Prinášame Vám prvú časť prejavu prezidenta Ruskej federácie Vladimíra Putina na tohtoročnom diskusnom fóre Valdai 2017. Na záverečnom stretnutí 19.10.2017 sa stretli bývalý prezident Islamskej republiky Afganistan Hamid Karzai, riaditeľ pre výskum v nórskom Nobelovom inštitúte Nobel Asle Toje a šéf korporácie Alibaba Jack Ma. Diskusiu moderoval Fjodor Lukjanov, známy publicista zaoberajúci sa medzinárodnými vzťahmi a riaditeľ výskumu Nadácie pre rozvoj a podporu diskusného klubu Valdai. Diskusie sa zúčastnil aj predseda správnej rady Nadácie Andrej Bystrickij
Prezident Ruska Vladimír Putin
Ďakujem veľmi pekne.
Nie som si istý, ako optimisticky to bude znieť, ale som si vedomý toho, že počas posledných troch dní ste mali veľmi živé diskusie. Pokúsim sa, ako je tu teraz zvykom, podeliť sa s vami o mojich názoroch na niektoré problémy. Prosím, nemajte mi za zlé, ak poviem niečo, čo už bolo povedané, pretože som nesledoval všetky diskusie.
Najskôr by som rád privítal pán Karzaia, pána Ma, pána Tojeho, našich kolegov a všetkých našich priateľov. Vidím veľa známych tvárí v publiku. Všetci vitajte na stretnutí klubu Valdai.
Tradične je toto fórum venované diskusiám na najaktuálnejšie otázky globálnej politiky a ekonomiky. Tento krát organizátori, ako už bolo povedané, vytýčili veľmi komplikovanú úlohu: pokúsiť sa nazrieť za horizont, popremýšľať nad tým, akými budú budúce desaťročia pre Rusko a pre celé medzinárodné spoločenstvo. Prirodzene, nemožno dopodrobna predpovedať a zohľadniť všetky možnosti a riziká, s ktorými sa stretneme. Musíme však pochopiť, precítiť práve kľúčové tendencie, hľadať netriviálne odpovede na otázky, ktoré nám kladie a ešte určite bude klásť budúcnosť. A tempo udalostí je také, že reagovať na ne treba neustále a rýchlo.
Svet vstúpil do obdobia prudkých zmien. Stáva sa realitou, každodennosťou to, o čom sme ešte celkom nedávno hovorili ako o fikcii, ako o niečom neuskutočniteľnom. Vo všetkých sférach sa synchrónne rozbiehajú kvalitatívne nové procesy. Vybičovaná dynamika spoločenského života rôznych krajín, technologická revolúcia, všetko sa prelína so zmenami na medzinárodnej scéne. Vyhrocuje sa konkurenčný boj o miesto vo svetovej hierarchii. Mnohé bývalé recepty na globálne riadenie, prekonávanie konfliktov a prirodzených protirečení sa už pritom často nehodia, už nefungujú, avšak nové zatiaľ vytvorené nie sú.
Je pochopiteľné, že záujmy štátov v mnohom nie sú totožné. To je normálne, prirodzené, tak to vždy bolo. Popredné veľmoci majú rôzne geopolitické stratégie, rôzne videnie sveta. Taká je nemenná podstata medzinárodných vzťahov, vybudovaných na rovnováhe vzájomnej súčinnosti a konkurencie.
Pravdaže, ak sa táto rovnováha poruší, ak sa pochybuje o dodržiavaní alebo dokonca o samotnej existencii všeobecne zaužívaných pravidiel správania, keď sa vlastné záujmy presadzujú za každú cenu, rozpory sa stávajú nepredvídateľnými a nebezpečnými a vedú k ostrým konfliktom.
Za takých podmienok a pri takom nazeraní na vec sa pritom ani jeden reálny medzinárodný problém nedá vyriešiť, vzťahy medzi štátmi iba degradujú. Vo svete je menej bezpečnosti. Namiesto postupného pokroku a demokracie sa uvoľňujú ruky radikálnym elementom, extrémistickým zoskupeniam popierajúcim samotnú civilizáciu a snažiacim sa o jej uvrhnutie do predpotopného chaosu a barbarstva.
