G-Global. The world of the 21st century

G-Global platform was launched because the G-20 format proved to be insufficient. G-Global is a versatile platform that creates conditions for the international expert community for interactive, open and public discussions concerning the issues of global economy. It is focused on discussion and elaboration of mechanisms to overcome the global financial crisis and is aimed to radically expand the number of participants is search of anti-crisis solutions.

Nursultan NAZARBAYEV

FOREWORD

Of the 4.5 billion years of the geophysical chronology of Earth, "intelligent humanity" has only been here for 60-70 thousand years. The conscious history of human civilization, available to us through ancient written sources, is estimated to have lasted at most 5,500-6,000 years. This is just a little over one-millionth of the lifetime of the planet and less than one-tenth of the entire epoch of homo sapiens.

However, during this time dozens of human civilizations were born and disappeared. Not all of them left a material memory. Many have been submerged into the subconscious area which feeds human mythology, still haunting new generations of human minds with their unresolved mysteries, warnings and prophecies.

Over all this time, the human world has been continually developing from isolated cultural areas to larger regional and inter-regional hubs and then to what may now be seen as a sort of conglomeration of civilizations. It is significant that the events that occurred when some parts of the world "discovered" each other, are shown in many primary sources as the greatest facts of history.

We are well aware of the fairly recent Age of Great Geographic Discoveries. But both before and after that period there were many more of these "meetings of civilizations," about which we may know relatively little. Today, for example, it is difficult to assign an exact date to the "discovery" of the Great Silk Road which linked East and West.

This first intercontinental highway, estimated to date from the second millennium BC, is even today a symbol of cooperation and cultural exchanges between the peoples of the Eurasian continent.

Therefore Kazakhstan and other modern states of central Eurasia have a natural desire to revive this "highway of the world" and turn it into a route of mutual cooperation and trust between the states of the largest continent on the planet.

As the 20th century moved into the 21st, the concept of globalization was becomingfirmlyestablishedinboth politicsandscience. Objectively, globalization is the process of transformation of the world into one as a result of unparalleled development of communications and information systems, and the introduction of new technologies in production.

One algorithm is inherent: global economic processes.

The global market experiences general waves of rise and fall which affect not merely a group of states as in the 19th and 20th centuries, but entire regions of the planet. Events and phenomena that occur in one part of the world have significant impact on the economy and geopolitical situation in other regions. The Earth is permeated with millions of threads of information, transport, communications and technology, to the extent that it is gradually becoming a system of a single world order.

Kazakhstan has become an integral part of the world at this tumultuous timepoint of the initial process of globalization. From the first days of my country's independence, I was well aware that peace, harmony and security in our new multi-ethnic country can in many ways be firmly secured in the context of regional and global solutions.

Therefore, in developing and landscaping our native Kazakhstan, we are looking not only at the complex internal problems of formation of a new national economy, a new society, a new state.

We are comparing these plans with the trends of global and regional development, carefully studying all that is going on around us - both with our immediate neighbors and across the globe as a whole.

In order to be successful in achieving our long-term Development Strategy: "Kazakhstan - 2030", we have taken careful account of the totality of global and regional factors.

Foreign policy was one area where we immediately made a strong start.

The closure of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site and the abandonment of nuclear weapons, along with our initiative to convene the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia, became, in fact, the first contribution made by the independent Republic of Kazakhstan as a new member of the United Nations.

These, our first foreign policy moves which have opened the way to strengthen nuclear safety, have served to enhance trust between the countries of Asia and the world. In their implementation they continue to be prime examples of individual state responsibility for peace and security in the world.

Kazakhstan makes a unique offer to its global neighbors: to develop and adopt a Universal Declaration of a nuclear-free world. Our country - one of the leaders in the global anti-nuclear movement - is an active participant in the process of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

For two decades, Kazakhstan has consistently shown good will and responsibility, taking initiatives which are supported by the world community. We have offered solutions to many complex problems of international relations, promoting the idea of trust, stability and development.

In 2010, Kazakhstan headed the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), proposed a plan for reform, and hosted the first OSCE Summit of the 21st century in Astana.

In 2011-2012, during the period of large-scale geopolitical changes in the Middle East and North Africa, our country chaired the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

The capital of the young Kazakhstan was the venue, on my initiative, for the four Congresses of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, a promising and expanding area of contemporary global dialogue of cultures and religions.

Kazakhstan won the right to host the Astana International Specialized Exhibition EXPO 2017. This is our great victory, and an event of global proportions. The candidacy of our country received the votes of the absolute majority of the 160 members of the International Exhibitions Bureau.

Thus, the world community has recognized the economic achievements of Kazakhstan. For the three months of the EXPO 2017, Astana will become the world's economic capital. Five million tourists will visit our country, billions of dollars of investment will result in new technologies and innovations, and tens of thousands of jobs will be created in construction, infrastructure development, tourism, hospitality, and small and medium enterprises. EXPO 2017 is a national project that will more tightly unite Kazakh society and improve the welfare of the people.

Through participation in these and many other international events, Kazakh society is engaging in independent exploration of the foundations of the modern world, a fully fledged member of which we have become.

But not only have we discovered the world.

We offer it our solutions, which we firmly believe will help make it a better, more honest and more just place for humanity to inhabit.

The search for the optimal formula of equitable world order has always been one of the central questions occupying the minds of thinkers, scholars and political leaders across time and space.

This search has assumed utmost importance in the modern era of globalization, when it has become obvious that collective efforts are needed to ensure the sustainable development of the world economy and international relations.

On 24 May 2012,1 met with a group of respected scientists and economists from around the world attending the V Astana Economic Forum. Among the participants were Nobel laureates Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, John Nash, Eric Maskin, Robert Aumann, Finn Kydland, Christopher Pissarides, Murray Gell- Mann, AdaTsonat, Richard John Roberts and Carrie Banks Mullis.

Discussions centered on the of the world economy, which since 2009 has been in a difficult of global crisis.

On the eve of the meeting, in my speech at the plenary session of the Astana Economic Forum, I gave a detailed assessment of the causes of the crisis in the global markets and suggested the need to address global challenges in a new, larger format.

My interlocutors noted that today there is a clear shortage of positive, tolerant concepts of world order. In its technological development our planet has moved forward, but many of the principles and methods of managing the world economy and international relations have lagged significantly behind, under the burden of the negative legacy of the previous era. Lack of trust between states hinders the adoption of adequate solutions to address the global economic crisis.

The Forum scientists supported my idea of a world order in the 21st century, for which I proposed the name G-GLOBAL. The initiative was approved by the scientific and political elites from around the world who had gathered at the V Astana Economic Forum.

A week later, the spiritual and moral aspects of G-GLOBAL were discussed by the participants of another authoritative international forum: the Fourth Congress of World and Traditional Religions, held in Astana in the last days of May 2012.

I highly appreciate spiritual leaders, such as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill, the Secretary General of the Muslim World League Abdullah bin Abdul Mohsin Al-Turki, Catholic Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo, Israel's Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Jonah Metzger and many other members of the Congress - for their attention to and support for my ideas.

Subsequently, I received many positive responses to my G-GLOBAL initiative from scientists and politicians from numerous countries. In many letters they noted the timeliness of a formulation of the problem. A number of international conferences and round tables discussed the subject of G-GLOBAL. The experts have agreed with my main thesis that the key to successful development of the world in the future lies in building a new system of global relations that addresses economic, political, cultural and civilizational aspects.

Today, there is every reason to believe that the idea of G-GLOBAL has begun its journey in our global world.

This overwhelming support has inspired me to write this book, laying out in thoughtful detail the idea of G-GLOBAL, my view of the prospects for world order in the 21st century, based on more than twenty years of experience in global politics.

Craft requires a complete and unrelenting concentration on all sorts of matters. Daily and hourly performance of duties of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan does not leave much time for free creativity.

However, the importance of the issues of just world order is obvious.

During my meetings with the leaders of other nations, in the instigating and carrying out of foreign policy, I invariably touch upon many current issues of not only bilateral relations, but matters affecting the whole world.

It cannot be otherwise, because Kazakhstan during its twenty years of independence has become part of the global system. Our well-being and the success of our national development depend on the dynamics of this larger system. The time when one nation can live in a kind of enclosed space, only formally communicating with the world, has gone forever.

Yes, even today there are examples of closed societies. But none of them can be called successful. To the contrary, success comes only to those countries that have been able to find a formula for development that combines national interests with the trends of the world, employing mechanisms that equip their own economies to be vibrant units of global economic relations.

Thus, I consider a critical element of the successful development of Kazakhstan to be the creation of an effective system of regional and global relations, helping to provide a safer environment on our planet.

This is a complex problem that cannot be solved in one summit, or in the adoption of a single universal international instrument. It will require many years of hard work, confidence-building and persistent efforts of the world community.

But I am convinced that this task is feasible.

I have written this new book not only for politicians, but for all readers who are not indifferent to the fate of our world - hopefully, then, for all people of the Earth.

I do particularly hope that it will be read with interest by my young countrymen and women.

The main message that I want to bring to the young citizens of Kazakhstan is that the fate of our nation is inseparable from the fate of the region and the world.

Our concern for the welfare of our home country is an important part of G-GLOBAL - this is one of the foundations of understanding the world of Kazakhstan, one of the cornerstones of the success of our tolerant multi-ethnic and multi-religious society.

CHAPTER I

GLOBAL CRISIS ANDTHE

G-GLOBAL

WORLD

1.            G-GLOBAL - AN IDEA FOR THE WORLD

A critical century: our world in a time of great change

Humanity greeted the 215t century with the euphoria of huge hopes.

With the closing of the last century, it appeared that the bloc system of international relations had been forever relegated to a position in political history. In its multiple variations it had shaped our landscape for nearly a century and a half, twice leading Europe and other regions into bloody world wars.

Most of the second half of the 20th century was marked by the Cold War between poles grouped around two superpowers: the USA and the USSR. Fortunately, this conflict did not lead to global conflict that threatened nuclear annihilation of all life on Earth.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new independent states in Europe and Asia changed the geopolitical landscape of the world. The process of constructing a new international system free from old stereotypes had begun.

We can say with certainty that these changes were inevitable.

I do not support endless claims about the "evil rock of history" upon which the Soviet superpower allegedly foundered. Those events should be seen, first of all, as the logical consequence of the dynamic life circles of human civilization, where political systems do come to an end.

A new century and a new millennium opened new opportunities for collaboration and cooperation between states and peoples.

Kazakhstan became an independent country in hard times. Two decades ago, in March 1992, our country was unanimously accepted as a member of the United Nations. The turquoise-sun flag of our nation unfurled among the flags of sister states in front of the UN headquarters in New York.

On 5 October 1992,1 first spoke at the UN General Assembly as the leader of the new country. I well remember the excitement with which the speech was prepared for the community of nations. We were about to discover the whole world and the world discovered our Kazakhstan.

I still recall that incredible feeling of the unity and diversity of our planet, which was created by the presence in the meeting room of the UN General Assembly of representatives of all countries of the world.

Kazakhstan officially joined the global family of nations and has been a worthy and responsible part of that family for more than twenty years now. This is not just my personal assessment. This opinion has been expressed by heads of the UN and of other countries - by politicians, scientists and public leaders from many and varied states.

At the shift from one millennium to the next, the formation of the global economy has quickened. In 1995 the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established. Since 2002 the euro area - host to the first pan-European currency and what is actually the second reserve currency in the world - has been fully functioning.

Economic globalization has intensified the dynamics of the global investment market. This has become an important tool for Kazakhstan and other countries in transition to market economy reforms and integration into global economic relations as independent entities.

During just the first twenty years of independence, Kazakhstan's economy has attracted about US$160 billion in foreign investment.

We have been pleased to welcome well-known international companies and literally hundreds of joint ventures have been established.

Today it is hard to imagine how Kazakhstan would have developed, what results we could have achieved, had we not chosen to access the economic benefits of globalization, or if we had shut ourselves off from the world.

But globalization has been associated with the emergence of a number of major new threats and challenges. In my book The Critical Decade I wrote extensively on the impact of these challenges on Central Asia and Kazakhstan, the necessary counter-measures and our approaches to strengthening global and regional security.

The first decade of this century was a soberingly hard one for the world.The decade that began with the terrorist attacks that destroyed the twin buildings of the World Trade Center in New York, was chronologically completed with a collapse unprecedented in the history of the world financial and economic systems.

Almost all countries of the world experienced the effects of the global crisis of 2007-2009. But the crisis struck the young independent states with fragile economies especially hard as they had not yet completed the necessary reforms nor created a solid foundation for economic growth.

Few expected such a deep and widespread crisis. This may explain the high level of anxiety that gripped Kazakh society. Only in retrospect have many experts and analysts tried to reconstruct the course of the global crisis, looking for the first mortgage loan defaulter in the U.S. that started the domino effect, exposing the inferior operating of credit schemes, remarking on the lack of state control.

There have been many different renderings of the causes and indeed some most bizarre predictions.

I heard a lot of different opinions at the Davos Forum in January 2009, which I attended to gain understanding of the causes and origins of the global economic turmoil. But, I confess, something concrete in those speeches was missing.

I would like to note that so far very few people have had the courage to admit that at the heart of the global crisis are the eternal human vices - greed, malice and irresponsibility - which in recent decades have grown to epic proportions worldwide.

By adopting and perverting the ideology of liberalism, the world financial elite has become almost uncontrollable.

Derivative financial instruments received high marks from biased international agencies and audit firms, which only played into the hands of dubious traders. The ease of obtaining credit has become a lure in the hands of the creators of financial pyramids.

According to the international organization Tax Justice Network, wealthy people around the world have actually hidden 21 trillion dollars in tax havens. This is a colossal figure which exceeds the GDP of the USA and Japan combined!

It includes only monetary assets hidden from taxation. In conjunction with real estate and yachts the total rises to 32 trillion dollars.

The bankruptcy of entire countries, economic recession and social crisis - all this was the result of planting flawed schemes of economic development.

Today, not only governments, but the entire world community has gradually realized what uncontrolled liberalization of the financial system hasengendered.

Most countries in the world have been forced to commit significant efforts and resources to ensure financial stability, to support local producers, small businesses and employment.

Here, the account rises to tens of trillions of dollars that the state spends to maintain at least a delicate balance.

But the lessons from all that happened, unfortunately, are extracted with difficulty.

My thinking on the causes of the global crisis and the way out of it formed the basis of two articles written in those troubled days: "Keys to the Crisis" and "The Fifth Way".

In those articles, I expressed the belief that the global crisis is not a natural disaster and not the result of accidental natural consequences, but the external result of a deep-sited internal defect of the world system.

The task of eliminating this defect must beaddressed by the world community. And there is a need for a special approach, reviewing all the old dogmas and stereotypes.

In the 21st century, the international community of states and civilizations has collided with a radically new systematic threat.

Thinking deeply about this, I came to the conclusion that at the beginning of the second decade of the new century, humankind in its development has generated more than one crisis - we have a set of simultaneously occurring crises.

These global crises-geopolitical, financial, economic, energy, environmental, food, social, ideological - mutually resonate as they increase, actually merging into a single civilizational system crisis.

The world is on the verge of a new wave of enormous technological changes.

Today only those countries can benefit that are confident to pass through the crucible of the third global industrial and technological revolution. It will open unprecedented opportunities for development.

The world is experiencing a trend of re-industrialization.

European countries are aware of the need for a new round of development of their industrial base. It is on this road of new industrialization that Kazakhstan has begun its journey.

The life forces of any society in the next decade will be determined by its capacity for innovation and industrial development.

New technologies in the production of information and social organization will «flip» the old ideas about the economy, communications and international relations.

In this situation, the economic and technological gap between developed countries and countries with a low level of development will not diminish, but rather increase.

Among the most pressing problems of humankind are the deepening of the global energy crisis and the growing threat of adverse climate change on the planet.

The rapid growth of the global economy and the world's population are objectively leading to the exhaustion of mineral, energy, as well as natural resources-the reduction of fertile land, scarcity of food and fresh water. Moreover, the deterioration of the climate and human activities in production are narrowing the space for planetary life.

In this environment regional and global competition will increase dramatically, at the center of which will be a struggle for resources.

The world economy is ill situated to enter a sustainable path of development after the global crisis of 2007-2009.

In many developed countries, there is a widespread public protest movement against the unjust distribution of wealth and flaws in the global financial system.

Geopolitical conditions have not been eased, but rather complicated. The transformation of the world and the entire system of international relations is gaining momentum.

We see that, contrary to the hopes of an improving world order that characterized the end of the 20th century, the beginning of the 21st century has been oversaturated with threats and challenges.

Not only are individual countries experiencing problems. Human civilization as a whole is experiencing a very large problem.

The concept and social practice of the consumer society, rooted in almost all major countries and is held on the world stage as indisputable, the only true standard of development, is founded on an insurmountable flaw.

Today the whole world with special urgency needs convincing - or is becoming rapidly convinced - that the idea of consumption has generated massive social dependency in the developed world - that it has in fact become one of the main causes of the global crisis.

Consumerism has come into conflict with the principle of equitable distribution of public goods, leading to the global protest wave that has swept almost the entire world, including the most developed countries. Consumerism has contributed to the growth of dependency, not only within the individual societies, but also at the international level.

The global financial and economic crisis has become a global social crisis, affecting many developed countries. The International Labour Organization (ILO) concludes that there is a threat of global unemployment.

In the leading countries of Europe in 2012, unemployment has significantly exceeded the figures of the last century: in Spain 25.8%, Portugal 15.7%, Ireland 15.1%, Italy 10.8%, France also 10.8%, Poland 10.1%, Germany 5.4% and so on. About half of the unemployed are young people. Altogether in the world every third worker of working age, or 1 billion 100 million people, do not have jobs, or live with a family income of two dollars a day.

To save individual national economies and to maintain the balance of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), substantial funds have been allocated.

Unfortunately, these are the only positive steps taken in the G-8 and G-20 forums. But every one billion dollars can generate a billion new social problems. At the V Astana Economic Forum, I compared this situation with using gasoline to extinguish a fire.

Inadequate response to the crisis is evidence of a different kind of systemic crisis - the corrosion of international relations.

Attempts to impose liberal values everywhere mean coming to grips with the social and political reality of counties which are the objects of implementation, as well as their actual capabilities to live in this kind of system of values.

An illustrative example is the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, experiencing the so-called"Arab Spring.'The social well-being of the population in these places has deteriorated sharply and at the political level there are signs of historical regression from secular to theocratic type of statehood.

Under the guise of "free choice" of the people, some countries have legitimized primitive forms of pseudo-democratization, restoring the primacy of customary law, which was built on the principle of "an eye for an eye."

In most Arab countries can be seen a similar scenario of destabilization.

First, the protests are strongest in countries that have relatively high - for the Arab world - growth in the economy, social and living standards.

In terms of practical results, the revolutions have actually set back the well-being of the people.

Second, the regimes which have fallen had been successful in trying to reconcile Western democratic values with the traditional Muslim culture of their countries.

Third, the collapse of the situation in the Middle East is seen as a result of and a tool of global economic competition.

The discrediting of the Islamic economic model undermines the economic growth of the entire Islamic world. It also reduces the prospects of investment cooperation with the Arab world.

The world energy market has also entered the era of new instability with sharp fluctuations in the price of oil. The rise in market value of hydrocarbons can bring a new flow of petrodollars to oil-producing countries, which would further increase their technological backwardness.

The economies of Egypt, Libya, Algeria,Tunisia, Syria and other countries were thrown decades back by unrest and they have merged into one problematic spot with the countries of southern Europe.

The instability in the Middle East, which is closely linked to the European markets, has objectively been weakening the euro.

All this means a further crisis in the policy of multiculturalism in Europe.

The idea of the Mediterranean Union has crumbled. The initiative on the Alliance of Civilizations is also under question.

The most likely consequence of geopolitical turmoil in the Middle East is the radicalization of political Islam.

In these circumstances of global instability the world begins a new geopolitical game. One gets the impression that the emerging global world order has every reason to be designated as "destructive multipolarity".

The role of most nation-states in the international arena is in decline. They are reduced to a function as global suppliers of raw material and intellectual resources.

Some hopes to change the situation in the international community have arisen in connection with the creation of the G-20. This format has expanded the range of dialogue on the reform of the world economy.

But now, four years after the first summit of the anti-crisis "20," this format seems to be insufficient. Attempts to build an equitable global mechanism and to find ways to prevent the global economic crisis within the G-20 framework cannot be called successful.

And frankly, within the G-20 global debate is still only simulated and it has introduced only vague solutions of a recommendatory nature.

Humanity today faces a number of major problems.

First, unless there is a quick and constructive change in the global financial architecture, humanity will always be in an unhealthy situation, expecting the financial markets to fall at any time.

Second, in the case that the existing approaches to economic development and energy supply stay unchanged, the half of humanity with a low cost of living would take more than 50 years to reach the current level of life in European countries.

Third, the information and technological transformation of the world can effectively "enslave" humanity by putting it in absolute dependence on information and communication networks.

Fourth, the number and scale of natural disasters is on the rise. If in the coming years we are unable to find effective ways to prevent these phenomena, then growth of the economy of humankind will decline, to say the least.

Fifth, the current structure of the world economy and energy production and use may lead by the year 2040 to a global environmental catastrophe.

Sixth, the local geopolitical, civilizational and energy conflicts could well turn into global armed conflict.

Seventh, there is growing global crisis of moral values, as many societies are implanted with "false freedom," and the motivation for honest labor is replaced by the desire for a quick profit and unrestrained consumption.

Already today, many politicians, scientists and experts have arrived at an understanding of the complexity of the global systemic crisis, with a sharpening awareness of the need to develop effective forms of countering this total crisis through partnership in the context of globalization.

Only international cooperation and solidarity will be able to solve both national and global issues.

I believe that it is the responsibility of political and spiritual leaders, scholars, businessmen, artists - it is the responsibility of the entire global community to utilize the moral bases, scientific forecasts and accumulated resources to ensure the transition to constructive global relations, to establish an effective world order in the interests of all countries and peoples.

And in this respect it is important to answer the crucial questions:

• How should the global world of the 21st century look like?
• How to achieve a positive combination of its three major trends: globalization, regionalization and national revival?
• How to effectively combine the solution of national problems, regional issues and global challenges? In search of a global response

In the 21st century, the intensity of international relations has increased dramatically. Each state has endeavored to contribute to the resolution of global problems. Kazakhstan is no exception.

From the first days of our independence, we have consistently and deliberately sought to participate in the affairs of the world community and have put forward constructive international initiatives.

In the world of today there is no longer a need to explain what Kazakhstan is. In the early 1990s during my first overseas meetings I had to not only explain, but also to point out on the world map the location of our country.

This perspective must be kept in mind in order to comprehend the dimensions of the path traveled during this relatively short lifespan of our young country. In two short decades we have journeyed from the obscure outskirts of the defunct superpower, to become a state that plays an important role in international affairs, offering specific ideas for peace and development of the world order.

Even a brief overview of our initiatives launched during the Independence of Kazakhstan shows the breadth of approaches to global issues.

In 1991,1 made the decision to close the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site and in 1994 Kazakhstan became a state free of nuclear weapons. In 2008 the Test Site was closed forever and the UN officially declared that day as the International Day against Nuclear Tests. In 2010,1 published a proposal to develop and adopt Universal Declaration of a Nuclear-Free World.

In 1992, we launched an initiativetoconvenethe Conferenceon Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA), as well as the idea of the UN Peacekeeping Foundation, which would be formed through the levy of one percent of the military budget.

Today, the CICA in its development has come close to becoming a fully fledged international security structure.

In 1994 the establishment of the Eurasian Union was initiated. Its realization has progressed through the creation of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space of Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus. Agradual transformation of the Eurasian Economic Community (created in 2000) into an economic union is underway.

In 2000, with the active participation of Kazakhstan, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was established including China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, subsequently joined by Uzbekistan.

These steps are important in terms of regional stability and establishing broad cooperation between the states on the Eurasian continent.

In 2001, Kazakhstan proposed to convene a Congress of World and Traditional Religions. The Council of Religious Leaders was created and commenced its work. I believe that this platform will play an important role in strengthening global tolerance.

In 2002, speaking at the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development,

I made the suggestion to establish the Register of World's Ecological Problems. A few years later, in 2007, this was furthered by our initiatives on the Global Energy and Ecological Strategy, the Eurasian Pact on Stability of Energy Supply and then the idea of the "Green Bridge".

In 2004,1 put forward a proposal to expand the UN Security Council and to establish the Council of Regional Organizations under the UN Secretary General.

I would like to note that in 2011 Kazakh diplomat and politician Kasym- Zhomart Tokayev became one of the deputies of the Secretary General.

He has simultaneously headed the UN office in Geneva and is the Secretary General of the UN Conference on Disarmament.

In 2010, Kazakhstan became an OSCE chair organizing the OSCE Summit in Astana, bringing forward the idea of forming a common continental platform of Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security.

This is a quite incomplete list of initiatives put forward by Kazakhstan over years of our independence.

The brief history of the independent foreign policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan illustrates the high value of our active role in the international arena.

The global crisis has shown the rate of change of the modern world and its economy in particular. Even the most developed countries are struggling to catch up with these tectonic shifts.

Globalization has dramatically increased the price of the responsibility of each country for the future of humanity.

Judge for yourself, how many examples there are of countries which gained independence about the same time as we did and which became "headaches"for the international community, creating a lot of trouble for their neighbors and the world at large.

Our activity in the field of foreign policy was not just a way to assert ourselves, win the respect of our foreign partners and acquire an international reputation.

At the core of Kazakhstan's foreign policy has always been the moral principle of understanding the integral relationship between all the countries of the world. In the era of globalization, in one way or another, we are integrated into a mutual life and livelihood.

The whole world has witnessed Kazakhstan's responsible, balanced and equitable policies, which are our contribution to the harmonious development of the world.

In September 2007, speaking at the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly, I said the following:

I am convinced that in the world there are no problems that cannot be solved if we oppose hatred with harmony, tolerance and spirituality [...] based on mutual trust and cooperation. Understanding this gives us hope and strengthens our faith in the future.

Kazakhstan is actively generating suggestions on various issues of the contemporary world. Our voice is heard, our opinions are taken into account.

It is important for us to further strengthen the position we have achieved in world politics and actively participate in global decision-making in the formation of a new architecture of international relations and world order in the 21st century.

The concept of G-GLOBAL is born

Globalization has brought incredible dynamic intensity into the entire system of international relations.

Recently I read that the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had broken the record of all her predecessors in office in number of trips to foreign countries. According to State Department estimates, during three and a half years she has made more than 100 trips visiting 98 countries, flying over 1,350,000 miles and actually traveling 33 times around the Earth's equator.

I consider this to be not only a telling indicator of the activity of American diplomacy, but also a reflection of the rapidly increasing importance of global dialogue, involving the United States together with most of the other powers of the world.

Today summits of heads of states have become almost ordinary phenomena on the international scene. At least once every two months certain summits are held between the leaders of multiple countries and in a variety of formats.

The global crisis of 2007-2009 was an unprecedented shock to the global financial and economic system. For more than three years the theme of crisis has been an indispensable attribute of the agenda of almost all international negotiations.

However, the nature of the crisis is not recognized by all. What we are faced with is not a matter of temporary difficulties which can be overcome with new external loans and by deploying certain internal resources. What we have here is the moment of truth for humanity. It requires global decisions; it requires changes to the foundations of the global economy and of politics.

In 2011, Kazakhstan celebrated twenty years of its independence. Reflecting on the outcome of this complex period in the formation of our new country, I have thought a lot about how to make a more robust defense of our young economy against adverse external conditions. For two decades, we have repeatedly experienced the impact of similar events, which have subjected the country to serious economic risks.

I have come to the conclusion that the contradictions of the modern era are unlikely to allow the unilateral solution of problems. There is a need for collective efforts of the entire world. The process of discussion of anti-crisis measures began within the framework of the "Big 8" and "Big 20."

But there is a need for a wider format of global dialogue.

Since 2008, the Eurasian Economic Club of Scientists, created on my initiative, held the Astana Economic Forum in the Kazakh capital.

Within a short period, this dialogue platform has become an influential gathering of renowned economists, politicians, the media and global business. Regularly attending plenary sessions at the Astana forum, meeting with its participants, I have been convinced that representatives of various segments of the global public are deeply concerned about the fate of the world. The issues of the global crisis and the future development of our world concern not just politicians, but also representatives of scholarly and cultural communities, as well as millions of ordinary people around the world.

My suggestion was, therefore, that we use the new information opportunities offered by the Internet for a continuous dialogue.

On the website of the Astana Economic Forum a communication platform was established, to which we gave the name G-GLOBAL.

Any Internet user can visit this site, take part in the ongoing discussions on pressing issues and leave suggestions addressed to forum participants.

This is a new democratic form of dialogue in which all can participate: politicians, experts, scientists and just people who care.

Within just a few months daily attendance on the communicative Internet site G-GLOBAL has grown tremendously. The site has been visited by more than 1 million people and more than 30 thousand have become permanent members.

In this format, we made preparations for the Fifth Astana Economic Forum.

For the first time in history we are engaging in an intensive search for ways to shape a new world economic order. The Astana Forum was attended not only by experts but also a broad range of citizens from 150 countries of the world.

This underlines the audacity of the idea of G-GLOBAL as a promising form of global dialogue in the context of post-industrial and information societies. It is symbolic that the theme of interactive discussions on the G-GLOBAL site has rapidly expanded beyond the issues of reforming the global economy and financial system, to encompass and explore wide-ranging issues of innovative development, nuclear and environmental safety, ethnic and religious tolerance and geopolitics, among other subjects.

G-GLOBAL has become a unifying idea in a multipolar world. Almost every online message can clearly be read as a hope for a stable and just world order in the 21st century and the need for a systematic, coordinated world renewal.

The idea of G-GLOBAL in its first reading was mv call to the international community to join forces in the search for ways to prevent a new wave of the global financial crisis.

