Activity of the Schiller Institute

Julio Miguel De Vido – Mr. De Vido is former Minister of Federal Planning, Public Investment and Services (2003-2015), Argentina.

I would like to begin this presentation, which I titled “Planning for Integration, Cooperation and Growth with the BRICS: Missteps and Risks,” by first thanking the Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Dennis Small for the honor of being invited to this conference.

I have been able to reflect on the working paper by Dennis Small and Mary Jane Freeman entitled “Some LaRouche Essentials for the Transition to a New International Financial System.” Here is my contribution to that reflection:

The disappearance of the global financial system as we know it today, depends on the success of the BRICS, conceived of as the possibility of putting together a platform for intercontinental integration of economies that paradoxically have, as an advantage, large natural resource reserves and a determining role in the global supply chain (energy, food, water and biodiversity); and, as a disadvantage, that they bring together very powerful real or potential economies, but very unequal ones. A simple review of the social landscape of many of these countries provides the evidence of these asymmetries.

Therefore, my view is that, in addition to the agenda of speaking honestly and taking a stand about the war between Ukraine and Russia, and the agenda of domination itself that perpetuates dependence on the world financial system (thanks to organizations such as NATO), it is necessary to build that platform for integration which is the BRICS with an eye to and respecting the sovereign views of those countries, connecting their willingness to cooperate, to trade ties and definitions in foreign policy issues that go along with it.

The situation today is one of a “delicate balance.”

There are many of us who agree with the need for a new way of participating in the institutions of global governance, especially among the countries that share a common history of struggle against imperialism, colonialism, exploitation and underdevelopment. But there are many missteps and risks, if the foreign policy and the insertion strategies are not clear in their characterization and are erratic. In addition, the agreements and commitments to represent the so-called “Global South” must be balanced and firm within each of the countries—those that today make up the BRICS and those, like Argentina, that seek to join that bloc.

The historical moment and the context should encourage us today.

Dennis Small writes that “The only way the Argentina-Brazil-BRICS vs. IMF conundrum will be solved, is by getting China’s Belt and Road Initiative actively underway in the region—to put ‘shovels in the ground’ and start building the long-awaited bi-oceanic rail corridor(s) across the continent, in particular, based on multi-billion non-dollar credit lines.”

I would like to recall here that Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela—led at that time by Néstor Kirchner, Evo Morales, Lula da Silva, Rafael Correa, Nicanor Duarte Frutos, Tabaré Vázquez and Hugo Chávez, respectively – we signed in 2007 the Founding Charter of the Bank of the South, guided by the purpose of developing, promoting and fostering the economic and social integration of the member nations of UNASUR (Union of South American Nations).

The process of creating this Bank of the South was part of the joint commitment to create a new regional financial architecture. It was a way to prevent national savings from flowing to more developed economies, instead of being invested in regional projects. In a way, it was for us a first step to get out of the financial and trade globalization of the time, and to be able to revitalize investment, correct asymmetries, and develop integrating infrastructure. In short: the goal was to mitigate the foreign vulnerability of our region.

Unfortunately, we recognize it today as a failed experience of the UNASUR regional block. The non-collaborative technical-administrative superstructures during the first years of UNASUR’s life, with their procrastination, opened the door to a reconfiguration of forces that, by 2011, had an impact on the integration process and, of course, on the project of the Bank, as a result of the political changes in the region.

The effort and political will of many of us with experience in government administration, to break the U.S.’s hegemony and enter fully into multilateralism and into a change in the International Order, has to aim at:

First – Define what we mean by the Global South. I find it necessary to characterize the subject. Today we know the potential of the G7, with low representation in terms of world population (10%) and an economic size of 31% of world GDP. We know the potential of the BRICS, with high population representation (40% of the world’s population) and an economic size of 24% (in terms of world GDP). The open question is to estimate its geopolitical weight in order to establish joint positions regarding world political and economic functioning, to counterbalance a G7 that today includes industrialized countries, with a BRICS composed of countries that appear to be in political and economic crisis as a result of submission to the “prescriptions” of the multilateral credit institutions.

