Not so long ago,
it appeared that our world was growing at a pace
beyond our control into a single global village. Today’s
reality, by contrast, appears more and more fractured.
Our efforts to overcome divisions and to harmonize
differences have been hesitant. As the recent struggle
between Israel and Hizbollah has tragically
demonstrated, it is not so much the lack of
peacemaking and peacekeeping experience and
resources that leaves non-combatants to suffer and die.
The more fundamental problem is the difficulty in
moulding consistent political will on the part of the
international community.
In the story of the Tower of Babel, the ancient
world gives us an image of our current divided state.
The confusion of tongues at Babel is the symbol of the
divisions, misunderstandings and hostilities spawned,
not by nature, but by human pride. Today, that same
negative fundamental attitude has given rise to a new
barbarism that is threatening world peace. Terrorists
and their various organizations are the contemporary
version of it, rejecting the best achievements our
civilization has gained. In an order of quite a different
nature, it cannot be denied that super-Powers, regional
Powers, aspiring Powers and oppressed peoples, too,
sometimes yield to the temptation to believe, despite
historical evidence, that it is only force that can bring
about a just ordering of affairs among peoples and
nations.
The ideology of power can go so far as to regard
the possession of nuclear weapons as an element of
national pride, and it does not exclude the outrageous
possibility of employing nuclear weapons against its
adversaries. Meanwhile, the implementation of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty appears to be stalled,
and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty still
needs to be ratified by some countries to enter into
force.
This Organization was founded on a very
different understanding of human affairs. Peace can
only be achieved by shared labours aimed at securing a
decent and dignified life for all. Due to the East-West
struggle, the United Nations was able in the past to
achieve only an impoverished sort of peace.
Recently, the Secretary-General’s proposals put
this Organization on the path to reform; its lofty goals,
however, will be reached only by overcoming the
narrow confines imposed by the dominance of national
interests, so that we may open ourselves to the vision
of a world both reconciled and based on solidarity. In
this spirit, the Holy See continues to be an advocate of
the United Nations and favours its ongoing reform in
the fields of peacebuilding, development and human
rights. In the same spirit, the Holy See commends the
decision to create the Peacebuilding Commission.
Too often, international bodies act, if at all, only
after war is under way or when innocent populations
have long been under assault. When the rights of whole
groups of people are violated — grievous examples
could be mentioned in Europe, Asia and Africa — or
when they go unprotected by their own Governments,
06-53952 32
it is entirely right and just that this Organization should
intervene in a timely manner by suitable means to
restore justice. The need to improve the system for
effective humanitarian intervention in catastrophes
brought on by war, civil conflict and ethnic strife will
be an important test of the United Nations reform
agenda.
Strengthening the capacity of this Organization to
foresee conflicts, to resolve them through negotiation
or to transform them non-violently before there is
resort to force is, therefore, a goal of primary
importance in the renewal of the Organization. In this
regard, I regret to say that Security Council resolution
1701 (2006) of 11 August 2006, which was a very good
resolution, could have been adopted with the same
wording one month earlier. If repeated pleas for
immediate cessation of the violence, made by many,
including Pope Benedict XVI, had been acted upon, the
killing of thousands of civilians and numerous young
soldiers, the flight of peoples and the enormous
indiscriminate devastation need not have occurred.
Meanwhile, none of the outcomes that some
Governments put forward as a reason for the
continuation of hostilities in Lebanon have, in fact,
been achieved.
As history has shown, for lack of sufficient
capacity for intervention and common will, millions
have died in needless conflicts — inutili stragi — that
is, “pointless massacres”, to repeat a famous phrase
used by Benedict XV, who was Pope during the First
World War. The appeal by the late Pope Paul VI,
uttered in this Hall on 4 October 1965 — “Jamais plus
la guerre”, meaning “Never again war” — today rings
like an accusation in the heart of the collective
conscience of humanity.
The surest way to prevent war is to address its
causes. It must not be forgotten that at the root of war
there are usually real and serious grievances: injustices
suffered; denial of human rights and absence of the
rule of law; legitimate aspirations frustrated, and the
exploitation of multitudes of desperate people who see
no real possibility of improving their lot by peaceful
means. How can we not be disturbed by the images of
countless exiles and refugees living in camps and
enduring subhuman conditions, or by those desperate
groups which, intent upon seeking a less wretched
future for themselves and their children, are driven to
face the risks of illegal emigration? And what of the
millions of people oppressed by misery and hunger and
exposed to lethal epidemics, who continue to cry out to
our sense of humanity? These, too, are challenges to
our desire for peace.