And this call was heard. The idea found understanding and support in the world community.

Analysis of the first responses allows a number of important conclusions to be formed.

First, never before there has been such a level of global communications. Today and even more so in the future, our new communications systems are able to reduce distance, compress time and overcome historical, political and many other barriers.

Such a powerful tool needs to be used thoughtfully. It should not be an instrument of "information provocations" targeting the collapse of moral principles and public order in "undesirable" societies. It should be used for constructive purposes, including the development of a global dialogue for the stable development of the world.

Second, the world is now learning to live in a new environment. These lessons are sometimes learned with great difficulty. 

AEF V

84.          Bangladesh        93.          Portugal

85.          Ghana  94.          Slovenia

86.          Zimbabwe          95.          Montenegro

87.          Ireland                

88.          Cameroon                         

89.          Kuwait                

90.          Morocco                            

91.          New Zealand                   

92.          Papua New Guinea                       

ASTANA ECONOMIC FORUM (AEF)

AEF III                                  AEF IV

6i.           Bolivia   71.          Mexico 75.          Algeria

62.          Brazil     72.          Nigeria 76.          Argentine

63-         Vatican 73.          Palestine             77.          Jordan

64.          Vietnam              74.          Singapore           78.          Oman

65.          G recce                                               79.          Panama

66.          Denmark                                            80.          Serbia

67.          Iraq                                       81.          Syria

68.          Cuba                                     82.          Chile

69.          Lebanon                                             83-         Sri Lanka

70.          Libya                                                   

I am concerned about the ability of societies to follow the path of progress, through the evolution of a new technological system and a new level of public relations.

Third, the design of the global world in the 21st century is dependent on many factors. Among them it is important to see the desire of billions of people around the world for justice.

Justice, in the 21st century, is not only a moral category. This is one of the key conditions for the success of national and global development.

In this century, socio-economic models built on the pumping of the natural resources of theThird World are unjust. At the same time, the practice of endless futile external borrowing for unproductive purposes and rejection of industrial development and investment in human capital does not have a future. This is the lesson of the Arab Spring and, partly, of the crisis of the euro zone.

Fourth, the world is going through one of the most controversial and difficult stages of global history. Never before has the human race had such a huge potential for both successful development and for self-destruction. 

Realization of these twin potentials leads us to understand that global issues should be solved on an integrated basis. Today, it is not sufficient to solve only the problems of the economy, or only of global warming. At the same time it is impossible to ignore nuclear threat, smoldering conflicts and lack of tolerance or distortions in social policy, leading to a massive dependency at the level of social groups and individual states.

Fifth, it is important to heave the entire system of international relations from its current state of stagnation.

Here is the key task - the development of a transparent world politics. This platform must be such as to enable the foundation of a high level of trust between states and their mutual responsibility for the present and future of each region and the world.

The principles of destructive multipolarity - a clandestine, non-transparent world politics, the use of double standards, the prevalence of force in settling international issues, the export of instability etc. - must be countered with a constructive global alternative.

What are the characteristics and potential of the idea of G-GLOBAL?

G-GLOBAL is not a dogmatic theory, but an open system. It allows you - us all - to organize the most relevant global initiatives in the form of complex ideas and a concrete plan of reforming the world in the 21st century.

And what is very important, to bring a larger number of participants to the discussion of global issues: heads of states, international organizations, NGOs, academics and experts, the leaders of national and international business, politicians and citizens around the world.

With the initiative of G-GLOBAL the world community has discovered a prompt response to the growing need of the international community to follow a multi-dimensional principle of justice. As the civilization idea of the information age, it is aimed at all countries, all areas of Internet space and the millions of Internet users who are interested in creating a just and secure world order.

The G-GLOBAL initiative can actualize a global debate about the fate of humanity and unite in a constructive manner all the healthy forces in the name of progress and a more secure future world.

At a time when new information opportunities are intensively used for the destructive purposes of exporting instability, the idea of G-GLOBAL calls for the establishment of a network to find ways out of the crisis - to unite, to this end, the millions of Internet users around the world.

I invite you all to discuss the idea of G-GLOBAL. I am convinced that its capacity will grow due to the broad support of the world community.

I have therefore proposed to extend the format of the communication platform and provide a powerful Internet portal.

G-GLOBAL holds the potential to broadcast to all the major areas of global politics. A worldwide network may be the mechanism of articulation not only to develop an effective model of the world economy and financial systems, but also in the global movement for a nuclear-free world, the dialogue of cultures and civilizations, the global environmental community and general support for the idea of a continental security platform in Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian Affairs.

All these areas could be part of the Strategy of G-GLOBAL World - Strategy of the Future, striving into the 21st and subsequent centuries.

In the context of international relations the G-GLOBAL initiative has a great potential as a geopolitical innovation that can have a significant effect on the current global process. It is my hope that the actualizing of G-GLOBAL can raise the prestige of all entities - large, medium-sized and small countries - that are interested in the establishment of a fair system of international relations.

The G-GLOBAL project serves as a broad unifying idea for the world, in response to the systemic crisis that has hit the global economy, shaking the ideological foundations of the world and the entire system of international relations.

My many years of political experience demonstrate that the idea of G-GLOBAL is positioned to be positively received and to eventually involve an absolute majority of the world community.

I am confident that together we can achieve the main goals of G-GLOBAL- to offer the world community a mutually attractive model of the world order, based on a constructive combination of three trends of the 21st Century: (1) globalization, (2) regionalization and (3) national revival.

Obviously, if there is political goodwill many of the contradictions of the globalization era can be resolved on the basis of G-GLOBAL ideas and create a new mechanism for inter-state decision-making at the global level.

At the same time - and I would like to particularly emphasize this point - this initiative does not undermine the foundations of the existing world order.

It consistently improves and develops trust as an important tool for the present and future of geopolitics and geo-economics.

The idea of G-GLOBAL international cooperation - the five permanent members of the Security Council of the UN, the G-8, G-20 and others. Rather than opposing these entities, it logically develops them and links them to each other, involving more participants (states as well as other subjects of international relations) in the process of elaboration and adoption of mutually acceptable global solutions.

In the new world the leading international organizations (UN, World Bank, IMF, OSCE, NATO, etc.) must not only follow the interests of the large states, but serve the interests, indeed, of the entire world.

The idea of G-GLOBAL aims to make world order more democratic in a way that is fully consistent with the principles of the United Nations and in the interest of all countries.

In this respect, the idea of G-GLOBAL is an important factor in increasing the international prestige of Kazakhstan. It reveals the peacekeeping potential of Kazakhstan's foreign policy and demonstrates the presence of the country's own vision of the world order.

Humankind has long been in need of a unifying and non-antagonistic idea. It needs a concept that justifies the possibility of a positive global world order and ensures continuity of progress.

In the world of G-GLOBAL it is necessary to reduce the differences in economic development between the countries, so that all states have the opportunity to ensure the growth of human potential, where each person is entitled to the rights and conditions for self-realization.

This is a world that suggests a prosperous global economy, secure from crisis, with an effective global currency and a fair system of trade and cooperation.

This is a world where high technologies promote the happiness and well-being of all people, one where the economy and the environment do not contradict each other.

This is a world of justice and trust between peoples and nations, with a solid foundation for national, regional and global security.

It is a tolerant community of nations, cultures and religions, where all problems are solved on the basis of consent and respect.

This is our planet, forever freed from the threat of nuclear destruction and from weapons of mass destruction.

Pessimists might say that this proposed world is some dream beyond the clouds that people create from time to time. Of course, to debate this view is difficult, but nonetheless I argue strongly that this «ideal» world is within our reach.

The world of G-GLOBAL is not a myth, but a quite feasible project to create a community of goodwill and global sustainable equilibrium.

The idea of G-GLOBAL does not oppose national interests. Conversely, when implemented, it will balance and strengthen all of these interests.

The important thing is to work together consistently, step by step, to start forming the "Great Global Peace".

2.            PRINCIPLES OF G-GLOBAL: THE CONCEPT OF A NEW WORLD

When we want to confirm that we highly esteem persons, we say - they have principles. And vice versa - hardly anyone respects unprincipled persons. I learned this when as a young man I went to work on construction of a metallurgical plant in Temirtau and later worked there as a metallurgist. In the working world principles and integrity are the cornerstone of respect and solid personal progress.

So itshould be in politics. Indeed, the Latin word principium means beginning, the foundation." In any political practice there must be a solid foundation. Otherwise, like melting water, all good intentions will dissolve away and be lost.

For global peace to grow continuously and constructively, it is necessary to develop a set of fundamental principles of world order in the 21st century, obligatory for all states.

My concept of world order, G-GLOBAL, is based on such clear and precise formulations. As well as being the starting point for the promotion of the idea in global politics, they are absolutely necessary for a radical renewal of the world and the establishment of a just world order.

The principles of world order were not invented in the proverbial ivory tower. Kazakhstan has always been promoting these values and principles. They can be discerned in all of Kazakhstan's initiatives.

In 2010, during our presidency in the OSCE, we chose as its motto the FourTs: Trust, Traditions, Transparency and Tolerance.

On the same principles - as I was convinced from the very first days of our independence - the processes of Eurasian integration and global cooperation must be based. These principles are continuous, universal and already perceptible in the modern system of global and regional international order.

They have great potential to become the constructive basis for a global ideological world of the 21st century.

Kazakhstan, with its clear understanding of the real needs of the world for a unifying non-antagonistic idea, is well situated to clearly formulate these principles. We offer them to the international community as the five principles of G-GLOBAL-the five principles of the Great Peace. I believe that humanity has the knowledge, experience and will to assert a reality based on these fundamental principles.

Evolution, not revolution

In the 21st century and in the post-industrial and information age, overcoming global instability and renewing the global architecture will be successful only if the process is evolutionary. I believe that humanity reached its limit for revolution in the last century. In arguing the case, I am far from wanting to justify the actions of governments that have lost the trust of their people and are trying to hold onto power using violence and repression. Nevertheless, nobody has the right to question the force of law, to call for ignoring constitutional and other legal provisions, or to encourage the radical actions of any party in an internal conflict.

It is important to remember that the word «revolution» was first used in the natural world of science. It was introduced into scientific usage by the early astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, who called his fundamental work "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium." Although this is usually translated into English as "On rotations of celestial bodies," it can be seen in the Latin version of the title how revolve and rotate carry the same meaning. Revolution is a turning, a rotation. The term is employed to describe a certain universal law governing the sequence change of positions of known forms.

The political meaning of the word was first used in 1660 to describe an accomplished restoration of royal authority: the "glorious revolution". Here again, its meaning is actually reduced to the restoration of law and order.

Conversely, a century laterthe emphasis had changed and the word revolution" was used to describe a political cause before which any law is powerless.

Today, all the wisdom of humanity is to maintain social peace. The abuses which have accompanied some of the events of this century, for example the Arab Spring, clearly demonstrate how revolutions hamper the development of society, set back progress, complicate bilateral relations and generate even more problems in the world.

The new century will be one of steady but gradual development without radical leaps and revolutionary upheavals. There is no need to artificially accelerate the domestic or international processes.

The first principle of G-GLOBAL world is evolutionary development of social and political systems - denunciation of revolutions as a form of political development.

In the 21st century it is revolution, not religion, that has become the opiate of the people. Revolutionary changes are possible and permissible only in scientific knowledge and technology. They are harmful to political practice and social life. Especially so, if they are implanted on unprepared economic ground. Therefore it is important to counter destructive radicalism, whatever its motives or justifications.

The way of reform - evolutionary changes in social life on democratic principles - is the only way to progress in the 21st century.

Adhering to this fundamental principle of G-GLOBAL, states should refrain from any form of action which is not authorized by the UN Security Council. They should refrain from intervention in the internal affairs of other countries, from applying political pressure on individual countries to accelerate their political development and from unreasonable actions which are not supported by the level of the national economy.

To attain a G-GLOBAL world we must use an evolutionary path of renewal and development. We must refrain from any action which radicalizes the situation and leads to political, social and economic disruption.

Justice, equality, consensus

This three-pronged principle of peace means a commitment to a system of international relations which is in the national interest of all states, without exception.

In the 21st century, the division of nations into the great power states, secondary states and those states which need to be led has become outdated. The inertia of domination of one country over the other does not lead to progress. There is a hidden danger of leaving individual countries and regions of the world on the sidelines of global development.

Such a structure serves to expand the circle of "rogue states," various "axes of evil," and entire areas of "geopolitical vacuum "This is unlikely to benefit the peace and stability of development of individual regions and the world at large.

The alternative to this trend is approval of a fair foundation for the global economy, monetary system and world politics, in which all countries will have equal opportunities.

Today humanity is objectively moving towards a new paradigm of global social development based on justice, social partnership and responsibility. This is a way to expand opportunities for ordinary people to actively use the benefits of economic growth and excess profits.

Wanting to change the world, we should focus on constructive, honest cooperation in addressing global challenges and threats.

It is vital that in the long term global solutions at all levels - the UN, international organizations, regional organizations, forums and summits - should be reached only by consensus.

I believe that fundamental changes to the world economic and political system are not possible without the transfer of the "elite" narrow forms of consensus to a truly Global consensus. This, above all, means a new system of global governance in the interests of both developed and developing countries. At the level of regional associations, the supranational bodies should act in the interests of each member-country, having a clear and real authority in the economic sphere.

But this in no way implies the limitation of political sovereignty. That is the experience of the European Union, at the heart of which lies the equal partnership for integration.

I believe that the consensus approach will not only ensure the interests of each country, it will notably raise the responsibility of all states for the stability of internal development, as well as for the realization of peace and security in all its dimensions.

For me, realism in politics has a\\Nays been fundamental. Our planetary world, which is still experiencing many contradictions, will become a single consensual field before too long.

In the meantime, we must work today to consistently expand the practice of adopting global consensus decisions. Global tolerance and trust

Globalization has rapidly expanded the possibilities of intercultural interaction between peoples. Today the opportunity to get acquainted with the traditions and customs of other countries is not laborious. Millions of people travel, personally exploring the culture of other nations. In the online format you can learn any language, you can learn about life in even the most distant countries.

There are massive migration processes going on between different parts of the world and between individual countries. Millions of people have the opportunity to work in other countries, far away from their homeland.

Economic heterogeneity has given rise to the phenomenon of cross-country labor migration. Attracting foreign employees and intellectual resources from other countries has become an important component of the economic policies of some developed countries.

Yet, at the same time, there are problems associated with not always adequate relations between people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds.

Kazakhstan has been committed to tolerance and trust from the early days of independence. We are a multi-ethnic and multi-faith country. Our country hosts 140 ethnic groups and representatives of 17 denominations. Peace and harmony is the cornerstone of our society. At my initiative, the Assembly of People of Kazakhstan was established as the main body providing solutions to all issues related to inter-ethnic relations. It has been consistent in strengthening peace and harmony in our society.

In today's world the value of tolerance has been growing. In the condition of globalization this feature is an essential component of a just and peaceful world.

Global tolerance consists not only of mutually inter-ethnic, inter-religious

and intercultural dialogue. Tolerance should be a part of the relationship between states, regardless of their geopolitical weight and influence, or their historical experience of levels of economic and social development.

Global tolerance is a positive attitude to domestic and civilizational characteristics of each country and each group of a particular region. In the 21st century the world's diversity presents major opportunities for economic and cultural communication and exchanges and thus for mutual cultural enrichment. This favorable result of globalization should be used for development purposes and not for individual countries to impose certain political, social and cultural standards.

So I am sure that to be truly tolerant in 21st century, one needs to recognize the incredible diversity of the world.

Without global tolerance there cannot be global trust - a necessary and fundamental principle of G-GLOBAL.

Twenty years ago, speaking at the UN, I initiated the convening of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA). For the next decade there was ongoing work to address the essential issues related to the congregation of the CICA.

The first summit was held in June 2002 in Almaty. During this period, relations between the two largest countries of Asia, India and Pakistan were experiencing a difficult stage.

Participation of the leaders of these countries in the Almaty meeting greatly reduced the intensity of conflict and deflected the threat of military conflict between the two countries, which by that time were nuclear powers.

In subsequent years, members of the CICA concentrated on developing a Catalog of Confidence Measures. This is a unique document, which has no analogues in world diplomatic practice.

I turn here to the history of the CICA not by accident, but in order to show that good will and perseverance can overcome any challenges.

I believe that our experience in the development and adoption of the Catalogue of Trust can be extended to the entire UN system. Without concerted global solutions, the crisis of confidence will be almost impossible to overcome.

In politics as in life, a long-term outcome is possible only if business is conducted honestly, with no desire to gain unilateral advantage. Suspicions between countries and the geopolitical "game" are the anachronisms of centuries past and must not be brought with us into the 21st century.

I am impressed by the conclusions of authors of the modern concept of "creative class," namely that in the 21st century tolerance is an important factor of economic growth.

We in Kazakhstan have recognized this for a long time. Without unity of our multi-ethnic nation, we could not have achieved our level of economic success, admired by our friends around the world.

So I think that at the global level tolerance is a primary instrument to pull the world economy out of recession.

Only on the basis of global tolerance and trust can humanity attain a new quality of existence, a sustainable world free of violence, war and conflict.

Global transparency

The world of G-GLOBAL is a transparent - open - community of nations.

There must be no «double standards» degrading some nations and setting different rules for nations of different sizes.

The lower the barriers between national communities, the more successful the development of the global economy and the greater the wealth of every nation.

Thus we can rid ourselves of many problems associated with the plight of the people, hunger and disease.

It is necessary to free ourselves from "dividing lines" and "backroom" deals, to release the vestiges of the past that prevent the movement of the world to new heights. This is vital for maximum openness and transparency in international relations.

During its chairmanship of the OSCE, Kazakhstan made a call to all its partners.

In the course of preparation for taking leadership in this authoritative international organization, we proposed the idea of holding the OSCE Summit in Astana.

To achieve such a decision was not easy. On this issue, there were different opinions related to assessment by various states of the situation of the OSCE at the end of the first decade of the 21st century.

In a video message to the participants of the inaugural meeting of the Permanent Council of the OSCE, in which Kazakhstan took the post of chair, I said these words:

Today it is not permissible to continue the endless and confidence-reducing practice of so-called "red lines" and "zero-sum games."

At the forefront is the effectiveness of international organizations in accordance with the new global challenges. The OSCE faces such task, as is a unique dialogue platform that unites 56 countries. [... The] 10-year hiatus from the OSCE summit is an illustration that the consensus-seeking foundation of the organization is, if not in crisis, in a very stagnant state. In this regard, we call upon the OSCE participating states to support Kazakhstan's initiative to convene a summit meeting in 2010.

Our position was supported by all member states of the organization.

The OSCE summit was opened in Astana on 1 December 2010. For the first time in the history of the world the leaders of states on five continents -Europe, Asia, North America, Australia and Africa - gathered in the heart of Eurasia. Gathered to identify ways of strengthening trust and security.

This event attracted the attention of the world media.

The summit was covered by over 1,000 journalists and leading TV corporations from foreign countries conducted live broadcasts.

For two days in Astana there was a frank dialogue on the future of Eurasian security. Additional discussion of issues went on along the margins of the summit. I personally conducted nearly three dozen meetings with heads of states and governments and leaders of the official delegations.

In parallel there was an intense negotiation process on the final document. It was not completed until the end of the plenary sessions. There was too great a load of bilateral issues related to unresolved "frozen" conflicts. Only late at night were the summit parties able to adopt the final text of the document.

In the Astana Declaration of the OSCE, the summit participants reaffirmed their commitment to the principles and basic agreements in the framework of the OSCE. Many problems of the OSCE were moved away from dead ends and dialogue was renewed on the development of the Organization in the next decade.

This has been the most important result of the summit, which opened a new chapter in the history of Eurasia.

Here in the heart of Eurasia was born the Spirit of Astana as the immortal symbol of the universal desire for a world order based on the principles of trust, harmony, openness and tolerance.

The OSCE summit in Astana was a clear example of the vitality of transparency in global dialogue -an important condition for the development of a broad mutual cooperation between countries.

Constructive multipolarity

The creation of a multipolar world is the trend of global development in the 21st century. Multipolarity is an objective trend, which emphasizes the diversity of human civilization.

In the last decades of the 20th century, the logic of world economic development contributed to the folding of several regional centers of economic growth. In the bipolar world of the Cold War, global competition permeated the relations between the two blocs - the West led by the USA and the East led by the former USSR.

I remember in the early 1970s entering the office of a senior party official in Moscow. My attention was drawn to a wall map of the world. It was marked all over with red and blue flags.

Naturally, there were the "red" countries adhering to the pro-Soviet policy and the "blue" states with - as it was said in the USSR - "pro-imperialist orientation" Certain countries in Africa, Latin America and South-East Asia were marked by both flags.

This meant that in these countries there was a struggle for influence.

I imagine that at that time a similar map decorated some Washington offices. This was a time of "us and them," and the whole world was divided strictly into two camps.

The collapse of the Soviet Union gave reason to many experts say that the world had supposedly become "unipolar".

Certainly, in the early 1990s the international arena contained no state more powerful than the USA.

Even now, the American economy, American military power is objectively superior to the potential of any other country.

At the same time, however, during these two decades joining the 20th and 21st centuries, many new global centers of development have emerged, gradually gaining economic and political weight.

The European Union was formed with its common market and common currency and a high level of coordination in domestic and international policies.

It was joined by the states of Eastern Europe and the former Baltic republics of the USSR.

China has made phenomenal success, becoming one of the leaders of the global economy and politics.

A number of states in East and South-East Asia - South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and others - have achieved high growth rates.

The Persian Gulf region has become one of the financial and economic centers of the world.

In the western hemisphere Brazil is becoming the economic giant. India and South Africa have successfully been enlarging their economic power.

Russia is developing steadily.

Together with China, these countries have become parties to the new international structure: BRICS.

There is enormous potential for the formation of a Common Economic Space in the Customs Union of Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus. Along with our Russian and Belarusian partners, we expect to be one of the competitive and promising areas of economic and technological development of the globalizing world.

The emergence of these new poles is the reality of the 21st century.

Now the key question is, what will be the relationship between the poles?

Will there be fair and honest competition and peaceful rivalry?

Orwill the world becomeafield of rigid ideological and political confrontation?

Obviously, destructive multipolarity, which I wrote about above, threatens to split the world into geopolitical rivals and opposing centers of power. But this is a dead end, which is dangerous due to a new global "arms race" draining the resources of humankind.

It is no accident that at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, the world once again faces the looming threat of a second Cold War. It bothers me that discussions about the current problems of international relations continue the rhetoric of the bipolar world. There is a tendency of growing mistrust and suspicion between countries.

If this process does not stop, if solutions strengthening our confidence in the international arena are not introduced, the threat of outbreak of regional conflict - which would detonate the spread of nuclear weapons and increase the risk of international terrorism and extremism - remains with us.

The only alternative to these threats and challenges is to develop constructive multilateralism - a balanced geopolitical system of checks and balances, as opposed to the bloc psychology that is a negative legacy of the bipolar world.

Constructive multilateralism should target all countries, international organizations and regional bodies for inter-state cooperation and collaboration.

There is no room for geopolitical snobbery, the practices of political obstruction of individual countries.

Constructive multilateralism involves the formation of powerful integrative associations of countries, one of which in the near future will be the Eurasian Economic Union.

The relationship between the poles must not escalate into conflicts and trade wars. I believe that only in a constructive multipolar world of the 21st century will we gain stability and security, consolidating multi-faceted efforts for the development of the global economy and addressing critical problems.

Constructive achievement of the development of human civilization in the 21st century can, in my opinion, be provided on the basis of the five principles of G-GLOBAL.

These principles should permeate the new architecture of the world order which will be built in this century. They need to be secured in the basic documents of the United Nations and in the entire system of international law.

1. THE NEW GLOBAL FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC SYSTEM

The global crisis: an opportunity for financial and economic transformation

The global crisis of 2007-2009 and its aftermath shook the world economy, and yet stimulated a process of deep intellectual comprehension of global issues.

With each day that passes, awareness is increasing that the way out of the crisis, the way to create a reliable barrier to prevent recurrence of such calamities, can only be by way of global reforms - above all of the global financial system.

During the crisis there have been major changes in the global economic, financial and industrial sectors. A key problem is the serious imbalances in the global financial system. The crisis has demonstrated that the current monetary system is obsolete, since the international community has no control over its operation.

And the main cause of the global crisis is, I think, the defectiveness of the world reserve currency.

The established order of issuance and trading of reserve currency does not meet the criteria for the rule of law, democracy, reality, accountability, efficiency, accountability and so on.

In this way the existing world monetary/financial system distorts macroeconomic fundamentals, thus largely reducing growth and preventing the problem from being solved.

The global financial and economic crisis led to deep economic cracks.

Unfortunately, these cracks were glued together with an anti-crisis package of cheap money in various forms. But the break in the monolith of the world economy has not disappeared, it has only been slightly masked.

However, so far there are no effective mechanisms to deal with the crisis, no reliable global reserve currency or a group of regional currencies which could guarantee the safety of savings and relative economic stability.

It has become apparent that additional issuing of the "currency of yesterday" is unlikely to hold back fresh long-term economic shocks.

It cannot prevent the social explosions that result from internal imbalances in the economic development of some countries: high unemployment, large budget deficits and high levels of public and private debt.

A striking example is the situation in the euro area. In the last two years, we have seen the domino effect of stagnating national economies: Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland.

Overall, the revival of the world economy is not an indicator of its sustainable recovery. The uneven economic development carries big risks. The active trading of derivatives has continued, particularly against the background of soaring commodity markets. There is further inflation of speculative capital, lack of a sensible balance between the financial sector and the real economy.

All this testifies to the urgency of the enacting of dynamic and effective measures for the rapid reform of the international financial architecture.

Humanity is faced with a blatant contradiction: striving for democracy, it has to deal with the totalitarian currency system which is issued by the financial center of only one country.

Consequently, the global crisis is a natural consequence of the deep internal defectiveness of the existing system.

Is there a way out of this unnatural situation? If so, then in which direction to go?

I believe there is way out of this vicious circle. However, the remedy for the existing defective monetary system requires drastic action, which had no precedent till now.

In particular, there is a need for a long-overdue, inevitable transition to financial instruments of a new class and quality: the real measurements of goods and services.

Only such a global geo-financial innovation (and not a partial redecoration of the old system), will give rise to a genuine renewal of the global economy.

There is no doubt that the new class of world currencies will inevitably be introduced and consequently adopted by humankind. Sooner or later its establishment will be demanded by the financial elite of the world. This process, just like the development of humankind, cannot be stopped by anybody. The defectiveness of the global monetary system is already forcing some countries to take practical steps to use alternative currencies.

In modern times, the lessons of the global crisis illustrate that we have a unique opportunity to overcome the imperfections of the old world and to create a new model of the world economy, politics and global security.

In the end, all the economies of the world will come to accept the introduction of a supranational cash-payment unit, a global currency of an entirely new class.

A series of criteria serve to define this new class of international financial instruments.

First, the new world currency, as opposed to the old, non-legal world reserve currency, should be legally enforced. There is need for an international treaty on a global currency (I would call it Globo) that would be developed by key users and adopted by most countries.

This agreement would define the supranational status of the new currency and the principles of emission by a special global center (World Bank). Such a system would be the basis for the first ever completely legal and legitimate global currency.

Second, the new currency should be issued by new emission center for the benefit of mankind and not for a small group of countries.

The emission procedure and management of the emission mechanism should be transparent and clear.

All states signatory to the treaty on world currency would be required to participate in decision-making and to create the managing institutions of emission and issuance, acting on democratic procedures.

Third, accountability before the users is a very important criterion for the issuer of the world currency. The new financial instrument should serve as a tool of controlled and purposeful production of profit, to serve the long-term development of humankind.

Fourth, there should be a measure of liability for the issuer of the world currency before its major stakeholders: countries, companies, citizens and the world community. It was the irresponsibility of issuers which gave rise to the global crisis and this should not happen again.

Fifth, the new currency would be a tool measuring the true value of real goods and services and at the same time a tool of value-oriented and meaningful evaluation of competition and profit.

I mentioned these criteria in my articles published in 2009, but even a cursory evaluation reveals to any expert that not even one of these changes has so far been actualized.

The financial sector should not develop in isolation from the real sector.

The new economic model must be based on a fair and equitable global financial and monetary system, with no room for fraud and waste. In such a model the wealth produced by humankind furthers the creation and progress of all men and women, their spiritual growth and improvement.

Functioning of the global currency must meet the objectives of the development of humankind and the world as a whole, to fully meet the objectives of stable, sustainable development and prosperity.

These principles and criteria should lay the basis for a new financial architecture, for the treaty on world currency, for the system of regular measurement and correction of its effectiveness. Only in this way will the new system be a productive and defect-free source of sustainable human development.

The introduction of a currency with such qualities will guarantee our escape from the current global crisis.

At the same time, this financial innovation will radically change the DNA of the world monetary/financial system.

This task involves the development and implementation of a new class of exchange: vital, realistic and pragmatic.

Between the crisis period and the era of a new world currency without defects (the age of G-GLOBAL) the world will undergo a transition period.

The main task in transition is to prepare the conditions for the transition of country esandregions from the old system off inancial and economic relationship to a new system, from the old currency to the faultless world currency.

In entering into global monetary and financial reform, with creation of supranational centers of emission of the new class of currency, we must realize and admit that no foreign exchange swaps (which is nothing more than a barter currency exchange) nor the conversion of a single currency into the regional, continental or global currency will be able to solve the existing problem of defective reserve currency.

Building a currency relationship based on exchange of some national currencies, we are destined to replay the scheme of the global crisis, which arose precisely because of the use of the national currency of one country as a global currency.

At the regional level, there are the same laws as in the world at large. Therefore, at the regional level as at the global level, no national currency will give the same efficiency offered by a supranational currency unit issued by a regional emission center.

The idea of a new supranational currency issued by an authoritative supranational issuer is gaining more and more supporters.

