70th session of the General Assembly. What is the UN General Assembly and why is it needed? Political blockbuster instead of the Munich Speech

The anniversary, 70th session of the General Assembly (GA) of the United Nations (UN) begins work on Tuesday at the headquarters of the world organization in New York. The opening of the annual cycle of meetings will be announced by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Austrian diplomat Mogens Lykketoft, who was elected chairman of this session in June. Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to speak at the session. According to some observers, the Russian leader will make it clear that Moscow is ready to soften its position on Ukraine and with the West, which was interrupted due to the annexation of Crimea and the crisis in Donbass. Officially, nothing like this is announced in Moscow.

The day before, as reported by the UN News Center, the 69th session of the General Assembly ended. The Chairman of the General Assembly, Sam Kahamba Kutesa, said that during the session, 105 plenary meetings were held and 327 resolutions and decisions were adopted. One of the most notable documents was resolution 69/267 on the celebration of the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II and the founding of the world organization, adopted at the initiative of Russia, TASS notes. In addition, on September 11, the General Assembly approved the basic principles for restructuring the sovereign debt of states.

The official opening ceremony of the new session will take place at 15:00 local time (22:00 Moscow time). The annual general debate will take place from 28 September to 3 October. According to established tradition, the first to speak from the podium of the General Assembly on September 28 are representatives of Brazil and the United States. This year both countries will be represented at the presidential level. Before the start of the general debate, Ban Ki-moon will present his annual report on the work of the organization to UN member states, followed by a speech by General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft. On the eve of the general political discussion, the Sustainable Development Summit will be held in the General Assembly Hall from September 25 to 27, the statement said.

The agenda of the 70th session of the General Assembly includes 170 topics, including issues of maintaining peace and security, preventing armed conflicts, countering terrorism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, protecting the environment, promoting sustainable development of countries, observing the nuclear non-proliferation regime, protecting human rights and ensuring the rule of law.

Session participants will also discuss reform of the UN Security Council. In addition, the campaign to elect the UN Secretary General will officially begin within the year. The powers of Ban Ki-moon, who has held this post since January 1, 2007, expire on December 31, 2016. According to the organization's charter, he does not have the right to stand for a third five-year term. Among the contenders for this post are UNESCO Executive Director Irina Bokova, UN Development Program Administrator Helen Clark, Presidents of Chile and Lithuania Michelle Bachelet and Dalia Grybauskaite, former Prime Minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

A week after the opening of the session, within the framework of the General Assembly, a general political discussion will traditionally take place - a debate by delegates of UN member countries. However, this year the general debate has been postponed to a later stage - a development summit will be held on September 25-27, at which the global socio-economic development agenda for 2015-2030 will be approved. As reported, on the opening day of the summit, the head of the Vatican, Pope Francis, will visit the UN headquarters for the first time in 20 years.

Putin will speak from the GA rostrum - 10 years after participating in a similar session

The day after the end of the Sustainable Development Summit, a general political discussion begins at the UN headquarters in New York, in which over 150 heads of state and government are expected to participate this year, including Russian leader Vladimir Putin, as well as dozens of foreign ministers UN member states. Speeches by country delegations will last until October 3, TASS reports.

A detailed program of discussions has not yet been published, but it is known that the participants in the debate will touch upon pressing issues on the international agenda - conflicts in Ukraine, Syria and Yemen, the fight against terrorism, the critical situation with migrants in the EU and global climate change. The first day of debate promises to be the busiest, when the presidents of Russia, Brazil, Iran, Kazakhstan, Poland, the USA and France will hear speeches from the podium of the General Assembly.

This is not the first time that Vladimir Putin will speak from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly - for example, in 2000 he delivered a speech at the Millennium Summit. The Russian leader also spoke in 2003 at the 58th session and in 2005 at the 60th session. In 2009, the Russian delegation to the General Assembly session was headed by the then President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev.