The fulfilment of the Millennium Development
Goals and the resumption of the latest World Trade
Organization (WTO) trade round promise economic
progress, the alleviation of poverty, a reduction in
terrorism and increased social harmony. Building peace
for tomorrow requires that justice be done today.
Like development, the protection of human rights
is an essential pillar in the edifice of world peace, for
peace consists in people’s unimpeded enjoyment of
their God-given rights. The Holy See hopes that the
newly formed Human Rights Council will enhance the
enjoyment of those rights by all peoples and by the
citizens of every nation. Diversity among cultures
allows for differences in the emphasis and
implementation of human rights, but human nature,
which is their foundation and is common to the whole
of human society, permits no basic human right to be
eclipsed or subordinated for the sake of other rights.
Every Government must clearly understand that
violations of the fundamental rights of the person
cannot be exempt from scrutiny by the international
community under the pretext of the inviolability of a
State’s internal affairs.
With respect to fundamental human rights, I
would like to draw attention to three primary rights.
I turn first to the right to life. The increasing
recognition of the sacredness of life, witnessed also by
the growing rejection of the death penalty, needs to be
matched by a thorough protection of human life
precisely when it is at its weakest, that is, at its very
beginning and at its natural end. Secondly, respect for
religious freedom means respect for the intimate
relationship of the believing person with God, in both
its individual and social aspects. Indeed, there is
nothing more sacred. Thirdly, there is the right to
freedom of thought and expression, including freedom
to hold opinions without interference and to exchange
ideas and information and the consequent freedom of
the press. The observance of this right is necessary for
the fulfilment of each person, for the respect of
cultures and for the progress of science. We must
acknowledge, however, that not all fundamental
rights — and in particular the three which I have
mentioned — are adequately protected in every nation,
and, in more than a few, they are openly denied, even
among States sitting on the Human Rights Council.
33 06-53952
Although in some cases religion continues to be
cynically exploited for political ends, it is my
delegation’s firm belief that, at its best, truest and most
authentic, religion is a vital force for harmony and peace
among peoples. It appeals to the noblest aspects of human
nature. It binds up the wounds of war, both physical and
psychological. It provides sanctuary to refugees and
hospitality to migrants. It weaves bonds of solidarity that
overcome every form of mistrust, and through
forgiveness it lends stability to once-divided societies.
Twenty years ago, the late Pope John Paul II
brought together the leaders of the world’s religions to
pray and to bear witness to peace. That collective
witness was renewed in 1993 during the Bosnian war
and in 2002 following the barbarous 11 September
terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. More
recently, on 23 July of this year, faced with the
spreading war in Lebanon, Pope Benedict XVI invited
Christians and all believers to join him in a day of
prayer and penitence, imploring God for the gift of
peace for the Holy Land and the Middle East.
In this past generation, leaders and adherents of
the world’s religions have shown themselves time and
again to be willing to dialogue and to promote
harmony among peoples.
On Wednesday 20 September last, Pope Benedict
XVI repeated his unequivocal support for inter-
religious and intercultural dialogue and expressed the
hope that what he had said at the University of
Regensburg might be a boost and an encouragement for
positive and even self-critical dialogue, both between
religions and between modern reason and the faith of
Christians. The Pope, as is well known, expressed
sadness that some passages of his academic address
could have lent themselves to misinterpretation. His
real intention was to explain that it is not religion and
violence, but religion and reason that go together, in
the context of a critical vision of a society which seeks
to exclude God from public life. Two days ago, while
receiving the ambassadors of the countries of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)
accredited to the Holy See, he added:
“The lessons of the past must … help us to
seek paths of reconciliation, in order to live with
respect for the identity and freedom of each
individual, with a view to fruitful cooperation in
the service of all humanity … respect and
dialogue require reciprocity in all spheres,
especially in that which concerns basic freedoms,
more particularly religious freedom”.
If, on the one hand, religious motivation for
violence, whatever its source, must be clearly and
radically rejected, on the other it must be emphasized
that in political life one cannot disregard the
contribution of the religious vision of the world and of
humanity. In fact, as the Pope affirmed, were reason to
turn a deaf ear to the divine and relegate religion to the
ambit of subcultures, it would automatically provoke
violent reactions, and violent reactions are always a
falsification of true religion.
It falls to all interested parties — to civil society
as well as to States — to promote religious freedom
and a sane social tolerance that will disarm extremists
even before they can begin to corrupt others with their
hatred of life and liberty. That will be a significant
contribution to peace among peoples, because peace
can be born only in the hearts of human beings.
Together with this heartfelt wish, it is my honour
to conclude by conveying to you, Madam President,
and to the peoples here represented the cordial
greetings of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Upon
the deliberations of this General Assembly, he invokes
an abundance of Almighty God’s blessings.