But in most cases they have in mind a synthetic currency option or cash- payment unit similar to the SDR, the Special Drawing Rights of the IMF. However, any basket of old defective currencies will be just as defective as the individual currencies. Instead of the old single and obviously defective world currency issuer, we would have an overtly «new» group-based issuer of the world currency, no less defective than before.

Of course, it is possible to modify the SDR basket of four currencies by including additional currencies, for example, the yuan, ruble and gold. Such a modified SDR basket could give a rise to the first stirrings of a new quality currency, a real gauge of the true value of goods and services.

But there should not be any repetition of the old system, for what we need is a new breakthrough.

The creation of regional payment and settlement units is not the easy path. There exist and will emerge both political and economic obstacles.

The contemporary crisis of the euro zone obliges us to consider without haste and excitement the options for a regional supranational issuer. But the most important thing is that the example of Europe shows: in the 21st century, the creation of a supranational currency is a necessary and positive process.

Economists at the world level are also aware of the need for a supranational currency. Thus, in 2009 the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, in a public lecture in Bangkok, at ESCAP, called on Asian countries to create a new supranational global reserve system and pointed directly to Asia as the locus to initiate this process.

Asia and Europe are closely related. And this Eurasian relationship is manifested through the activities of international organizations such as the SCO, EurAsEC and CES. Therefore the Eurasian region has every reason to develop a new algorithm for creating a healthy supranational issuer.

Actually the countries of Eurasia can escape from the waves of supranational crisis only through the creation of a supranational emission center of a unified electronic payment unit. Kazakhstan made this proposal to its colleagues at the SCO.

This supranational Eurasian electronic cash-payment unit, without changing the already existing monetary systems but merely added to them, is intended to be used for both long-term infrastructure investment and for current transactions. The emission should be done in the long-term national, regional and global interests of all countries of the SCO and Eurasia.

In practical terms, this will remove (or at least redistribute) the global burden of the old defective system of world currency, bringing it to a system of regional and continental emission centers for regional supranational payment and settlement units.

The process of developing and establishing regional payment units has already been happening for several dozens of years across the globe. This is a global trend of a multipolar world. In Europe, the monetary unit of account ECU (European Currency Unit) was transformed into a full-fledged European currency, the euro.

Similar ideas and plans for moving towards regional payment units may be observed in a number of areas: in South-East Asia (acu, the Asian Currency Unit), in the Persian Gulf (Khaleej), Latin America (sucre) and in Africa (African).

It is important to note that the process of regional integration and development of new regional units of account began to unfold long before the last world crisis. Our world is getting ready for the next spontaneous stage of self-renewal.

I believe that it is time to accelerate that process.

With the global financial crisis, which actually can happen again at any time, the issue of multipolar financial architecture is part of the world agenda.

Kazakhstan, with its partners in regional and continental integration (CIS, EurAsEC, CES, SCO) has long been developing in line with the global trend of the first quarter of the 21st century - the formation of regional integration.

Back in 2003, Kazakhstan initiated the introduction of the EurAsEC common supranational currency unit of account, for which the name the altyn was proposed.

Considering the lessons of the euro zone crisis, it is necessary step by step to create the conditions for a Eurasian emission center and a functioning Eurasian supranational payment unit (ESPU). It is important to establish a subcommittee on development of issues of a common unit of account in the framework of the Eurasian Economic Commission.

Such a unit, because of the special composition of its issuers (EurAsEC and SCO), could closely and organically fit in the euro area as well as in other regional currency areas, contributing to the creation of a new global financial infrastructure.

The special position of the Eurasian region can provide - with the right assessment of the national and regional interests - a unique opportunity to create an ESPU-based continent-wide currency in the future.

World leaders thus have good reason to work on the formation of regional and continental centers and on the creation of a defect-free new world reserve currency.

The path to a qualitatively new phase of the international community cannot be easy.

In proceeding with this course of action, we should identify the phases of creating a new global monetary and financial structure.

The first phase of the serial new global monetary and financial structure may be the emergence of supranational electronic payment and settlement units in the major regions of the world. These units are introduced into circulation by regional payment and settlement unions.

Next, the second phase is coordination between the regional emission centers of supranational currency.

The third phase is the development - with the direct involvement of regional emission centers - and introduction of a supranational global electronic cash- payment unit.

Finally, the fourth phase is the introduction of a common global reserve currency of a new class with its own special global emission center, the world's central bank.

In 2009 UNCTAD experts suggested to the UN member states to negotiate the creation of a global central bank, which would direct financial policies on a global scale and issue a global currency.

Thus, if there is political will and consent of the international community on the establishment of a new world currency, two things need to happen: first, the reform of the existing financial system and second, a truly innovative breakthrough in the global financial sector - the creation of a new monetary and financial architecture.

Anti-crisis priorities for the UN in the 201 Os

At the beginning of the 21st century the global economy has undergone significant changes. By the end of the last century the world - and above all its dominant economic realm, the West - had experienced the euphoria of transition from the industrial age to the post-industrial and information society.

The crisis has made adjustments in the course of economic development.

Wrong was the notion that the informatization of economy would dramatically reduce the demand for natural resources and reduce their price.

And indeed, a powerful wave of resource-saving measures has lessened resource consumption. Cars on German roads today use less gasoline in total even though the number of cars has increased.

Consequently, societies which had begun considering themselves post-industrial and which therefore considered themselves infinitely powerful, made a bet on the service sector, to the detriment of the development prospects of the industrial base.

It is this aspect which is now seen as the main cause of the crisis in the post-industrial world.

By the second decade of the 21st century there was a new global economic configuration, within which the "three worlds" co-exist and compete with each other.

The "FirstWorld" isonepoleof the global economy, including the "forerunners"- the post-industrial economies of the USA and most European countries, who deviated from the path of industrial development. These economies are characterized by a relatively low share of manufacturing in national GDP (about 10-13%), chronic budget deficit, hypertrophied overgrown financial sector and persistent negative balance of foreign trade.

The "Second World" is the other pole, a mass of disparate countries that managed to wake up from a kind of oblivion due a sharp rise in the prices for raw material. This group includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Iran and others.

The distinctive features of this group are a high, more than 75% share of the primary sector in the GDP, rising budget spending, strong external dependence on technology and investment directly related to the growth of resource revenues.

Between these two extremes there is a "Third World." These are the countries which have preserved their industrial potential (Germany, Russia, Japan) and the new centers of industrialization (South Korea, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico).

The share of manufacturing in these countries is between a quarter and 45% of GDP, there is a steady positive balance of trade with external partners and an absent or insignificant budget deficit.

While the First World now has a share of $20 trillion out of the $76 trillion of the world's entire GDP, the Second has a share of $5 trillion and the Third has $26 trillion.

The beginning of the 21st century has clearly shown how rapidly the overall balance of industrial leadership has been shifting towards the developing world.

In 2000, the developed countries accounted for 75% of world production and the developing countries 27%.

In 2011, the ratio had changed.

In 2010-2011 alone, the share of the USA in world industrial output fell from 19.2% to 18% and that of Japan from 11 % to 10.2%.

At the same time, the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have increased their combined share in global industrial production to 46%. Now they have to undergo a complex series of changes to increase productivity and to conduct structural economic reforms.

A new group of rapidly industrializing countries is entering the global arena, the MIST (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey). Each of these countries already contributes one or more percent to the global GDP.

The economic potential of such populous countries as Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Iran is rapidly growing.

I am far from making predictions about the demise of industrial leadership in the developed countries in the short term. Moreover, they have retained a strong competitive advantage over their younger rivals in such indicators as the size of the value added in manufacturing per capita.

In the USA, for example, the total share of manufacturing in GDP is 15%, but it creates 1.71 trillion dollars in value-added products and accounts for almost 20% of all global production. According to this index in value-added products, the BRICS group is behind the U.S. by a factor of 11 -15 times and behind Japan by 16 times.

According to one of the world's leading consultancies, the BCG, by year 2015 it is expected that the USA and Western European countries will be experiencing an industrial revival due to a rapid reduction in the price of energy resulting from the use of shale gas. In Russia in 2011,for example, production of shale gas reached 684 billion cubic meters against 688 billion cubic meters of natural gas produced.

This wave of re-industrialization of the West will shape world main events and give rise to a third industrial revolution, which will implement three- dimensional technologies and other innovations.

The facts I have been citing here may serve to indicate the complexity of the expected development of the world economy.

The global economic crisis is a harbinger of changes which will restructure the world economy, redistributing the role and influence of the global economic centers.

Therefore, the issues of the global economic reform are relevant to all countries.

In this environment of uncertainty and amid expectations of a new wave of the global crisis, the world has no time to lose.

Issues of, first, crisis management and then the transition from the existing to a new global currency should become the agenda for all major political and economic bodies, summits and forums around the world.

This global work on economic transformation should be arranged, in my opinion, under the auspices of the UN. The increasing level of globalization of economic processes necessitates a paradigm shift in the economic component of the UN activities.

The main purpose of the world's institutions dealing with foreign exchange and trade and economic regulation should bethedetermination and elimination of the causes of world crises.

Any delay in this matter will result in a new and powerful onslaught of the global crisis, with an accompanying surge of regional and global instability.

As Kazakhstan has successfully implemented its own anti-crisis plan, it is ready together with its partners and allies to participate in the coordination

of anti-crisis policy in the practical organization of international forums at the highest level.

We have initiated the World Anti-crisis Conference, which we plan to hold in May 2013 in Astana. It is open to all countries in the world to develop a draft plan for reform, which could become the Anti-crisis Plan of the United Nations.

We are offering this initiative because we believe the post-crisis global economic recovery is fragile and there is instability in the financial markets. The fundamental flaws in the global financial system, which contributed to the global economic crisis of 2008 and 2009 were not eliminated.

The presence of systemic deficiencies requires speedy implementation of large-scale and fundamental reform of the world monetary system.

The world, in one way or another, is heading towards a new financial and monetary system, in which several currencies will act as reserve currencies at the world level. Creation of the European Monetary System, the Chiang Mai Initiative of South-East Asia, the initiatives of the Persian Gulf states and the signing of the General Agreement on the establishment of lines of credit in local currencies by the BRICS countries - confirm this ongoing trend.

Global policy trends of the second decade of the 21st century include anti- crisis planning, overcoming instability and possible recession, in transition to a new financial relationship.

During the first wave of the crisis, anti-crisis programs were developed, usually at the national level. But this is not enough today. The experience of the European Union shows that it is necessary to rise to the next higher level.

First, we need to develop regional anti-crisis programs.

And second, we should jointly develop the United Nations Anti-crisis Plan.

The UN crisis management plan should offer key technologies for converting the old unstable and defective currency exchange system into a new system and the scenarios of creation and development of regional emission center transit rates. It is advisable that the plan contain specific measures to assist states in stabilizing their financial systems.

In particular, there is a need to find solutions to our key financial problems: management of public debt and of state assets and liabilities in order to prevent further crises; financial stability and the regulation of the financial sector; and development of mechanisms for the functioning of a new global currency.

Such projects should be developed taking into account the views of the political world and the scientific community. They should be discussed at the sites of G-GLOBAL, Astana and other economic forums and at international organizations.

In this regard, the Eurasian Economic Club of Scientists, which is the main organizer of the Astana Economic Forum, has developed a model for a new global financial architecture and a common global currency.

The EU, EurAsEC and SCO members could initiate and promote the development of a global UN anti-crisis plan, in the process of developing their regional and national anti-crisis plans.

It is the great continental trio - the EU, the EurAsEC and the SCO - which could credibly and responsibly discuss and propose solutions to overcome global instability.

Based on this global anti-crisis plan, the United Nations could begin correcting the Agenda for the Third Millennium.

A UN crisis management plan is needed as a navigator on practical ways to overcome the crisis and post-crisis development. All subjects of international relations and the real economy - countries, corporations, businesses, international organizations and others - need the UN.

Monetary/financial relations are the most important aspect of the global economy. However, we are not limited to the problem of the global currency. A systematic approach to recovery in the global economy requires a three-faceted economic policy:

First, a system of effective macroeconomic management;

Second, the global regulation of markets, from raw material to financial;

Third, an effective monetary and financial system.

Only with the implementation of all these tasks can we talk about the sustainability of the global economic development.

For the first direction it is important to develop a set of global universal indicators to assess the state of national economies and that can become a sort of litmus test to identify emerging imbalances.

There is much talk about the creation of a regulatory system for world markets, the second direction specified here, but a coordinated solution has yet to be reached. Prudent management of prices in food markets and commodities, particularly energy and raw materials, requires international coordination.

In regard to global governance of financial markets, there should be a focus on the derivatives market.

We all remember that before the previous crisis the derivatives market turnover was eight times higher than the total GDP of the entire planet.

And, finally, the creation of a new global reserve currency will help to build a transparent, clear worldwide monetary system. The currency reserves of all countries would become more sustainable.

In general, an effective mechanism for global economic governance should be provided, with clear rights and responsibilities for all structures and participants, with an effective world reserve currency and strict control of speculative capital.

Therefore, speaking in September 2011 at the 66th session of the UN General Assembly, I urged the international community to immediately start working on the Covenant on Global Regulation.

The conclusion of the Covenant will be a real tool for the harmonization of key elements of international economic policy.

In a conversation with Nobel Prize laureats on 24 May 2012, the question was raised on the need for creation of a permanent body which would in a systematic way effectively monitor the world situation and develop qualitative recommendations to resolve problems in the world economy.

In particular, Robert Mundell proposed the creation of the Secretariat of the Astana Economic Forum, which would become a working body in preparation for the World Anti-crisis Conference in 2013.

I agreed with this proposal.

In the context of global economic instability, the role and importance of the United Nations would increase.

The attention of the UN as a universal international organization is increasingly focused on global economic and social issues.

This follows the letter and spirit of the documents adopted by the General Assembly of the UN, the Millennium Summit, the World Summit in 2005, various forums on cooperation on development and the United Nations conferences on trade and development

In the current international environment it is important to focus on the most urgent systemic issues and global economic decision-making. Especially important are collective efforts on reforming the international financial architecture. The state of the global financial system is a major factor in global security.

The instability of the world economy and finance prevents the sustainable development of the global world. The United Nations, therefore, must do everything possible to neutralize this obstacle and open the way for the sustainable development of humanity.

In the second decade of the 215t century, it is important to direct the potential of the United Nations for resolving the following global objectives:

-The development and implementation of the anti-crisis plan of the UN;

-The drafting and signing of the Covenant of Global Governance;

-The creation of the International Economic Commission and the UN council on economics;

-The development of the structure and mechanism of a new global financial system;

-The conclusion of the treaty on a global currency;

-The creation of the World Central Bank.

We are convinced that the solution of these most important issues on the UN platform in the format of G-GLOBAL would allow each country and the international community as a whole to reach a new level of development and prosperity.

Macro-regional processes in the Eurasian space

Along with globalization, regionalization is a primary international trend of the 21st century. Sovereign nation-states, being the fundamental actors in international relations, are tending to create voluntary powerful integration associations.

The global trend of regionalization is manifested in the process of macro- regional economic integration. These processes are occurring on every continent, including Eurasia. It is at the level of large regions that more stable and secure associations of states are formed.

I am convinced that in the 21st century only joint efforts, joint resources and capabilities will bring significant long-term dividends.

Humankind has quite a bit of experience with economic integration. Today, the vast majority of the countries in the world are members of the various integration organizations: the EU, NAFTA, MERSOKUR, the African Union, ASEAN, APEC, the Eurasian Economic Community and others.

In coming years the European Union plans to expand through the accession of Croatia and in the future Serbia, Montenegro and other countries. Turkey has for many years stood at the gates of the European Union.

In East Asia, the world's largest free trade area has been created, spanning over China and the ASEAN countries covering two billion consumers. In financial and economic arenas the Gulf region is uniting. South American countries also have been strengthening their integration.

Integration is a vital necessity of our era. It is an effective tool for creating a successful macro-regional economic system, closely interacting and competing favorably with other regional associations, both present and future.

The fundamental point here is that the process of economic integration is not an end in itself, rather the process has to comply with the ongoing national interests of the participant countries, to ensure the strengthening of national economies and security, to improve the welfare of the people and to create conditions for the preservation and development of national cultures and traditions.

Ultimately, all of society should see economic benefits from such integration. Only then will integration processes be supported by a society and a nation as a whole. Only then will they be strong and stable.

Each country has to find its place in the world of G-GLOBAL, taking into account unique features of the region and global trends.

Kazakhstan can be a model for many countries standing at the crossroads of a new era.

I recall that in March 1994, during an official visit to the UK, I was invited to give a speech at the famous Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House.

I noted that the development of the post-Soviet space is defined by two trends: on the one hand is the emergence of the national state and the other is the need for regional integration.

It was there, in London, that for the first time I outlined to the international community my vision of regional integration in Eurasia and formulated the name of the future of regional integration: the Eurasian Union. In early 1994, this was literally geopolitical "virgin land."

And I remember that the English public - which is quite sophisticated in geopolitics - listened to my speech with genuine interest.

I said that Kazakhstan is a unique state in the heart of the Eurasian continent, fusing European and Asian roots. The representatives of various nations are united in diversity, in a mix of cultures and traditions which allows us to absorb the best achievements of European and Asian cultures.

Then I pointed out that the phenomenon of our country resides in the fact that we are members of both European and Asian regional organizations at the same time. We understand the nature of our geopolitical position and, in fact, are ready to become a center of international efforts to strengthen security.

It is worth emphasizing that I said all of this fifteen years before the creation of the Customs Union and Kazakhstan's chairmanship in the OSCE.

I recall this now to show that we had already identified the right direction.

One week after the London gathering I prepared for another visit, this time to Moscow. On 29 March, after intensive official talks with President Boris Yeltsin, I arrived at the Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU) to meet with professors and students. It was a very memorable meeting, with a friendly atmosphere.

In my speech I said that we, the independent states formed after the breakup of the USSR, should enter the coming century together.

I laid out my vision for the future of the nation-states and the Commonwealth of Independent States and the prospects of a new regional organization, which I called the Eurasian Union. I emphasized that it must be not a kind of Euro-Asia, but an actual Eurasian Union. That was my position in 1994; it remains the same today.

The idea of a Eurasian cooperation is in no way reintegration. There is no return to the past and there never will be. This is the unequivocal position of all states involved in Eurasian integration.

It was no coincidence that I delivered this concept to the academic audience of the MSU.

I turned directly to the intellectual elite of the Commonwealth with a firm belief in moving on from the stupor of the multilateral process of integration in which we found ourselves just two years after the establishment of the CIS.

I frankly said that the CIS did not meet the objective requirements of the day and did not support the integration of member states, which our people so desperately needed. Therefore, there was a need to create a new - Eurasian in spirit-inter-state association which would act on clear principles.

I am always impressed by the views of eminent thinker Lev Gumilev, who went further than the followers of the "Eurasianism School" which emerged among immigrants during the first half of the 20th century. He conceptualized the ground of the unity of geographical and cultural-historical relations between peoples of Eurasia. The name of this scientist is given to the Eurasian National University in Astana that was created on my initiative.

My approach to Eurasianism, matched to concrete historical conditions at the turn of the century, was based on the following principles.

First, without denying the importance of cultural and civilizational factors, I suggested to build integration primarily based on economic pragmatism.

Economic interests, rather than abstract geopolitical ideas and slogans, are the main engine of integration. Therefore, the first principle of the future Eurasian Union is a common economic space as a large-scale area of the joint and successful development of our peoples.

Second, I have always been a supporter of voluntary integration. In the 21st century, effective integration can only be voluntary, without coercion.

Each state and society should independently come to the realization that in a globalizing world, there is no point endlessly promoting one's own unique identity and isolating oneself within one's borders. Integration of the deeply conscious national interests of member states and their people is a decent way to prosperity.

Therefore, there should be no pressure - only participation based on voluntary participation and a clear understanding of the new opportunities for each country in the Eurasian integration process.

Third, I envisioned the Eurasian Union as a union of states on the basis of equality, non-interference in internal affairs, respect for sovereignty and the inviolability of borders.

It is clear that the states participating in Eurasian integration should absolutely avoid any form of relationship based on economic, political, informational and other pressure.

Fourth, I proposed the creation of supranational bodies of the Eurasian Union, which would act solely on the basis of consensus and clear competence

defined by international agreements, subject to mandatory ratification by national parliaments.

This approach, in the interests of each member state, does in no way imply a transfer of political sovereignty. This is an axiom. It is what led to such a successful experience in creating the European Union, in which the basis for integration was equality between partners.

The MSU students and professors supported me, at our meeting in March 1994. I answered a lot of questions.

And so, in 1994-in London and Moscow-the life of a new idea began: the idea of the Eurasian Union.

Comparing this era of the 1990s with modern days, it is immediately apparent that today it is customary to term the process of collaboration, cooperation and convergence of the states formed after the breakup of the Soviet Union, as the Eurasian integration.

This concept is widely used by analysts and experts and, importantly, it has become an integral part of the lexicon of the political elite in the CIS and in the world.

Now it does not cause rejection and nobody is surprised by the idea of forming a Eurasian Union. Moreover, it is referred to at the highest level as a specific integration project.

In 1994, all aspects of regional cooperation and the creation of a Eurasian Union of countries were described in detail in my package of proposals sent to all the heads of states of the CIS and were published in the media.

I received many positive responses to my Eurasian initiative from the public of virtually all post-Soviet countries. But politicians were not ready to subjectively discuss it. Such were the realities of the 1990s.

Perhaps it was natural. A wave of euphoria from gaining long-awaited independence did not allow that generation of CIS leaders to see the long-term potential of the idea of Eurasian integration.

However, it can be said in a different way: the Eurasian initiative eventually became a breakthrough for the integration processes in the CIS.

In subsequent years it was gradually brought to life by creation of a number of successful inter-state structures: the Organization of Collective Security Treaty, the Eurasian Economic Community, the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space.

In the 21st century, the trend of regionalization will dominate.

The Eurasian continent today produces more than half of world production. It is home to two-thirds of the world's population. It is obvious that in the coming decades the importance of the continent will only grow.

However, the integration processes in the Eurasian space evolve primarily around separate, partly competing regional blocs.

This does not allow the full potential of the interaction of Europe and Asia. In these circumstances there is a need for a new conceptual understanding of regional, continental and global processes in the medium and long term: until 2030.

If at the beginning of the 1990s in the Eurasian region a tendency of disintegration dominated in politics, at the beginning of the second decade of this century the situation has changed dramatically.

Global economic issues have brought to the fore the theme of sustainable development of national states and therefore an effective economic integration of national economies. With the global crisis, it became clear that each country is not always able to overcome global challenges and to ensure further development without new shocks. This situation has become yet another factor in the integration processes in the Eurasian continent.

The purpose of macro-regional integration is the stability of the national, continental and global architecture, the creation of the conditions for long-term development of national states and the substantial increase of their competitiveness.

Eurasian integration is a powerful resource that strengthens real sovereignty while expanding economic and political power.

The Eurasian project, launched in 1994, was consistently and gradually translated into a real plane. Time has shown the viability and the relevance of the idea of a Eurasian Union. It has not remained a theoretical postulate, it has found real embodiment in practice.

In October 2000 in Astana the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) was formed. Recognized by the world community as an international organization, it consists of six permanent member states and three states with observer status.

The creation of the EurAsEC opened broad prospects for its member states. Currently the EurAsEC, home to 180 million people, has become a free trade zone, greatly extending the CIS free trade zone with the signing on of all state parties in 2011.

Over the years, the EurAsEC has formed a comprehensive structure of mechanisms for various dimensions of the integration process. These mechanisms are set up not only at the inter-governmental level, but also from the bottom on the initiative of businessmen, science, education and culture, NGOs and youth.

Given the global financial and economic crisis, the creation of the Eurasian Development Bank and the Crisis Fund was timely.

It has been able to fund specific economic projects in several countries of the EurAsEC and also to provide emergency assistance to, for example, the Belarusian economy, which was stung by the global crisis.

The Eurasian Media Forum, the Eurasian Association of Television and Radio and the Eurasian Association of Universities work effectively. The Eurasian film and theater festivals, conferences and youth forums have become a tradition. Today the horizons are widening for the integration of education and research through the Eurasian Club of Scientists and the International Center for High Technology, created on my initiative.

In all of these instances, we are seeing the process of multi-dimensional integration, penetrating the depth of our societies. Is not this a manifestation of the life force of the Eurasian integration idea?

Today our people feel more and more a part of the emerging Eurasian identity with its cultural, religious and linguistic diversity and with a common desire for fruitful economic cooperation and good neighborly relations.

We all are witnessing the birth of a new uniquely Eurasian community of nations, which not only has a wealth of shared experience, but also an indivisible future.

In autumn 2010, I met with a group of young Russian journalists. Our conversation began with their gratitude that for the first time in many years, they had come to Kazakhstan without needing to pass an exhausting customs control at the border.

I replied that they should give thanks also to the Russian leaders-to Vladimir Putin, with whom in 2007 we signed an agreement on the establishment of a tripartite Customs Union along with Belarus and to Dmitry Medvedev, who personally did much to make this integration project finally become a reality.

In October 2012, Kazakhstan and Russia celebrated the 20th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations.

At this celebration, coinciding with my working visit to Moscow, the two countries met as strategic partners, closest allies and friends.

The high level of cooperation and interaction between our countries was clearly illustrated by the results of the IX Forum of Inter-regional Cooperation of Kazakhstan and Russia, held on 10 September 2012 in Pavlodar, under the patronage of the Presidents of the two countries.

There are no analogues of such a platform of bilateral relations in the CIS or in the rest of the world.

Since 2003, not only the heads of states and members of the governments of the two countries, but also the leaders of Kazakh and Russian regions, the business community and the general public have been holding annual meetings alternately in one of the border cities of Kazakhstan and Russia.

During this time, the geography of the Forum has grown rapidly. Today the system of widely beneficial interregional relations covers virtually all Kazakh regions and nearly 80 members of the Russian Federation.

The agenda for each of the prior Kazakh-Russian interregional forums included topical issues such as the development of cross-border trade and transit transport potential, the safety of the common border, cooperation in energy and high technologies and joint response to emergency situations.

At the IX Pavlodar Forum, the topics of innovation cooperation and industrial cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia were discussed.

At the meetings of business circles around 30 agreements were signed, including specific projects for a total of about $2 billion. The international exhibition dedicated to the inter-regional forum was attended by 173 companies, including 75 from Kazakhstan and 98 from Russia.

All this is the result of only one day of modern Kazakh-Russian relations, demonstrating the dynamism and depth of mutual trust, business spirit and the tremendous prospects of good-neighborliness and cooperation between our countries.

The two decades of productive relations between Kazakhstan and Russia have laid a solid foundation for steady and sustained development for our peoples.

For the first time in history, Kazakhstan and Russia have built collaboration as neighboring independent countries, full members of the United Nations,

united not only by common historical past, but also a similar vision of the present and future development of the Eurasian region and the world.

In a constructive manner and with respect for each other's national interests, almost all the issues of the inter-state disengagement following the Soviet collapse have been resolved. In general, Kazakh-Russian relations have become an attractive model not only for the countries of the CIS, but also a good example of how to develop bilateral relations between states in the 21st century.

A comprehensive legal basis for bilateral relations has been formulated, consisting of 480 treaties and agreements.

Twice already the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between Russia and Kazakhstan, initially signed on 25 May 1992, has been automatically extended for a further 10-year period.

A Treaty on the Kazakh-Russian state border was signed and its demarcation carried out in a positive manner. A historic declaration of eternal friendship and alliance signed in 1998 and oriented to the 21st century has been practically implemented.

During my working visit to Moscow in October 2012, we agreed with Vladimir Putin to start developing a new framework of the Kazakh-Russian Treaty of Good Will and Cooperation.

Bilateral interaction and cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia is based on a two-year joint action plan.

Beginning in 2007, two such plans were completed and in 2012 the Plan for 2011 -2012 was also realized. Now experts of the two countries are developing a project plan for the next few years.

Kazakh-Russian relations are successfully diversified across a broad range of areas. They cover almost all the important areas of cooperation: trade, economic, investment, inter-regional, political, military-technical, etc.

In 2011, the volume of bilateral trade amounted to $24 billion. About ten years ago, cross-country trade was as low as 4.7 billion dollars.

One thousand seven hundred joint Kazakh-Russian enterprises operate successfully.

There exists a bilateral Intergovernmental Commission which controls implementation of the agreements and arrangements between the two countries.

In the field of economic cooperation great strides have been made in the joint development of oil resources of the Caspian Sea, expansion of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium to 67 million tons per year, starting in 2015,

development of the Karachaganak gas and the construction of the Caspian pipeline.

A plan of joint action to create a common market for electricity has been implemented.

Three joint Kazakh-Russian enterprises for uranium mining were set up and have become operational. Work is underway to create a common production cycle of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and a combined company in the field of nuclear energy.

The Kazakhstan-Russian Foundation for Nanotechnology is designed to ensure joint technological breakthroughs for our economies in the near future.

We are developing cooperation in the space sector, including the establishment of a joint launch complex called "Baiterek," a series of KAZSAT communications satellites, joint use of the GLONASS system, etc.

Kazakhstan has proposed to create a new area of cooperation, the Baikonur Innovation Forum and this initiative has the general support of the president of Russia.

The pace of the Kazakh-Russian cooperation has quickened in such promising areas as science and innovation, the Eurasian transport infrastructure and in creating common energy space.

During these two decades, the military educational institutions of Russia trained more than four thousand Kazakh officers. More than 60 joint papers

on various aspects of military and military-technical cooperation have been realized.

Kazakhstan and Russia actually live in a common general spiritual- civilizational dimension. Scientific-educational cooperation and cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia for humanitarian issues has been expanding.

About 20 thousand young Kazakh citizens study at universities in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Omsk, Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk and other cities of Russia. Young people from the neighboring regions of Russia have the opportunity to receive higher education in Kazakhstan universities.