Udalosti ostatných rokov to všetko názorne ilustrujú. Stačí pozrieť, čo vzniklo na Blízkom Východe, ktorý sa pokúsili pretvoriť a naformátovať podľa seba niektorí hráči, nanútiť cudzí model vývoja prostredníctvom zvonku riadených prevratov, prípadne aj priamo silou zbraní. Namiesto toho, aby sme spoločne napravili situáciu a reálne zasadili terorizmu úder (nielen imitovali boj s ním), niektorí naši kolegovia podnikajú všetko, aby chaos v regióne nadobudol permanentý ráz. Niekomu sa doteraz zdá, že tento chaos sa dá riadiť.
Medzinárodná spolupráca musí vychádzať zo zásad medzinárodného práva
Avšak niektoré súčasné skúsenosti z nedávnych čias predsa len ukazujú aj kladné príklady. Mám na mysli – asi ste aj čakali, že to spomeniem – skúsenosti zo Sýrie. Práve ony demonštrujú, že taká sebavedomá a ničivá politika má aj alternatívu. Rusko bojuje s teroristami spolu s legitímnou vládou Sýrie a ďalšími štátmi tohto regiónu, vyvíja činnosť na základe medzinárodného práva. Pritom musím povedať, že táto činnosť, tento pozitívny vývoj nás stojí veľa námahy. V regióne je veľmi mnoho rozporov. Ale vyzbrojili sme sa trpezlivosťou a s touto trpezlivosťou veľmi diplomaticky, zvažujúc každý krok aj slovo, komunikujeme so všetkými účastníkmi tohto procesu, pričom rešpektujeme ich záujmy.
Naše snahy, ktorých možné výsledky ešte celkom nedávno naši kolegovia spochybňovali, poviem to opatrne – predsa len nás napĺňajú nádejou. Ukázali sa ako veľmi dôležité, správne, profesionálne a dobre načasované.
Alebo druhý príklad – ten zaklinený stav, v ktorom sa nachádza situácia okolo Kórejského polostrova. Aj o tomto ste už dnes určite veľa diskutovali. Áno, bezvýhradne odsudzujeme jadrové skúšky, ktoré uskutočňuje KĽDR, a stopercentne dodržiavame všetky rozhodnutia týkajúce sa Severnej Kórey, ktoré boli prijaté v rámci Bezpečnostnej rady OSN – toto chcem zvlášť zdôrazniť, kolegovia, aby tu nedošlo k nijakému dvojakému výkladu: plníme všetky rozhodnutia Bezpečnostnej rady OSN. Avšak tento problém treba bezpodmienečne riešiť cestou dialógu, a nie zaháňať Severnú Kóreu do rohu, nie vyhrážať sa jej použitím sily, ani znižovať sa k vyslovenému hulvátstvu a nadávaniu. Či sa to páči alebo nie, či sa niekomu páči severokórejský režim alebo nie, neslobodno zabúdať, že Kórejská ľudovodemokratická republika je suverénny štát.
Akékoľvek rozpory treba riešiť civilizovane. Rusko vždy bolo za taký prístup. Sme pevne presvedčení, že aj najzamotanejšie uzly, či už ide o krízu v Sýrii alebo v Líbyi, na Kórejskom polostrove alebo povedzme na Ukrajine, treba rozmotávať, nie pretínať.
Kríza v Španielsku je vnútornom vecou krajiny
Aká krehká môže byť stabilita aj v tom najprosperujúcejšom a prekvitajúcom štáte, to názorne ukazuje situácia v Španielsku. Kto by ešte celkom nedávno mohol očakávať, že diskusia o statuse Katalánska, ktorá prebieha už dávno, vyústi do ostrej politickej krízy?!
Stanovisko Ruska je známe. Všetko, čo sa tam deje, je internou záležitosťou Španielska a treba sa s tým vysporiadať v rámci španielskej legislatívy v súlade s demokratickými tradíciami. Vieme, že vedenie štátu podniká kroky v tomto smere.
V situácii s Katalánskom sme mali možnosť pozorovať jednohlasné odsúdenie prívržencov nezávislosti zo strany Európskej únie, aj zo strany celého radu ďalších štátov. Viete, v tejto súvislosti si neodpustím poznámku: na to sa malo myslieť už skôr. Vari nikto nevedel o podobných celé stáročia pretrvávajúcich rozporoch vnútri samotnej Európy? Nevedel? Pravdaže vedel. Jednako svojho času v podstate uvítali rozpad celého radu štátov v Európe, ani sa netajili svojou radosťou z toho.
