 in favour to 94 against, with 56 abstentions, and 15 in favour to 91 against, with 52 abstentions.

The Assembly then adopted the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 7 against (Belarus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua, Russian Federation and Syria), with 32 abstentions.

The representative of Cuba, pointing to the United States increasingly offensive military doctrine, noted that in Ukraine today, rather than a decrease in tensions, confrontation is exacerbated on the ground with the increasing movement of weapons, aggressive rhetoric and unilateral sanctions.  His delegation abstained from voting as it does not contribute to dialogue or negotiation with the participation of all parties involved, he said.  He rejected any future attempts to manipulate the text as a legal basis to justify the possible creation of tribunals aimed at carrying out judgments at the national or international levels, stressing that the Assembly has no such mandate.  Cuba will continue to tirelessly advocate for a diplomatic solution, which is constructive, serious and realistic.

The representative of Egypt said his delegation voted in favour of the resolution in its commitment to the principles of the Charter.  Developing countries particularly, including his own, are suffering because of the ongoing crisis.  Unfortunately, the international community continues to be lax in addressing the economic and social challenges posed by the crisis to developing countries.  His delegation had hoped that the resolution would have proposed an appropriate mechanism to resolve the crisis, he said, urging all relevant parties to arrive at such a mechanism and expeditiously resume negotiations in a manner that addresses the root cause of the crisis and the security concerns of the parties in a fair and sustainable manner.

The representative of South Sudan, noting that his Government has continuously cast an abstain vote over the past year, said that it voted in favour for the sole reason that the conflict must stop.  South Sudan, he reminded, emerged from the longest civil war in the African continent and is implementing a peace agreement which many in the Organization helped to deliver.  There is no military solution to the conflict, he emphasized, calling for its peaceful and speedily settlement.

The representative of Indonesia explained that his country voted in favour because it believes in upholding the principle of the United Nations Charter and international law.  However, his Government deeply regretted that the elements it had suggested were missing from the final draft.  The resolution, he pointed out, is missing the spirit for realizing peace; does not call on the international community to create conducive conditions to end the war; and lacks a call for the parties to pursue dialogue and enter into direct peace negotiations.  Assembly resolutions are not social media content, he said, emphasizing that the institution’s credibility is put on the line if a resolution it puts forward spins factual information.  Today’s adopted resolution was leaning very close to this direction, he observed.

The representative of Lesotho, stressing that the pursuit of international peace is the paramount goal of the international community, said his delegation dissociated from preambular paragraph 7 and operative paragraph 5 of the resolutions just adopted.  The manner in which the text is framed does not indicate any immediate steps for a diplomatic solution, he said, reiterating that the international community must support the parties in the search for peace.

The representative of India, reiterating concern about the situation in Ukraine and its ramifications on civilians, said escalation of hostilities is in no one’s interest.  Urging a return to the path of diplomacy, she said that her country will continue with its people-centered approach to this situation.  While the overall objective of today’s resolution is understandable, she asked:  “are we anywhere near a possible solution acceptable to both sides?”  Voicing doubt that a process that does not involve both sides can lead to a meaningful resolution, she also questioned the effectiveness of a Council based on a 1945 world.  Due to the inherent limitations of the resolution, her delegation was constrained to abstain from voting for it, she said. 

The representative of Pakistan said his delegation abstained on “L.7” despite effort by the co-sponsors to moderate its tone.  While expressing support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and non-acquisition of territory by use of force, he regretted those principles are not universally applied, as in the foreign occupation and illegal forcible annexation of Jammu and Kashmir.  He called for redoubled efforts towards peace in Ukraine.  His delegation also abstained on the amendments proposed by Belarus.

Right of Reply

The representative of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, categorically rejected the provocative and outrageous outburst made by the Republic of Korea yesterday, which merits no comment.  He reiterated that his country has never recognized the United Nations sanctions resolution against it, cooked up by the United States and its vassal forces.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has never had any arms dealings with the Russian Federation and has no plans to do so.  The Republic of Korea’s remark was aimed to tarnish his country’s reputation.  Had the United States not infringed on the security interests of the Russian Federation and ceased the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the present situation in Ukraine would not have occurred.  The United States and other countries are wrecking global and regional peace and security, he stressed, and it is an open secret that the Republic of Korea is seeking to supply ammunition and weapons to Ukraine under pressure from Washington, D.C.  He warned that if Seoul continues to provoke Pyongyang, it will face an extreme security crisis.

The representative of India, choosing not to respond to Pakistan’s provocations, encouraged it to refer to numerous rights of reply exercised in the past, pointing out that “Pakistan has only to look at itself and its track record as a State that harbors and provides safe heavens to terrorists and does so with impunity”.  He underscored that the path of peace can be the only way forward to resolve conflict and discord.

The representative of Pakistan pointed out that India continues to perpetrate an incorrect position, as Jammu and Kashmir are internationally recognized disputed territories and not an integral part of India, as it has been claimed.  Repeating the wrong position would not make it acceptable at any point, he added, recalling that the focus of the debate is on people and on the crisis at hand. 

The representative of the Republic of Korea, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said all representatives present know which Member State is violating its duties under the Charter, and that is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  Any arms trade with that country constitutes a blatant violation of Security Council resolutions, he added.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking again in exercise of the right of reply, condemned the Republic of Korea’s attempt to incite confrontation in the august forum.  He also condemned that the Council is being transformed into a tool for implementing the hostile policy of the United States and the Republic of Korea and other vassal forces, without mentioning a single word about those countries' joint military exercises, which are now taking place around the Korean Peninsula and encroaching upon the security interests of his country.  The Republic of Korea must bear in mind that continued submission to the United States will lead it to self-destruction, he warned.

Ukraine

Highlights

Highlights of General Assembly 77th Session

New York, 21 Sep. - 30 Dec. 2022

High-level meetings of the 77th session of the General Assembly

New York, 20-26 September 2022

Security Council 2022 Round-Up

New York, 2022

Daily Noon Briefing

24 February 2023

The Secretary-General, noting the International Court of Justice’s Order regarding Armenia and Azerbaijan, welcomed their trust placed in the World Court and expressed hope both parties will implement the Orders, including ensuring unimpeded movement along the Lachin Corridor in both directions.

Latest Noon Briefings

For information media. Not an official record.