A relatively open information space of the two countries is functioning.

The Russian side accepts with understanding the offer of Kazakhstan to perpetuate the memory of prominent figures of the Kazakh people whose work has been associated with Russia and its regions.

In turn, we have with the utmost respect revered the many Russian scientists and writers, giants of art and culture, who left their mark on the development of our country in the previous epoch. Kazakhstan has ensured the free exercise of the Russian language, which is used together with the Kazakh language in our state.

So many points to celebrate! This is an outstanding result and at the same times a strong base for further development of friendship, good neighborliness and alliance between our two countries in the 21st century.

The twenty years of relations between Kazakhstan and Russia is only the beginning. Our alliance and neighborliness has a great future, it has great prospects.

We in Kazakhstan have always cherished and will continue to treasure

good relations with Great Russia. They are based on a rich shared history and the test of time.

Today, our friendship is strengthened by many economic, cultural and humanitarian ties, as well as family ties between many Kazakhs and Russians.

Thanks to the strong and forward-looking leaders Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev, the actual process of integration in the CIS space has began.

I want to note that our approach to the integration process is nearly identical to that of the leaders of Russia, based on the principles of economic pragmatism, equality, mutual benefit and respect for each other's interests. On this basis, we were able to move from the "decade of talks" to the "decade of action".

I have always believed that objectively Kazakhstan and Russia are the locomotives of Eurasian integration.

Also I wish to acknowledge the huge contribution to the creation of the Customs Union of our Belarusian partners and particularly President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus.

We all achieved a great task together. The Customs Union of Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus logically grew out of the Eurasian Economic Community.

Our interaction was particularly accelerated at the end of the decade and in the environment of the global crisis. I remember the December 2008 meeting in Kazakhstan's Burabay resort.

At this friendly informal summit, which took place in the midst of the global crisis, we compared notes and accelerated the process of preparation of the Customs Union.

The Customs Union is a complex process requiring the coordinated work of governments and business communities. Within less than three years, a common customs code for the three countries had been developed and adopted and a supranational body established: the Commission of the Customs Union. Over 11,000 headings had been agreed on for the application of a uniform tariff in trade with countries outside the common customs territory.

Since 2010-2011, the Customs Union has been operational, becoming an important step in realizing the potential of Eurasian economic integration. Today the macroeconomic effect of the Customs Union is obvious.

Mutual trade turnover within the Customs Union in 2010 increased by 21% compared to 2009 and in 2011 this figure exceeded 30%. Moreover, the fastest-growing segment is cross-border trade between Kazakhstan and Russia, which grew by more than 40%.

The total trade turnover between Kazakhstan and Russia reached a historic high at $25 billion.

The customs control was transferred to the external border of the Customs Union. The common customs area provides healthy competition in the market.

Certainly, we foresaw certain difficulties associated with the period of adaptation of economic subjects of the three countries to a unified customs tariffs and import duties. There are some discrepancies between the national customs administrations, which are methodically eliminated by the work of the Commission of the Customs Union.

The Customs Union has expanded the border of the market for Kazakh producers to Brest and Vladivostok and similarly for Russia and Belarus. Restrictions on foreign currency movement within the common customs territory were abolished. All this is a real plus for all Kazakhs, Russians and Belarusians.

Sequential transformation of the Customs Union into the Common Economic Space and with a period of time-l am absolutely sure-the Eurasian Economic Union will become a powerful stimulus for the prosperity of our people, propelling our country to a leading position in the global world.

In 2009-2011, due to the strong political will of the heads of states, the legal and regulatory framework of the Common Economic Space (CES) was prepared and approved. The CES is the next stage of Eurasian integration, a new impetus for the development of national economies and therefore for the welfare of nations.

In December 2011, the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council of the Customs Union created a supranational body: the Eurasian Economic Commission.

Thus, by 2012 there was a clear and open road to a common Eurasian market for goods, services, capital and labor.

The basis of my Eurasian idea has always been a pragmatic approach, which rejects any form of policies of violence on the economy, no matter how well-intentioned they may be or how expedient they may appear.

In the Eurasian project it is shortsighted to see only the opportunity to collectively hide from external economic, military, political, informational, technological, environmental and other threats.

With such a narrow understanding of the historical perspective of Eurasian integration there will be great temptation to pull across some sort of new «Iron Curtain» using other geopolitical patterns. But this is absolutely impossible and unacceptable.

There is no "restoration" or "reincarnation" of the USSR and never will be. This is only a phantom of the past, speculation and profiteering. And in this our views are similar with the views of the  leaders of Russia, Belarus and other countries.

Today we need to overcome the fear of the word "union" and the notorious "return of the empire." It is important that the Russian leader Vladimir Putin wrote about this new approach to unification in his article in Izvestia in October 2011. My personal talks with the presidents of Russia and Belarus, which took place in 2012, also confirm the intention of the three countries to build an equal, mutually beneficial,"non-imperial" association.

I see the Eurasian Union as an open project. It cannot be imagined without extensive interaction with the European Union and other organizations.

It is also a mega-project, suited to the complex challenges of the  present and the future.

It has the potential to become an integral part of the  new global architecture, the formation of which began under the influence of the  most powerful global financial crisis in history.

To achieve this we all, as participants of Eurasian integration, must have a clear and distinct strategy.

The Eurasian Union should from the beginning be created as a competitive global economic union. We cannot be satisfied with the narrow perspective besetting countries developing on the principles of a "catch-up modernization," nor with the fate of being forever a large peripheral exporter of natural resources to the rest of the world.

The world is on the threshold of a new technological revolution. Today Kazakhstan has set a course of powerful industrial innovation. We are creating a new structure of productive forces as the basis for a future national innovation economy. Similar situations exist in Russia and other CIS countries. It is therefore important that our Eurasian space should become a space of advanced technologies and innovations.

Industrial and innovative development is the undisputed priority for the countries of the Eurasian region. This idea is especially close to my own heart. After all, I started my working career (and Kazakhs know this well) as a metallurgist.

Obviously, this new industrialization is important for each and every state

since in the face of increasing global competition countries cannot develop by the supply of raw materials alone.

Each of the countries of the Eurasian region has its own national industrial development projects. We need to unite efforts in cutting-edge areas on a continental scale.

The new industrialization of Eurasia should generate an overall synergistic effect and fully reveal the inner industrial and technological potential of the region. Only then can nation-states and the Eurasian integration association in general become competitive globally.

The member states should encourage the establishment of joint research clusters, on both a bilateral and a multilateral basis.

Innovation and high-tech growth, which are now each actively promoted, need to actively interact.

We have already experienced positive initiatives: a EurAsEC center of high technology and the Kazakh-Russian fund of nanotechnologies, which will deal with project investment on an equal footing, in implementation of nanotechnology.

Among the promising industrial and innovative projects at the Eurasian scale there should be identified the task of creating a common production cycle of peaceful nuclear energy, the creation of a macro-regional energy system, the development of the aerospace cluster and the qualitative modernization of the whole complex of highways.

Along with industrial-innovative tasks fundamental to the development of Eurasia, transport communications are of fundamental importance.

Given our continental position and remoteness from marine lines, our transport communications, as blood arteries, should be connected to each other not only nationally but also within the Eurasian scale.

Availability and condition of communications is critical for virtually all countries of the continent.

Moreover, taking into consideration the Eurasian perspective, we need to develop a common transport and communications infrastructure connecting Europe and Asia, the West and the East.

Of particular importance in the Eurasian continent and the rest of the world is a stable energy supply. And Kazakhstan, being seventh in the world in oil reserves, the sixth largest in gas reserves and second in uranium, is fully aware of its responsibility for maintaining the global energy balance and security.

In the foreseeable future, the area of the Eurasian integration will remain a major global source of energy: oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, etc.

Therefore, in the framework of the CES it is essential to establish joint works to modernize the mining sector and to establish processing industries at a high technological level.

A promising direction is to combine efforts in the field of exploration, taking advantage of the opportunity to establish a Eurasian exploration consortium.

Another central issue is the development of pipeline systems not only for export, but for consumption also within the CES.

In particular, an important joint project could create a common internal gas network, to supply gas to all regions of the CES at agreed rates.

Finally, one of the most important tasks of integration is to establish a common Eurasian electric power system.

On the territory of the CES we should develop global transportation and communication nodes, with the latest logistics and information technology standards, to significantly reduce transcontinental transportation costs.

Essential to ensure fair competition in the Eurasian region are the common rail freight tariffs for cargo within the CES, introduced on 1 January 2013. Thanks to the CES the member countries have strengthened their geo- economic position. National business entities receive mutual preferential access to the transport infrastructure in each country participating in the CES.

On the territory of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia an international transport corridor linking Western Europe with Western China has been under construction.

Along this route a transport logistic system will eventually be aligned, which will reduce delivery time of goods to the European and Chinese markets by a factor of more than 3.5.

In July 2012, Kazakhstan launched the laying of a railway of nearly a thousand kilometers, connecting the central and western regions of Kazakhstan with access to the Caspian Sea. We are actively pursuing projects for the development of transport and logistics services for a twofold increase in transit traffic.

I offered large investors the opportunity to help us realize the «Kazakhstan New Silk Road» mega-project and invited all interested businesses to participate actively in the implementation of our strategic plans.

With the development of transportation links, the CES (and in the long term, the Eurasian Union) will become: first, a stable macro-region with fully developed infrastructure and second, a strong geo-economic connection point between the Euro-Atlantic, Asia-Pacific and North American economic ranges.

As the 21st century progresses, the problem of food supply will be the first priority in the global socio-economic scenario.

The population of the Earth is constantly growing and has reached 7 billion. The sharp increase in the population of Asia has led to increased demand for food. In this situation, food and water have been and will remain the most stable and truly valuable currencies.

According to experts, in the coming decades food production should be increased by 70% to meet growing demand.

With increasing global demand for quality food products an important aspect of the Eurasian integration is the development of a common food market. This will be especially helpful for those of the CIS countries that are experiencing population growth in worsening conditions for the development of agriculture.

The CIS countries have considerable agricultural potential, a huge land area with hundreds of millions of hectares of agricultural land. In the framework of the CES and the CIS it is important to strive for the formation of a Eurasian food pool. This project is important not only in terms of supplying the population of the CES member states with produced food, but also for the creation of favorable conditions for the export of food outside the CES.

We have the opportunity to coordinate the development of national agro-industrial complexes, especially the grain industry, to develop a common frame work of a competitive export policy on the world food market, implementing the consistent use of national infrastructure networks for the external supply of grain.

There is also a huge opportunity in the CIS for production of livestock, especially with the growth in global demand for meat.

In general, Eurasian integration can be an important incentive for the development of agriculture in the participating countries on the basis of modern technologies of agricultural production and can be instrumental in consolidating agricultural science.

The Eurasian Union should be formed as a solid link, bringing together the Euro-Atlantic and Asian areas of development.

In economic terms, we can be not only a bridge (which is too utilitarian and narrow), but a competitive economic and communicative space that connects the dynamic economies of the EU, Eastern Europe and South-East and South Asia.

It will be profitable for the CES to expand its cooperation with the European Union, China, Japan and India. And I am convinced that this will be mutually beneficial!

The Eurasian Union should be formed as a self-sufficient regional financial institution, which will be part of a new global financial system.

As the experience of the European Union shows, a common payment system and then a common currency are natural stages of integration. This process should take into account trends emerging as a result of the global crisis.

Whatever the criticism today, the EU and the euro area have shown their own vitality and a strong resistance to crises. We can see that the EU has provided strong support to those countries that are in a difficult position.

More than three years ago, I proposed to start developing the Eurasian supranational unit of account as the primary basis for a strong regional reserve currency. Given the likelihood of a new wave of global recession with even more serious consequences, this idea is not only relevant, it requires practical solutions.

I want to emphasize that the creation of a monetary union within the

CES is the Rubicon which in crossing we come very close to a new level of integration, approaching the current state of the European Union.

This will go a long way to convince our neighbors of the importance and viability of the Eurasian Economic Union.

The geo-economic and geopolitical perspective and maturing of Eurasian integration should proceed exclusively through evolutionary and voluntary means.

Unacceptable us any form of artificial acceleration and «whipping» of any country. Let us not forget that the European common market has been functioning for almost 40 years.

Macro-regional integration in terms of security is, above all, a reliable international guarantee for the independence and territorial integrity of the

member states, a strong base of national and regional security in all its dimensions.

The decisive progress of the  Eurasian integration process is a collective response to the security challenges of the  21st century.

Only joint efforts can create protection in the face of global economic recession, to build a barrier to international terrorism and extremism, illegal drug trafficking, illegal migration and other such threats, providing a secure environment for the region.

Eurasian integration is not directed against any third country, group of countries or other integrated regional associations.

It is open to all countries of the  CIS, Europe and Asia.

The member states are full members of the United Nations, signatories to the UN Charter and committed to advocate for strengthening the UN's role in international affairs.

The Eurasian integration platform is wide. It includes inter-state unions with various forms, goals and objectives: the CIS, EurAsEC, CSTO, Customs Union and the CES with participation of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia and others.

For example, I remain a supporter of the  Central Asian union of states. I see in it, first of all, great opportunities for joint problem solving and social leveling, promoting economic development across the region. This would contribute to the welfare of all citizens of the  Central Asian countries and help solve complex problems in the region.

Eurasian cooperation in a broader international format includes cooperation within the OSCE, CICA, SCO, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Cooperation council of Turkic-speaking states.

Kazakhstan is an active participant in the activities of these associations.

The common denominator of our activity is the massive Eurasian idea aimed at rapprochement, cooperation and the strengthening of security in Europe and Asia, East and West, North and South.

In the 21st century, Eurasian integration is destined to become the reality of the G-GLOBAL world, of this I have no doubt.

2. NUCLEAR-FREE WORLD AND PEACEFUL NUCLEAR:

THE MISSION OF KAZAKHSTAN

Fateful choice-freedom from nuclear weapons

In 1947, on the cover of the British journal Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was a photo of the "Judgment Day" clock. Starting at that time, the employees of the publication began to measure the global level of nuclear clanger using this symbolic unit.

Sixty-five years ago the long hand of the clock was initially set at seven minutes to midnight: the projected moment of the onset of a nuclear apocalypse.

Over the folloing years, scientists have changed the clock 19 times. By 2007, it was set at around five minutes to 12, and in 2010 it was moved one minute back. The experts concluded that the global Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in April 2010 had reduced the nuclear threat.

However, in January 2012, the hand of the  Judgment Day clock was returned to its recent position, heralding the approach of danger.

Undoubtedly, this was due not only to the military nuclear threat, it was also a consequence of the  largest leak in the history of civilian nuclear power, the accident at the Fukushima plant in Japan in March 2011.

This is a graphic illustration of how the world has almost for seven decades perched on the brink of nuclear collapse.

The elimination of the nuclear threat is the actual goal of the present and future of our planet.

Strong security guarantees nuclear, including not only the military component of the  nuclear threat, but also ensuring the safe use of the  peaceful atom, are the most important components of the world of G-GLOBAL.

This is an extremely difficult and at the same time critical issue.

Kazakhstan has been following a difficult path towards nuclear disarmament with a maximum of consistently and openness. For us the anti- nuclear policy is not some virtual fight for peace, but the harsh reality that we have accepted as an ominous consequence of the last century nuclear confrontation between the superpowers.

I remember standing on the edge of the Chagan crater at the "nuclear lake" emerged at the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site in 1965 as a result of a thermonuclear explosion.

The water was a black mirror where lifeless lumps of land were turned inside out in some fantastic landscape. At that moment I recognized very clearly the fragility of our world. In the 20th century, the whole world could become such an "inside out" crater.

Our people have lived through all the after math of the nuclear arms race. Therefore, we have the moral right to call humanity to persistently work on liberating the world from the danger of nuclear self-destruction.

For over twenty years the Semipalatinsk test site has been silent. But the spirit of danger still hovers over this troubled land. During the four decades of tests more than 500 explosions were carried out, 116 of which on the ground. Their combined power was sufficient to destroy two and half thousand Hiroshimas.

Radiation swathed an area of more than 300,000 square kilometers. This is roughly equal to the area of a major European country. Over one and a half million people suffered from the effects of nuclear tests. Many thousands of our fellow citizens die prematurely due to illness caused by exposure to radioactive fallout.

The incidence of cancer and birth defects in the affected region is still higher than national rates. Children with mental and physical disabilities continue to be born.

For the people of Kazakhstan, nuclear weapons and radiation were not abstract theory, they were a cruel, inexorable evil, which over four decades tormented the Kazakh land and the people of Kazakhstan. Therefore, we have always experienced as very concrete and clear the words of warning to mankind, made 56 years ago in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto: "People can hardly imagine what risk are they, their children and grandchildren are exposed to, not just an abstract concept of'humanity'. They cannot apprehend that they and their families face an imminent risk of dying a painful death. The greatest experts are unanimous in asserting that a war with nuclear bombs could easily destroy the human race."

On 29 August 1991 I signed a decree to shut down the world's largest nuclear testing polygon, in Semipalatinsk. We were the world's first nation to close a nuclear test site on its territory. The difficult decision made in August 1991 was not based on by political considerations.

First of all, it was considered to be among our nation's vital issues. Too many times on our land have there been experiments with the "nuclear genie."

Very few people and very few politicians have gone through what I felt twenty years ago, when closing the polygon. First of all, it was the joy of uinning the evil. I had to overcome fierce resistance to the military-industrial complex of the  USSR as well as the agonizing and tough confrontation with the then leadership under President Mikhail Gorbachev.

So my decree to close the Semipalatinsk test site was the point of no return in our movement for independence. From that point on, we could move only in one direction: forward.

The closure of the Semipalatinsk test site has had an important meaning not only for Kazakhstan but also for the world. Over the years, the global civilizational significance of this decision has been more and more vividly manifested.

For almost one hundred years humankind has known the secret of nuclear fission. This discovery was a great scientific breakthrough of the 20 th century. But it has been cynically used to create powerful weapons of mass destruction.

The strength and enormity of the  military nuclear power has forced politicians to search for ways to counter the threat of self-destruction.

So there was a global process of non-proliferation. In this framework several international treaties on the reduction of nuclear arsenals and the opportunity to test destructive weapons were signed. But these were only restrictive measures.

The closure of the Semipalatinsk test site was the first and still the only, complete and accomplished nuclear test ban in the world.

Kazakhstan once and forever decided that the strength and power of our new nation is not in demonstrating its nuclear muscles, but in their non-use and indeed in their complete rejection.

For all Kazakhstanis it was a historic act of awareness of our exclusive sovereignty, power and wisdom, our confidence in the present and the future.

We were not only determined to rid the world of the  largest scale abode of the  "nuclear evil." We climbed over a global threat and made our choice in favor of a nuclear-free history for our country and the world.

And that became the core of our statehood: the wisdom of a people raised to the rank of a national idea. Thanks largely to Kazakhstan, all other polygons on the planet-Nevada, Lop Nor, Novaya Zemlya-were silenced. The powers of the  "nuclear club" maintain a moratorium on testing.

Effectively, on 29 August 1991, there began a new era of global nuclear history. The world was offered an example of a free, informed and unilaterally adopted legal act, which placed the "Judgment Day" weapon outside the law. Given the significance of this step made by Kazakhstan, it is quite natural that based on our initiative August, 29 was declared the United Nations International Day against Nuclear Tests.

Despite the severe economic crisis of the 1990s, after the nuclear test site was elosed, Kazakhstan's government made decisions to eliminate the effects of nuclear explosions and to improve the environment in the areas affected by the tests.

Speaking in October 1992 at the 47th session of the UN General Assembly, I called the Semipalatinsk test site built on the Kazakh land against the will of the people an "environmental injury". We have closed this source of death, but we need huge funds to rehabilitate the region, to treat the victims, and to protect newborn children. Accordingly, the people of Kazakhstan need strong international support.

Subsequently, I also reminded the international audience that Kazakhstan was a nuclear test site of the entire former Soviet Union, but we found ourselves practically alone in the face of the problems of social protection for victims of exposure and elimination of the consequences of testing.

From historical, moral, environmental, and other points of view, this is unfair. The Continuity of politicians obligations to the people cannot be removed, especially if we are talking about moral principles and responsibilities.

Substantial support to Kazakhstan in the aftermath of nuclear tests was provided by the United States and Russia. The long-lasting cooperation of the three countries to enhance the physical security of the Semipalatinsk test site, showing the world a model of partnership based on mutual trust.

A historic milestone was the meeting in Seoul on 27 March 2012 and the Joint Statement of the Presidents of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and the United States of America regarding the trilateral cooperation at the former Semipalatinsk test site.

The joint statement said:

Since 2004, our three countries have been cooperating in a number of projects aimed at the elimination of the consequences of past nuclear testing activities on the territory of the former Semipalatinsk nuclear test site to bring it to a safe state. The presidents of Kazakhstan, Russia and the United States would personally control the implementation of these goals.

To date, a considerable amount of work has been completed. The application of modern physical and technical security of the former polygon has increased significantly.

This work is nearing completion, and we regard it as a very successful example of laterd cooperation, demonstrating our shared commitment to nuclear security and non-proliferation.

At this meeting of the three presidents, I noted that we are grateful to our partners for their help in addressing the consequences of testing. In turn, Dmitri Medvedev thanked Kazakhstan for its active role in nuclear disarma-ment, and Barack Obama highlighted that progress in non-proliferation has been achieved thanks to the outstanding contribution of Kazakhstan.

Behind this commendation lies a long way that has been covered by Kazakhstan and the world to strengthen nuclear trust and security.

Initially, the test site at Semipalatinsk was not our only problem. With its collapse in December 1991, the Soviet superpower raised the issue of what to do with a nuclear arsenal found in possession of the  independent States.

Kazakhstan had the de facto fourth largest nuclear missile potential in the world. Its nuclear arsenal exceeded that of the  UK, France and China combined. Altogether on the territory of Kazakhstan in 1991 there were 1,216 nuclear warheads. In comparison, the United Kingdom in 1995 had up to 296 nuclear warheads, France houd 512.

When I went to inspect a missile base in Derzhavinsk city in the Akmola region, I saw with my own eyes SS-18 strategic missiles with multiple nuclear warheads, which in the West were called the "Satan "They really did seem superhuman: 34 meters high and three meters in diameter. No one could imagine what kind of evil force was hidden in them.

In this complex, unprecedented and dramatic situation, we had to make a choice. Based on both our national interests and the global civilized approach to the problem.

After considering and calculating the implication for our national and international security, I rejected any idea of keeping these weapons. No internal circumstances could cause us to choose the «nuclear path.» In the new setting, the practice of military build-up did not enhance our national security, it was in fact a destabilizing factor.

So I insisted on two basic conditions.

First, the nuclear powers should guarantee the security of Kazakhstan.

Second, the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-1) between the USSR and the USA, signed in Moscow on 31 July 1991, should move from a bilateral to a multilateral format.

On 23 May 1992, in Lisbon Kazakhstan signed a protocol to the START-1 Treaty. We have committed ourselves to promptly accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1968 as a non-nuclear State. The Parliament of Kazakhstan ratified the START-1 Treaty and the Lisbon Protocol in July 1992 and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in December 1993.

Since then, Kazakhstan, as a member of the Treaty, has strictly adhered to its obligations as a State that has no nuclear weapons.

With the participation of the U.S. and Russia, Kazakhstan has dismantled over 110 ballistic missiles with 1,200 nuclear warheads that could reach any point of the  planet.

On 5 December 1994, in Budapest, the leaders of the "nuclear club"-Russia, the U.S. and the UK - signed a Memorandum providing Kazakhstan with security guarantees.

This document acknowledges international recognition of Kazakhstan's implementation of its obligations on the export of nuclear weapons. Later Kazakhstan received security guarantees from France and China. These international commitments of major powers, the permanent members of the  UN Security Council, also guaranteed the territorial integrity of Kazakhstan.

In April 1995, we completed a full withdrawal of all nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles. On 31 May the last remaining underground Semipalatinsk nuclear weapon was destroyed. In 1996 Kazakhstan became a party to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Thus, the Kazakh land was totally freed from nuclear weapons. Kazakhstan had removed the nuclear armory left with us as a legacy of the  Soviet military machine.

This has been a crucial decision.

First, it promotes the interests of the  eitizens of Kazakhstan who were affected by nuclear tests.

Second, the choice of a nuclear-free status is the result of awareness of the dangerous consequences of the  imbalance of world security.

In becoming a non-nuclear State, we chose a course of demilitarization and nuclear disarmament.

Third, the renunciation of nuclear weapons was part of the path chosen by Kazakhstan from the very first days of its independence, to pursue a peaceful foreign policy. Having secured a nuclear-free status, we have acquired strong international safeguards, and thus have strengthened the real independence of our country. We offer this as an example to the rest of the world.

I discuss this in detail, because these are such bright pages of the nuclear- free biography of the independent Kazakhstan.

This is our anti-nuclear experience we call on all the nations of the world to follow.

This is a real contribution of my country to ensure global stability, this is the way to a just world order based on the principles of G-GLOBAL.

Global Nuclear Security

Today, nuclear safety issues occupy a leading position in world politics.

Independent Kazakhstan has never tried to achieve security only for itself. We have always considered the issue of nuclear disarmament and security in a broad context.

For example, even at the UN Millennium Summit held in September 2000, I suggested that one of the issues discussed should be the problem of the spreading nuclear threat. After all, back then and today, there is confrontation between some countries possessing nuclear weapons. A number of nations in the world are on the threshold of gaining nuclear secrets.

I see nuclear safety as a three-in-one issue: 1) the military-political aspect of the problem-the protection of humanity from nuclear weapons; 2) the control of potential nuclear terrorism, and 3) the safety of nuclear power.

On the first question Kazakhstan's position remains the same-movement towards a nuclear-free world.

Over the past twenty years we have made important steps in this direction.

The risk of global nuclear conflict has been significantly reduced.

The wall of nuclear missiles in Central Europe has disappeared. START-1 has been implemented and START-2 has significantly reduced the U.S. and Russian arsenals. The CICA process initiated by us gradually promotes trust among States in the vast region of Central Eurasia.

A comprehensive treaty banning nuclear tests has already been signed by more than 180 countries and ratified by 154 States. In 2010, the Prague treaty on reducing the strategic nuclear arsenals of the  U.S. and Russia was signed, becoming the first such treaty in this century. Then Washington hosted a global nuclear security summit on.

Kazakhstan welcomes the entry into force of the  START treaties between the U.S. and Russia, and supports the new U.S. nuclear strategy, particularly with regard to the non-use of nuclear weapons against States complying with the provisions of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

We have achieved a lot, but still the world faces many difficult questions.

First, there is a growing importance of the  regional dimension of nuclear security. Today there is no effective system of international control over the nuclear arms race in South Asia and the Middle East. We are witnessing the confrontation of individual nuclear States and countries at the "threshold level." There is a great threat that nuclear technologies and materials might land in the hands of international terrorists.

Perhaps the greatest risk to the uncontrolled spread of the nuclear threat is associated with the growth of the "black market" of nuclear technology.

Second, there is a stalemate around the treaty banning nuclear tests. It has not entered into force because of delays in the process of signing and ratifying by a number of nuclear and "threshold" countries.

Third, not all the powers of the "nuclear club" participate in the global nuclear disarmament process.

Today there are several types of nuclear States: official nuclear powers, countries which defocto possess nuclear weapons, and so-called "threshold" States.

Nuclear powers do not give security assurances to non-nuclear countries. And this can lead to a spread of nuclear weapons in volatile regions of the world. Despite all these treaties and agreements, two countries, India and Pakistan, became nuclear powers at the end of the last century.

The global security system based on the current non-proliferation regime in accordance with the NPT is in a state of close to paralysis.

One of the problems is that it is asymmetrical, involving the use of sanctions only against non-nuclear States and not encouraging members of the nuclear club to reduce nuclear arsenals and disarmament. This injustice leads to non- compliance with the NPT

Unfortunately, theerosionof the  NPThas become a reality, and the uncontrolled expansion of the nuclear States remains one of the most serious threats of the 21st century.

Some States view possession of nuclear weapons as a safety factor.

Therefore, the nuclear powers should provide security guarantees to the countries which renounce possession of nuclear weapons, and this should be confirmed by the United Nations.

Fourth, international community has notyetfound a fair approach to countries developing a peaceful atom.

A significant problem was the lack of confidence in the development of nuclear energy. And without trust no security system, especially nuclear, can be efficient.

Fifth, the current threat posed by nuclear weaponry is aggravated by the imbalances in enforcing a security regime for peaceful nuclear energy. It is not just a lack of monitoring by the IAEA of the objects of a «peaceful atom» or the vague international legal framework on the issue.

The biggest imbalance is the serious backwardness of nuclear security technology compared with the scale of nuclear industry. In some cases we see that, with the nuclear energy sector being commercialized, security and safety issues are considered much less important.

The growing interest of multinational corporations to nuclear energy is almost ignored in the international conventions on the use of "peaceful atom."

All these, of course, are the challenges that must be addressed.

And, yet, never before in our century of possession of nuclear technology, has humanity had such opportunities to build a world free of nuclear weapons. It is our shared duty to use this auspicious moment!

The world of G-GLOBAL-a world free of nuclear weapons-is not a utopia. It is a reality already present in large parts of the  planet. Areas free of nuclear weapons created in South and Central America, Australia, Oceania, Africa, Sout East and Central Asia cover almost half of the world today.

Together with our neighbors in the region we have signed the Semipalatinsk Treaty on the establishment of the  Central Asian zone free of nuclear weapons. And today there is a need for an effective mechanism of guarantees to the members these free zones by all nuclear States.

Especially important is the establishment of nuclear - weapon areas free of nuclear weapons in regions with high conflict potential. Kazakhstan joined the G-8 Global Partnership against the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

We see a nuclear-free world as a grand goal that our planet must strike to attain.

This is a new universal human value, not subject to corrosion by any ideological and cultural differences. This is the real value of G-GLOBAL peace.