Second – Urgently address the shared vulnerabilities of the economies of the Global South. We have seen that the assessment of the so-called Agenda 2030 in these countries, which the U.N. imposed as part of the world order, is that it was a failure. I am talking about poverty, inequality, climate change. As presented in the Agenda, “sustainable development” went over the top. As a result, and by way of example: extractivism, as a fundamental tool for the concentration of wealth that limits development, and also for the export of natural resources, which in my country is a way of obtaining dollars to pay the debt to the IMF, are clearly very dangerous ways of acting in disregard of sustainable development (environmental and social).

This recognition of the reality within countries should be the platform from which the BRICS work for the global economic recovery which we seek to lead from there, to position these emerging economies on the path of development and self-sufficiency, which, along with the type of proposals being analyzed in this forum, will allow us to define a New World Order.

One such proposal, to quote Small and Freeman when they pose the need for a new currency: “Productive credit must be issued in that new currency to finance great development projects, with a heavy emphasis on science and advanced technologies, in and among participating nations, to quickly boost the physical economies and thereby provide the only possible solid backing for the value and stability of the new currency.”

In that light, we must bring a new international order into being that is truly inclusive, equitable, fair and sustainable, one that allows for reforms to be agreed upon and planned in the areas of energy, transportation, and infrastructure; as well as the greatest possible investment from the BRICS in the economies of its partner nations to allow for the growth of local industry in each of them, as well as the real improvement in the indicators of the Agenda 2030 guidelines and an ongoing improvement in foreign trade and market access.

In the short term, the BRICS platform must help member countries resolve their debts with multilateral credit institutions, supporting the growth of each of them, the creation of genuine employment, and the improvement in the living conditions of their inhabitants; and over the long term, establish new financing mechanisms outside those institutions and the mandates of the United States and its allies.

My understanding is that that is the path to launch the new world economic agenda, so that the world financial system, as we know it today, disappears, and so that the BRICS can create a counterweight in global geopolitics under conditions of respect from the West for the so-called “Global South.” Thank you.

H.E. Ilia Subbotin – Mr. Subbotin is Minister-Counselor of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in France.

Dear participants of today’s International conference, organized by the Schiller Institute,

Dear Ms. Zepp-LaRouche, Dear Mr. Cheminade,

Dear friends,

I’m stressing the word friends, because I really hope that this morning I speak in front of people, who are at least ready to listen and who do not have a “pre-cooked” vision of the international reality, like the one broadcast by the mainstream Western media.

From what I was able to find in open sources about the Schiller Institute and its founder, Lyndon LaRouche, I conclude that this audience will be able to think critically and to make its own conclusions.

The topic of today’s panel is “Peace in the world through architecture of security and mutual development, to the benefit of each and every country.” I will present to you a view, based on the official position of my country and on my personal experience, including 23 years of diplomatic service.

I remember vividly my first contacts with US high school students in 1990-91, during the last years of existence of the Soviet Union. There was a program called “Friendship Caravan,” under which young Americans were visiting Soviet schools, spending several days in Russian families. After decades of the Cold War it was a breath of fresh air. We were happy to make new friends. The future seemed bright and marvelous.

In July 1989 then-President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev visited Strasbourg and spoke in front of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). In that historic speech he put forward the idea of the “common European home” and called for substituting “the geopolitical balance with the balance of interests” in order to create the wide economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. I see here a link to Point 7 of Helga’s “10 principles for tomorrow’s world.”

That was the turning point of the Russian foreign policy. For 30 years after that speech, my country spared no efforts to build the common humanitarian, legal and economic space, which would cover Greater Europe. Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe from 1996 until March 2022 was the most visible proof of that course.

Before I continue on the track of European integration, allow me to draw your attention to one circumstance, which is key for understanding of the later developments. After the failed coup d’état of August 1991, in December of the same year the Soviet Union was peacefully dissolved. Let me stress the two opposite versions of what happened—the US leadership (namely President Bush, the father) already during the 1992 electoral campaign started to talk about the victory in the Cold War, and the collapse of the USSR because of that “victory.” For us in the former Soviet Union, the perception of the events was radically different. We never felt we had lost the Cold War. In fact, it was our President who stopped it. The disintegration of the USSR became a kind of “collateral damage” of the titanic shift in Russian policy. And, believe me, when it was happening, almost nobody understood what exactly was happening. Most of the people in former Soviet republics, except the Baltics and Georgia, wanted to continue living together. And I remember very well the feeling of the first months of 1992 that some kind of new union of the same republics would emerge very soon. The reality unfortunately turned out to be different. Deep economic crisis, unemployment, criminality, interethnic conflicts in a number of post-Soviet republics….