Načo bolo treba tak bez rozmyslu iba na základe aktuálnej politickej konjunktúry a chúťok vyhovieť – poviem to otvorene – „staršiemu bratovi“ z Washingtonu a bezvýhradne podporiť odčlenenie Kosova, provokujúc tak podobné procesy v ďalších regiónoch Európy, ba aj na celom svete?
Pripomeniem, že keď napríklad Krym rovnakým spôsobom vyhlásil svoju nezávislosť a potom sa na základe referenda pripojil k Rusku, to sa už z nejakých dôvodov nestretlo s takým priaznivým ohlasom. A teraz nech sa páči, máme tu Katalánsko. V inom regióne zasa Kurdistan. A to ešte nemusí byť vyčerpávajúci zoznam. Vyvstáva otázka: čo budeme robiť, aký postoj máme k tomu zaujať?
Dvojaké štandardy
Vyzerá to tak, že podľa niektorých našich kolegov na jednej strane existujú „správni“ bojovníci za nezávislosť a slobodu, a na druhej strane sú „separatisti“, ktorí nemôžu bojovať za svoje práva, a to ani pomocou demokratických mechanizmov.
Celý čas hovoríme, že podobné dvojaké štandardy (a tu máme ukážkový príklad dvojakých štandardov) v sebe skrývajú obrovské nebezpečenstvo pre stabilný rozvoj Európy a iných kontinentov, pre napredovanie integračných procesov vo svete.
Svojho času nás apologétovia globalizácie presviedčali o tom, že zaručenou ochranou pred konfliktmi a geopolitickým súperením bude všeobecná ekonomická previazanosť. Žiaľ, nestalo sa tak, ba čo viac, charakter rozporov sa skomplikoval, sú mnohovrstevné a nelineárne.
Politika ako ekonomický nástroj
Áno, vzájomná previazanosť, to je uzemňujúci a stabilizujúci faktor. Ale zároveň môžeme vidieť čoraz viac príkladov, keď politika hrubo zasahuje do hospodárskych, trhových vzťahov. Len nedávno hovorili, že to nie je možné, že je to kontraproduktívne a že to neslobodno pripustiť. Teraz tí, čo tak hovorili, to všetko sami robia. Niektorí sa dokonca ani netaja tým, že používajú politické zámienky a dôvody, aby si presadili svoje čisto komerčné záujmy. Tak je nedávny balík sankcií, ktorý bol prijatý americkým kongresom, otvorene zameraný na vytlačenie Ruska z európskych trhov – jeho cieľom je donútiť Európu prejsť na americký skvapalnený plyn. Ale však ho ani nie je toľko, koľko by bolo treba.
Pokúšajú sa nám hádzať polená pod nohy pri budovaní nových prepravných trás, „Južného“ a „Severného“ prúdu, a to napriek tomu, že diverzifikácia logistiky je ekonomicky efektívna, pre Európu výhodná a slúži na upevnenie jej bezpečnosti.
Opakujem, že každý štát má samozrejme svoje politické, ekonomické a ďalšie záujmy. Problém je len v tom, akými prostriedkami ich obhajuje a presadzuje.
V súčasnom svete nie je možné dosiahnuť strategickú výhru na úkor iných. Podobná politika, založená na sebavedomí, egoizme, nárokovaní si vlastnej výnimočnosti, neprinesie ani úctu, ani skutočnú veľkosť, ale naopak nutne vyvolá prirodzený a spravodlivý nesúhlas a odpor. Výsledkom bude ďalšie stupňovanie napätia a rozporov namiesto toho, aby sme spolu skúsili vybudovať trvalo udržateľný, stabilný svetový poriadok a odpovedať na tie technologické, ekologické, klimatické a humanitárne výzvy, s ktorými sa dnes potýka celé ľudstvo.