From the rostrum of the  66th session of the  UN General Assembly, I proposed to develop a Universal Declaration of a Nuclear Weapon - Free World.

In its adoption, we hope to see an integrated system of global udear security under the strict control of the UN-which will be the sole authority vested with control.

The path to a Nuclear Weapon - Free world is not possible without the joint efforts of all the people in the world-that is, without a global anti-nuclear movement. Its main purpose is not only to combat the nuclear threat. It is also important to consistently generate an anti-nuclear human mindset, as an absolute rejection of all forms of nuclear weapons.

The idea of a Nuclear Weapon - Fre world has shown its global relevance. Personally to me as the President of my country, the first closure of a nuclear test site, a nuclear-free world-this is not a theorem, but a political axiom.

The 20th century taught many lessons to humanity. But the lessons of history only make sense when they are targeted in the future.

More than two decades ago, with the closure of the  Semipalatinsk test site we launched a new phase of global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

Until 29 August 1991, there were mainly restrictive measures in the field of nuclear security missions. Kazakhstan was the first to accomplish the act of complete and unconditional ban on the testing and, therefore, improvement of the "Judgment Day" weaponry.

Sixteen years ago the UN introduced the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. And Kazakhstan was among the very first signatories. The agreement has now been signed by 183 and ratified by 157 States. All the powers of the  "nuclear club" maintain a moratorium on testing. The major nuclear testing centers of the planet are silent: in Nevada, Novaya Zemlya, Lop Nora and Mururoa.

Therefore, for all the world August, 29 was a turning point that set back the threat of a nuclear apocalypse. I am sure that over the years and decades, awareness of the  critical importance of this date will only grow among the entire international community.

In this context, there was a frank and fruitful discussion at the International Conference "From a Nuclear Test Ban to a Nuclear Weapon - Free World", held in Astana on 29 August 2012.

The conference brought together many famous politicians, scientists and public figures from all over the world. Guests of honor at the Forum were Speaker of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of Russia Valentina Matviyenko, Chairman of the  National Assembly of Belarus A. Rubies, and Vice- Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany Guido Westerwelle.

In his speech delivered to the conference Westerwelle praised the contribution of our country to the process of nuclear disarmament. He emphasized the importance of creating a G-GLOBAL communication platform, in which he fairly saw the prospect of bringing people together in an effort to make our planet safer, including from the threat of nuclear self-destruction.

Speaking at the opening ceremony, I emphasized that the move toward a nuclear-free world is a complex process. The current state of global nuclear security is strongly affected by the flaws of contemporary world politics, largely inherited from previous eras. We are hampered by the inertia of bloc thinking, by lack of trust and among between countries, by lack of responsibility of individual states.

The chaotic nature of the emerging multipolar world has worsened the situation. The opium of a military atom still intoxicates the minds of some politicians-and of the military. There are forces in the world who narrowly see a global multipolar world primarily as a combination of a number of centers of nuclear power.

I am convinced that the bizarre "nuclear umbrella" should have no place in the world of the future.

At the same time, it is immoral to use nuclear safety issues as a kind of currency in dealing with various problems of inter-national relations.

In many countries the development of peaceful nuclear energy might help address poverty, unemployment and food shortages; but, of course, it should be developed under strict control of the UN and the IAEA. At the same time, it is immoral to make of nuclear safety a coinage to solve other problems of inter-govermental relations.

Therefore, our statement of the issue of a Nuclear Weapon - Free world has nothing to do with radiophobia or utopian desire to forever "forget" the secret of energy fission.

The nuclear-free world is the world with a complete ban on the military use of nuclear energy. I was and remain a consistent advocate of the idea.

From the standpoint of political realism it is necessary to recognize that the solution of key problems of global nuclear security cannot be separated from the general process of transformation of the modern world order.

I believe that on the basisof the five principles of G-GLOBAL. a breakthrough in global nuclear safety is feasible.

The process of getting rid of nuclear weapons should be evolutionary.

There is a need for a comprehensive step-by-step plan to reduce strategic offensive weapons in all the nuclear states, which should be developed and adopted under the UN auspices. It should reflect all stages of reduction of nuclear confrontation in the world.

First and foremost, it is important to bring into force the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The international community has the right to make sure that by all members of the "nuclear club," commit themselves to reduce their military nuclear arsenals.

Not all at once, but gradually. For example, there is an option to introduce the practice of non-upgrading and decommissioning of obsolete nuclear warheads and delivery systems. Naturally, this should be done in parallel to the disarmament process of the  two leading nuclear powers, the U.S. and Russia.

Further more, in the long term there are realistic measures to curtail the «nuclear umbrella». Storage of nuclear weapons should be limited exclusively to the national territory of a State that has possesses.

The global system of non-proliferation and control over the development of peaceful nuclear energy will be effective only on pased on the triple principle of justice, equality and consensus.

It is important to have strong security guarantees to all the participants of regional Nuclear Weapon - Free zones. There is a need to develop mechanisms to encourage States to do without nuclear weapons programs.

Only on this basis can we have a just solution to the problems associated with the prospects of nuclear power in some countries.

To date, thirty States have adopted national commitments in the field of nuclear safety. In international anti-nuclear law and in practical politics, there should be no "double standards" and exceptions.

Nuclear disarmament and a Nuclear Weapon - Free world would be unthinkable without mechanisms of trust among all the participants of the process. The principle of trust is a reasonable alternative to the military concept of deterrence, including nuclear.

The global system of nuclear safety should take full advantage of the potential of regional organizations - the Conference on Interaction and

Confidence Building Measures in Asia, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and others.

Unfortunately, in the world there are various false promises "backing up" the power of one religion or another by the power of nuclear weapons. Let me remind you that twenty years ago Kazakhstan strongly rejected the advice of some «well-wishers» and the dubious honor to be the first Muslim nuclear power.

Nuclear weapons are suicidal for humanity. Suicide as a direct challenge to the Creator is condemned by all religions of the world. And from this point of view, the desire to have the power of nuclear weapons is an absolute abomination.

One of the foundations of a future Nuclear Weapon - Free community of nations that i see is global transparency. Kazakhstan's anti-nuclear experience has demonstrated to the world the power of openness in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. In a transparent manner, we carried out a project to transport 210 tons of nuclear waste to safe storage.

We continue to work on the transformation of transparent Kazakh reactors to low-enriched fuel. With the IAEA we created a unique automated system of recod, control and physical protection of natural uranium.

All the seareexamples of unconditional benefits for our country of abandoning nuclear weapons. And at the same time, it is an example for other States.

Movement towards a Nuclear Weapon - Free world is a way to constructive multilateralism. Weapons, especially nuclear ones, always divide people. The struggle for a Nuclear Weapon - Free world is a factor in the convergence of all mankind, all peoples and nations.

It was demonstrated in the closure of the Semipalatinsk test site, in abandoning its nuclear arsenal and in renouncing its nuclear status, Kazakhstan will always be at the forefront of the  global anti-nuclear movement.

We see this as the greatest debt, historical responsibility and the global mission of Kazakhstan! And I believe that in this century, our planet will be able to rid itself of the threat of nuclear self-destruction.

Peaceful nuclear: global principles and national objectives

Any history of nuclear power plants would have to list sixty different accidents worldwide. The most recent, the "Fukushima" plant in March 2011, has again showed that natural disasters or human error can lead to a large-scale tragedy. Therefore, nuclear energy must be taken to a new level of security.

In the 21st century, the world cannot develop without sufficient energy for the global economy. Experts believe that the energy needs of humanity over just the next two decades will increase by 40%. Today, two billion people have no access to electricity.

The fact remains that the world oil and gas reserves are being depleted.

Renewable energy sources are promising, but in the short term they cannot yield the amount of electricity demanded by the increasing pace of the global economy.

To date, humanity has no more powerful and accessible source than nuclear energy. Currently about 40 countries are conducting research in the field of peaceful nuclear energy.

15 countries are building or planning to build nuclear power plants.

Among them is Kazakhstan. For us, nuclear energy is a future of innovation clusters of our national economy. Kazakhstan possesses a quarter of the world's uranium reserves. We have a great scientific capacity and infrastructure of nuclear power.

On 29 August 1991 when I signed the decree to close the polygon, I stated that the Semipalatinsktest site and Kurchatov are not only military, but also scientific centers with great potential. So I set a goal to transform the Semipalatinsk test site into a research center. And this goal has been attained successfully.

Today Kazakhstan fully ensures the physical safety and protection of its research reactors and spent fuel. We continue to convert to low-enriched reactor fuel, and run a regional training center for nuclear safety. With international participation, protection of the Kazakh plant for the production of nuclear fuel was strengthened. Strictly following its international obligations,

Kazakhstan provides a high level of security to all objects of "peaceful nuclear." All nuclear facilities in our country are fully controlled and safeguarded by IAEA.

With the IAEA, we have created a unique automated system of recording, controlling and physical protection of natural uranium. We have ratified the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, and encourage everyone to take steps to expedite the ratification of the amendments so that they are in effect by 2014.

It is therefore logical that Kazakhstan offered its candidacy to be a depositary of an international nuclearfuel bankunder the auspices of the  IAEA.

Being the world's largest producer of uranium ore, as well as having experience in this field and international trust, Kazakhstan has all the capabilities to host the first international nuclear fuel bank.

At present, our work with the IAEA to set up such a bank in Kazakhstan has entered its practical stage.

It is our concrete contribution to strengthening non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

By operating under the IAEA auspices, the bank will be able to provide nuclear power plants in various countries with uranium fuel and will enable States to use civilian nuclear reactors, regardless of the  risk of non-uranium fuel on the open market.

All countries that follow IAEA rules will have access to the fuel in a safe and secure manner. This will help develop of nuclear power and meet civilian energy needs of low-enriched uranium.

I want to highlight that Kazakhstan has always been, and always will be the most reliable partner in non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear energy.

And I see it as a kind of a mission of Kazakhstan in the G-GLOBAL world to come ensuring transparency and promoting equitable development of peaceful nuclear energy.

Global nuclear power should develop only with absolute guarantees of security and based on three main principles.

First is the universality of nuclear security. There is a need to summarize and codify in international law the experience gained in the development of peaceful nuclear energy. The goal is to establish legally binding standards for nuclear safety.

In practical terms, this should improve control mechanisms in the development of nuclear energy.

There should be created a more effective system of safety of nuclear facilities around the world. It is extremely important to develop common, extremely strict and internationally recognized standards and safety criteria for nuclear power. Without strict compliance, no nuclear power plants in the world should be allowed to operate.

It seems reasonable to make mandatory regular stress tests of control and protection under the auspices of the IAEA with the assistance of independent experts.

Second is transparency and efficiency. Along with full and prompt attention to any incidents at nuclear facilities, clear mechanisms must be established for rapid response to emergencies. Increasingly, major triggers of man-made disasters are natural disasters.

It is advisable to introduce a global system for monitoring natural and anthropogenic processes on Earth.

It is necessary to develop a crisis management scenario for each region of the world, using local landscape, logistics, and demographic maps.

Humanity must draw the right lessons from the accident at Fukushima. This is even more important given the implications of possible actions of terrorists.

Against the background of a global radiophobia it is crucial to strengthen public confidence in nuclear energy on the basis of accurate and realistic information. Nuclear power should be subjected to the traditional legal maxim: to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

Third is equality and trust. All States should be granted the same rights of access to peaceful nuclear technology, and the ability to use the World Bank guaranteed reserve of low-enriched uranium.

All country de facto possessing nuclear technology, must combat illicit trafficking of nuclear materials and technology to ensure the security of nuclear facilities and the safety of their nuclear materials. Only such measures will prevent the potential threat of nuclear terrorism and the emergence of a criminal "black market."

Ultimately, nuclear safety policy must create the conditions for overcoming differences between countries that are developing nuclear power and those who do not yet have it.

Kazakhstan's position on nuclear security is proactive, humane and unprecedented in its openness.

We believe in a world order pased on the principles of G-GLOBAL: a planet free from the threat of nuclear self-destruction.

And we believe that nuclear safety is one of the pillars of economic and political dimensions of the world architecture of the 21st century.

At the Global Summit in Seoul, I offered to design a planetary system of nuclear safety principles as outlined above.

The forecasts for the global economy suggest that civilian nuclear energy will remain an important sector in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we consider it is necessary to strengthen international monitoring programs in the field of nuclear energy. Moreover, all countries have an equal right to nuclear energy research. At the same time, one should not cross the line separating a peaceful nuclear program from a military one.

The Iranian nuclear program and North Korea issue should be settled exclusively by diplomatic means.

We understand that the world is extremely complex, but we believe that all countries, sooner or later, will surely arrive at a point where nuclear safety is guaranteed.

Our confidence is based on the fact that from the beginning of independence, we realized that our national security was closely linked to global security. Here lie the origins of our public policy and our initiatives.

I would like to appeal to all countries: Kazakhstan's experience shows that countries can benefit greatly from the renunciation of nuclear weapons.

I have no doubt that thanks to our decision we have turned into a prosperous and stable country with great influence and many friends in the world. We have chosen to create peaceful relations and prosperity, not fear and suspicion. We all must try to establish conditions for other countries that will also help them make the right choice.

I am convinced that the G-GLOBAL world needs to update its global strategy of nuclear safety and non-proliferation. The world needs a full international legal and institutional framework in the field of nuclear safety.

It is necessary to expand the legal framework and the implementation of non-proliferation commitments of all countries.

Kazakhstan offered to conduct a global nuclear security summit every two years and is ready to host one of those summits in Astana.

Currently, our country has initiated an international "Atom" project in which anyone who oppose nuclear weapons can sign an online petition to the governments of the  world.

I believe that humanity has reached a level of maturity where joint efforts can create a comprehensive system of global nuclear security.

The starting point for the development of most modern geopolitical concepts was the work of the  prominent British scientist Sir Halford Mackinder "The Geographical Pivot of History," published in the early 20th century.To this day, it has its adherents and critics. Even now, scientific and expert circles still debate about concepts Mackinder introduced using such terms as "Heartland," "World Island," "region-gate," "belt wastelands" and many others.

I will not go into details and will not take sides. I can only say that the author's idea of an "axis of history" became a powerful stimulus to the historical and philosophical understanding of the  role of the  scale of the  Old World in the past and future.

The course of the 20th century confirmed the defining nature of political processes in Europe and Asia. In the early 1970s, when there was a process of so-called "discharge" and creation of a new large-scale international body, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, it was often stressed that it was in Europe that there had been two world wars.

Therefore, the establishment of a sound system of security in Europe was rightly considered as a fundamental basis of the bipolar era of planetary security.

It should be noted that the pan-European system of security and cooperation executed in 1995, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) remains a basis of global security, in a world that is now, in fact, is becoming multipolar.

At the same time, at the turn of the century the role of Asia in global development has dramatically increased. A number of Asian countries demonstrate examples of dynamic economic development, and are pursuing a path of strong growth. The experience of the «Asian tigers» becomes an attractive model of development not only for Asian countries. The model's individual elements are quite applicable for countries in other regions of the  planet.

However, compared to Europe, Asia by the end of the  20th century experienced a clear lack of international security structures. What was left from previous eras was a trail of mistrust among countries, including those affected by a legacy of colonialism, which has always acted on the "divide and conquer" principle.

The process of globalization has increasingly brought together the two parts of Eurasia. Today we can unequivocally say that the fate of the world in the 21st century is largely dependent on how events unfold in the vast Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian region. I am convinced that Mackinder s "axis of history" runs through this vast geopolitical space.

The 21st century world order will be strong only when a security formula of the entire Eurasia is found and implemented.

In my view, the G-GLOBAL world provides a new level of security and cooperation in broader coordinates - "from ocean to ocean." We are talking about the formation of a common security space within the four oceans: from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Arctic to the Indian.

This is one of the central issues of the future of global development.

The Formation of Regional Security Structures in Asia

In 1992, at a meeting of the  UN General Assembly, I initiated convening a first Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA). I said then that "the challenges of the  future make us move towards a new level of coordination and organization of our joint efforts" This work should be done on several levels: "the whole [world] community, the continent, the region and the country."

Along with the security of Europe, the key to peace is Asian security. So I have proposed a new way to look at the problems of security in this part of the  world.

While the idea of creating structures of security and cooperation in Asia, like the ones in Europe, has been a subject of debate, it has not garnered much support. Many skeptics point to the economic, political and cultural heterogeneity of Asia, which is considered an obstacle to creating a pan-Asian collective security system.

In our opinion, it was not necessary to move towards a single Asian structure in all areas of interaction.

It was enough to start the convergence of views in a specific area, and then look for common approaches in other areas of cooperation. I believe that moving towards a continental structure can be an incremental, step-by-step process.

Thus, two decades ago, Kazakhstan proposed to convene the CICA, joining the globalized world with this idea. We believe that in the new geopolitical realities on the eve of a new century, security is not the prerogative of only some chosen states. Efforts are needed in all countries, regardless of population, economic, military and political potential.

It took several years to persistently carry out this idea. However, in September 1999 in Almaty there was a meeting of Foreign Ministers of the CICA. It was attended by representatives of sixteen Asian countries who signed the Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations among the CICA Member States. This was the first milestone of the CICA.

On 4 June 2002, the first CICA summit was held in Almaty. There the "core" of the new structure was formed, including the leading countries of the  continent: China, Russia, India, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran and others.

They signed the Almaty Actand the CICA Declaration condemning terrorism and calling the people of the continent to a broader dialogue of cultures and civilizations.

Speaking at the meeting, I said that the signing of the  Almaty Act itself did not mean that tomorrow we would get a structure similar to the OSCE. The CICA member countries had a lot of work to do to converge their differing positions and create necessary legal framework.

There is no doubt that the first CICA summit, held in a difficult international situation at the beginning of the  first decade of the  21st century, was not only a success of the  Kazakh foreign policy, but most importantly, a new stage of bilateral relations in the Asian subcontinent.

In 2004the CICA Catalogue of Confidence Building Measures was adopted. This ambitious document gathered Asian multilateral cooperation on a wide range of stability and security issues, including peaceful settlement of disputes and the implementation of agreements on arms control.

In 2006, Almaty hosted the second summit of the  CICA.

As an open and comfortable area for equal dialogue, the CICA has once again demonstrated its relevance and viability. The institutionalization of a new international framework for security was given a practical start with the creation of the  CICA Secretariat initially headquartered in Almaty and later in Astana.

In December 2007, the CICA received an observer status at the UN General Assembly.

The third CICA Summit was held in Istanbul in May 2010. The Turkish Republic has taken over the chairmanship at the organization from Kazakhstan. It is significant that the third summit was attended by 27 countries. That is 90% of the  area of Asia, which is home to half of the world's population, accounting for one-third of the world's GDP. Observers in the CICA were two countries that are outside the geographical limits of the  continent - the Ukraine and the United States - as well as three international organizations - the UN, the OSCE and the Arab League.

Over the past years, then, the CICA has become an authoritative forum and an important mechanism for regional dialogue on strengthening security and stability.

And there is every reason to believe that in the long term the CICA can be considered as a basis for a broader security organization in Asia.

Kazakhstan's initiative has become a real factor in international relations and an effective tool to maintain security and cooperation in Asia. It has evolved from an idea of peace and confidence in the Asian continent to the practical mechanisms of collective diplomacy.

The package of documents adopted by the CICA makes convincing evidence of the  ability to keep up to date at a time when the whole world is in the process of developing adequate responses to challenges and threats.

The Declaration of Principles, the Almaty Act, the Catalogue of Confidence Building Measures, rules of procedure, and finally the Convention on Privileges and Immunities have created a broad legal framework for practical cooperation in all areas of the  CICA.

There has been significant progress in the development of the  key activities of the  CICA. The result of long-lasting negotiations was an agreement on the discussion of the  military-political dimension.

The CICA has visibly acquired features that will allow it in the near future to transform into a fully fledged organization for security and cooperation in Asia.

The prospects of the  CICA development was the main focus of an Anniversary Conference of Foreign Ministers of the  CICA Member States held in Astana on September 12,2012.

It was emphasized that the Asian continent is becoming a key platform of global international relations in the 21st century, both in terms of economic potential and the degree of influence on world politics. Today the countries of the region produce more than 57% of the global GDP.

However, unfortunately, Asia is also home to some exacerbated unresolved inter-state problems related to territorial disputes and contraversies. This continent is the area of greatest concentration of nuclear weapons and is bolstering its military capabilities. There are continuing problems of illegal migration and drug trafficking, separatism, religious extremism and terrorism.

Obviously, without confidence among Asian countries it will be difficult to make meaningful progress in addressing global security issues.

In this context, the CICA is of particular importance and relevance as an institutional tool to maintain security and cooperation in the most densely populated region of the  world.

During the ministerial conference, I expressed hope that the Fourth Summit of the CICA Member States will come up with certain outcomes to establish a fully fledged international organization.

Kazakhstan proposed to raise the status of the Executive Director of the CICA Secretariat to the level of a Secretary General, as well as to consider establishing a CICA Standing Committee with corresponding changes in the rules of procedure.

As the initiator of the CICA, I welcome the intention of China to accept the CICA Chairmanship in 2014-2016.

As a great power and our friendly neighbor, China has unique historical, political and cultural experiences to promote the complex process of building confidence and development in Asia.

I am sure that this Chairmanship will give China significant impetus to strengthen and further develop the CICA and will promote a cooperative concept of indivisible security in Asia through multilateral dialogue, mutual interest and a desire to achieve consensus.

It should be noted that in parallel to the CICA process, another international organization in Asia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), was created.

The SCO has already established itself in the international community as a capable and promising organization with a clear mandate and has successfully been carrying out its tasks.

The organization is gaining weight in a complex geopolitical space. The growing recognition of the  authority of the  SCO can be seen in its observer status at the UN General Assembly, a partnership with the secretariats of the  Commonwealth of Independent States and ASEAN.

The SCO was formed on the basis of agreements on confidence building measures in the military field in the border area and on the mutual reduction of armed forces in the border area signed in 1996 and 1997 by Kazakhstan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan on the one hand, and China on the other. This composition was originally termed the "Shanghai Five."

The main result of the "Shanghai Five" at the initial stage was the removal of decades and even centuries of tension on the border lines. The solution of the border issue with China was of great importance for all State parties to the process. This has contributed to the successful development of bilateral relations, mutual trust and a common understanding of the  interaction.

In Moscow in 1997, a unique document in the history of international law was signed, allowing the military to launch border inspection facilities on both sides of the  border. And today this 100-kilometer demilitarized zone along the border is not a dividing line, but a line of friendship and mutual trust, an important factor in maintaining the military-strategic balance in Asia.

After signing these historic agreements, a question was raised about the continuation of further cooperation. It would have been illogical to lose such a meaningful form of cooperation.

So Kazakhstan initiated maintaining the cooperation in the "Shanghai" format. The parties to the "Shanghai Five" supported the continuation of positive cooperation, which led to the establishment of a new regional organization. This result is a logical byproduct of the  relations of trust arising from the solution of complex border issues.

The Declaration on the Establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was signed at a meeting of the  six States in Shanghai in June 2001. Now there were six countries because Uzbekistan joined the organization.

A year later, in June 2002 at a summit in St. Petersburg, there was adopted an SCO Charter that outlined the objectives, principles, structure and main activities of the  Organization.

The SCO was transformed into an authoritative structure with a twofold task: combating international terrorism and developing economic, trade and investment cooperation.

This suggests that the SCO was created not only to deter destructive forces (the concept of the "three evils": terrorism, extremism and separatism), but also to bring together the peoples of our countries in order to develop them further.

Given the surge in this new century of international terrorism and extremism, the SCO is to become a shield that will protect our country from terrorism.

In the framework of regular joint anti-terrorism exercises with police forces of the Member States, the SCO's efforts fit perfectly into a wider international context, becoming an integral part of global counter-terrorism.

The results of the first decade of joint work of the  SCO were announced in 2011, at the SCO summit in Astana. Speaking at the forum as the chairman of the  SCO, I stressed that the SCO has become a unique institution of international relations. It has united countries with different cultures and civilizations, and the world's most promising economies.

Over a decade it has increased dramatically the economic cooperation among the member countries of the  SCO.

Trade turnover within the organization has grown seven-fold. Projects have been implemented in trans-Eurasian communications: highways, railways and pipeline networks.

It has formed a strategic framework to develop economic cooperation and integration with the Business Council, Interbank Association, as well as the regular Economic Forum of the  SCO. A program of multilateral trade and economic cooperation until 2020 is being implemented.

SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANIZATION

The SCO makes an invaluable contribution to strengthening regional and global security. Notable was the adoption of the Shanghai Convention on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism.

The regional anti-terrorism structure of the  SCO (RASS) has already taken its place among the global security instruments. With the participation of the RASS, over 500 attempted terrorist attacks have been averted.

During the 2010-2011 period of our chairmanship under the theme 'Ten Years of Security and Cooperation," more than 110 joint activities were held.

For example, there was a large-scale joint anti-terrorist exercise "Peace Mission 2010." An SCO anti-drug strategy was prepared for signing.

The SCO members have provided substantial support to the Afghan settlement. Our countries did not delay in helping the people of Kyrgyzstan survive an acute political crisis in 2010. The total amount of this aid has exceeded $50 million.

And handing over the chairmanship to China, we have supported the initiative of Beijing to declare 2012 the year of good-neighborliness and friendship.

The SCO summit held in Beijing on 6 June 2012 was essential for regional and continental security.

At this summit, Kazakhstan proposed to focus on the implementation of specific proposals, in particular the conference on settlement of territorial and regional conflicts among SCO Member States, the formation of a special body serving as protection against Internet aggression, and the SCO Center for Prognostics.

Kazakhstan is a consistent supporter of strengthening economic and humanitarian cooperation within the SCO. We support the formation of mechanisms of financial security: the SCO Special Account and SCO Development Bank.

With limited water resources in Central Asia, we urge the establishment within the SCO of institutions for water and food issues. This will take into account the interests of all Member States and will help avoid conflicts.

In the context of the  upcoming withdrawal of the  International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and the transfer of full responsibility for maintaining security in the country to the local government in 2014, it is important to establish permanent monitoring and exchange of information on the situation in Afghanistan, through the Security Council and the Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure of the  SCO.

Speaking at the Beijing Summit of the  SCO, I noted that granting Afghanistan an observer status at the SCO will strengthen economic and humanitarian cooperation with the country. We also supported giving Turkey a status of a SCO dialogue partner.

Thus, over these eleven years the SCO has expanded its membership. The organization brings together six permanent members, four observer States

(Mongolia, India, Pakistan, Iran), and two dialogue partners (Belarus and Turkey). The total area of all the Member States of the SCO is three fifths of the Eurasian area with a population of over 1.5 billion people. An increasing number of countries wish to become members, observers and SCO dialogue partners.

Over the years, the SCO has become an international regional organization of a new type. This is the first inter-state security structure based on mutual trust and unity. That is the great potential of the SCO in the 21st century.

Development of the SCO addresses not only specific pragmatic projects, but also a much-needed time between the conceptual, legal formulas for regulation of inter-state relations in the emerging multipolar world.

The uniqueness of the SCO is in its collective ability to use a political, diplomatic, step-by-step approach to achieve the objectives of strengthening trust among nations and peoples.

I will make no mistake if I say that the CICA and the SCO are ideal models of inter-state structures based on the principle of constructive multipolarity.

It is logical that the peoples of Eurasia and the world have high expectations of these macro-regional organizations.

Eurasian and Global Dimensions of the OSCE

On 1 -2 December 2010, in the young capital of Kazakhstan, the first in the 21st century Summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was held. The very fact of this summit occurring in this place is revealing. In my articles and speeches on the eve of the summit, I detailed the historic significance of this event.

The uniqueness of the Astana Summit was that it was the first time when an OSCE Summit was held in the heart of Eurasia, a thousand miles away from the geographical boundaries of Europe. This reflects the changed paradigm of European security.

The situation in other parts of the world today depends on many aspects of the energy and economic security of Europe. But at the beginning of the 21st century, the most dangerous sources of threats and challenges to the stability of Europe were to be found outside of the continent itself. Outside of Europe lay the main sources of drug trafficking, illegal migration, human trafficking and the threat of international terrorism and extremism, as well as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The energy and economic security of Europe depends on the situation in other parts of the world in many ways.

The process of creating a pan-European security system began in the 1970s.

The world at that time was divided into two opposing blocs. The Cold War and the arms race separated Europe with an iron curtain and a high palisade of nuclear missiles aimed at each other. Powerful military blocks of NATO and the Warsaw Pact were at any moment ready to attack.

In these circumstances, at the initiative of Finland and a number of neutral countries negotiations were commenced to reduce the risk of military and political confrontation. In early August 1975 in Helsinki, the Heads of State and Government of the  33 European countries, Canada and the United States signed the Helsinki Final Act of the  Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The European security mechanisms were in demand during the collapse of the  Soviet Union and the breakup of the  two-bloc world system in the late 1980s and 1990s. In 1990, the Paris Charter for a new Europe was signed.

It declared the end of the Cold War, and laid down the principles of security in the absence of dividing lines.

This was a tectonic shift in world politics, followed by the emergence of more than two dozens of newly independent States in Europe and Asia, including Kazakhstan and other post-Soviet countries.

The Charter of Paris has opened a new phase of European security policy. It has led to a qualitative change in international relations in a spirit of partnership, solidarity and mutual assistance. Trust, democracy, human rights and freedom, stability and security-these are the shared values recognized by all signatories to the Charter.

The Republic of Kazakhstan became a member of the European security system in 1992 to assume the obligations of the  Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris. The same year, for the first time the Kazakh delegation took part in the Third Summit of the CSCE hosted by the capital of Finland.

In 1994, within the framework of the CSCE Summit in Budapest, a Memorandum on Security Assurances to Kazakhstan was signed by the major nuclear powers-Russia, the U.S. and the UK. Later, the leaders of France and China added their signatures to the document.

At the same summit, it was decided to establish the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe among 56 countries of Europe, Asia and North America.