With all these difficulties Russia still stood firm in its desire to become a part of the Western world. In 1996 we joined the Council of Europe with its Court of Human Rights and many other institutes and instruments. In 2002 the NATO-Russia Council was created. As of 2003 we agreed with the European Union on the creation of four common spaces, which would cover economic issues; issues of freedom, security, and justice; external security; and, finally, research and education.

Meanwhile, in 2000 I graduated from the MGIMO University—the well-known Russian diplomatic school, and was appointed to my first diplomatic post, in Chile. Here I would like to recall one more personal episode from the late ’90s. In spring, 1999 I was doing a Master’s [degree] in international relations in Madrid, Spain. I lived in a shared flat with some other students, including a Yankee boy, called Stephen. We were going along quite well until NATO started to bomb Yugoslavia. For me this is another turning point of European history of the last 30 years. Russia today is accused of bringing the war back to Europe. As if the aggression against Yugoslavia never took place! On the night when Russian paratroopers took control of Pristina airport, we had a physical fight with my US neighbor. He started the fight, shouting something about “Russian pigs.” The US might be successful in Yugoslavia but not in Madrid flat…

In terms of Russia-West relations, the Kosovo crisis is well known by the U-turn of the Prime Minister Primakov’s plane over the Atlantic (24 March 1999) and the beginning of a U-turn in global Russian politics—although, as we know now, it took my country 20 more years to do the complete U-turn. The former prime minister and foreign minister Primakov was a truthful partisan of the concept of a multipolar world. In his active years in politics, he advocated for the multipolar system, which is becoming reality before our eyes now.

In 2007, I was for the first time appointed to Strasbourg, to the Russian permanent mission to the Council of Europe (CoE). Since then I have been dealing with the CoE file in different capacities. On February 10, 2007, President Vladimir Putin delivered his landmark Munich speech. He spoke about the indivisible nature of security, of the failure of the unipolar world (may be it was too premature, but seen from today, that was the right conclusion), of the excessive use of force by the US and NATO… Recalling the events of the late ’80s, President Putin stated clearly: “[T]he fall of the Berlin wall became possible thanks to [the] historic choice of [the] Russian people in favor of democracy, freedom, openness and sincere partnership with all members of the big European family.” And of course he was advocating for the more balanced system of security (Point 1 of Helga’s principles —international security and development architecture as a partnership between sovereign Nation-states).

Was my President heard in Munich? Judging by the events which followed, he was not. In August 2008 Georgian leader Mikhail Saakashvili attacked civilians and Russian peacekeepers in Tskhinval. Together with my colleagues I spent long hours of discussions in the Committee of Ministers to prove the obvious, that the attack was started by the Georgian side. An international inquiry commission headed by the Swiss Ambassador, Heidi Tagliavini, came to the same conclusion. However, none of these conclusions was able to correct the fact that an armed conflict between the Russian army and a US-trained and -equipped Georgian armed forces took place. Luckily, the war lasted only few days and, as we see now, became a very good vaccine for the Georgian society and leadership against any future attempts to start an armed conflict with Russia.

In 2009 we celebrated the 60th Anniversary of the Council of Europe. Former [Soviet] President Gorbachev was invited to pronounce the main speech at the solemn ceremony. On that occasion, I was lucky to spend three days with the man who had changed history. He is often seen in my country as too pro-European, but allow me to quote some key messages from his 2009 speech: “Europe hasn’t fixed the key question, namely, creation of the solid basis for peace, of the new security architecture.” President Gorbachev, not Putin, 2009. Another quotation: “[T]he roots of actual problems are in the wrong assessment of the events, related to the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union.”

Sorry for the prolonged excursion into the modern history, but I’m deeply convinced that to understand today’s reality, we must have a clear picture of what happened yesterday.