Druhá časť prejavu (anglicky)
Colleagues,
Scientific and technological progress, robotic automation and digitalisation are already leading to profound economic, social, cultural changes, and changes in values as well. We are now presented with previously inconceivable prospects and opportunities. But at the same time we will have to find answers to plenty of questions as well. What place will people occupy in the “humans–machines–nature” triangle? What actions will be taken by states that fail to provide conditions for normal life due to changes in climate and environment? How will employment be maintained in the era of automation? How will the Hippocratic oath be interpreted once doctors possess capabilities akin to all-powerful wizards? And will human intelligence finally lose the ability to control artificial intelligence? Will artificial intelligence become a separate entity, independent from us?
Previously, when assessing the role and influence of countries, we spoke about the importance of the geopolitical factor, the size of a country’s territory, its military power and natural resources. Of course, these factors still are of major importance today. But now there is also another factor – the scientific and technological factor, which, without a doubt, is of great importance as well, and its importance will only increase over time.
In fact, this factor has always been important, but now it will have game-changing potential, and very soon it will have a major impact in the areas of politics and security. Thus, the scientific and technological factor will become a factor of universal and political importance.
It is also obvious that even the very latest technology will not be able to ensure sustainable development on its own. A harmonious future is impossible without social responsibility, without freedom and justice, without respect for traditional ethical values and human dignity. Otherwise, instead of becoming a world of prosperity and new opportunities, this “brave new world” will turn into a world of totalitarianism, castes, conflicts and greater divisions.
Today growing inequality is already building up into feelings of injustice and deprivation in millions of people and whole nations. And the result is radicalisation, a desire to change things in any way possible, up to and including violence.
By the way, this has already happened in many countries, and in Russia, our country, as well. Successful technological, industrial breakthroughs were followed by dramatic upheavals and revolutionary disruptions. It all happened because the country failed to address social discord and overcome the clear anachronisms in society in time.
Revolution is always the result of an accountability deficit in both those who would like to conserve, to freeze in place the outdated order of things that clearly needs to be changed, and those who aspire to speed the changes up, resorting to civil conflict and destructive resistance.
Today, as we turn to the lessons of a century ago, namely, the Russian Revolution of 1917, we see how ambiguous its results were, how closely the negative and, we must acknowledge, the positive consequences of those events are intertwined. Let us ask ourselves: was it not possible to follow an evolutionary path rather than go through a revolution? Could we not have evolved by way of gradual and consistent forward movement rather than at a cost of destroying our statehood and the ruthless fracturing of millions of human lives.
However, the largely utopian social model and ideology, which the newly formed state tried to implement initially following the 1917 revolution, was a powerful driver of transformations across the globe (this is quite clear and must also be acknowledged), caused a major revaluation of development models, and gave rise to rivalry and competition, the benefits of which, I would say, were mostly reaped by the West.
I am referring not only to the geopolitical victories following the Cold War. Many Western achievements of the 20th century were in answer to the challenge posed by the Soviet Union. I am talking about raising living standards, forming a strong middle class, reforming the labour market and the social sphere, promoting education, guaranteeing human rights, including the rights of minorities and women, overcoming racial segregation, which, as you may recall, was a shameful practice in many countries, including the United States, a few short decades ago.
Following the radical changes that took place in our country and globally at the turn of the 1990s, a really unique chance arose to open a truly new chapter in history. I mean the period after the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
Unfortunately, after dividing up the geopolitical heritage of the Soviet Union, our Western partners became convinced of the justness of their cause and declared themselves the victors of the Cold War, as I just mentioned, and started openly interfering in the affairs of sovereign states, and exporting democracy just like the Soviet leadership had tried to export the socialist revolution to the rest of the world in its time.
We were confronted with the redistribution of spheres of influence and NATO expansion. Overconfidence invariably leads to mistakes. The outcome was unfortunate. Two and a half decades gone to waste, a lot of missed opportunities, and a heavy burden of mutual distrust. The global imbalance has only intensified as a result.
We do hear declarations about being committed to resolving global issues, but, in fact, what we see is more and more examples of selfishness. All the international institutions designed to harmonise interests and formulate a joint agenda are being eroded, and basic multilateral international treaties and critically important bilateral agreements are being devalued.
I was told, just a few hours ago, that the US President said something on social media about Russia-US cooperation in the important area of nuclear cooperation. True, this is the most important sphere of interaction between Russia and the United States, bearing in mind that Russia and the United States bear a special responsibility to the world as the two largest nuclear powers.
However, I would like to use this opportunity to speak in more detail about what happened in recent decades in this crucial area, to provide a more complete picture. It will take two minutes at most.