The 1996 OSCE summit in Lisbon, Portugal adopted the Declaration "On the model of universal and comprehensive security for Europe in the 21st century."

In November 1999, the Heads of State or Government of the OSCE, meeting in the largest city in Turkey, Istanbul, signed the Charter for European Security, adopted the Treaty of Armed Forces in Europe and updated the Vienna Document on confidence.

By the beginning of the 21st century, the OSCE had a broad international platform to discuss issues and make decisions to strengthen European security. Its next meeting was attended by 56 Member States located across the vast area of the northern hemisphere - from Vancouver to Vladivostok.

Kazakhstan's aspiration to exercise its right to lead the OSCE was first announced by our representatives in 2003. Kazakhstan's application clearly did not fit the stereotype of this organization.

For the first time in history a Turkic country with a predominantly Muslim population, a large part of which was located in Asia, was applying to lead the OSCE. Apart from Kazakhstan, no other CIS country has ever applied for a Chairmanship. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus and Georgia, all of which preceded Kazakhstan on the alphabetical list, did not choose to exercise their right.

I remember the situation that arose during my visit to the U.S. in September 2006, at the talks with President George W. Bush. The U.S. State Department had recommended that our delegation not raise the topic of the OSCE summit.

However, I put this question to George Bush. The American president did not directly reject the idea, but in response said, "Well, just think how much you really need this position? By taking on the Chairmanship you are taking on a bunch of

requirements. You will find yourself under the searchlights. All your work will be viewed through a magnifying glass and criticized. Do you really want this?"

But I managed to change the opinion of the  President of the  United States. In the Oval Office of the  White House, George W. Bush directed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to support Kazakhstan's bid to chair the OSCE.

It must be said that other States did not immediately support the candidacy of Kazakhstan. For several years, meeting with colleagues from different countries, I consistently and strongly urged them to provide this support.

Finally, in November 2007, at the Madrid meeting of the OSCE foreign mini-sters it was decided that Kazakhstan would assume the chairmanship in 2010.

When Kazakhstan took the initiative during its chairmanship of the OSCE summit, the situation repeated itself in many ways. Right up until the last moment the balance wavered under the weight of different arguments.

Finally, in August 2010 it was decided to convene a summit in Astana.

We believed that the summit would give a powerful impetus to adapting the OSCE to modern challenges and threats, and enhance the credibility of the organization, strengthening its role in the architecture of European and Eurasian security.

The OSCE had a chance to show that it was actively developing a structure which was closely woven into the living tissue of global politics and economics.

Kazakhstan regarded its OSCE Chairmanship as not just a national project to enhance our position, but also as an opportunity to give the organization a new breath, a new impetus.

After all, there had been important changes in the military-political balance on the continent, with pending "protracted conflicts" and a complicated situation around the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The world was facing religious intolerance and ethnic conflict.

There was increasing need for multilateral cooperation in the fight against new transnational threats: terrorism, extremism, drug trafficking, illegal migration, etc.

All these and many other issues were of serious concern to OSCE participating countries.

Some experts have estimated Kazakhstan's OSCE Chairmanship and hosting of the Astana Summit as a "geopolitical challenge to familiar stereotypes."

We could agree with this, but it should be borne in mind that it was a constructive challenge to stereotypes which, whether intentionally or through inertia, maintained divisive barriers between Europe and Asia, rooted in outdated notions about the meaning of continental security.

European organizations have long turned to the OSCE, which in its area of responsibility and site-specific works has acquired a truly transcontinental character.

So I felt it was necessary to emphasize the existence of not only European but also Eurasian security, without which effective continental security is impossible.

It is important to recognize that in a globalized world it is impossible to develop a single policy for Europe, and quite another for Asia.

I am convinced that in the long term, stability in this area can be strengthened only through the creation of a larger transcontinental security platform.

In my opening remarks at the OSCE Summit in Astana, I said that Eurasian security is not a metaphor, it is a strict geopolitical fact.

Therefore, the main task of the OSCE in the coming decades should be the systematic elimination of the contradictions, through confidence building and progressive integration of the  existing inter-state structures of security in Eurasia.

Along the East-West dimension the task is to develop interaction between, on the one hand, the European Union and NATO, and the Eurasian Economic Community and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) on the other. In North-South rapprochement close relationships should be established between the OSCE and, first of all, the CICA.

The relevance of such a "global geometry of the OSCE" is even more important in that this is the mega-space encompassing the most promising areas of economic growth in the world: North America, the European Union, China, Russia, India, the Persian Gulf and South-East Asia.

I offered to start working on concluding a comprehensive Treaty on Eurasian security, and formulated a number of specific proposals to expand the number of baskets and OSCE institutions in such areas as finance, economics, energy and environmental security, disarmament, cross-border crime, religious tolerance, and forecasting.

Thanks to my persistent position and the principled support of the heads of the majority of States participating in the Summit, the OSCE Declaration included the concept of "Eurasian security."

As the Chairman of the OSCE in 2010, Kazakhstan in fact put forward and was able to realize with the broad support of all our partners, a plan for resuscitation of the OSCE.

A key task of Kazakhstan's Chairmanship was to expand and strengthen the field of consensus on the fundamental issues of safety.

We continued the process of building a common approach by all OSCE participating States to an understanding of current threats and challenges.

This was especially important to enable a consistent response and, in general, to build trust within the organization.

Kazakhstan introduced innovation to the process, expanding cross-country dialogue through consultation with representatives of influencial global and regional organizations such as the UN, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization, NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, SCO, CIS, CSTO, OIC and others. Their delegations participated in the OSCE summit in Astana.

We methodically worked on all three baskets: conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. We stimulated dynamic new collective efforts to revive and strengthen arms control and confidence building measures. Substantive negotiations were started on entry into force of the adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

In the framework of the OSCE formatm we have updated the negotiations on "frozen" conflicts resolution. Kazakhstan as the OSCE Chairman strengthened the capacity of the OSCE in the field of conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation.

The work of the Minsk Group was activated to resolve the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

In close cooperation with the UN, Russia, the United States and other countries, we were actively involved in the resolution of the political crisis in Kyrgyzstan in spring 2010.

We called upon the OSCE partners to increase participation in the peace process in Afghanistan, and in its economic revival. Kazakhstan provided multi-faceted assistance. We allocated funds for the education in our country of about one thousand young Afghans, in the most popular peaceful specializations. We supplied food, and signed an agreement to construct a number of economic objects in Afghanistan.

Kazakhstan's chairmanship attracted the attention of our partners to a number of security issues in Central Asia. In particular, the Donor Conference on the Aral Sea, where we proposed the idea of taking the "Water and the Law" program into the OSCE format as the international basis of legal regulation of water issues in the region. In such ways Kazakhstan contributed to updating the OSCE, taking into account global trends, and the economic and environmental content basket of the  organization.

We have also focused the attention of our partners on the need to consolidate the search for ways to overcome the consequences of the  global financial and economic crisis. Kazakhstan offered to work on the quality of implementation of the OSCE Maastricht Strategy, to adapt it to post-crisis realities.

In the third, humanitarian basket, Kazakhstan-as a multinational and multi-faith state-has actively promoted the idea of intercultural and inter-faith dialogue.

Overall, Kazakhstan's Chairmanship has generated powerful dynamism in the OSCE's work.

We acted with the great responsibility during this period in order to fulfill this noble mission and realize its goals.

The speakers at the Astana Summit, the heads of States and governments and heads of delegations, highly commended the energetic actions of our country in leading the OSCE.

But perhaps one of the most significant results of Kazakhstan's presidency, important for the process of forming a new world order in the 21st century, was the fact that in the global geopolitical lexicon was firmly established the concept of the "common and indivisible Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security"

The OSCE Declaration "Towards a Security Community" for the first time enshrined the Eurasian vector of the  OSCE. It specifically noted that security in the OSCE zone is inextricably linked to that of the  neighboring regions, especially the Mediterranean and Asia. By adopting this historic document, the Astana Summit legitimized Eurasian continental security as a comprehensive concept and as a political practice of the  present and future.

Continental Security Platform of Eurasia

At a press conference held on the night after the Astana OSCE Summit, I compared it to the decisions taken in response to the events of the early 90s, when the fall of the  Berlin Wall brought together the western and eastern halves of Europe. I said that in Astana the process had been started of dismantling the other dilapidated wall separating the two millennia of a single continent: Eurasia.

In March of the  already distant year 1994, in a speech at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, in London, I said that Kazakhstan understands the essence of its unique geopolitical position.

In addition to our country only two States of Eurasia are located both in Europe and in Asia: Russia and Turkey.

And so we are ready to become one of the major centers to strengthen security across the continent. At these words, the faces of many of those present at the lecture were very skeptical.

Then in October 1995,1 gave an interview on international problems.

It appeared in print under the heading "Let's remove Eurasia from a "waiting zone.'" My central idea was the belief that the future of Europe and Asia is largely indivisible and depends on the position of a number of "middle" countries that are difficult to unambiguously attribute to the West or the East. These States I called the "the waiting zone." Even then I was convinced that we need a new security system which will bring together the two parts of Eurasia.

The Kazakhs have a proverb: Birlik bolmay tirlik bolmas -"With no unity, there will be no activity." I believe it is relevant to the sphere of relations among countries and peoples.

Kazakhstan's chairmanship in the OSCE initiated a new phase of relations between Europe and Asia, the West and the East, characterized by the strengthening of mutual trust in the vast continental Eurasia.

First, Kazakhstan was an active proponent of macro-regional dialogue, and of creating all-Eurasian security and cooperation structures.

Folding Euro-Atlantic and Euro-Asian security into a single area seems to me to first of all involve the CICA and the OSCE, on the basis of geopolitical convergence.

In this regard, a work of great importance is the development of the CICA, and the creation on its basis of a fully fledged international organization: on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (OICA).

Second, Kazakhstan put forward an initiative to promote dialogue between the West and the Islamic world, which aroused great interest in both these realms.

The International Forum of Foreign Ministers of Muslim and Western countries, entitled "Common World: Progress through Diversity" held in Astana in 2008 was in this respect a promising dialogue platform.

Of particular importance in promoting dialogue among civilizations was Kazakhstan's chairmanship in the community of Muslim countries in 2011-2012. It should be noted that it was at the ministerial meeting in Astana, that it was decided to transform the Organization of the Islamic Conference into the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Third, Kazakhstan seeks to play an important role in economic cooperation between Europe and Asia.

Aspiring to the role of economic bridge between the European and Asian parts of the continent, we have undertaken the "Western Europe-Western China" project.

Its implementation seeks to relate the two major parts of Eurasia with powerful transport communications through $7.5 billion investment.

It will be a true revival of the  Great Silk Road which in ancient times brought closer together the peoples of Asia and Europe.

Fourth, we want to contribute to the search for a unifying factor for the countries of the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian areas of responsibility, paying special attention to the construction of a secure and stable Central Asia.

Fifth, Kazakhstan has promoted intercultural and interfaith dialogue. The positive experience of our country in strengthening inter-ethnic and inter-religious harmony will be useful throughout the Eurasian region. Details of this perspective, I will reveal in the next chapter.

Unity of purpose and objectives, an overall algorithm of development, reliable mechanisms for political dialogue-these are the foundations for future security on the Eurasian continental platform.

I understand that the formation of a single security space surrounded by four oceans is not an easy task. But it has crucial importance for the whole world, since Eurasian security is at least four-fifths of the global security.

Creation of the  Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security continental platform is a necessary part of the  world order on the principles of G-GLOBAL.

4.            DIALOGUE OF CULTURES AND RELIGIONS: NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND GLOBAL ISSUES

Inter-ethnic and inter-religious harmony: 21st century imperative

Almost the entire 20th century was marked by sharp ideological confrontation. The end of the Cold War gave a rise to hopes of a coming era of harmony and unity of the  world.

But in the 1990s we witnessed brutal ethnic and sectarian violence. Such violence accompanied the disintegration of the USSR and Yugoslavia. It also characterized a new round of confrontation in the Middle East. Africa experienced the brutality of the  genocide in Rwanda that resulted in two lengthy Congolese wars, in which nine States on the continent were involved to varying degrees. Ethnic and religious causes have led to conflicts in Somalia, exacerbated the India-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir, the conflict in East Timor, and many others.

A number of "hot spots" emerged in the post-Soviet area: Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The paralysis of the  Union center, especially after the August 1991 coup, further exacerbated the ethnic conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. In September 1991 we, along with Russian President Boris Yeltsin, paid a visit to Baku, Yerevan, and Stepanakert to mediate the resolution of the  conflict. During the trip we signed a joint communique, but soon the process had reached a dead end-neither side wanted to give up.

That's when I saw firsthand the danger and pain that ethnic and sectarian strife could bring to peoples.

Once ignited, such conflicts are very difficult to extinguish; like Pandora's box they are easy to open and almost impossible to close. I formed a solid, unequivocal conclusion: we must at all costs maintain ethnic peace, and prevent conflict scenarios.

At that time the planet faced the phantom of "clash of civilizations." The ethnic and religious "differences" among humankind give us reason to fear a sharp rise in tensions and conflicts.

Although the world has, one would think, long put behind it the era of major religious wars, globalization has returned civilizational and religious differences to the political and intellectual mainstream.

The UN declared the first year in the new millennium as the Year of Dialogue among Civilizations. However, the real situation was dramatic. On 11 September 2001, members of the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda attacked and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York.

There followed a large-scale multinational coalition anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan, which was one of the most powerful centers of international terrorism. All these events have caused a wave of islamophobia that has only exacerbated sectarian tensions worldwide. I detailed my views on these world-shaping events in my book The Critical Decade, published in 2003.

There was no consensus about these processes. Some politicians and experts believed that "inter-civilizational fault" belongs in archaic stories in dusty museum storerooms. Others, on the contrary, consider "clash of civilizations" to be inevitable, with the mostly costly being "clash of religions" which are the spiritual basis of distinctive civilizations.

I have never believed that human civilizations are "programmed" to inevitably clash with each other due to the differences in ethnic and religious characteristics of nations. Conflicts are caused not by peoples or religions, but by politicians. It is politicians who "color in" the difference, who stir the contradictions between countries or within countries, between different groups and segments of society.

There is no inevitability of ethnic and religious conflicts, and never will be.

My personal lessons of tolerance, friendship and mutual assistance among the people of different nationalities were learned long ago in my childhood. They were taught to me by my parents-my mother Alzhan and my father Abish, who during the difficult war years helped the families of the Balkar settlers, deported by Stalin's regime from their homes. In my home village Chemolgan many people did the same: nobody could divide us by ethnicity; friendship and mutual support of people was a way of life. When I think about the need for global religious and cultural dialogue, I often recall that distant time.

For many millennia the Great Eurasian Steppe-which is the land of an independent Kazakhstan-was the site of active interaction and intensive contacts between civilizations. It has from time immemorial been a kind of large continental meeting place, which integrated the culture and traditions of people professing different religions: Tengriism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and others. Since ancient times, our land, through trade and cultural exchange, served as a kind of bridge between Europe and Asia, East and West.

It is still the home to the representatives of many ethnic groups and religions.

I would like to mention a historical fact. In the south of the country, archaeologists found an 8th century site called Koilyk. According to the scientists, over time this site served as a Buddhist pagoda, a mosque and a Christian church. Is not this an example of religious tolerance as a characteristic of the steppe mentality for the coming centuries?

In the world there are few countries with the same historical and cultural diversity as the Kazakh land, which became a kind of crossroads of four great civilizations: Islamic, Christian, Buddhist and Confucian.

For many centuries, the people of Kazakhstan enriched themselves with the cultural heritage of various ethnic groups and cultures and absorbed such qualities as tolerance and openness, kindness and hospitality. That is why we feel our commitment to bring this centuries-old moral imperative to the whole of humanity.

In the era of Stalinism there were godless attempts to challenge the importance of spiritual, cultural and religious factors, and to put pure materialism in first place. We still remember that time when the totalitarian power propagated militant atheism and when it rejected the importance of the  spiritual and religious life. For decades, religious leaders and their adherents were repressed, humiliated and condemned, churches and mosques were destroyed, as were monuments of authentic spirituality, culture and history.

Fortunately, that era has sunk into oblivion. We have set behind us the time of spiritual nihilism and moral poverty, the age of fierce struggle for the very right of a person to believe.

It is with the independence of Kazakhstan that our citizens acquired the right of religious freedom. Even under the pressure of a harsh totalitarian regime the shoots spiritual life had survived, and when the system collapsed they quickly started to grow.

In 1990 in Kazakhstan there were only 670 religious communities, a number which by 2010 had grown 6-fold. We have about 2,400 Muslim religious communities (in 1990 there were only 46), 290 parishes of the  Russian Orthodox Church (in 1990, 62), and 86 parishes of the  Roman Catholic Church (in 1990, 42). Now we have well represented Protestant Christian denominations. In all areas, there are Jewish and Buddhist religious organizations.

At the disposal of the  faithful there are over 3,200 places of worship, including nearly 2,500 mosques, 270 Orthodox and 80 Catholic churches, 6 synagogues and over 500 Protestant houses of worship.

Currently, the religious organizations of the  republic produce 38 periodicals, whereas before they did not have a single newspaper or magazine. All the major religious centers have religious schools.

Kazakhstan was one of the first CIS countries to adopt the "Freedom of Conscience and Religious Association" Law.

Our country is at the crossroads of East and West: it has such a unique palette of religious people, it is aware of the  need for continuous dialogue between religions and serves as an active facilitator. Our efforts demonstrate that the dialogue among cultures and civilizations is not only necessary, but also very much possible.

In the 21st century, such dialogue is ultimately productive for promoting the sustainability of the  world.

My deep belief is that any undiversified system is unable to provide balance, stability and development not only for all of humanity, but also for each part of it. It will always be fraught with conflicts and danger of explosion.

The only valid formula is 'unity in diversity'.

There is a need to recognize and deal with the fact that there are other civilizations, cultures, religions, each with its own deep-rooted and meaningful story, each with its own symbols and mentality. And this cannot be broken or canceled by any power or by any force.

Despite the unfolding process of globalization, nations will not abandon their historical, religious and cultural identity. The world will never be built on the basis of a universal project-that is an unrealizable utopia.

Understanding this key element of the past and present is very important. Every culture, every civilization and philosophy has a legitimate right to existence and respect. And it is a reality, predetermined by the course of human history, to be reckoned with.

Attempts to build social relationships according other cultures' norms will never lead to understanding. They may have indeed the opposite effect: rigid cultural expansion leading to stiff resistance.

Only respect for the historical traditions of other nations, only justice and sincerity in relations between civilizations, religions and peoples, will enable us to create a world of harmony and spirituality.

At the center of efforts to maintain peace and stability in the world should be an open dialogue both between countries and between different civilizations.

Without such dialogue the cultural diversity of the planet may be in jeopardy. In the foundation of inter-civilizational dialogue must be the recognition of the world's diversity as a universal value of humanity.

Unfortunately, we often encounter situations where geopolitical conflicts are painted with cultural and civilizational color by the hand of some careless journalist.

Therefore, a new kind of responsibility is needed today as never before in human history. We must work together on strengthening the foundation of legal, historical and cultural landmarks that could lead to the creation of a new global security architecture that is not based on power parity, but on the principles of openness, dialogue and trust.

This is the essence of the G-GLOBAL world order.

Kazakhstan has always been a supporter of the inclusion of inter- civilizational perspective in international organizations.

Accordingly, the first CICA Summit Declaration stated that the State Parties consider the CICA "as a unique Asian forum, which includes the country's different cultures and traditions, making it one of the most important mechanisms to promote dialogue among civilizations and cultures."

In 2007,1 launched an initiative to declare 2010 as the International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures and Religions. The 63rd session of the UN General Assembly supported the proposal.

The success of the Year contributed to the fact that at the initiative of Kazakhstan and UNESCO, the UN General Assembly declared 2013-2022 the International Decade for the Rapprochement of Cultures.

Independent Kazakhstan in its domestic and foreign policy has continued the fundamental tradition of religious tolerance and religious harmony inherited from our forefathers. Today, in the new capital of Kazakhstan in Astana, as indeed in all other Kazakh cities, each person is free to visit a Muslim mosque, an Orthodox church, a Catholic church, a synagogue, a house of prayer. That is the common thread that connects time, ethnic groups and civilizations.

As a secular State with a predominantly Muslim population, Kazakhstan supports the convergence of Islamic and Christian civilizations, deepening the understanding between East and West.

Kazakhstan chaired the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in 2011, which was a difficult time for the Ummah. Now the Muslim world is experiencing contradictory processes. There are countries with dynamic economies and there are countries with serious social and political problems. But in any case, the world of Islam is an impressive and growing economic and cultural stratum of humanity.

The current and future global community cannot be imagined without the world of Islam.

Any attempts towards obstruction of the  Muslim world are short-sighted and even dangerous. We must be sensitive to what is happening in this part of the large and diverse world.

In the second half of the 20th century, the Muslim world entered the era of its Renaissance. The vivid religion of the  Koran enriched with deep meaning a broad popular movement for freedom in a vast territory - from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the Indonesian archipelago. During that time many countries emerged on the world map, and most of them now are members of the  Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

At the close of the  last century, Central Asian countries including Kazakhstan found their freedom.

The creation of the  Organization of Islamic Conference (the OIC's predecessor) more than forty years ago was a historic act of Islamic solidarity. In a complex era of bloc confrontation, it identified itself as the first international organization established in the name of keeping the spiritual and cultural heritage of Islam.

At the same time, we must admit, in the world of Islam there are many social and political problems. Modern Ummah unites diverse communities which have emerged during the turbulent turns of history.

The combined economy of the Ummah comprises about 70% of all energy resources, and 40% of the  mineral world. And at the same time the share of the  Muslim countries accounts for only 7.5% of the world's GDP and 11 % of global trade.

On the one hand, many countries are finding their way to the modernization in the 21st century. The Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, the Muslim part of South-East Asia and the Caspian Sea area-these are areas of promising growth for the entire global economy.

On the other hand, many States continue searching for a way to address problems inherited from the colonial era. According to the UN, there are 30 million people living in poverty, while 50 million do not have access to proper education and health care. 22 OIC Member States are among the poorest countries in the world.

Most Muslim countries are experiencing rapid population growth. And this raises the questions of employment, especially among young people, and of improving the well-being of the population.

Moreover, Islamic societies are more sensitive to the "froth of globalization,"

being threatened with corrosion of spiritual values and principles created over many centuries. Herein lie the causes of most of the internal contradictions in the Ummah.

And then there is the ambiguity of the external assessment of the processes taking place in the world of Islam.

Unfortunately, in the world there are some forces that seek to present the Islamic community as a kind of a dead end. They use the lack of knowledge of people generally about the peaceful nature of Islam and the Islam's contribution to the development of the world community. Sometimes they deliberately ignore its desire for a just world order, productive interaction with other cultures and civilizations.

Islam has preserved for the world a great legacy of Plato and Aristotle, Euclid and Galen, and other ancient thinkers. It is impossible to imagine the development of world medicine without the decisive contributions of Avicenna, Razi, Ibn Rushd and Ibnun Nafis. The works of genius of Al-Ash'ari, al- Ghazzali, Ibn Tufail and Ibn Baj have been translated to many languages. Al- Khwarizmi's greatest work Al-Gebre wal-Mukabana initiated the development of algebra. Our outstanding ancestors Al-Farabi and Khoja Ahmed Yassawi had an enormous influence on the perception of the world and the development of philosophical knowledge.

The Islamic world was formed on the basis of a synergy of many cultures.

Today, the Islamic community is a vital part of a unilied global stream. The peoples of the Muslim countries, like those in all other nations, highly value the universal concepts of justice and democracy, peace and harmony, happiness and prosperity. This is the basis of global dialogue and interaction between cultures and civilizations of the modern world.

Now it is more appropriate to speak not about "conflict" but about the "meeting of civilizations." There is no "end of history," simply because humanity has no single universal model of civilization that the world community would accept as the sole basis of its existence.

In a global world of the 21st century, a world beset by anxiety and threat, the states, religious and the civil society all have, in my view, a singular and unified strategy to show good will. This is the love of peace, manifested in appeals and actions aimed at reaching agreement, understanding and cooperation among countries, peoples and religions.

Only through tolerance and partnership will we be successful in the fight against such global manifestations of evil as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, drug trafficking, or any other of the  serious physical and social ills of our time.

In the 21st century, at both global and national levels peace and harmony have become a truly fundamental imperative.

Agreement and dialogue is the basic foundation of a stable peace in the format of G-GLOBAL.

Kazakhstan's model of tolerance and harmony

From the first day of Independence, the agreement and unity of our multinational people was and is the central formula of Kazakhstan.

Our country inherited from the 20th century a multi-ethnic population structure. With the economic crisis and the collapse of the  Soviet Union, this situation carried a big challenge. Kazakhstan escaped the string of ethnic conflicts typical of many of the  CIS countries in the 1990s. And this happened because the State maintained peace and harmony as unconditional domestic priorities.

Today, after more than twenty years, I have every reason to say that Kazakhstan's way is a broad and bright path, where for all citizens-regardless of their ethnic, religious or any other affiliation - all doors are open.

Our large Kazakh "house" has become strong and stable. We are proud to talk about the unique historical phenomenon of the united civil people of Kazakhstan.

I believe that multiculturalism, ethnic and religious diversity are, in the end, not a challenge to society but a huge advantage.

Working systematically, it has been possible to achieve important results.

First, the public mind accepted the establishment of a unified nation-state identity; this is the real embodiment of the unity and consolidation of all ethnicities.

We have become one united people, for whom the values and interests of Kazakhstan are the priority. In practice, we are implementing a national unity formula of'one country-one destiny."

Second, we created the conditions for the cultural development of all the ethnic groups living in the country. The State provides substantial support to ethno-cultural associations, the media, and the National Theatres.

Third, a harmonious language policy has been implemented. There is much work to support mastery of the State Kazakh language by all ethnic groups.

The expansion of the State language is and will continue to be a stable priority for us. We have approved a 2020 State program on development and functioning of languages.

This language policy isan important condition for the unity of the  people and a guarantee for the participation of all citizens in public life. Today Kazakhstanis of any ethnic or religious affiliation are equal citizens of their country.

The Kazakh people and the state language act as a unifying core of Kazakhstan's growing civil community. This process is objective. Already 70% of State media are published in Kazakh. The number of students in schools where the-language of instruction is Kazakh has reached 63%. By the year 2020 we aim to achieve the level where 95% of Kazakhstanis are fluent in the official language.

In the era of globalization progress cannot be achieved without a multilingual policy. Therefore, in the 21st century the challenge of expansion of linguistic capital is an important trend. The knowledge of languages creates favorable conditions for the expansion of the Kazakh language, both inside and outside the country.

Given the experience of the "Asian Tigers," a trinity of languages program is extremely urgent for us.

In today's world we are aware of the  growing role of the  English language, a window into the world of innovation, technology and business. In addition, almost all Kazakhs speak Russian. This is our common heritage which cannot be lost, as it is the language of the  Eurasian economic space.

What kind of national unity should we build in the era of global challenges and modernization? Our unity is the desire for a nation of patriotic citizens, based on the Kazakh national core.

In this new stage we should consider the experience of the  multiculturalism policy carried out in Europe. This policy was based on the provision of benefits and privileges to immigrants-to citizens of foreign origin. On paper it seemed logical. But in practice this policy has led to conflicts, disunity of ethnic communities and indigenous nations.

Kazakhstan has no such danger. The basis of our unity is a common destiny, shared responsibility and a shared future of Kazakhstan's ethnic groups.

Today the world is looking for global unity and the formula could be found here, in Kazakhstan. Thus, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during his visit to Astana pointed out that the principles of the Assembly of People of Kazakhstan - respect and tolerance - "are the principles of the UN."

Our model of tolerance and harmony offers an effective basic structure - the Assembly of People of Kazakhstan.

I raised the idea of establishing the Assembly in 1992 at the First Forum of the Peoples of Kazakhstan, which was held on the first anniversary of independence.

At the time this Assembly had no analogues in the world. We built it without looking to anyone.

This initiative marked the beginning of a new phase of national dialogue. It became an undeniable innovation in the world and at the highest possible level to solve the development and strengthening of inter-ethnic relations.

On 1 March 1995,1 signed a decree on the establishment of the  Assembly of Peoples of Kazakhstan (known in its abbreviation as the ANC) as a consultative and advisory body to the President.

Note that the first years of the ANC-"Assembly of Peoples of Kazakhstan"- reflected the realities of the ethnic situation in society at that time. Kazakh society has successfully passed a consolidation phase. In 2007, there was a fundamental adjustment of the name: "Assembly of Peoples of Kazakhstan" was renamed "Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan."

The significance of the Assembly was already evident in the first months of its operation.

Its support of my decision to develop a new Constitution of Kazakhstan became one of the defining conditions of acceptance of the Constitution at a national referendum on 30 August 1995.

The Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan passed along a dynamic path of development, accumulating and consolidating its intellectual potential, to become the public domain of independent Kazakhstan.

Today the ANC is the institute of national consolidation, an important factor for stability, strengthening tolerance, civil peace and social harmony.

It has constitutional status, but does not replace the representative branch. Since 2007, the ANC won the right to elect nine representatives to the Parliament Majilis of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

In October 2008, I signed the Law "On the Assembly of People of Kazakhstan," which also has no analogues in the world, to legislate the role of the ANC as one of the basic elements of Kazakhstan's democracy.

Overall, in the two decades of independence, we have created a successful and promising model of Kazakhstan society.

It highly values friendship, mutual understanding and trust among all ethnic groups and religions in Kazakhstan.

All our ethnic groups are not minorities patronized by the State, as is common practice in multiculturalism. This is not "material" to the "melting pot" of assimilation, as is the case in some countries. A Kazakh citizen of any ethnic or religious affiliation is an equal citizen of his or her native country. They do not receive any benefits because of their belonging to a different ethnic group or denomination. At the same time, our peoples do not need to give up their native language, culture and traditions for the sake of human rights and freedoms; they are recognized parts of the  civil community.