In 2012–2015 I was working as a seconded political advisor of the Council of Europe’s Brussels office. It was a unique chance to learn the “Brussels bubble.” Moreover, it was a period of time when foundations for the current Ukrainian crisis were laid. You might remember that the EU and Ukraine were negotiating an Association agreement with a free trade zone, which would enter into conflict with the already existing free trade zone between Russia and Ukraine. My close colleague and friend was among the top negotiators on our side at the EU-Russia talks to find way out of the dead end. According to him, there was no will [shown by] the EU side to come to mutually beneficial agreement during these talks. The refusal by [Ukrainian] President Yanukovich to sign the Association agreement was used to spark the Maidan coup d’état, which led to the civil war in Ukraine. And again, we witnessed the unwillingness of the Western leaders to implement the Minsk agreements, which stopped the open hostilities from 2015 till 2022.

Now we all have heard the confessions of [former French President] M. Hollande  and [former German Chancellor] Mme Merkel that they had no intention to implement the Minsk package and that the only goal of the deal was to give Ukraine more time to re-arm and conquer the rebel regions by force. What was the intention of the Russian leadership? For me the answer is quite clear—my President, supported by political class, wanted a genuine peace deal, of course on the decent conditions, where the key is recognition of Russia’s leading role in providing security in Europe. The guys in Washington, D.C., apparently did not see such a role for my country. To a large extent, this explains why we’re still in open conflict.

Let me go back to 2017. I took the post of Deputy Director at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, responsible for the Council of Europe file. My biggest headache was the institutional crisis. The Russian delegation in PACE was deprived of its key rights, and consequently my authorities decided to stop paying our contribution to CoE budget until these rights were fully restored. By Summer 2019, working closely with Secretary General Jagland and the reasonable part of the members of PACE, we were able to fix the problem. The Russian delegation returned to the Assembly with full rights. The Russian contribution to the CoE budget was fully paid. Would all this be possible without the genuine desire of my President, of our political class, to keep Russia as part of the Greater Europe? Definitely not! We were also lucky to have at that moment of history the responsible and independent leadership in the CoE (Jagland).

What happened next? Russia realized that the United States in Ukraine were preparing the worst scenario. We made the last effort—the “diplomatic offensive” of December 2021 – January 2022. It happened that I was able to discuss these events personally with two main Russian envoys—Deputy Minister Riabkov (he worked with the US) and Deputy Minister Grushko (he was in charge of NATO track). The parallel conclusion of both esteemed colleagues: there was no wish on the US/NATO side to seek any compromise with Russia.

In these circumstances, the special military operation became the just and non- alternative step to guarantee Russia’s security and to protect Russian people, whom the Kiev regime wanted to deprive of their language, religion, culture, values. What was the reaction of the West—hatred and mantra that the only way out is a “strategic defeat of Russia at the battlefield.” And no effort is spared to reach this aim—according to open sources, more than $150 billion has already been spent to arm Ukraine. By the way, a couple of years ago the G-20 agreed to accumulate $100 billion to help the green transition of the developing countries—this commitment has never been implemented!

Let me stress that it was not Russia that broke relations with Europe (that was exactly the case with our withdrawal from the Council of Europe). The breakup was the initiative of the Western countries (the second part of the title of our session, the essential strategic autonomy of the European states). I will not discover America if say that now there is no such autonomy and that the European political class is almost totally controlled by the US. Can this situation change? I hope so, and the fact that such organization as Schiller Institute exists, makes this hope stronger.

The Multipolar world is emerging. It’s a fact of life. New centers of economic [development] are here. The financial growth in China, India, Brazil, Turkey, and Gulf countries’ power and political influence go along with the economic success. The share of the G7 in the world’s GDP is already less than that of BRICS. The hegemon which loses its dominance reacts maliciously, by staging internal conflicts and wars between brotherly nations, like those in former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Will Washington be able to change the course of history? I do not think so. I am sure most politicians in the West understand this. The open question is, when will Europe—Germany and France primarily—wake up and free themselves from the shackles of US control? When and if this happens, Russia will be ready for mutually beneficial dialogue of equals, on the basis of our fundamental interests. We are not looking for self-isolation.

H.E. Lu Shaye – Mr. Shaye is Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China in France.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank the Schiller Institute for inviting me to Strasbourg, the “second capital of Europe,” to share my thoughts on the international situation.

At present, changes unseen for a century are taking place at an accelerated pace, giving rise to unprecedented transformations of our world, our times and history. The ongoing conflict on the European continent is attracting worldwide attention. More than a year after the start of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, where does the outcome lie? The answer to this question is being sought not only by the countries involved in the conflict and the European countries with a close interest in it, but also by peace-loving people the world over.