The Kremlin has already reported that the president will speak at the GA on the morning of September 28. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last Sunday in the “Sunday Time” program on Channel One, in his speech from the UN rostrum, Putin will outline the “fundamental assessments” of the Russian side “on the most pressing problems of the modern world.” According to the minister, the president will also touch on “specific aspects, such as Syria and the Ukrainian crisis.”

“All these crises and many others stem from systemic problems in relation to attempts to slow down the process of formation of a polycentric world,” Lavrov said. Earlier, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, said that the Russian leader was scheduled to meet with Ban Ki-moon.

One of the most discussed issues at the General Assembly promises to be the situation in Syria, which has become even more aggravated against the backdrop of rumors about Russia’s alleged buildup of military potential in this country, which Moscow categorically denies.

As White House press secretary Josh Earnest said yesterday, US President Barack Obama may personally discuss the situation in Syria with Putin. He admitted that Russia has “legitimate interests and significant investments” in Syria, AP reports. “That is why we called on Russia to reconsider ways of coordinating efforts with the international coalition in the fight against (the terrorist group banned in the Russian Federation) Islamic State,” Ernest said. He did not specify in what form the conversation would be held - by telephone or in person, and also where exactly it will take place.However, it is possible that Obama and Putin will meet at the GA session, where both will speak.

Meanwhile, the press did not rule out that at the UN General Assembly Putin will make it clear that Russia, under the heavy burden of partial international isolation and sanctions, is ready to stop confrontation with the West and move towards rapprochement. In particular, the media saw signs of an impending change in the policy of the Russian Federation in the removal from office of the irreconcilable “imperialist”, former chairman of the People’s Council of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic Andrei Purgin. Behind the latest actions with the alleged build-up of the military potential of the Russian Federation in Syria, in which Moscow is suspected in the West, according to the press, there may be preparation for a possible trade in Ukraine using the “Syrian card.”

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

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

Over the 70 years of its existence, the UN has made a great contribution to the fight against hunger and poverty, epidemics and the consequences of disasters. However, its efforts to prevent regional armed conflicts and maintain peace were not so successful.

The seventieth anniversary session of the UN General Assembly became the most representative and important international event of 2015. More than 140 heads of state and government took part in the general political discussion that took place at the session. Were its results predictable? What will be on the agenda of the international community in the future?

The panelists discussed a range of issues, from security issues to cooperation in the humanitarian field. Many speakers expressed concerns about the growing number of global challenges caused by human activities. Uruguayan President Tabare Vázquez went so far as to compare the developments in today's world to an insane asylum overrun by patients. Much attention has been paid to the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, adopted shortly before the General Assembly to promote the transition to sustainable production and consumption patterns.

However, most attention was paid to the problem of coordinating international efforts to combat ISIS, which forced the once main threats - the spread of the deadly Ebola fever and the conflict in Ukraine, which were the subject of discussion at the last session - to recede into the background. A task of truly paramount importance in the modern international situation is the fight against international terrorism. Spain and Romania even took the initiative to establish a special international tribunal for members of terrorist organizations. But while world leaders agreed that Syria and Iraq needed to be cleared of terrorist groups, they failed to reach an understanding on how to achieve this goal. In fact, two anti-terrorist groups have begun to take shape, one of which includes the USA, France, Turkey and Qatar, and the other - Russia and Iran.

It turns out that disagreements between states are rooted in the inability to determine the source of the terrorist threat, as well as ways to eliminate it and restore statehood. For example, the Emir of Qatar said that the spread of terrorism in Syria is a response to the brutal suppression of popular discontent. Thus, he seemed to hint that Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the current difficult situation in the country, who, therefore, should no longer remain in power. A similar position was taken by French President Francois Hollande, who accused Assad of using barrel bombs against the civilian population of Syria and questioned the position of the current Syrian president on the post-war settlement. US President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also supported the idea that a return to the pre-war status quo between the Syrian government and the opposition is no longer possible. The leaders of Russia and Iran made opposing statements, emphasizing the need to provide assistance to the current Syrian authorities. In their opinion, the rampant terrorism is a consequence of external armed interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country, as was the case with the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. While such temporary alliances have great potential, without joining forces, it will be extremely difficult for them to defeat ISIS and establish lasting peace in Syria and Iraq.