The new stage of historic logic, the logic of the 21st century, leads us along from civil consolidation to national unity. Today we can say that our model of inter-ethnic and inter-religious harmony is a successful form of Kazakhstan's tolerance. It is distinguished by close mutual interweaving of two components of the unity of the people of Kazakhstan.

First is the unity of the Kazakh ethnicity: the main ethnic component and the main civilizational core.

Second is the unity of all ethnic and religious communities united by a shared patriotic love for the native land of Kazakhstan and active hard work in the name of Kazakhstan's prosperity.

The Palace of Peace and Harmony in Astana has become a symbol of the unity of Kazakhstanis; it is there that the sessions of the Assembly are traditionally held. We have developed our young capital Astana as multi-ethnic Eurasian metropolis. There exist alongside mosques the minarets and domes of churches. Kazakhstan and all our foreign guests admire the diversity of Astana, its unique spirit of tolerance.

These features can indeed be seen all over Kazakhstan. I have personally opened, across the country, dozens of homes of friendship, monumental complexes, parks and gardens of peace and harmony, mosques and temples, built with the assistance of the State. Each such occasion was always a real celebration for Kazakhstan.

What are the basic features of the Kazakh model of inter-ethnic tolerance?

First, from the very outset, the Kazakh model has been built from the bottom up. The ANC includes more than 820 ethnic and cultural associations working in all regions of the  country, as well as the hierarchy of major religious organizations in Kazakhstan.

Second, all ethnic groups have a high civil and social status. Their representatives are not acting as a national minority, they are considered as having the full rights of citizens of the  united people of Kazakhstan.

Third, the interests of country's ethnic groups are represented and politically promoted on the top government level.

The president of the  Assembly of People of Kazakhstan is the President of the  Republic of Kazakhstan. The decision of its supreme body-the annual session- is to be implemented by all government agencies.

Fourth, the interests of ethnic groups are granted through parliamentary mandates guaranteed to the Assembly representatives, who are elected as the Assembly of Deputies of the Majilis of the Parliament. They represent its interests as a combination of the  interests of all ethnic groups of the  country.

Fifth, the model is built upon the "unity through diversity" principle. The policy of the  State is to support the ethnic languages and cultures, to preserve and enrich our cultural diversity.

Sixth, inter-ethnic relations in Kazakhstan are fundamentally depoliticized.

There is a prohibition on the establishment of political parties which are aimed at the incitement of social, racial, national, religious, class and tribal enmity, and on the formation of parties based on racial, ethnic or religious affiliation. The Constitution (Section 2, Art. 39) states that "any action that can upset the interethnic harmony is deemed unconstitutional."

Seventh, the development and strengthening of inter-ethnic and inter-religious harmony is a constant concern of the  government.

In Kazakhstan, newspapers and magazines are available in 15 languages; radio broadcasting is in 8, and TV broadcasting is in 7 languages. There are in operation nearly 90 schools in which teaching is done completely in Uzbek, Tajik, Uighur and Ukrainian. At 108 schools the languages of 22 ethnic groups of Kazakhstan are taught as a separate subject. There have been opened about 200 specialized language centers where not only children, but also adults can learn the languages of 30 ethnic groups. In addition to the Kazakh and Russian theaters, there are four national theaters-Uzbek, Uighur, Korean and German- working in the country. 

New books are published annually in Kazakhstan in the languages of ethnic groups.

It should be emphasized that the success of the Kazakh model of inter-ethnic tolerance and social cohesion has been recognized by the UN and the OSCE.

The experience of Kazakhstan is in demand on the international arena.

More than 60 foreign experts, scholars, and diplomats from 16 countries have turned to study the secretariat of the ANC. The Kazakh model of inter-ethnic tolerance and social harmony is studied in Russia, it is in demand in the educational areas of Turkey, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Kyrgyzstan. There is a constantly growing stream of Internet users from around the world who seek information about Kazakhstan, its ethnic institutions and ethnic policies in the National Academic Library and on the official website of the Assembly. Our model of inter-ethnic and inter-religious harmony is a real contribution of Kazakhstan to the global civilization development process.

Reflecting on the prospects for peace, built on the principles of G-GLOBAL, I have come to the firm conclusion that a huge difference in the 21st century will be a global dialogue of cultures and religions.

We see how religion is becoming an increasingly important socio-political factor.

The confessional world composition is this: about a third of the world's population (2.3 billion people) professes various currents of Christianity, in

the second place is Islam shared by 1.5 billion people, and the third is Hinduism (14%, or almost 1 billion). In the world there are a half a million followers of Buddhism and traditional Chinese religion of Taoism.

At the same time, more than 1 billion people do not have any religious affiliation. Overall, 84% of humans religiously affiliated.

There are countries that are absolutely mono-religious. For example, there is Greece where 97% of the  population identify themselves as followers of the  Greek Orthodox Church, Romania where 98% of the  population are Orthodox Christians, Poland where 94% are Catholics, and Ireland where 87% are Catholics.

The dynamics of change in the pattern of religious beliefs are very high. Thus, Islam in the early 20th century was the fourth in number of followers while today it is number two. The average annual growth in the number of Muslims is around 2.1%. In comparison, the number of Christians increases by 1.3%, and agnostics by 0.8%.

Complex processes are occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, in Nigeria traditional ethnic beliefs are replaced by the two world religions, Islam and Christianity. In the year 1900 the population of the  country included 28% Muslim and 1% Christians; now this demographic "giant" of modern Africa with a population of over 150 million people includes almost equal numbers of Christian and Muslim populations.

Overall, 84% of humans have religious affiliations.

Experts point out the increase in the number of followers of non-traditional religions, which extend their canonical effect even at the cost of provoking enmity between other religions.

Now even such a religious symbiosis as "Christian Zionism" is gaining strength in the U.S.

A limited number of schools of thought in Christianity advance theological doctrines with anti-lslamic elements.

Similarly, there are groups in Islam aimed at confrontation with Christianity.

Yet almost all the world religions preach mutual respect among people, not confrontations; harmony among people, not a clash of civilizations; and a mutual enrichment of cultures.

The modern world is the world of communications, which means that the final goal is dialogue.

Can a military force secure peace? World religions have long since answered this question: no, because evil can only cause evil. Only dialogue will provide a world not based on fear, with the triumph of good and understanding.

Yes, the world's religions are different. But what they share is greater than what divides them. Hence, there is a solid basis for dialogue. It is necessary to expand the space of unity and overcome the dividing lines resulting, in large part, from a belief in the exclusive possession of the  truth.

These are the objectives we have set in gathering the Congress of World Religions to meet in Kazakhstan: to move from the logic of distrust and hostility, to dialogue and efforts to find common ground.

No religions of the  world call for war and violence, but many conflicts still have religious overtones.

Here is a paradoxical situation: the nation-states have the UN, where we can exchange views on various issues, and make decisions. The religious leaders have no such forum. But billions of people believe in them, and want to know their opinion about certain issues!

By having proposed to convene in Astana the First Congress of leaders of various religions in 2003, we made the right and forward-looking decision. From the very beginning we viewed this as an important link in a new direction of international politics: "diplomacy of spirituality." I am convinced that it will form a prerequisite for the emergence of a unified global force for positive change in the world, provided by the spiritual consent of all nations.

Attempts to organize inter-faith dialogue have taken place in the past. But they were different in that they were organized by representatives of the religions themselves.

Thus every such attempt has encountered an impassable barrier of high theological differences.

My idea of convening a congress of world religious leaders was based on a different approach. Denominations exist in the individual States, their followers and adherents are all part of a society. So successful inter-faith dialogue cannot be merely a meeting of the religious hierarchy. There is a need for the participation of famous statesmen and public figures: politicians, academics, and representatives of national cultures. The role of organizer must be assumed by a secular and tolerant State that can get the necessary vote of confidence from all participants.

I came to the conclusion that Kazakhstan can serve as such a country, especially because our policy of inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations at the national level has gained us credibility and authoritativeness.

In the end, the formula worked by the inter-religious forum in Astana was "The Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions."

This is exactly the format that has become the most relevant in the age of globalization and the revival of national-religious consciousness among the people.

On 13 February 2003, participants of an international conference of peace and harmony met in Almaty, bringing together representatives of the world's major faiths-lslam, Orthodox and Catholic churches, the Jewish communities. During the forum, I offered to hold inter-faith conferences in Kazakhstan.

This idea has received the blessing of Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow, Pope John Paul II, and a number of other religious leaders.

The head of the  Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches personally, at my invitation, visited Kazakhstan on pastoral visits before the Congress.

In 1995 Patriarch Alexy II visited Kazakhstan. I discussed the idea of the Congress in detail with him almost immediately after voicing it in 2003, during one of my visits to Moscow. I remember that His Holiness was ill at the time, but he did not put off our meeting. We talked about the role the Congress will play in the development of the  dialogue of religions of the  world. The Patriarch called my suggestion a holy deed.

The Moscow Patriarchate took an active part in the preparatory committee, and then in the Secretariat of the  Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions.

This principled position continues and the current head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, has twice been on a pastoral visit to Kazakhstan, and personally participated in the IV Congress.

In September 2001, Kazakhstan hosted an honored guest, His Holiness Pope John Paul II. He came to this country on my special invitation made during our previous bilateral meetings.

John Paul II arrived in Astana on September 22, that is, within the days of heinous terrorist attacks in New York. Needless to say, the international situation was very tense and unpredictable at that point. Anti-lslamic sentiment was spreading. His Holiness needed a lot of courage in this situation not to postpone his visit to a country with a majority population that was Moslem.

During his first visit to Central Asia, the Pope highlighted the need for inter-religious dialogue between Christianity and Islam, and pointed out the danger of dividing the world along religious lines.

This concept of dialogue became central in the state visit of the Pope to Kazakhstan.

On a central square in the capital of Kazakhstan took place a Mass that brought together tens of thousands of Catholics from all over Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries, as well as the neighboring regions of Russia. It was attended by Christians of other churches and also by Muslims, which particularly highlights the tolerant nature of the  relationship among religions in Kazakhstan.

In a lecture at the Eurasian University named L.Gumeleva, John Paul II said about Kazakhstan:

Indeed, in your country cohabitation and harmony among the various peoples of the world can be specified as an eloquent sign of calling all people to live together in peace, mutual knowledge and hospitality, in the gradual opening and evaluating of traditions peculiar to each. Kazakhstan-the land of meeting, sharing, innovation and the land which stimulates interest in each new discovery and encourages experience of differences not as a threat but as an enrichment.

I especially remember the words of John Paul II that the new millennium "opens a crucial era for the world, for the souls of people spread the belief that one can no longer live in this kind of division."

He called on Kazakhstan and its people to promote more united world.

And we heard this call.

The idea of convening the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions was supported by many prominent politicians: Kofi Annan, George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Jiang Zemin, Nelson Mandela, Valery Giscard d'Estaing and others. The idea was positively perceived by many other leaders of States and governments.

After several months of preparatory work, on 23 September 2003 the first Congress of World and Traditional Religions was inaugurated in Astana.

Attended by 17 delegations, it was a decisive step towards greater harmony and constructive dialogue between faiths. Participants noted that inter-religious dialogue is one of the key means for social development and well-being of all peoples.

Very importantly, Kazakhstan managed to gather "face to face" at a round table representatives of all the major religions. The result was an open exchange of views on the role of religion in the modern world and the universal nature of the basic moral values of any religion.

Issues were raised related to the identification of the causes of religious conflicts.

The spiritual hierarchy spoke about the need for inter-religious harmony, mutual respect for each other and the ability to learn the traditions of other nations.

The first Congress was the most important step towards establishing a permanent inter-religious institution to promote interfaith dialogue and make concerted decisions.

I well remember this exceptional experience, when at same table were gathered together representatives of world and traditional religions, famous politicians and public figures. I am sure that the same feelings were experienced by all who were present at that forum.

In my speech, I tried to convey to all the participants of the Congress the fact that I, as a head of State, have a lot of special concerns. I pointed out that we should not and could not form any ultimate goals. It is impossible to create a single religious space. It is impossible to overcome and the end all the differences, especially as they sometimes affect the basis of the  great religions.

However, the value of constant dialogue is that, despite the differences, there is an ongoing search for some kind of "golden mean."

And most importantly, the dialogue provides a territory of peace and accord, a period of harmony and clarity. It is in this that I see clearly the usefulness of religious dialogue.

Religious leaders have supported this approach. It became clear that the idea of the  Congress is in demand and should be continued.

Following these discussions, the First Congress adopted the Declaration in which the religious leaders decided on joint action to promote peace and progress for humanity, social stability, as the basis of a harmonious world.

This inter-faith dialogue was named a crucial instrument to maintain peace and harmony among peoples.

Of importance was the fact that we all agreed to hold an inter-faith forum on a regular basis at least once every three years. The participants assigned the organization of the II Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions to the capital of Kazakhstan, Astana.

Kazakhstan as the initiator of the  Congress was asked to study all aspects of the  creation of the  Secretariat of the  Congress.

This Secretariat was duly created. I thought it was appropriate that the Chairman of Kazakhstan's Parliament Senate should head the Secretariat.

This demonstrates the importance that the Government of Kazakhstan gives to the forum of religious leaders. The members of the Secretariat were the representatives of world religions who participated in the Congress: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Hinduism, and international organizations.

During preparation for the Congress, I had given much thought to what its completion should be. It could not be banal. It had to be deeply symbolic.

I suggested a closing ceremony in the heart of the left bank of the new district of Astana.

On 24 September 2003 the members of the  First Congress gathered at the "Baiterek" monument. At that spot it was decided to hold a unique ceremony: the ritual of worship of all faiths.

For Kazakhstan, Baiterek is an important symbol.

Ancient myth says that every year in the foliage of Baiterek-the world tree- the sacred bird Samruk lays a golden egg, the sun.

A dragon, symbolizing darkness, eats the egg, but it still appears on the top of the crown. This symbolically means the change of day and night, summer and winter, the struggle between good and evil. The legend of the sacred tree reflects the ideals of the new Kazakhstan seeking to live in peace and harmony.

On that memorable day in September at the foot of the  Baiterek monument seventeen yurts were set at equal distance. From a bird's-eye view, this composition could be seen as a "sun" with its rays, a symbol of common desire for unity. In each of these yurts the delegates of denominations conducted rites of worship for one hour. Furnishings of the  yurts, of course, responded to the needs of worship of each religion. No doubt, this was a unique ceremony with its simultaneous prayers-in the center of Eurasia, in different languages.

After the prayer, I visited each of the  tents, welcoming the delegates and talking with them. Afterwards I invited religious leaders to the upper tier of the observation deck of the  Baiterek monument.

There we held the ceremony of signing an original document-а sort of web of the  tree, where is inscribed in the Kazakh and Russian languages: "Blessed be Kazakhstan-the land of peace and harmony."

The representatives of all religions left their signatures to this blessing.

This has become a real pilgrimage for all the guests of Astana. Every day tens of thousands of tourists-people of different nationalities and religious affiliation-rise to the top of Baiterek to touch their hands to this great blessing of our land.

In concluding the Congress, I told our guests that their signatures were a symbol well suited to the history of our country and our city.

I thanked everyone for their sincerity and desire for true unity of all people of the planet Earth. The common prayer will strengthen our common desire for peace and creation.

In response, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi expressed gratitude to Kazakhstan for hosting the Congress, at which there were calls for brotherhood, cooperation and tolerance.

He expressed confidence that with the will of Allah, during the next visit the religious leaders see new buildings constructed in Astana.

On behalf of the people of Kazakhstan, I wished prosperity, good health and a happy journey to all.

It was on this high note that I ended the First Congress of World and Traditional Religions. So we all started that great path that successfully continues today.

The desire to make a regular congress of religious leaders, led me to the idea of creation of the Astana Palace of Peace and Harmony. I shared this dream with the delegates at the First Congress of the World's Religions.

The Kazakh palace was designed by the world renowned British architect Norman Foster. We took the idea from the classical and yet unique shape of a pyramid, which has no one-sided religious bias. This sacred form has been known to humankind since ancient times, and is equally well suited to the modern human spiritual quest.

The Palace of Peace and Accord in Astana has become a symbol of friendship, unity and peace in the land of Kazakhstan.

The Pyramid is a visible embodiment of the  idea of religious tolerance and harmony. "Everything in the world is afraid of time, but time fears the pyramids"-so said the ancient when they created their great facilities. We have built our pyramid, of course, not to fear it.

Let it be admired! After all, it perpetuates the idea of peace and inter-religious dialogue.

In an effort towards constructive inter-religious dialogue, seeking to start this process, we do not forget the saying of Confucius that it is"better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness."

And we are not afraid, as in the vast Sary Arka, the Great Steppe, we light a candle to global dialogue of religions and cultures!

The Palace of Peace and Accord in Astana hosted the Second Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions on 12-13 September 2006.

This Congress had a I ready formulated its subjects, based on the decisions of the First Congress. The theme of this Second Congress was "Religion, society and international security."

The forum was conducted in two directions: "Freedom of religion and respect for other religions" and "The role of religious leaders in strengthening international security."

In my speech at the Second Congress, I found it necessary to remind the world of the great religious principle, the principle of non-violence in thought, word and deed, a principle which is especially applicable in today's world where there exists so much potential for creating harm.

Thought, word and deed: only non-violence at the level of religious doctrine, in the media and at the level of political action can be a real basis for survival in the modern world.

In addition, I pointed out those relationship principles which may be called principles of understanding and forms the basis for the beginning of inter-religious dialogue.

First, we are talking about impartiality, renouncing the centuries- old stereotypes of mutual perception, especially the negative aspects of these. My experience as a politician tells me that we should be able to overstep our stereotypes.

The second principle is a conscious rejection of the invasion of other sacred areas: what is sacred for one, cannot be the subject of ridicule for the other.

Third, the joint response of world and traditional religions to a new threat: breaking apart from ancient spiritual traditions, a break that is no longer in the form of the old atheism or secularism, but a radical rejection of the kind of spirituality that is associated with the traditions of the world religions.

The outcome of this Forum was the document "Principles of Inter-religious Dialogue."

This set of principles is based on proposals of the participants issuing the joint Declaration, which called for the avoidance of conflicts on the basis of religious, ethnic and cultural differences. The Declaration identified the need to replace the "ideology of confrontation" with a "culture of peace."

Given that inter-religious conflicts and inter-religious dialogue are global, I suggested that the United Nations should declared one of the forthcoming years as the International Year of Religious and Cultural Tolerance.

The Third Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions was held on 1-2 July 2009, and represented a further step towards the implementation of inter-religious dialogue.

It took place against the background of the  beginning of the  global financial crisis, which has caused enormous damage to the world economy. However, the crisis is logical, because the illusion of wealth without hard work has proved to be a delusion.

Therefore, I formulated the question: why in the mad race for worldly wealth have people begun to forget the morals of human life, until consumerism has become the meaning in the lives of many people?

Why, across the world, has wealth begun to dominate us-money, greed and thoughtless pursuit of success? Is this the true meaning of human existence?

Thus,wehavetoadmitthatthosewhoarguethathumansocietyisexperiencing setbacks of spirituality are right. And this is, perhaps, the deep-rooted cause of all the economic turmoil of the  modern world.

In the 21st century, at the forefront of economic and social life, moral principles must be upheld.

Paradoxically, the current crisis provides a unique opportunity to transform the world, and to realize the perennial dream of mankind of a just world order.

And the new world order cannot be created after a global military conflict, as has occurred on a smaller scale in the past. Here, there must be peace through dialogue and the development of mutually acceptable positions.

Thus, the Third Congress of the  religious leaders made one of the  necessary steps towards the conceptualization of a new world, a world order in the 21st century.

At that Congress, we formulated the principles of a new world order in a succinct plan.

First, it is a fair economic model, based on a fair and equitable global financial and monetary system, with no room for fraud and waste.

Second, there should be a just political model of interstate relationship. The

cornerstone should be the interest of the  whole world, not individual countries. A new world has to become a world of universal trust and respect, partnership and dialogue.

Third, a new approach to global security: decisive actions to develop new forms of international cooperation that can stabilize the situation on the planet, to make it safe.

Fourth, the new world order is impossible without high morals and spirituality. These qualities may be the most important factors of post-crisis reconstruction of the world.

In this world there should not be mutual jealousy, or discrimination on religious or other grounds.

It will be a community in which progress will be measured not only by wealth but also by the morality and responsibility of people.

Therefore, it would be insufficient to consider crisis countermeasures only from a material point of view. Without a change in mind, without observance of the norms and principles of the  highest morals, the crisis cannot be overcome.

At the Congress, I said that the creation of a world order must include not only the major powers, but all the other countries and international organizations. There is a need for a new approach to understanding the principles of the new G-GLOBAL world order.

The Third Congress of religious leaders clearly showed that while inter-faith dialogue can be facilitated, it bears the stamp of international political and ethnic circumstances.

The work has created a complex situation.

During the speech of the  guest of honor Israel's President Shimon Peres, the members of the  Iranian delegation left the hall. Similarly, some members of the  Israeli delegation did not use simultaneous translation during the speeches of Arab delegations. This was a really difficult situation.

However, it should be stated that all of the participants, each in their own way, spoke of the  necessity of understanding, of tolerance and tolerance.

The Fourth Congress of World and Traditional Religions was held on 30- 31 May 2012. It was the most impressive of all the Congresses to date.

The dynamics of growth of the number of participants was as follows. The First Congress in Astana in 2003 was attended by 17 delegations. Three years later in 2006 at the Second Congress there were gathered 29 delegations, and after three more years - 77 delegations from 35 countries arrived in the capital of Kazakhstan. The Fourth Congress was attended by 85 delegates from 40 countries.

A key event occurred just before the Congress. During the previous Congress,

I had proposed a Council of Religious Leaders. The proposal was supported and on 30 May 2012 the first meeting of this Council was held.

The Council consists of representatives of the leading authoritative confessions of the world: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism,

Shintoism and Zoroastrianism. In fact, Astana created a first working mechanism of a multilateral format of cooperation between religions on a regular basis.

I believe that the establishment of the  Council is able to bring the entire inter-faith dialogue to a new level.

The great Kazakh philosopher Abai wrote that «there is nothing wrong with good intentions.»

The goals and objectives of the  Council of Religious Leaders are both noble and relevant, being imbued with concern for harmony and agreement in the modern world.

First, within this framework there will be engagements with other international interactive agencies, such as the Alliance of Civilizations, the OSCE, CICA, OIC and others.

Second, the Council as a new and permanent body has great potential to eventually become an important tool of global peacekeeping, and timely response to conflict situations.

Third, the Council is essential to establish global monitoring of the rights and freedoms of believers.

Fourth, the spiritual power of religion, united under the new Council, can, I believe, play an important role in maintaining balance in the processes of global development; it can become a significant tool of equilibrium in a multipolar world.

Fifth, the organization and conduct of all future Congresses would be done at a higher level of quality.

The Council, led by documents adopted at the Congress, can take steps on behalf of the Congress to implement those decisions. At the same time, the Council has an important role in coordinating dates, venue, agenda and draft documents for future Congresses.

I am convinced that the Council of Religious Leaders established in Astana will be a worthy example of mutual respect and tolerance, an effective cooperation mechanism for religions.

The Fourth Congress took place at a crucial time for the whole world. In essence, there was a global transformation of the world order. There was a growing global crisis of moral values. It is impossible not to see how many companies promote a sort of "false freedom," and the motivation for honest labor is replaced by the desire for a quick profit by any means.

Speaking at the Congress, I could not keep from mentioning the cases of aggressive name-calling of priests and attempts to displace religion to the margins of social processes-these are typical signs of the  growing moral and ethical crisis in the world.

A blasphemous attitude to religious sites exists in many countries, in respect of almost all religions.

We see public burning of the holy books, the desecration and burning of mosques, temples, synagogues and other places of worship, the discrediting of the clergy, and beatings and killings of members of the  congregation.

I think this is because religion is one of the most durable protective barriers separating spirituality from greed. Many times religion has been the sole guardian of the people's wisdom, culture and traditions. The Kazakh society is aware of this-which I know because of my own experience of life under the atheist Soviet regime, especially during Stalin's persecutions.

At the Congress I strongly condemned such antics, and expressed support for all religious leaders, all religions in their opposition to a surge of militant godlessness.

The agenda of the Fourth Congress of religious leaders included the topic "Peace and Harmony as the Choice of Humanity." This was, therefore, the major motif of my address to the delegates, as I construed a new model world order as subjects in the 21st century.

I drew attention to my idea of G-GLOBAL, the principles upon which, in my opinion, should be formed a constructive world order in this century.

One of these principles is global tolerance and trust, is a fundamental principle of inter-cultural, inter-religious and inter-state cooperation, a key factor in the development and growth of national and global economies.

We cannot ignore the fact that over the last thirty years the greatest success has been achieved in the countries endowed with ethnic and cultural diversity. Today's world is in need of synthesis and the development of such experience. In this regard, the Congress of leaders of world and traditional religions could act as a leading platform for dialogue, in the construction of the ideological and spiritual foundations of a just world order in the 21st century.

Today global dialogue occurs not only in international forums and meetings. Through interactive communication it involves an increasing number of people around the world. Kazakhstan proposed the idea and format of G-GLOBAL, opening up new opportunities for global understanding and tolerance.

So I suggested the creation of an Internet resource dedicated to the formation and strengthening of global tolerance and trust. This could become part of the  electronic portal G-GLOBAL.

Within this framework it is important to provide interactive sessions of the  Council of Religious Leaders and the Secretariat of the  Congress, keeping a permanent online forum for a wide range of Internet users.

Members and guests of the Fourth Congress were interested in being involved in discussion of the  proposed ideas.

Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill noted that Kazakhstan and its hospitable capital Astana had for the fourth time become hosts to global discussion on a global platform, based on the nature of dialogue between religious traditions. With the participation of government agencies, religious leaders here have a great opportunity to get together and think about how to respond to the challenges common not only to our religious communities, but affecting the majority of the  peoples of the  world.

Patriarch Kirill reminded delegates that Faith gives a person the opportunity to break away from the plane of earthly existence, gaining a bird's-eye view of world events in perspective, to comprehend their true meaning.

Indeed, such a vantage point allows us to consider global processes in general. This, in essence, is the G-GLOBAL viewpoint.

Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar of Israel said that the differences between religions are not as important as their understanding and common view of the world, the ability to "break," to overcome sectarian barriers and obstacles to dialogue. It is this ability that provides a forum in Astana where, as Shalom Amar mentioned, a "new UN" was essentially created, bringing together not only people, but also religions, cultures and societies with a different outlook, engaging in the building of peace through dialogue.

This idea was continued by Yona Metzger, Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel. He expressed hope that the United Nations will pick up the idea to once a year convene representatives of different religions and talk about the world.

And indeed, the Congress received a welcome letter from UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon, which noted that Kazakhstan is bringing together religious groups in order to ensure a constructive dialogue. Religious leaders can help solve global problems through "heart-to-heart" exchange.

In their addresses the participants of the Fourth Congress expressed the belief that "the only way to a sound world is a dialogue based on mutual respect and understanding, compassion and forgiveness, justice and solidarity, peace and harmony."

And in this can be seen direct support of the  principles I have proposed in G-GLOBAL.

The unity of noble intentions is the success of the cause. And the Fourth Congress has shown once again that in the modern world, all religions have many tasks in common.

First, we must stop the spread of the spiritual vacuum and overcome the threat of a crisis of moral values of humanity. It seems very important to provide education in spirituality among young people, fostering sustainable immunity from the dangers of moral destruction. Also there is a need to increase the value of targeted measures to strengthen the family tradition, including the role of women in society and the family.

Second, we must strengthen the creative source of all societies-the values of diligence, honesty and fairness. The plan increases the value of social doctrines realized by many modern religions.

In my opinion, these social doctrines should be aligned with measures taken by governments to increase human capacity, improving the quality of life.

Third, the peacekeeping force of religion is to contribute to conflict prevention, intolerance and radicalism in all societies. Therefore it is important to translate the experience of the Congress to the level of nation-states and some regions with different ethnic and religious diversity and a high potential for conflict.

Fourth, it is important to put a reliable barrier to the use of creeds for sowing discord within the multi-religious society, among peoples and nations.

It is not permissible for practitioners of international terrorism and extremism to blasphemously justify their anti-human practice by any reference to religion. It is important to work to raise awareness of the  anti-religious and anti-humane essence of terrorism and all forms of extremism.

Fifth, it is important to cultivate society's respect for religions and their holy places, respect for the feelings and traditions of the faithful.

The dialogue of religions is the only way to achieve such tolerance in each society and the world. It is important to use all available features to enhance dialogue, including modern means of communication.

During the Fourth Congress, the leaders of world and traditional religions found understanding on all of these five major issues. And this gives us hope that a constructive dialogue among religions is sure to become an essential component of the  global world of the  21st century.

Here in Astana, at the Fourth Congress of World and Traditional Religions, an important step was taken to ensure that peace and harmony, global tolerance, mutual understanding and respect of religions became the 21st century philosophical values of all people in the world.

High-level international assessment of the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions suggests that the initiative of Kazakhstan is of global importance. In its twenty years of independence, Kazakhstan has developed and implemented a unique model of inter-ethnic and inter-religious harmony. The relevance of this experience to be effectively employed at the highest international level, is shown in the current difficult situation developing in many countries of the  world.

The crisis of the  policy of multiculturalism, the aggravation of inter-religious and inter-ethnic conflicts in a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa, the post-Arab Spring, the inter-ethnic tensions in some post-Soviet countries-these are evidence of the  importance of continuous intra-national and global dialogue among religions, cultures and civilizations.

2013 marks the tenth anniversary of the creation of a global dialogue platform, the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions.

I think we should use this opportunity to create conditions enhancing tolerance, inter-religious peace and harmony on the planet.