Several landmark bilateral agreements were signed in the 1990s. The first one, the Nunn-Lugar programme, was signed on June 17, 1992. The second one, the HEU-LEU programme, was signed on February 18, 1993. Highly enriched uranium was converted into low-enriched uranium, hence HEU-LEU.
The projects under the first agreement focused on upgrading control systems, accounting and physical protection of nuclear materials, dismantling and scrapping submarines and radioisotope thermoelectric generators. The Americans have made – and please pay attention here, this is not secret information, simply few are aware of it – 620 verification visits to Russia to check our compliance with the agreements. They visited the holiest of holies of the Russian nuclear weapons complex, namely, the enterprises engaged in developing nuclear warheads and ammunition, and weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. The United States gained access to all top-secret facilities in Russia. Also, the agreement was almost unilateral in nature.
Under the second agreement, the Americans made 170 more visits to our enrichment plants, touring their most restricted areas, such as mixing units and storage facilities. The world’s most powerful nuclear enrichment plant – the Urals Electrochemical Combine – even had a permanent American observation post. Permanent jobs were created directly at the workshops of this combine where the American specialists went to work every day. The rooms they were sitting in at these top-secret Russian facilities had American flags, as is always the case.
In addition, a list was drawn up of 100 American specialists from 10 different US organisations who were entitled to conduct additional inspections at any time and without any warning. All this lasted for 10 years. Under this agreement, 500 tonnes of weapons-grade uranium were removed from military circulation in Russia, which is equivalent to about 20,000 nuclear warheads.
The HEU-LEU programme has become one of the most effective measures of true disarmament in the history of humankind – I say this with full confidence. Each step on the Russian side was closely monitored by American specialists, at a time when the United States limited itself to much more modest reductions of its nuclear arsenal, and did so on a purely goodwill basis.
Our specialists also visited enterprises of the US nuclear arms complex but only at their invitation and under conditions set by the US side.
As you see, the Russian side demonstrated absolutely unprecedented openness and trust. Incidentally – and we will probably talk about this later – it is also common knowledge what we received from this: total neglect of our national interests, support for separatism in the Caucasus, military action that circumvented the UN Security Council, such as the bombing of Yugoslavia and Belgrade, the introduction of troops into Iraq and so on. Well, this is easy to understand: once the condition of the nuclear complex, the armed forces and the economy had been seen, international law appeared to be unnecessary.
In the 2000s our cooperation with the United States entered a new stage of truly equitable partnership. It was marked by the singing of a number of strategic treaties and agreements on peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which is known in the US as the 123 Agreement. But to all intents and purposes, the US side unilaterally halted work within its framework in 2014.
The situation around the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) of August 20 (signed in Moscow) and September 1 (in Washington) is perplexing and alarming. In accordance with the protocol to this agreement, the sides were supposed to take reciprocal steps to irreversibly convert weapons-grade plutonium into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel and burn it in nuclear plants, so that it could not be used for military purposes. Any changes in this method were only allowed by consent of the sides. This is written in the agreement and protocols to it.
What did Russia do? We developed this fuel, built a plant for mass production and, as we pledged in the agreement, built a BN-800 plant that allowed us to safely burn this fuel. I would like to emphasise that Russia fulfilled all of its commitments.
What did our American partners do? They started building a plant on the Savannah River Site. Its initial price tag was $4.86 billon but they spent almost $8 billion, brought construction to 70 percent and then froze the project. But, to our knowledge, the budget request for 2018 includes $270 million for the closure and mothballing of this facility. As usual, a question arises: where is the money? Probably stolen. Or they miscalculated something when planning its construction. Such things happen. They happen here all too often. But we are not interested in this, this is not our business. We are interested in what happens with uranium and plutonium. What about the disposal of plutonium? Dilution and geological storage of the plutonium is suggested. But this completely contradicts the spirit and letter of the agreement, and, most important, does not guarantee that the dilution is not reconverted into weapons-grade plutonium. All this is very unfortunate and bewildering.
Next. Russia ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty more than 17 years ago. The USA has not done so yet.
