Keynote at the University of World Economy and Diplomacy

Honourable Vice-rector,

Assalomu Alaykum hurmatli talabalar. Aziz dustlar! [Hello dear students! Esteemed friends!]
It is an enormous pleasure and privilege to be with you today. Thank you to the University of World Economy and Diplomacy for bringing us together.

Before we begin our discussion - which is always my favourite part when meeting with students - I would like to share some insights as someone who has worked at the United Nations in various capacities for the past 40 years.

I would like to reflect with you on these past decades; trace how we arrived at this present moment; and explore what it teaches us about where we need to go next.

My starting point may surprise you, but it’s true: the world today is better in many ways than it ever was.

It’s a fact.

Almost everywhere on the planet, a person born today will be less likely to grow up in extreme poverty; less likely to remain illiterate; less likely to die of diseases or be killed in a war than at any time in human history.

You probably saw the pictures of 70 world leaders gathering in Paris a few weeks ago for the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War.

A war that saw the collapse of four empires.

A war that destroyed an entire generation - many the same age as you are now - on the battlefields of Europe.

A war that had been triggered by - as the historian Christopher Clark put it - statesmen who “sleepwalked” into disaster. Without ever realizing the magnitude or dangers of their isolated, incremental decisions, they triggered a war that soon escalated at a scale the world had never seen.

100 years ago, when the fighting finally ended, attempts to establish a different international order - less prone to the instability of balance of power politics and less vulnerable to the destructive energy of nationalism - would not endure.

But for the first time in its history, humankind had turned to a new concept: multilateralism, only to return to it less than a quarter century later.

Barely two decades after the end of the “Great War”, as WWI became known, another war, even more terrible than the first, engulfed the world, bringing unimaginable sorrow and the death of a staggering 80 million people, including half a million Uzbeks.

Looking back at this harrowing past, the wonder of the last seven decades comes into view.
Just consider the following fact: the number of people who are killed in wars is down 99% from the decade of World War II; it is down 75% from the decades of the Cold War; and it is down 50% from the 1990s.

I know it might be difficult to believe if you look at the conflicts in Syria, Yemen, the DRC, Sudan and others, but it’s true.

So what changed - and how?

It started in 1945, in San Francisco. As the Second World War came to an end, the nations of the world came together to find a new way of cooperating and living together; to revisit the concept of multilateralism and forge a path that did not invariably lead into the abyss of war; to abolish violence as the ultimate basis for governance.

“We the Peoples”, they declared, and the United Nations was born, and with it a new vision of humanity.

The UN became the world’s neutral table, around which all countries could come together - rich or poor, big or small, each with one vote.

A new idea took hold, not only based on the principle of national self-determination, but also on the rule of law and the universal value of human rights, on the inherent dignity of every person on this planet.

Of course, there were many places in which the reality made a mockery of the ideal, where tyrants still ruled; where colonial regimes refused to give way to the forces of freedom. But they soon found themselves on the defensive.

And of course, the Cold War, and with it the terrible nuclear threat, cast a long shadow. But not only did we avoid open confrontation between the superpowers - and with it a third world war -, war itself came to be considered “illegal”, an idea that would have seemed simply absurd to earlier generations.

And with these political changes came sweeping economic changes.

The forces of global integration powered by technology unleashed entrepreneurial talents in places that previously were on the periphery of the world economy.

You see it in the data: In 1979, the number of countries growing at more than 3% a year was about 30.

By 2005, this number had increased to 125 countries.

So the number of countries integrating and successfully trading in the global economy quadrupled.
Even now, after the financial crisis of 2008, that number is still about 85. And initiatives right here in the region - including by the Government of Uzbekistan - to deepen integration have the potential to reinvigorate Central Asia’s historic position as the fulcrum of global east-west trade.

The development gains the world achieved have been tremendous.

Over the past three decades alone, the number of people living in extreme poverty fell by over 1 billion, even as the world’s total population expanded by nearly 2 billion.

Progress continues as we speak: every hour of every day, the number of people who live on less than $2 a day goes down by 9,000.

All of this happened over the course of just a few decades. And all that progress is real. It has been broad, and it has been deep, and it all happened in what – by the standards of human history – was nothing more than the blink of an eye.

And now an entire generation - your generation - has grown up in a world that by most measures and in most places has become steadily healthier and wealthier and less violent and more tolerant during the course of your lifetimes.

So why I am telling you all this? Not to give you the impression that everything is fine; nor to imply that things naturally, inevitably get better.

Instead, the reason why I briefly recapped our recent past is to emphasise three points; points that we must keep in mind, today more than ever:

Point 1: That progress is possible. Not abstract or inevitable progress, but real progress, achieved by our own determination and actions.