Depending on the positions and interests of the various parties, there are two diametrically opposed options: the first is to continue hostilities until one side prevails over the other; the second is to promote peace talks to find a solution acceptable to both antagonists.

The world is thus divided into two camps: the pro-war camp, led by the United States, which, under the guise of defending justice, is prolonging the war by constantly supplying arms and other forms of military assistance to Ukraine; and then the pro-peace group, which is actively engaged in shuttle diplomacy in favor of reconciliation and peace talks.

The Russian-Ukrainian conflict highlights two ways of thinking in today’s world, pitting two strategic choices against each other: that of confrontation and conflict versus that of dialogue and cooperation, or that of the zero-sum game versus that of mutual benefit and win-win. Moreover, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is itself the disastrous consequence of America’s obsession with the logic of bloc confrontation after the end of the Cold War, reflected in NATO’s continued eastward expansion to restrict Russia’s strategic space and drive it into a corner.

And today, the USA is trying to launch a “new Cold War” against China. On the political front, it is sticking ideological labels on other countries, calling China an “authoritarian dictatorship” and rallying “value allies” under the banner of defending “democracy” to launch a “new crusade” against China. On the military and security front, the US is busy creating “little clans”: from bilateral military alliances to the trilateral partnership (AUKUS), from the quadrilateral dialogue (Quad) to the Five Eyes alliance, via the “Indo-Pacific version of NATO.” On the economic, commercial and technological fronts, projecting its own model onto China by assuming that any great power practices hegemony, the US is building “little courts surrounded by high walls,” and seeking to decouple and break supply chains in order to crack down, comprehensively, multi-sectorally, intensively and continuously, on China’s high-tech enterprises and critical industries such as semiconductors.

European countries have been forced to choose sides. On the Russian-Ukrainian issue, from participation in sanctions to the current dispatch of fighter jets and pilot training, Europe is becoming more involved in the conflict by the day, while the prospects of resuming dialogue with Russia and rebuilding a new European security architecture grow ever more remote. As for relations with China, the United States is deliberately linking China to Russia and playing on the false narrative of “today’s Ukraine, tomorrow’s Taiwan,” fanning anti-Chinese hatred in Europe and poisoning Sino-European relations.

Against this backdrop, it’s worth noting that some European countries have demonstrated a stronger commitment to strategic autonomy, refusing to choose sides between China and the USA. They have stressed the need to defend their strategic and economic sovereignty on the basis of their own interests, to maintain channels for dialogue and to play a role as a balancing force between China and the United States.

Developing countries have also largely refused to fall into the logical stereotypes and discursive traps of bloc politics and confrontation of camps. They reject the blind wave of condemnation and sanctions against Russia, and pursue their policy of friendship towards China. Peace and cooperation remain the aspiration of the peoples and the general trend.

At the same time, confusion and anxiety on all sides are far from over. Some countries, anticipating an escalation of confrontation and an “eventual war” between China and the USA, are betting on both sides geopolitically, and economically, they are erecting trade barriers and practicing investment screening, industrial relocation and blocking of critical technologies vis-à-vis China, insisting on “dependency reduction” and “derisking.”

In a turbulent world, China remains as clear-sighted and determined as ever. Ten years ago, President Xi Jinping innovatively put forward the vision of a community of shared future for humanity and the Belt and Road Initiative, and since 2021 he has successively presented the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative. These are Chinese proposals for solving global development problems, meeting international security challenges and promoting mutual enrichment between civilizations

An African proverb says: “Alone we go faster, together we go further.” Those who ignore the interests of others will never get far, those who want to rely solely on their own strength by getting rid of others are living in illusion, and those who think only of blocking the development of others will not be able to fundamentally solve their own problems.

In presenting the Global Development Initiative, China advocates solidarity and cooperation. Aimed at rapid implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the initiative identifies eight key areas of cooperation, including poverty reduction, food security, development financing and the digital economy. It has received the support of over 100 countries, as well as the United Nations and other international and regional organizations, as it corresponds to the broad common interests of the international community.