A critical mass of problems is building up in global security. As is known, in 2002 the United States pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And despite being initiators of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and international security, they initiated that agreement themselves, they are failing to meet their commitments. They remain as of today the only and largest holder of this form of weapon of mass destruction. Moreover, the USA has pushed back the deadline for eliminating their chemical weapons from 2007 to as far as 2023. It does not look proper for a nation that claims to be a champion of non-proliferation and control.
In Russia, on the contrary, the process was completed on September 27 of this year. By doing so our country has made a significant contribution to enhancing international security. By the way, the western media preferred to keep quiet, not to notice it, though there was one fleeting mention somewhere in Canada, but that was it, then silence. Meanwhile, the chemical weapons arsenal stockpiled by the Soviet Union is enough to destroy life on the planet multiple times over.
I believe that it is time to abandon an obsolete agenda. I am referring to what was. Without a doubt, we should be looking forward, we have to stop looking back. I am talking about this so as to understand the origins of the current situation that is taking shape.
It is high time for a frank discussion among the global community rather than just a group of the chosen, allegedly the most worthy and advanced. Representatives of different continents, cultural and historical traditions, political and economic systems. In a changing world, we cannot afford to be inflexible, closed off, or unable to respond clearly and quickly. Responsibility for the future – this is what should unite us, especially in times like the current ones when everything is changing rapidly.
Never before has humankind possessed such power as it does now. The power over nature, space, communications, and its own existence. However, this power is diffuse: its elements are in the hands of states, corporations, public and religious associations, and even individual citizens. Clearly, harnessing all these elements in a single, effective and manageable architecture is not an easy task. It will take hard, painstaking work to achieve this. And Russia, I will note, is willing to take part in it together with any partners who are interested.
Colleagues, how do we see the future of the international order and the global governance system? For example, in 2045, when the UN will mark its centennial anniversary? Its creation has become a symbol of the fact that humanity, in spite of everything, is capable of developing common rules of conduct and following them. Whenever these rules were not followed, it inevitably resulted in crises and other negative consequences.
However, in recent decades, there have been several attempts to belittle the role of this organisation, to discredit it, or simply to assume control over it. All these attempts predictably failed, or reached a dead end. In our opinion, the UN, with its universal legitimacy, must remain the centre of the international system. Our common goal is to raise its authority and effectiveness. There is no alternative to the UN today.
With regard to the right of veto in the Security Council, which is also sometimes challenged, you may recall that this mechanism was designed and created in order to avoid direct confrontation of the most powerful states, as a guarantee against arbitrariness and recklessness, so that no single country, even the most influential country, could give the appearance of legitimacy to its aggressive actions.
Of course, let us face it, the experts are here, and they know that the UN has legitimised the actions of individual participants in international affairs after the fact. Well, at least that is something, but it will not lead to any good, either.
Reforms are needed, the UN system needs improvement, but reforms can only be gradual, evolutionary and, of course, they must be supported by the overwhelming majority of the participants in the international process within the organisation itself, by broad consensus.
The guarantee of the UN effectiveness lies in its representative nature. The absolute majority of the world’s sovereign states are represented in it. The fundamental principles of the UN should be preserved for years and decades to come, since there is no other entity that is capable of reflecting the entire gamut of international politics.
Today, new centres of influence and growth models are emerging, civilisational alliances, and political and economic associations are taking shape. This diversity does not lend itself to unification.
So, we must strive to harmonise cooperation. Regional organisations in Eurasia, America, Africa, the Asia-Pacific region should act under the auspices of the United Nations and coordinate their work.
However, each association has the right to function according to its own ideas and principles that correspond to its cultural, historical and geographical specifics. It is important to combine global interdependence and openness with preserving the unique identity of each nation and each region. We must respect sovereignty as the basis underlying the entire system of international relations.
Colleagues, no matter what amazing heights technology can reach, history is, of course, made by humans. History is made by people, with all their strengths and weaknesses, great achievements and mistakes. We can have only a shared future. There can be no separate futures for us, at least, not in the modern world. So, the responsibility for ensuring that this world is conflict-free and prosperous lies with the entire international community.
As you may be aware, the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students is taking place in Sochi. Young people from dozens of countries are interacting with their peers and discussing matters that concern them. They are not hampered by cultural, national or political differences, and they are all dreaming about the future. They believe that their lives, the lives of younger generations will be better, fairer and safer. Our responsibility today is to do our best to make sure that these hopes come true.
Thank you very much for your attention.