Point 2: That progress is rooted in ideas and that ideas matter. That every one of us is born free and equal in dignity and rights - that it is not an abstract concept; it is the very real precondition for successful societies.

And point 3: That progress depends on international cooperation and global solidarity. It’s no accident of history that the peace and prosperity we achieved since 1945 coincided with the establishment of multilateral institutions like the United Nations. There is a direct connection here.
But despite of all this progress, all three points are being challenged today.

̶ Optimism [or: The belief in the possibility of progress] is challenged by cynicism.

̶ Human rights and the rule of law are derided as “nice-to-haves” or simply ignored
.
̶ And multilateralism is challenged by the nationalist and isolationist politics of fear and resentment.

All of which is to say: we stand at a crossroads – a moment in time at which two very different visions compete with each other. One optimistic, focused on everyone’s success; the other pessimistic, focused only on one’s own advantage. Two different stories, two different narratives about who we are. How should we respond?

Should we really understand the last decades as nothing more than a detour from the unavoidable cycle of history – where might makes right, and politics is a zero-sum game, and countries compete more than they cooperate? Is that what we should think?
I don’t. I am and remain an optimist.

But neither do I think we can dismiss the counter-narrative quite so easily.

We can’t and we shouldn’t.

Because it brings into view our blindspots. Or, put differently: it exposes the dark side of what I so far presented to you as a story of great progress. And it is critical in our understanding of what we should do next.

Take global economic growth: yes, it has lifted billions out of poverty and given us luxuries that earlier generations could not have dreamed of.

But it’s also taking a massive toll on our environment.

I just mentioned that in one hour, the number of people living in extreme poverty goes down by 9,000. However, in that same hour, four million tons of carbon dioxide are emitted; 1,500 hectares of forests are cut; and three species go extinct. During this hour, the pollution that already resides in our atmosphere traps as much heat as would be released by detonating over 16,600 Hiroshima class atomic bombs. All in just one hour.

The impact of all of this is clear and undeniable - in the Aral Sea and across the world, where natural disasters are becoming more frequent, more intense and more destructive. Climate change is moving faster than we are and unless we take urgent, collective action, we will lose complete control of the situation.

And just as economic growth has negative ramifications, globalization and technology are also not clear-cut net positives as we would imagine: yes, they have opened up incredible opportunities - but they have also disrupted entire industries; jobs have been automated away; traditional qualifications count for less.

Meanwhile, multinational companies can now evade the regulation of any one country, with capital moving freely and in nanoseconds from one tax haven to the next.

The result has been an explosion of economic inequality within and between countries.

Today, eight men (because they are all men, not a single woman) own as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity many of whom survive on less than one dollar a day. But because information is easily available thanks to technology they know very well how the top 1% of our societies lives. Can you blame them if they feel sidelined and abandoned by the system?

We are seeing trust eroding: trust in international and national institutions; trust among states; trust in the global rules-based order.

And now we face a set of broader paradoxes:

̶ The world is more connected, yet societies are becoming more fragmented.

̶ Challenges are growing outward, while many people are turning inward.

̶ Multilateralism is under fire precisely at the moment when we need it most to address global challenges such as climate change.

But defending and saving multilateralism is not about striving to restore the status quo ante, to go back to the way things were. Because if yesterday’s tools are inadequate to tackle today’s problems, they will outright fail to fix tomorrow’s challenges.

The brilliance of the men and women who came together in 1945 to create the United Nations was not that they sought a return to past ideas; but nor was it that they sought a radical rupture.

They were “realist idealists” in the best sense of the word. Realist because they recognized the constraints of their time. And idealist, because they had the courage to formulate a bold vision to break these very same constraints.

The question is: with all the changes the world has undergone since - and in light of the new challenges we face - what should the “realist idealist” of today do?

Achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is what we must do.

Agreed three years ago by all 193 Member States of the UN, it is the most ambitious development plan in history, our common roadmap for creating a better world.

Covering everything from ending poverty (Goal 1) and achieving gender equality (Goal 5) to equitable economic growth (Goal 8) and the rule of law (Goal 16), no one can say its objective is not sufficiently idealistic or visionary: a world free of poverty; a fairer world; a world that respects the limits of nature.

But neither is it unrealistic: with 17 Goals and 169 targets, it gives us specific, tangible steps we need to follow to actually get there.

Three imperatives at the core of the 2030 Agenda capture this well:

First imperative: the SDGs leave no one behind.