Another topic that aroused heated debate at the General Assembly session was a compromise on the Iranian nuclear program. The deal was approved and supported by the overwhelming majority of countries, whose representatives called the conclusion of the relevant agreement proof of the effectiveness of diplomacy. The eloquent and passionate speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who characterized the deal with Iran as a mistake destined to have the most dire consequences, sounded dissonant. The Israeli leader called on the international community not to gradually ease economic and trade sanctions against Tehran, but, on the contrary, to continue to put pressure on Iran until it fully fulfills its obligations to the IAEA and to begin lifting sanctions no earlier than this happens. It is expected, however, that the parties will continue to implement the nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 group, despite its condemnation by Israel, which in this case will act as a biased observer.

The issue of economic sanctions has been very often raised by world leaders whose countries have had or continue to be subject to restrictive measures. For example, GA participants welcomed the US decision to ease trade and economic restrictions against Cuba and restore diplomatic relations with it. However, both Washington and Havana interpreted the first step to lift sanctions and the compromises they reached in their favor. Since the end of the Second World War, sanctions have become an increasingly common means of implementing foreign policy, representing an alternative to military conflicts and hybrid wars. Today, various kinds of economic restrictions are in force against countries such as Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Sudan, Russia and Belarus. Speaking at the General Assembly, representatives of these countries called them illegal and unfounded. Presidents Putin and Lukashenko tried to counter the concept of sanctions with the idea of ​​“integration of integrations,” which consists in harmonizing regional economic projects. However, this idea failed to gain support at the General Assembly.

What do countries like Switzerland, Norway, India, Pakistan and Sierra Leone have in common? At the General Assembly, their representatives, as well as representatives of several other countries, called for deep reform of the UN Security Council. In essence, the main topics of the current session were the future of the UN and its ability to respond to the challenges of our time. There is no doubt that over the 70 years of its existence, the UN has made a great contribution to the fight against hunger and poverty, epidemics and the consequences of disasters. However, its efforts to prevent regional armed conflicts and maintain peace were not so successful. Every time one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council was involved in a conflict in one way or another, the activities of this body were paralyzed. The Assembly participants really liked France's proposal to limit the right of veto in the Security Council when issues such as a threat to peace or the commission of crimes are brought up for discussion. In addition, the representative of France called for an increase in the number of permanent members. Such a reform of the UN would make its decision-making mechanism more flexible. This would also mean its complete departure from the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations, the last pillars of which are precisely the right of veto and the immutability of the composition of the UN Security Council. Security Council reform is already underway, and there is no doubt that the UN Security Council will look completely different by the next anniversary.

The 70th session of the UN General Assembly is taking place in New York. On Monday, a general political discussion starts within the framework of the General Assembly session. More than 150 heads of state and government, as well as foreign ministers and heads of delegations will address its participants.

Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to take part in the General Assembly meeting. Before this, Putin spoke at three sessions of the General Assembly - in 2000, after becoming president, in 2003 and 2005. In 2009, President Dmitry Medvedev spoke at the session.

Moscow and Washington agreed to hold a meeting between Putin and US President Barack Obama on September 28 on the sidelines of the General Assembly session.

New ones first

New ones first

From old to new

Hollande suggested that Security Council members not use the veto in the event of mass deaths. A veto is not the right to block, but the right to act, the French President believes.

Hollande proposed creating a coalition that would form a new government that would lead Syria into a future without dictatorship.