Thanks to the joint efforts of all parties, the Global Development Initiative has come to fruition very well, with many early results to the benefit of different peoples. For example : mechanisms such as the “Special Action to Promote Food Production,” the Global Alliance for the Development of Technical and Vocational Education, the International NGO Cooperation Network for Poverty Reduction, the China-Africa Alliance for Poverty Reduction, the China-Pacific Island Countries Climate Action Cooperation Center, and the Center for the Promotion of Global Development; more than a hundred concrete cooperation projects are on the Initiative’s project list, benefiting nearly 40 developing countries, and offering more than 20,000 training places via 1,000 capacity-building projects; China has launched the world’s first scientific satellite dedicated to the 2030 Agenda, shared its data with the rest of the world, and donated several data products to the United Nations.

As part of the Belt and Road Initiative, more than 3,000 cooperation projects have been signed, generating almost $1,000 billion in investment, creating 420,000 jobs and helping almost 40 million people out of poverty…. The facts prove that what the world needs is not “decoupling” or “broken supply chains,” but open, inclusive, win-win cooperation. China is ready to continue sharing development opportunities with Europe and other countries around the world to promote common prosperity.

Attached since ancient times to the primacy of peace and concord between all states, the Chinese nation has no genes in its blood for aggression or hegemony; on the contrary, it has always sought peace, harmony and concord. Faced with a profoundly restructuring international landscape and complex security challenges, China advocates a common, integrated, cooperative and sustainable security concept, and pursues a new security path based on dialogue rather than confrontation, partnership rather than alliance, and win-win rather than zero-sum game.

Last February, China published the Concept Paper on the Global Security Initiative, which lists 20 priorities for cooperation, including: firmly supporting the central role of the United Nations in security governance; promoting consultation and healthy interaction between major powers; actively promoting the peaceful resolution of burning issues through dialogue; effectively addressing conventional and unconventional security challenges; and continuously strengthening the world’s security governance system and capacity development.

On the question of Sino-American relations, we have no intention of challenging or supplanting the United States, nor of becoming a new United States, nor of waging a “new Cold War” of bloc confrontation. Recently, when he received US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed that “the world needs an overall stable Sino-American relationship,” that he is “confident that the two great powers can overcome all difficulties to find the right way to get along in mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation,” so as to “stabilize and improve the Sino-American relationship.”

On China-EU relations, China and Europe have no fundamental conflict of interest. On the contrary, we both benefit from each other’s development, both advocate strategic autonomy and multilateralism, and we have a broad consensus on global issues such as the fight against climate change. China and Europe should strengthen mutual trust, remove doubts through fruitful cooperation, and work hand in hand to inject stability, certainty and positive energy into the world.

On the question of Ukraine, in the document entitled “China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis” published last February, China put forward 12 points of proposals, including respect for the sovereignty of all countries, rejection of the Cold War mentality, cessation of hostilities and the opening of peace talks. These proposals take into account the concerns of all parties and can constitute the highest common denominator for negotiations. China has also made concrete good offices efforts to promote reconciliation and peace talks. We are convinced that there is no winner in an armed conflict and that the only viable issue to the crisis is dialogue and negotiation. We hope that the EU will work with us to promote the earliest possible launch of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, so that peace can be restored to the European continent as soon as possible.

As a Chinese saying goes, “the secret of making a good dish is knowing how to combine flavors.” The beauty of our world lies in the mutual enrichment of civilizations. China is against the dualism of black versus white, and the distinction between superior and inferior civilizations. Through the World Civilization Initiative, we advocate respect for the diversity of civilizations, promotion of humanity’s shared values, commitment to the transmission and innovation of civilizations, and the strengthening of intercultural exchange and cooperation. We respect all civilizations in their differences, and support their right to development. We are convinced that individual countries can find their own development paths and institutional models adapted to their national conditions, and that through human and cultural exchange and cooperation, the radiance of all civilizations will produce a magnificent symphony of splendors.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Humanity is a community of destinies, sharing both good times and bad. More than ever, nations are interconnected and interdependent, and more than ever, they are called upon to work together to meet challenges and achieve progress.

Europe was the main battleground of the two world wars and is the scene of the current conflict. Europe should therefore have a more direct experience and a deeper understanding of the importance of peace and development. As we stand at a critical new crossroads in history, I hope that Europe’s far-sighted leaders will engage in deep reflection, actively play their part and contribute their wisdom and strength to lead their respective countries and the whole of humanity to make the right choice.