The 192 Member States gathered here have not yet taken the qualitative leap called for by Woodrow Wilson in 1918 for our international order not to be based on organized rivalries, but rather on an organized common peace. We must learn to tone down our national interests. We must foster a shared sense for what is just and what is necessary. We must understand that the basic premise of collective security is that we must agree upon the threats that we face and the manner in which we must tackle them. We must accept that collective security, in order to be legitimate, must defend international law in the abstract, without preference for some over others. Nevertheless, we continue to have an unequal commitment to international law. Some of us have accepted a multilateralism that is based on open agreements openly arrived at, whereas others refuse to yield imaginary shares of sovereignty. As long as the latter continue to understand sovereignty as the absence of obligations and responsibilities to others, multilateralism is compromised. Cultures and viewpoints from all parts of the world gather here. They do so because they know that the solitude of unilateralism is a dead-end road. Multilateralism must, however, have preconditions. Those who want to be treated as a partner must behave as one. If not, we will never be able to live up to our promise of “never again”. The “never again” that we pronounced at the end of the First World War and the Second World War or that we asserted following the genocides in Kampuchea and Rwanda, still fails to mobilize us today to solve other situations that are just as unacceptable, just as intolerable and, on occasion, just as unimaginable. It is not right to compromise multilateralism; it is especially wrong to do so when, through a lack of will, we affect one or more partners making a desperate appeal for help. In that regard, we welcome the fact that this General Assembly has put climate change at the top of its agenda. But how long has it taken us? We simply cannot be satisfied with a “better late than never”, when in 1987, exactly 20 years ago, President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom of the Republic of the Maldives alerted us that he did not come to speak about international political issues but rather about “the death of a nation”, the death of a nation whose 1,190 islands will be virtually submerged with the rise in sea level owing to climate change. The emergency hotline must respond not only to 11 September but to all the emergencies covered by the Charter of the United Nations. It is time to pay our debt to nature. We simply cannot continue to distort the evidence of climate change. Regardless of how inconvenient the truth may be or what our respective shares of responsibility are, the truth is here to stay. Year after year we are reminded of it with greater frequency and intensity. In Costa Rica where the most species per square kilometre of anywhere in the world are found, we are committed to going beyond our obligations. We have adopted concrete and sustainable actions, such as setting aside 27 per cent of our national territory as preserves, the generation of energy using renewable energy sources for 98 per cent of our generating capacity, the introduction of environmental service payments and the commitment to advance towards a carbon-neutral economy by the year 2021. However, no matter how sustainable our commitment at the national level, our efforts will have less impact if they are not met by similar commitments in other parts of the world. Since climate change does not recognize borders, others with large environmental debts simply cannot continue to live in debt, as this accelerates the coming of the day of judgement. Although we have seen some strides in international environmental governance at both the global and regional levels, we continue to be indebted to nature. The Kyoto Protocol is an incomplete instrument, not only because it has not attained universality, but also because it does not incentivize the sustainability of the primary forest and its ecosystem. In that respect, Costa Rica is working on compensatory mechanisms to avoid deforestation with different intergovernmental groups, such as the Coalition for Rainforest Nations and the Group of 11, to make sure that the post-Kyoto scheme does not exclude primary forests. We cannot compromise on multilateralism. It is unrealistic to press others for compliance with the obligations that arise from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), while disregarding one’s own obligations. Both treaties and all of their articles are part of an intricate architecture of mutual trust that does not allow for any partial constructs. We must avoid both horizontal and vertical proliferation, promote compliance with all of the obligations that arise from those treaties and condemn every attempt to break the regime of mutual trust. We cannot allow for the proliferation of exceptions to non-proliferation. Multilateralism is not built on a show of strength. In 2006, the world reached a record $1.2 trillion in military spending. According to the Millennium Project, with one tenth of this amount, that is, $121 billion, we would have met the targets for 2006 for all the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in all countries of the world. In 2006, on average, for every dollar spent on official development assistance by the member States of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, $7.5 were spent on weapons. Security does not come from multiplying weapons; history has proven this time and time again. Security comes from remedying injustices, easing shortages and creating opportunities so that we can have collective prosperity on par with collective security. In this regard, Costa Rica has been calling for compliance with the Charter of the United Nations, Article 26 of which commits us to promote “the maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources”. Thus says the dead letter of the Charter of the United Nations. It is in this spirit that we have pressed for the adoption of an arms trade treaty, a legally binding instrument that codifies the existing obligations of States under international law that may apply to the arms trade. Therefore we celebrate the adoption, by a significant majority, of Assembly resolution 61/89, which allows us to re-activate this noble objective of the Charter. It is also in this spirit that we have called for the animation of the Costa Rica Consensus, so that international donors can reward those developing countries that are making sustainable and verifiable efforts to meet the most pressing social needs, including the MDGs, while increasing social investment and reducing military spending. Multilateralism requires a shared sense of urgency. We need to face all global threats, all global challenges in a timely fashion, not creating a world with two different speeds: one in which we need two decades to respond to the call made by President Gayoom, among others, and another in which we respond in a just a few days, with binding resolutions like Security Council resolutions 1373 (2001) or 1540 (2004). Our commitment to combat terrorism must aim at prevailing not only over the terrorists, but also over the root causes from which they draw strengthen and renewal. In this regard, it is as important to combat the manifestations of terrorism, its financial channels and physical hideouts as it is to fight the poverty and despair that provide an easy harvest for extremists. To succeed we can no longer afford to be late in dealing with the challenges of development. Multilateralism also requires a shared sense of justice. For that, we need more States to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. As we advance towards the universality of the Statute and the acceptance of its complementary jurisdiction, we will close the gaps and loopholes by which the worst criminals in the world escape and hide. Finally, we must have the courage to look at ourselves in the mirror, as an Organization and as Member States. We cannot permit this Organization’s foundations to be weakened by a few errors. We need to learn from our mistakes and allow space for self- criticism. We do a disservice to the credibility and the effectiveness of this Organization if, each time a difficult or inconvenient situation arises, we simply produce a report for the archives. Our scant follow-up to the reports on Srebrenica and the Oil-for-Food Programme provides two clear examples of our apparent incapacity for learning. As Harry Truman said, referring to the convening of the San Francisco Conference, “it was important for us to make a start, no matter how imperfect”. Since 1945, this Organization has expanded and changed, improving through experience and reform, incorporating more and more cultures and views, putting into practice, with more or less success, the principles and purposes of the Charter. This Organization certainly does not have all the answers and does not possess all the resources required, for in the end, it is restrained by the lowest common denominator, that is, by ourselves, the Member States. We have a world of reasons to persevere and prevail over the challenges we face. Neither the chronic pessimism of some nor the ungrateful egoism of others will check the slow but determined march forward of those of us who believe in multilateralism and in a future of greater shared welfare for all.