One complex step towards the assertion of global tolerance may be the development and adoption of the  UN Declaration "Towards a Global Tolerance Community."

An important aspect is the expansion of cross-cultural interaction between countries and peoples, which can contribute to greater trust and cooperation between them.

Herein lies the essence of the work on the creation of a new architecture of world order on the principles of G-GLOBAL.

5.            THE "GREEN BRIDGE":

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE 21st CENTURY

The human world is diverse. While visiting foreign countries, I am repeatedly convinced of this. Each part of the  world has its own unique characteristics, its own attractions.

My native Kazakhstan has been blessed with natural resources. We have snow-capped mountains, vast steppes and blue lakes. But can we keep the natural environment for our children, for future generations? Unfortunately, human civilization does not always preserve nature.

I remember when I first came to the shore of the dried-up Aral Sea. I saw thousands of square kilometers of salty sand where previously there was a sea, there was life!

Today, there is much talk about global warming. But even then, somewhere in the mid-1980s, I thought the merciless sun had destroyed what was unique, had incinerated the Aral Sea.

Nature is vulnerable. And the tragedy of the  Aral Sea prompts us to undertake our most serious work.

I am convinced that the world has crossed the line whereby to ensure safe development requires a global effort.

The economic damage from the natural disasters around the world in 2011 alone amounted to a record $350 billion. Every year, natural disasters affect more than a quarter of a billion people. Forty percent of all victims of natural disasters are in the poorest countries.

It pointless to call humankind back to a pristine natural environment, and to refuse to use the gifts of nature. Humanity will move forward. However, the question remains open: what will be our path to the future? What price does the world have to pay for the progress of development?

Global Energy and Ecological Strategy

At the beginning of the third millennium our world is subject to a wave of global crises: economic, energy, food, environment and others. As if purposively,

these crises are causing people to rethink the problems of civilization, economy and society.

There is a need for balancing between needs and capabilities, between the basic components of development-economy, energy, and the environment-in order to develop strategies for determining the dynamics of the  development of civilization.

Obviously, the "economy-energy-environment" triad and its balanced monitoring should remain at the center of attention. But in the world so far this is not the case.

The global situation is that in the world today one in five people have no access to electricity.

Among the most pressing problems for humanity is the energy crisis, which calls into question the possibility to balance energy security and environmental protection.

The G-GLOBAL vision for the future of the world is directly related to the adoption of a new ideological paradigm, based on the transition to new forms of technology for enabling the evolution of civilization in the face of depletion of natural resources and energy, climate change and environmental destruction.

In this regard, Kazakhstan initiated a new environmental strategy.

At the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly in 2007, I reminded the delegates of Kazakhstan's initiative launched at the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002.

Its main point was to create within the UN a register of global environmental problems. This would contribute to the development of mechanisms to address environmental disasters.

In particular, consolidated efforts of the  world community will be required to deal with the problem of the  Aral Sea.

The disappearance of three-quarters of water bodies has been a disaster for millions of people living around this sea. Salt from the bare sea floor has been spreading across Eurasia, causing damage to the environment. Given the seriousness of the  problem, I called to grant the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea a UN Institution status.

At the same session of the  General Assembly, I paid special attention to the deepening of the global energy crisis, the growing threat of adverse climate change, and invited the UN to develop a Global Energy Strategy, in order to discuss it at the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development "Rio-20" in 2012.

Today the whole world is facing new challenges of global energy security. Developed countries with a population of about one billion people consume almost twice as much energy as the rest of the  world.

There is reason to believe that in the future the struggle for raw materials will only strengthen, which can lead to the further aggravation of the  situation in the world.

The International Energy Agency currently in existence actually defends only the interests of energy-importing countries in terms of the  redistribution of the  volume of oil and gas.

There is no coordination of research in the field of alternative energy.

Therefore, I believe that there is a need for a Global energy organization. It should coordinate the production and distribution of all types of energy resources in the world, as well as scientific research.

This organization should monitor and regulate all matters in the field of energy security, so that we can, in an orderly fashion and without panic, make use of all available forms of energy in the world, including nuclear. Only through a joint approach to the sustainable use of energy, can the world create a foundation for global environmental security.

Humanity, in recent years, has been faced with many problems related to the issues of ensuring energy and ecological security.

There was the man-made disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, social and political upheavals in the oil-producing countries in North Africa and the Middle East, and the natural disaster in Japan in 2011, which led to an emergency situation at the Japanese Fukushima nuclear power plant.

The situation in Japan, in particular, demonstrated the deficit of planetary global risk management mechanisms in energy development.

Today it is important to scale up investments in energy. According to the International Energy Agency, by 2030 we will have to spend $17 trillion U.S. dollars to provide the necessary production and transportation of energy.

Thus are irreversibly accelerated processes such as the burning of non-renewable energy resources, pollution of the whole environment, the reduction of arable land, soil salinization, desertification, shortage of fresh water, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity. All countries of the  world face these components of global energy crisis to some extent.

Moreover, the crisis becomes an essential limitation of not only economic, but also social development of our world. This also requires new approaches- especially in view of the  fact that at present the leading countries of the  world have no single approach to energy and ecological problems such as could satisfy most of the world.

While countries such as Sweden and Norway have almost completely transferred their energy use to renewable energy resources, the United States and China have not signed the Kyoto Protocol and remain focused on the use of non-renewable fossil fuels. As a result, emissions to the atmosphere at a global scale have been steadily increasing, and the gap in per capita energy consumption between developed, developing and other countries continues to grow each year.

From the beginning of the  Industrial Revolution to the present time, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by nearly 40%, and the environment's capacity to absorb emissions has decreased.

Globalization is rapidly pushing humanity to the transition to renewable energy.

Therefore, the world needs a strategy and mechanisms for an energy- secure state of the planet, which will benefit all countries now and in the future.

Currently, the share of renewable energy in the global energy balance is only 13.5%. At the same time, our oil, gas and uranium are limited; they are going to be exhausted.

According to Kazakh and Russian scientists, the main technological solutions to energy and ecological problems are in the innovative development of renewable and alternative energy.

Forecasting of energy sources worldwide indicates that the proportion of the use of oil, coal and gas will decrease by 2030-2040, and that their consumption over the next 50 years will decrease by half.

An especially promising area is solar energy. By 2100, solar and other renewable energy resources may be a deciding factor in the energy supply of humankind.

Kazakhstan will not stay apart from the global trend towards renewable energy.

Our area is characterized by abundant wind energy resources. Their potential, according to some estimates, is comparable to the full level of modern energy consumption. There are at least 10 areas with an average wind speed of 10.8 meters per second. Annual duration of sunshine is 2,200-3,000 hours per year, and the potential of solar energy in Kazakhstan is estimated at 2.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year.

In addition, our country has a great potential in silicon industry. The reserves of quartz are estimated at 65 million tons, and quartzite at 267 million tons.

A most important aspect of achieving energy balance in the global dimension (along with the technological side) is the promotion of policy strategies.

In this regard, Kazakhstan proposed a comprehensive solution to this problem through the innovative development of the economies of all the countries of the  world through a partnership of civilizations.

This partnership involves finding unique solutions that go beyond the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord, and must aim to ensure energy sufficiency of all countries of the world.

Today, the understanding of the  complexity of the  process and at the same time, awareness of the need to develop new forms of partnership between governments and civilizations has been gaining momentum in world politics.

But there remains a need for deeper analysis of energy and ecological needs, with an exact calculation on energy changes in the 21st century, and for the development of ways to implement a global strategy.

Politicians need to obtain from the scientists' perspective an energy-specific algorithm for development in Eurasia and the world.

The problem of global energy strategy should be interpreted in the context of global and long-term trends as part of the G-GLOBAL idea.

Of course, it takes a lot of effort to achieve the real integration of economic interests, motivation, energy security and the desire to establish comfortable environmental conditions in each country and the world at large.

It is important to start this road.

In the short term, the international community as represented by the UN has to, first, synchronize the processes of development of renewable energy sources while optimizing the use of traditional resources.

Second, there is the acute problem of forming a unified international legal framework, focused on energy and environment security of the  world, regions and countries. The international community needs a set of international environmental laws.

Third, the global situation calls for the creation of a World Energy and Environment Bank, which would be able to ensure the development of renewable energy and facilitate the removal of barriers for its development in all countries, including developing countries.

We believe that the decision to establish the Green Climate Fund made in December 2010 in Mexico (Cancun), should be developed further towards the creation of a World Energy and Environment Bank.

Fourth, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development should adopt a Declaration on renewable energy in developed and developing countries as a tool for implementation of a global energy strategy based on balanced, sustainable development of the  world economy, energy and the environment.

In June 2012, in Rio de Janeiro, there was the anniversary of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20.

It took forty years after the Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm (1972), and twenty years after the historic "Planet Earth" summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, to discuss the progress, obstacles and future actions needed to create a world based on the principles of sustainable development, social justice and reducing the risk of environmental crisis.

At this conference, Kazakhstan's initiatives were supported. The Energy section of the final document on "The Future We Want" was essentially a summary of the goals and targets of the global energy strategy proposed by Kazakhstan.

In particular, the final document notes the support of strategies based on a combination of energy sources, the wider use of renewable energy sources to reduce emissions, increased energy efficiency, and greater reliance on advanced energy technologies, including more environmentally friendly fossil fuel technologies.

The conference called on the international community to implement public and private investment in the development of cleaner energy technologies and to conduct appropriate research in all countries, including developing countries.

The conference participants agreed and acknowledged that improving energy efficiency, increasing the share of renewable energy sources, and cleaner and more efficient technologies are essential for sustainable development, including climate change.

This is what the people of Kazakhstan desired, in offering the world a global energy strategy.

The notions of the global energy strategy were most fully embodied in UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's initiative of "Sustainable Energy for All"

supported by the Rio+20. Within its framework, the focus is on ensuring access to energy resources, as well as energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.

And here I must stress two points.

First. In my opinion (and consistent with the global energy strategy), it is more appropriate to address the causes of an environmental crisis rather than its consequences. Today, however, the struggle for the environment is

mainly aimed at cutting carbon emissions and reducing global temperatures.

But this ignore the fact that the production, transportation and consumption of energy are the main sources of emissions and global warming.

The close relationship between environment and energy is evident. Energy systems are responsible for the major share of global greenhouse gas emissions and other negative environmental impacts.

Understanding of this relationship is increasingly penetrating the international community. Thus, in May 2012, under the V Astana Economic Forum, the Global Energy Conference on "The Energy and Ecological Initiatives of Kazakhstan" declared the International Year of Sustainable Energy for all countries of the CIS and Central Asia.

At this forum, UN Deputy Secretary-General Sha Zukang highlighted the innovative nature of Kazakhstan's proposals for Rio+20.

He noted that "the Republic of Kazakhstan is a strong supporter of the  UN, and with your innovative and very timely initiative on energy and the environment, you are our active partner in achieving the goals and aspirations of Rio+20."

Second. The mechanism for implementing environmental and energy issues should be scientifically based on the three-point balance in the interaction of "energy-environment-economy."

Kazakhstan's position on the Energy section of the final document of Rio+20 has focused the world's attention on what needs to be added to the three recognized pillars of sustainable development concept (environment, social dimension, and economy) is a fourth pillar - energy.

Humanity has the chance to build a just and equitable world, provided it pays equal attention to all key aspects of sustainable development: social, economic, environmental and energy.

It is necessary to solve global problems in their relationship rather than in isolation, and strive for balance between components.

Obviously, for the sustainable development of the  G-GLOBAL world, we must make the best use of global natural capital.

Especially essential for global and national sustainable development is the transition to a green economy.

I believe that based on the results of scientific and technological progress and international partnership, we can provide an energy-secure long-term future for the Earth. To do this, we already have the resources, knowledge and technology.

This is the case for the adoption and implementation of global solutions.

Energy for the future and the future of energy-this is the big issue, and is recognized as such throughout the world.

Kazakhstan is among the countries with rich energy resources. The country has strong hydrocarbon reserves: 5.3 billion tons of oil, and 3.3 trillion cubic meters of gas. During the years of independence oil production has increased by 4 times and currently stands at about 80 million tons a year. By 2020, this amount will increase to 130 million tons, which will position the country among the top ten oil-producing economies.

If currently our partners in the EU have reduced their level of oil consumption, energy consumption is increasing sharply in such dynamic economies as China and India. And Kazakhstan is for them a promising oil exporter.

In addition, it should be noted that in two to three decades the world economy, according to some projections, will again feel the need to use coal. We have rich resources of this fuel.

However, we are well aware of the vulnerability of traditional energy wealth. And we are ready not only to extract hydrocarbons, but also to actively seek new types of renewable, alternative energy.

Humanity should realize that, according to expert estimates, the recoverable reserves of hydrocarbons in the traditional application of existing technologies will not be enough beyond the year 2060. Given the fact that oil production is declining and its value is increasing gradually, in the near future we will need to begin a large-scale shift to alternative energy sources.

All this means one thing-practical steps in the field of ecological, alternative energy. It is a time for experimental design, innovation, application, development. It is a time for sharing of experiences and technologies. Specialized exhibitions worldwide can help in this regard.

Given the importance of energy issues and the environment, Kazakhstan has submitted a bid to host an international EXPO in 2017 in Astana and proposed a relevant topic - "Future Energy.''

This application was supported by a majority of the  160 Member States of the  International Exhibitions Bureau.

There is no doubt that this global EXPO event will contribute to the further modernization of Kazakhstan, and accelerate our industrial-innovation development.

In March 2012, I met with the leadership of the  International Exhibitions Bureau and said that EXPO 2017 is our national project.

And we will do everything possible to implement it with the maximum benefit for the country, for our people and for the world.

Kazakhstan, the initiator of Eurasian integration, de facto leader of the  Central Asian region, demonstrates stability of investment climate, and a high rate of economic development.

It should be highlighted that our young country already has strong experience in hosting major international events and is ready to host major events of world importance in the capital. A number of important events have been successfully conducted here, such major events as the OSCE summit, the Asian Winter Games in 2011, as well as various international forums which show the strong potential of Kazakhstan and Astana to successfully host the EXPO in 2017.

EXPO 2017 in Astana will be the first international exhibition to be held in the Central Asian region and the CIS.

Astana will become a platform to showcase the world's top developments and trends, bringing together the world's leading science and business innovators.

The success of our capital in its bid for the right to host EXPO 2017 is the success of all the people of Kazakhstan.

The exhibition will attract to the country large investment, new technologies and innovations that will provide additional incentives for economic and infrastructural development of the  country.

Moreover, the country must demonstrate commitment to the idea of switching to the "energy of the future.' Over the next five years, Kazakhstan is committed to making an innovative breakthrough in the development and deployment of clean energy.

In order to work on modernizing our economy, we have established the Center for Energy Research at Nazarbayev University. It will work in the field of high energy physics, technology, energy efficiency and renewable energy: wind, solar, thermal, geothermal and bioenergy.

Particularly relevant fields of research include creating solar cells of the second and third generations, superconductors, advanced fuel cells, and development of autonomous sources of energy based on nuclear fusion (small nuclear reactors).

The subject of EXPO 2017 is "Energy for the Future" which would allow us to spotlight the problem of energy saving and the introduction of renewable energy and alternative energy sources including solar, wind, thermal water, and others.

Thus, in June 2012 Kazakhstan presented its global energy strategy at the Rio+20 world conference, and offered the first practical step towards its implementation at the regional level: a Green Bridge partnership program.

In general, Kazakhstan's Global Energy and Ecological Strategy reveals innovative ways to address global and regional issues of energy and the environment. These ideas have been broadly supported by Rio +20 and accepted by the international community to implement.

"Green Bridge" to the Future

I first announced the "Green Bridge" initiative at the III Astana Economic Forum in 2010.

The "Green Bridge" Inter-regional Partnership Program proposed by Kazakhstan is a road map for implementing the goals of global partnership and transfer of environmental technologies at the regional level.

It is a mechanism to encourage and ensure inter-regional cooperation between Europe and the Asia-Pacific region in the global transition to a green economy.

The world urgently needs new, environmentally sound technologies, and the rapid exchange of the  wider use of renewable energy sources.

Environmental and man-made disasters in recent years are warnings to humanity about the sad consequences that await us if, in the pursuit of economic growth, we ignore the issues of ecology and climate.

The condition of soils, forests, clean rivers and reservoirs, and issues of global warming, natural and man-made disasters should all be assessed through the task of ensuring justice.

For example, according to the evaluation report of the World Bank on "Justice for the Forest," the area of illegal logging of forests around the world is comparable with the disappearance of an area the size of a football field every second. This illegal logging brings $10-15 billion profit going into the pockets of corrupt officials.

The destruction of the "lungs of the planet" jeopardizes the lives of future generations of humans.

Against this backdrop, Kazakhstan's initiative to create "green belts" can be seen as crucial.

During the first years of the  project more than 50 thousand hectares of green zone were planted around Astana. The "green belt" project will continue with the expansion of green belt around other Kazakh cities.

Kazakhstan is committed to the course of sustainable development. During its twenty years of independence, Kazakhstan has made significant progress in line with the priorities set out in the "Agenda for the 21st Century" (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), the Millennium Declaration and the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

According to the Strategy "Kazakhstan-2030," the future of our country is connected with the unity and balance of all aspects of society.

Kazakhstan is a country that has achieved sustained economic growth, prosperity, health and a nurturing environment for all its citizens. We are working on water issues and waste management, and actively promoting green development.

At the same time it is obvious that no one country can solve the problems of climate change and the transition to a "green economy" alone, we need to join forces.

The world is facing problems that are of transboundary, transregional and even transcontinental character.

In this regard, Kazakhstan has launched a new environmental initiative-the "Green Bridge, "which is a specialization of certain aspects of global energy strategy.

This program will bring together and accelerate environmental security and the formation of a "green economy" especially in Europe and Asia.

The goal of the initiative is promoting wider Eurasian integration for "green growth," involving the European Union, the Community of the  Common Economic Space, and the Asia-Pacific region. The relevance of the  initiative cannot be limited to only one region.

We believe that given the wide range of environmental problems related to global economic development in different countries, there is a need to identify their specific current program for environmentally sound development.

The Astana initiative "Green Bridge" was supported by the VI Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and the Pacific in October 2010.

It was approved by the Committee on Environmental Policy of the  UN Economic Commission for Europe. There was a practical discussion of this initiative at the VII European Conference «Environment for Europe,» held in September 2011 in Astana.

The "Green Bridge" is an important contribution to the global "green economy."

Kazakhstan is ready to carry out information and communication support in priority areas of "green" cooperation, mainly on the protection of transboundary ecosystems and adaptation of the  region to climate change.

Today, cross-border ecosystems are unfortunately experiencing greater degradation, because borders are not conducive to increased cooperation between countries.

One of these complex issues is the protection and sharing of transboundary ecosystems, and above all - Rivers and International Lakes.

Water as a factor for the economic development of border areas is of particular importance, as a rational water policy becomes impossible if countries do not coordinate their economic and environmental actions.

Kazakhstan has the experience of international cooperation on the joint management of transboundary basins of the  Aral and Caspian seas, the Ural, Irtysh, Ili and other waterways with China, Russia, the Caspian countries, Kyrgyzstan, etc.

However, if we step back and look at the whole of Eurasia, 58 agreements on transboundary basins have been signed but only in 10 of these has joint management of water resources been implemented. Nearly 884 million people worldwide do not have access to safe drinking water.

Water problems are becoming particularly acute due to the threat of climate change. The vulnerability of the economies of Eurasia to climate change is quite high. Taking into account the limited results of the Copenhagen Summit, the issue of adaptation to climate change must occupy one of central places on the agendas of all countries, whether arid, coastal, mountain or island.

The "Green Bridge" initiative will facilitate the transition from the current traditional models of the  concepts of "green" growth, especially in the areas of conservation and restoration of transboundary ecosystems, to the ecologically efficient use of natural resources, low carbon development and adaptation to climate change, and promoting sustainable urban development. It would promote green business and green technologies, and encourage sustainable living and quality of life.

And we are sure that the inter-regional partnership program "Green Bridge," supported by the ESCAP and ECE, the European Union and a number of international forums, can be a link in the process of transcontinental Eurasian cooperation, which is an essential component of global sustainable development.

In putting forward the "Green Bridge" initiative, we call upon countries and international agencies to contribute to the realization of Eurasian and global "green" cooperation.

All interested parties may participate in the program to address the priorities of "green" growth, on a voluntary and equal basis. I believe that the developed countries can take on a leading role in facilitating the transfer of knowledge, experience, new technologies and best practices in the developing world.

Astana's "Green Bridge" initiative became a significant inter-regional input to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20.

In the medium term, mechanisms will be developed to build sustainable partnership for the implementation of the priorities of "green growth": the conservation and restoration of ecosystems, and management of natural resources through the implementation of resource-, water-, energy-saving and alternative technologies.

In the long term, within the framework of the  Partnership Program, large- scale projects will be carried out to reduce the rate of degradation and restoration of the environment, the optimal use of natural resources through "green" policies, and new approaches to attract investment for the development of "green" economy in the countries of the  Eurasian continent.

Overall the "Green Bridge" program would allow the development of beneficial regional cooperation mechanisms for more efficient use of water and energy resources, the transfer of clean technology and investment, to minimize the impact on the environment and allow substantial strengthening of environmental, national and regional security.

According to many international experts, the "Green Bridge" initiative is, in its global significance, equivalent to the Kyoto process.

It has the potential to truly change the world and better adapt it to the management of natural resources, by creating industries that are safe in terms of environmental protection. It could become a model for regional and inter-regional cooperation in the transition to a «green» economy.

The successful start of the Astana "Green Bridge" initiative and its active implementation with the support of UNESCAP, draw attention to the task of developing a comprehensive program of Eurasian "green" cooperation.

Conservation and improvement of the quality of life, and achieving economic progress without destroying our natural foundations are the initiative's threefold purposes. The achievement of this program will, in many ways, become the standard of success of the new world order in the 21st century.

***

In 2010, the capital of Kazakhstan opened a new university, modeled after the world's leading research and education centers.

With the dynamic growth potential of the  university, it has trained over a thousand students. Scientific activity is gaining momentum at the Center of Life Sciences, Center for Energy Studies and the Interdisciplinary Center.

The university has already implemented roughly a hundred scientific and technical projects. University scientists have published research papers in prestigious international scientific magazines, and have already received four patents for their inventions. Professors from top world universities deliver the lectures.

We will continue to develop the university. There is a School of Education, a School of Business and a School of Public Policy. It is also planned to open a Medical School and a School of Mining.

Here, in fact, is the birth of a new country's future, the new elite of our country, who will have the task of developing Kazakhstan in the 21st century, providing peace and confident prosperity.

I agreed to this university's bearing my name.

There is already a tradition to begin each school year with my meeting the students of the  scientific and educational centers. In my lectures, I share with the students my view of the world, of the conflicting events on the planet. I talk to them about what the goals of Kazakhstan should be; what do we need to do in order to keep our country a worthy participant in the global family of nations.

Kazakhstan-a young and dynamic nation.

The average age of our citizens is under 35. The micro "baby boom," which began in 2005, will probably continue till 2016. During this period we will have 1.2 million more children than in previous years. Those who today sit at school desks and at the university will take over as the creators of the new future of Kazakhstan.

So my lectures to the students are my direct appeal to our future.

At one of those meetings, held on 5 September 2012,1 spoke in detail about my plans for strategic development in a challenging 21st century.

I urged my young fellow citizens to remember that we are moving towards a post-industrial world ruled by the triple convergence of education, science, and innovation. International bodies of the United Nations family, major European leaders, many well-known economists and politicians have officially adopted the concept of the Third Industrial Revolution put forward by the famous American scientist Jeremy Rifkin.

The first revolution was associated with the invention of the  steam engine, the second with the invention of electricity and communication tools, and the third started with digital connection.

In coming years, Internet technology and renewable resources will come together to create a new infrastructure for the Third Industrial Revolution. The "Energy Internet" will enable millions of people to produce clean energy in their homes, offices and factories, and the freedom to share it.

Kazakhstan should benefit from advantages of the "green economy" which will be the basis of the  new industrial revolution. This is the path to a decent life and the prosperity of the  country.

I talked about how in the 21st century no one is safe from political, ethnic and religious conflicts, like those now occurring in various parts of the  world.

But these conflicts cannot be won. They can lead only to the winning of evil that results in poverty, dislocation, hunger, protracted civil war and setbacks to the Middle Ages.

Today we live in a "glass world." This world is transparent and fragile. We cannot throw stones. It needs to be protected.

In Kazakhstan's success, there are three keys that are our public asset.

First, is the unity of all Kazakhstan, representing 140 ethnic groups. This is a unique value. Our task is to protect, preserve and reproduce this unity. We should not let anyone rock this boat, so safely and confidently afloat.

Second, is the tolerance that is inherent in all of us together and as individuals. There is a need for a quiet and respectful understanding and perception of ethnic and religious differences.

Thanks to tolerance, our diversity does not divide but unites. Without tolerance, our boat cannot stay on course, it will be vulnerable to shipwreck. We all become sailors in distress, signaling SOS.

Third, is a common historical destiny. Our goal is not just to survive in the new conditions of a changing world, but also to continue our development, strengthening previous achievements, expanding their ability to influence the emerging new world.

In the sincere and committed attention of a young audience, who posed inquisitive questions to me at the end of the lecture, I felt their deep desire to live, to create and to act so that our Kazakhstan and the entire world can confidently walk the road of peace, progress and prosperity.

Standing there, I thought how in just twenty years, we have created a generation that feels itself a part of the global world, while remaining true patriots of their country.

I am convinced that the same qualities will characterize millions and even billions of young people in different countries, all filled with a desire to make our planet a more open, peaceful and tolerant place.

That's why my idea of a G-GLOBAL world is offered especially to the younger generation of Kazakhstan and all the people of our planet. I deeply hope that it will be accepted by them, will be the impetus for action for the benefit of peace and humanity.

The first decade of the  21st century has shown an unparalleled opportunity and at the same time the incredible challenges the world faces in the new millennium.

Humankind has entered a stage of rapid development, dynamically "compressing" time and distance, offering a new type of global economy, international relations, rules and values of life and interaction.

In the 21st century, in order to know what to expect in our world it is not enough, as one of the thinkers of the Renaissance suggested, to track only distant or recent human history. Today it is important to know exactly what the potential of the world is, what challenges and threats it could face a year from now - and two, five, ten, thirty years or more.

What is needed here is not just some inexplicable gift of foresight, but accurate scientific prediction and calculation, the ability to take into account the full range of trends and developments.

In one of my articles I used the concept of the  "History of the  Future".

And this is not a metaphor, but the subject of specific scientific and policy research of the  sort which today is essential for forming strategic and tactical plans for the development of States and societies.

In political practice, therefore, a growing number of countries adopt national development strategies designed for the long term. At the intergovernmental level, long-term plans to strengthen bilateral and multilateral relations are also introduced. At the UN level, a "millennium agenda" is put together.

Our country introduced just such a strategy for the history of the future: "Kazakhstan - 2030", which we adopted 15 years ago. It laid out the main directions of Kazakhstan in the first third of the  21st century.

Already by the end of 2010 most of the goals that I set in the program document had been attained. According to the World Economic Forum in 2011, Kazakhstan has become number 51 in the global competitiveness ranking. This is a huge victory of our people.

So I put forward the Strategy "Kazakhstan - 2050". This new policy will by mid-century place my country among the 30 most developed countries of the world.

I have no doubt that the people of Kazakhstan will reach that goal.

The 21st century closely intertwines relationships, national and regional processes, and the fate of nations. This new era makes the world more than ever before interdependent, both economically and politically, morally and spiritually.

The global community is beginning to realize that strife and conflict, unilateral advantage, domination of one nation over another - all belong to the yesterday of humanity.

And at the same time, from year to year the general desire for a constructive, balanced and equitable cooperation among nations and peoples is gaining ascendency.

That is why all our global initiatives are primarily designed to consolidate the efforts of the  international community. That is why Kazakhstan enjoys a well- deserved reputation across all the continents.

One result of our universal acceptance was gaining the absolute support for Astana to host EXPO 2017. We clearly identified one of the  key points of growth for the coming decade, and the main theme of the  upcoming forum: "Future Energy".

I am convinced that the history of the future in the 21st century is a history that humanity will create together.

Only in this way can our global world find the right solutions to global problems to overcome all the challenges and obstacles in the way of progress. Only by working together can we make a planet suitable for life and prosperity of all people.

These assertions have no utopia.

The lesson and truth of globalization is that the process of global convergence of individuals, including through Internet, new means of communication and media, is much faster than the integration of societies and states. Objectively, this is one of the most difficult challenges to the development of the  world.

And this is one of the reasons for "online revolution", in face of which governments of some countries have failed, with their traditional means of informational influence on their people.

An alternative to radical political methods does exist. It is that "online revolutions" should be countered by "online evolution": a broad public dialogue in the Internet space around intra-cluster development, regional and global issues.

This is the path to finding consensus solutions and global sourcing of all peoples to create fair foundation of world order.

Therefore we have created G-GLOBAL as a central powerful resource for global online dialogue of governments, experts and interested public.

In this book, I have outlined five principles of the G-GLOBAL world.

These facets of world order do not include anything that could cause rejection and neither do they reject anyone else.

Does the world need a new global financial and economic system, does it need effective inter-state security structures, including nuclear? Who can be against a dialogue leading to tolerance and harmony? Isn't it the dream of all people to live in a green world; is it reasonable to use natural resources?

In a global transformation, as never before, this requires political will, determination, consistency, openness and trust.

My understanding of the future of the world built on the principles of G-GLOBAL does not pursue any unilateral advantages for Kazakhstan.

This is a reflection of the formula in which the future of my country is inseparable from the future of the world. This is the essence of the active global participation of Kazakhstan in international affairs and my G-GLOBAL initiative.

I am convinced that it will find its supporters not only among politicians, but also in broader audience around the world.