Turning to the topic of the Middle East, Hollande said that the situation in Syria “requires intervention.” He agreed with the need to find a joint solution, but recalled that the tragedy began with a revolution that wanted to overthrow a dictatorship that was killing its own people. “Three years ago we were not talking about terrorists,” Hollande said. According to him, many Syrians fled the country not from war and terrorists, but from the “Assad regime.” The French president stressed that the tragedy arose “due to the alliance of terrorists and dictatorship.”

Hollande believes that developed countries need to allocate $100 billion to transition to a new energy policy.

French President Francois Hollande began his speech with fears that the planet faces problems if no agreement is reached on climate change.

Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the UN with the organization's Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. In a conversation with him, the head of state expressed hope for reaching agreements on the fight against terrorism. At the same time, Putin emphasized that without strengthening state structures in the states of the region, including Syria, the task of combating terrorism cannot be solved.

Terrorism arises in the shadow of tyranny, fueled by hatred after torture in prisons. We confirm our readiness to fight terrorism, but we need to understand its causes, the Qatari leader believes.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, after speaking at a session of the UN General Assembly, briefly spoke “on his feet” with the President of Tajikistan Emomali Rahmon, TASS reports. After his speech, Putin left the meeting room, where several dozen people were waiting for him for the traditional greeting. Coming out of the hall, the Russian President saw Rakhmon among those greeting him and approached him, after which the two presidents exchanged several phrases.

Iraq, Syria, Yemen are examples of crises that are fueled by extremism and the indifference of the international community, Rouhani believes. The roots of today's wars are military interventions and invasions.
“It is necessary that US actions take into account the realities of the region,” the Iranian president concluded.

“If not for the US military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq” and its support for the Zionist regime, the terrorists would not have been able to justify their crimes, Rouhani added.

The Iranian President noted the dangers posed by terrorist organizations in the Middle East and North Africa. According to him, these organizations “could turn into terrorist states.”

“We believe that in order to fight terrorists, it is necessary to adopt a legally binding international document so that no country can use terrorism as an excuse to interfere in the affairs of other states,” the Iranian leader noted, adding that Tehran supports the establishment of democracy in Syria and Yemen.

“We support the establishment of power through elections, not through weapons,” Rouhani said. He called for the creation of a united front to combat extremism and violence.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (Photo: webtv.un.org)

Putin proposed returning to the basic principles of the UN, announced at the first session of the General Assembly in January 1946 in London: good will, contempt for intrigue and the spirit of cooperation.

Unilateral sanctions “bypassing the UN” pursue political goals and, in addition, make it possible to eliminate economic competitors, the Russian leader believes. In return, he proposes to speed up integration processes, citing Russia’s cooperation with China as an example.

In addition, he noted, a number of countries have taken the path of closed exclusive economic associations, and negotiations on their creation are being conducted behind the scenes. “They probably want to confront us all with the fact that the rules of the game can be changed, and without the participation of the WTO. This affects the interests of all states,” warns the Russian President, proposing to discuss this issue with the participation of the UN and the WTO.

Meanwhile, Ukraine's permanent representative to the UN Yuriy Sergeev

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

Over the past few days, the world's political community has been waiting for the speeches of Barack Obama, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin - and they had to speak almost one after another. Will world leaders be able to propose effective steps to ease tensions on the planet, which really threatens to develop into a big war? In our opinion, some short-term détente in relations between the United States and Russia is quite possible - primarily based on the need to somehow counter the spread of ISIS and the destruction of Europe under the pressure of refugees. But believing in “peace and friendship” is stupid and naive: the contradictions are too deep. The US claims to maintain monopoly global leadership and the strengthening of Russia, China and their BRICS partners are incompatible. New clashes are inevitable.