The logic is simple and powerful: if the threats are existential, if power is dispersed and challenges are global and interlinked, then we really are all in this together, and no one wins unless everyone wins.

That means the benchmark for success is first of all the fate of those at the bottom; those most vulnerable; those excluded or cut off from the waves of progress.

Second imperative: the SDGs are indivisible and universal. They recognize that if the challenges we face are inextricably connected and mutually reinforcing, our responses must be just as integrated and comprehensive.

We cannot hope to avert climate change without reducing inequality, without making our economies produce and consume sustainably, without preventing conflict. It’s all connected: progress towards one goal drives progress in the others; but failure in one dooms all others.

And the third imperative: the SDGs are everyone’s responsibility. I mentioned earlier how yesterday’s tools won’t work to fix tomorrow’s challenges. And that’s largely because yesterday’s tools are tailored above all for states and governments. But today’s international relations are about much more than just states and governments.

Think about who has power on the world stage today: governments of course, but not only. Civil society and NGOs; private companies and philanthropists; city mayors and citizens - all of these can and are influential in shaping policy.

Multilateralism in the 21st century needs to connect international, regional and local organisations - it needs to be a networked multilateralism. The efforts of Uzbekistan to promote integration and cooperation across Central Asia are encouraging steps in exactly this direction.

And multilateralism in the 21st century needs to be more closely linked with civil society and other stakeholders – it needs to be an inclusive multilateralism.

The SDGs account for this by implicating everyone: everyone can and must play a part in making them a reality.

Allow me, therefore, to thank Uzbekistan for the financial support to the UN to enable us to promote the realization of the 2030 Agenda [Uzbekistan’s early financial support to the special purpose trust fund for the reform of the UN Development System]. And let me congratulate Uzbekistan on last months’ adoption of the national Sustainable Development Goals and targets. This represents a ground-breaking step forward in accelerating the 2030 Agenda in Uzbekistan and will catalyse transformations already in train across all five pillars of the national Action Strategy.

What’s more, the national Action Strategy is explicitly grounded in human rights. It is built on the firm ground of universal principles - and thus exactly on the foundation from which we can achieve real, broad, and sustainable gains across the board.

Governments are in the driving seat of SDG implementation. But everyone has a role to play.
That includes everyone here today. It includes you - the students of the University of World Economy and Diplomacy.

There is no question that we’re handing you a messy world. And we’re placing a huge responsibility on your shoulders.

Think about it: you are the first generation that can end extreme poverty, but you are also the absolute last generation that can curb climate change.

We are betting on you, on your commitment, your creativity and your courage. To take charge and to take ownership. To be part of the solution, to not remain on the sidelines.

Kofi Annan, my former boss, mentor and friend, used to dismiss the idea that you are the “leaders of tomorrow”. Because you really are the “change makers of today”. And right he was when he said “you are never too young to lead and too old to learn”. You don’t have to wait until you’ve climbed the career ladder to make a difference.

Dear Students,

I understand your university was created with the explicit goal to forge future leaders of your country and I am sure all of you have exciting careers ahead of you
.
Some of you might choose to go into business, others into the diplomatic service, and some - I hope - are perhaps thinking about joining me at the United Nations.

But whichever route you pursue, there are some qualities and skills that will serve you well:

For one thing, open-mindedness, empathy and a desire to see the world: Personally, I learnt as much, if not more, working “in the field” in Mexico, Haiti, Iran and elsewhere as I did on the top floor of UN Headquarters in New York and Geneva
.
Another quality is this: curiosity and a truly interdisciplinary outlook

Think about the great Uzbek scholar Al-Biruni who 1,000 years ago studied everything from physics to philosophy and history to languages and you will see what I’m getting at
.
Looking at the ways in which technology and globalization are transforming our world, 5 years from now, you may very well be working at a company that hasn’t been founded yet. In 10 years, you may work in an industry that doesn’t exist today. So that’s why curiosity and interdisciplinarity are so important: an ability to connect the dots across disciplines, to break down silos; an interest in other cultures, an appreciation for different viewpoints.

But whatever you end up doing - and let me close on this note - always remember this: your actions have consequences. But so will the actions you do not take.

Recall at the outset when I spoke about the “Sleepwalkers” who unleashed the First World War.
From the many lessons we can draw from their failure, the most personal perhaps is this: that failing to do something, failing to consider the long-term consequences and risks of what we do or don’t do - all of the little instances where we fail to take action, fail to show courage, fail to show foresight, they can together balloon into disaster.

We all do well to remember this these days.

Our efforts - however small they may seem to us at any given moment - make a difference.
Because they really do. And not only tomorrow, but already today.

Thank you. Katta rakhmat.