As the last
speaker on your list, Mr. President, I think I can
congratulate you on this important debate, and quote
the Latin saying, dulce est in fundo, which you know
very well — sweetness comes at the end.
As you assume the presidency of the General
Assembly at its sixty-third session, my delegation
wishes you all the best in your endeavours and looks
forward to working with you in order to address the
many challenges facing the global community.
This general debate is an occasion for those
responsible for the national life of every country to
come together to take the pulse of the world situation.
By its nature and structure, the United Nations
normally creates neither events nor trends, but rather
serves as a sounding board where events and trends are
submitted for debate and a coherent, consensual and
timely response.
This year has been dominated by a number of
challenges and crises: natural and man-made
calamities, staggering economies, financial turmoil,
rising food and fuel prices, the impact of climate
change, local wars and tensions. We have been called
to this Hall once again to identify the common causes
and denominators underlying those diverse crises and
to craft adequate long-term solutions.
One of the clear facts, recognized by all, is that
every crisis presents a mixture of natural factors and
elements of human responsibility. However, they are
all too often compounded by the tardy responses,
failures or reluctance of leaders to exercise their
responsibility to protect their populations.
When speaking within these walls of the
responsibility to protect, the common understanding of
the term is found in the 2005 World Summit Outcome
Document, which refers to the responsibility of the
international community to intervene in situations
where individual Governments are not able or willing
to assure the protection of their own citizens.
In the past, the language of protection was too
often a pretext for expansion and aggression. In spite
of the many advances in international law, that same
understanding and practice tragically continues today.
However, during the past year, in this same Hall there
has been growing consensus and greater inclusion of
this expression as a vital component of responsible
leadership. The responsibility to protect has been
invoked by some as an essential aspect of the exercise
of sovereignty at the national and international levels,
while others have relaunched the concept of the
exercise of responsible sovereignty.
For his part, Pope Benedict XVI, in his address to
the General Assembly last April, also recognized that,
from the very ancient philosophical discourses on
governance to the more modern development of the
nation State, the responsibility to protect has served
and must continue to serve as the principle shared by
all nations in governing their populations and
regulating relations between peoples. Those statements
reassert the historical and moral basis for States to
govern. Likewise, they reassert that good governance
08-53141 50
should no longer be measured simply within the
context of a State’s rights or sovereignty, but rather by
its ability to care for those who entrust it with the grave
moral responsibility to lead.
We the peoples who formed the United Nations
conceived the responsibility to protect as the core basis
for the United Nations. The founding leaders believed
that the responsibility to protect would consist not
primarily of the use of force in order to restore peace
and human rights, but rather in States coming together
to detect and denounce early symptoms of every kind
of crisis, mobilizing Governments, civil society and
public opinion to find the causes and to offer solutions.
The various agencies and bodies of the United Nations
also reaffirm the importance of the responsibility to
protect in their ability to work in close proximity and
solidarity with affected populations and to put
detection, implementation and monitoring mechanisms
into place. It is incumbent not only upon States, but
also upon the United Nations to ensure that the
responsibility to protect serves as the underlying
measure and motivation of all its work.
While many continue to question and debate the
real causes and medium- and long-term consequences
of the various financial, humanitarian and food crises
around the world, the United Nations and its
membership have the responsibility to provide
direction, coherence and resolution. It is not only the
credibility of the Organization and our global leaders
that is at stake, but rather and more importantly the
ability of the human community to provide food and
security and to protect basic human rights so that all
peoples have the opportunity to live with freedom from
fear and want, thus realizing their inherent dignity.
One area in which our best intentions require
urgent action is climate change. My delegation
commends Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his
leadership in recognizing the urgency of tackling that
issue, and we commend States and civil society for
making the necessary political and personal sacrifices
to ensure a better future.
The challenge of climate change and the various
solutions proposed and put into action have led us to
call attention to a preoccupation and inconsistency
existing today in the realm of international and national
law — that all that is technically possible must be
legally licit.
In adopting ever more stringent norms to protect
the environment and nature, it is often rightly affirmed
that not all environmental activity should be allowed
and sanctioned by law just because it is technically
possible and economically profitable. Indiscriminate
deforestation, the dumping of radioactive waste and
invasive and devastating acts on nature are often more
expedient and technically possible, but because they
provoke our conscience, as well as our responsibility
towards creation, we decide to invoke the principle that
even though it is possible it should not be legally licit.
However, when passing from the ecological field
to that of humans, we have a tendency to affirm the
opposite principle — that all which is technically
possible should be legally licit and consequently
pursued. Whether regarding the production of arms for
war, biotechnological engineering, the taking of human
life, reproductive technology or the structure of the
family itself, we have the tendency to advocate that all
which is technologically possible should also be legally
licit. That inconsistency calls into question whether we
truly place humans at the centre of decision-making.
The global community must come together to
reverse that contradiction and engage in a political
discourse that recognizes the centrality of humans in
all aspects of political and technological development.
The same principles that lead us to oppose unchecked
technology and policies that destroy the environment
should also guide us in our prudent use of technologies
and the creation of policies that directly impact the
lives of individuals. Short of that, we will succumb to
an inconsistency that penalizes the individual and
human society and risks paving the way towards the
imposition of laws by the more powerful and the
creation of a new mass of losers.
As we embark on this session of the General
Assembly, we strive to fashion an Organization that
reflects our highest and best intentions and carefully
places the needs of all people, regardless of their
economic and political standing, at the centre of our
decisions and responsibility.