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

However, the Chinese are cunning and patient, which allows them to achieve their goals without paying attention to all sorts of small pricks. I recently read an interesting statement by the Russian sinologist Sergei Tikhvinsky: “Chinese diplomacy has adhered to the “silkworm doctrine” since ancient times.” This worm quietly, imperceptibly, but constantly eats, eats, eats the mulberry leaf. As a result, it gnaws the entire tree, and there are no leaves left on it. The time factor works for China - five thousand years of continuous cultural development. China has digested everyone - the Huns, the Uighurs, the Manchus - everyone.” Yes, he will “digest” America too!

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

Now the role of the frantic Fidel has been taken on by the President of the Republic of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, who spoke from the UN rostrum on September 27. “Old Man” furiously went through American policy, which led to the bloody wars in Iraq and Syria. The world, he said, is more divided today than at any time in the last 30 years. “We have still not managed to restore the balance of power that was lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union. There is no balance of power, no peace, no stability. This is a systemic crisis,” Alexander Grigorievich concluded.

Global crisis and prospects for UN reform

Recently, ideas have been floated about deep reform of the UN, in particular the Security Council, even to the point of expelling some of its permanent members or abolishing the right of veto. Let us tell the supporters of such ideas immediately and directly: this is impossible. It should always be borne in mind that the UN is a product of the Second World War, that it was founded by the main participants in the anti-Hitler coalition (the “United Nations”) in order to consolidate the status quo created as a result of that war, which would ensure some kind of world.

Therefore, in order to radically change the structure of the UN, it is necessary to conduct another world war and, based on its results, expel all losers from the Security Council. Or even liquidate the UN and establish something else in its place - just as the Second World War put an end to the League of Nations created by the First World War. Naturally, no person in his right mind would like to overhaul the system of international collective security, which the UN is primarily designed to serve, in this way.

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

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

Now regarding the claims of specific states to obtain a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council. By the way, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, at a meeting with colleagues from Japan, India and Brazil, raised the issue of reforming the Security Council. But it is precisely Germany and Japan, with their economic strength and great political influence (especially Germany in the European Union), that do not have the moral right to claim permanent seats in the Security Council - because they lost the Second World War, because they were guilty of unleashing it and bear no statute of limitations responsibility for tens of millions of victims of that war.

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

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

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

The good intentions of the summits

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

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

And, in general, it is hardly possible to say that the world has become more prosperous and safer for ordinary people since 2000. All measures taken by international institutions to solve global problems of humanity lead to nothing more than “half-results”. These measures are capable of reducing poverty and hunger, but are not able to eradicate them or end them, as the Goals declare.

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

Post Scriptum. Speeches by world leaders - first impressions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack Obama expressed confidence that Congress will lift the embargo against Cuba, which “should not exist.” These words caused applause.

Xi Jinping began by recalling the Victory in World War II. He called for rejecting the “Cold War mentality.” He defended the right of all countries - large and small - to choose their own political system and their own path of development. Large countries must treat small ones as equals.

The Chinese leader recalled the crisis of 2008: when capital pursues only profit, this leads to big problems. You cannot rely only on the “invisible hand of the market” - you also need the firm hand of government regulation! The widening gap between wealth and poverty is unfair.

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

Vladimir Putin's speech can be described as restrained and tough. He, like Xi Jinping, began his speech with the origins of the UN, which dates back to the Victory and the Yalta Conference. The Yalta system was paid for with tens of millions of lives. The UN is a structure that has no equal. Its essence is in developing compromises. All attempts to undermine the legitimacy of this organization (a hint at the idea of ​​canceling the veto!) are extremely dangerous - this would lead to a slide into the “dictat of force.”

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

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

Vladimir Putin devoted a minimum of time to Ukraine in his speech - it is obvious that Moscow is seeking to shift the focus of the world community’s attention from Ukraine to Syria, and to use Middle Eastern issues to build bridges with the West. The reason for the war in Ukraine: the “confrontational thinking” of the West, which puts post-Soviet countries before a “false choice”: “to be with the West or with Russia.” Vladimir Putin emphasized the need to preserve the integrity of Ukraine.

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

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

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