the question is why? well, is she very demanding with you? yes, i am demanding of myself in the first place to you. i try to give people what they came to me for, if i don’t reach out, there won’t be any results , there won’t be happy eyes, and there won’t be happy women around me, because everything, in principle, is, as it were, at 12:00 yes pumpkin what you and the pumpkin fell apart. that's the way it will be, therefore, i'm only for happy people for beautiful for healthy people and it should be high.

show tolerance to live together in peace with each other. how kind, our neighbors unite forces to maintain international peace and security to use the international apparatus to promote the economic and social progress of all peoples. this is a quote from the preamble of the un charter. what are the goals of the united nations well, at least on paper, that in practice , in fact, since its inception, he has constantly criticized either slowness or bureaucracy. now i also

drew attention to politicization this week, and our president alexander lukashenko instructed to intensify work at the international platform, so that the voice of belarus sounds even louder, will it again become the same impartial organization that it was created in the forty-fifth, and what is the belarusian agenda for the project today? question number one permanent representative of our country. he is valentine of the fishermen. hello valentin borisovich, today he remains the very unique platform where he is guided exclusively by common sense, they speak exclusively on business. he is 193 countries of the world, we should never forget about this. unfortunately, sometimes it sounds criticism. to address it, you know, such extremely unconstructive without understanding that the decisions that the general assembly makes are the decisions of the member states.

this is not a decision of a bureaucratic structure. this is how the state votes in the general assembly, depending on its own national interests and national priorities, we should never forget about this. we are working very actively. and this is the purpose of our work at the un. this is work with states. this is the uniqueness of this universal platform in that it is the only there are simply no more sites like this, it's great, right? it's just that each of the three countries, of course, has its own interests within the framework, which , relatively speaking, they put forward in the context of which they accept their agenda. sometimes positions of interests may not coincide and contradict each other. and that's okay. this is correct, but at the same time , attention has been paid to this lately, head of state. here at the meetings this week with you, that in the organization appear, let's say relatively speaking, pets within the framework, probably,

and in whose interests the international agenda. i look, and here we are discussing this issue with the president of russia secretary. he is a working body. they have already begun to work in terms of some preference for one or two states or the west or the east. that is, it somehow already turns into an organization. hmm, into such an organization. what? if you please , it depends more on large states, this is not normal. the situation will not change for the better, or, after all, in reality , the situation at the meetings is a little different. unfortunately, there are indeed events that are taking place in our region. they dictate the agenda. unfortunately, unfortunately, i say, because this conflict, for all its tragedy, is tragic for us, as neighbors, as a country practically involved in helping the people

of ukraine in helping the russian federation, the conflict is not the only conflict of this kind in the mass the world. is there a certain fatigue in the member state? yes of course from this situation? is there any resentment that huge resources are given a lot of time to consider only one issue only one conflict. yes of course, about favorites. well, you know, the fact is that the un secretariat itself cannot determine favorites or non-favorites , this is the opinion and position of states. and in general, in belarus there is someone and what to talk about , of course, the voices of everyone. how these states and other states relate to what we are saying in particular depends, of course, on the position of this or that particular state, but i can

assure you that my communication practice of communication with ambassadors. even from let's say, so mildly, not the most friendly countries shows that they are very attentive to what we do and to what we say, how we vote, how we carry out this or that decision. how do we interact with our partners. uh, this all once again confirms that of course, attention. absolutely total can be said about how we conduct ourselves in international structures, and i think that this attention will definitely not weaken. you are talking about voting a lot of criticism. it sounds to belarus that we always support the interest of russia in everything at the same time, if you look at the meeting, relatively speaking, when a bloc of european states votes. of course, they

support each other. needless to say, that same policy of double standards has taken root, and it has not just taken root into the united nations, it has always been part of the work both in the un and in other structures . of course, a state that is , for example, a member of the european union is tied, so to speak, inside block discipline of course, the state will always vote in the same way as the whole european allies vote to accuse, including absolutely correctly, of course, we talk about this every time. we pay attention to this every time, because voting in support of someone, and this is an absolutely natural thing, because any country has partners. there are allies, there are strategic partners and allies. you correctly raised the question that

countries vote differently. it's okay. it is absolutely natural normal, because each country has its own national interests, its own priorities, and the country votes and acts as it wishes to pursue its foreign policy. sometimes, of course, very funny things happen. when on some issues, such as voting. well, let's say three votes against, for example, let's say the united states, for example, ukraine and let's say the marshal islands. well, you know, uh, when three votes, so to speak, in unison against everything else, uh, the composition of the large nations well, at least, this raises questions and how global interests are in this particular issue near the conditional marshal islands. this also raises very serious questions, but nevertheless, you see, such things happen and in general, we

are used to this and calmly to this, for which today you can still criticize the organization and is this criticism justified? unfortunately, we have indeed recently observed a negative trend, when representatives of even the top leadership of the united nations organization of the secretariat of the organization take one side or another in this or that issue or this or that conflict, which does not is normal because they must be impartial and not take sides in any situation in any conflict. journalists the other day you said that diplomats are heroic fighting, in fact, work on the international arena is akin to a diplomatic war, and every meeting is a diplomatic battle. and if we already speak this language, then one of our victories, probably, is that the topic of the incident by the plane of reiner is no longer raised at meetings, your merit.

what are our other victories on the diplomatic field fight. thanks for the recognition. actually. it is our collective merit, of course, that the situation is rather stressful work, hard work, hard work for us , uh, in the permanent mission, only including an ambassador for nine diplomats, and towards the president, uh, said that if you would give 15 more employees, each of them would be loaded to us in full. and this is really a fact of work very much and the difficult thing now is that we have to deal not only with the promotion, so to speak, of our own initiatives and protection of our own national interests and priorities, but also to provide very significant assistance

to friendly countries, our main task is to ensure that some issue on belarus does not become an item on the agenda of the security council. this is the most unpleasant thing in the general assembly. of course, unfortunately, in our country, uh, they are quite often mentioned in a negative way according to well-known ones. uh, for reasons you understand now any question that initiates, belarus it instantly, first of all, attracts interest and friendly and so to speak, unfriendly and active attempts are being made. if it is, for example, a draft of some kind of resolution or er, or some kind of decision, attempts are being made. uh, either to make some amendments that do not suit us to such a document, or simply to block it with us this year, this is to be done at the session at the upcoming 78th session. our

draft resolution on combating trafficking in human beings is to be considered. this is our landmark initiative, and it was once announced by the president of belarus alexander lukashenko from the rostrum general assembly many years ago in 2005 . e since then. this is an initiative by which belarus will learn the history. it began in 1945, belarus joined the organization as one of the founding countries. so it was highlighted. the contribution of our people to the defeat of fascism today, 193 states are members of the organization belarus traditionally takes an active position, for example, alexander lukashenko at the 2005 summit took the initiative on the need to form a partnership to combat human trafficking, and in 2015 our president warned the un about the danger of color revolutions. there are a number of areas and a number of initiatives that make belarus recognizable and respected. we are actively working on the topic of the genocide

of the belarusian people, the fight against the glorification of nazism in all its manifestations. well, of course, now it is very, uh, actively conducted. our job is to resist. sanctions pressure attitudes what do they think? it is a legitimate tool in any of my conversations with international officials, including the senior leadership of the secretariat of the general secretary or his deputies in relation to what i say and because of how the person reacts. of course, i see perfectly well that a person is absolutely aware that these things are illegal; this is supported within the framework of the general assembly at various committees. when considering some issues. this is supported by state members of most states, and

unfortunately, if we talk to international officials, even of a high rank, every time they answer our questions about sanctions, something like this bilateral problem you solve the issue with your neighbors with your partners and with other states. well, at the same time, one must clearly understand that those countries that they are talking about are our closest neighbors, which create, uh, the most serious sanctions problems for the republic of belarus, but how should i put it delicately not entirely independent in decision-making and it is quite clear that it is necessary to conduct a dialogue on this topic with the leadership of the european union with the united states of america a and other key players. you can often hear accusations against us that allegedly, and belarus has problems with violation of human rights.

is this the most ideal country, maybe someone is cited as an example? no of course, of course, everyone is well aware that there is not a single state in which these so -called human rights violations have not occurred to one degree or another. well, firstly, uh, every state should have the right to an independent path of development. we talk about it every time. what needs to be done first is the need to respect basic human rights and that in in the republic of belarus , the right to a decent life, the right to education, and the right to medical care, and so on and so forth and so on, when these rights are not respected in other states, is being fully done in the republic of belarus. i repeat once again that there are no ideal countries, before criticizing someone or punishing someone, you need to deal with your own problems, your own country, your own population , to ensure an absolutely decent life, the full

fulfillment of these basic things, basic human rights for your own population, and then try to teach someone else. unfortunately, the topic is very popular, and it is actively promoted, including in his organizations. nations is all sorts of gender issues gbt failures. and so on and so on. you understand, when it is put at the forefront, when it becomes the basic right of a person and, in fact , they talk about it the most, and when you are reproached for not doing certain things that a normal country can and should not do , we will not speak absolutely frankly. yes of course, every time we try to level this criticism, to fight this criticism based on examples based on facts , and so on and so forth. that is why i said

that a huge amount of work in the organization is also due to the fact that there is a need to very carefully monitor any documents submitted for consideration by this or that body, because there is such a practice. if some provision is recorded in a particular decision in a particular resolution and, for example, a country. well, let's say the republic of belarus in this case does not mind this wording. this turns into what is called the language of the un so, that is, when making a subsequent decision. if suddenly we start, uh, trying to counteract this, they tell us, let me but there are documents. right there it is written. you didn't mind when this document was adopted. you see, given the composition of the limited number of diplomats, but it is quite difficult to keep track. we're trying

to do it, we're going to do it, it's hard enough to keep track of the inclusions. here are these theses that are absolutely unacceptable for us or wordings in this or that document, how many documents does a diplomat read daily ? large volume, believe me, large volume, and these are all things, you know, very serious . some of them require an instant response. if you've ever watched us perform. uh, let's say at the general assembly or at the security council, especially at the security council , we have now chosen such a tactic, we are trying to sign up as late as possible last penultimate, uh, in the list of speakers and in order to hear everyone and, if necessary, to respond to some impartial words to some criticism of us, and you might have noticed, for example, that during you.