A decade ago, it was
said that with the end of the cold war we had reached
the “end of history.” Over the years, this view has been
largely discredited.
Much of the world, especially the West, paid
scant attention to the sense of injustice shared by many
peoples and communities around the world. What we
have witnessed, with a mixture of horror, sympathy and
unease over the last 10 years, has been the return of
history. The fall of the Twin Towers, the wars in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon and the terrorist attacks
in London and Madrid have shaken the foundations of
the secular State. These events have been said to
represent a “clash of civilizations,” but I reject the
reductive, indeed, misleading division between North
and South, East and West, and Christians and Muslims.
The greatest achievements in the West were the
result of a complex process of cultural exchange
between East and West. The free trade of ideas fostered
innovation and advances in understanding. We must
therefore reject this notion of a mentality that
conceives an essential clash between “us” and “them”.
I believe that we are living through a turbulent and
bloody struggle between, on the one hand, the forces of
extremism, present in both the East and the West, and,
on the other hand, secular tolerance, also fortunately
manifested everywhere on Earth.
Andorra is an old country whose borders have
remained unchanged since 1278. Our history is one of
survival. We were in existence when the Cathars fled
the might of the first Crusade to seek refuge in our
mountain pastures. We survived the French Revolution,
the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War.
History has taught us that power demands restraint.
And our own experiences have taught us — and the
past few weeks have reinforced this costly lesson —
that displays of military might, intended to shock and
awe, cannot, by themselves, bring about the desired
result.
Is it not paradoxical that at this moment, when
the need for civilized discussion between people is
greater than ever, this venerable institution is deemed
inconsequential? We need, of course, to continue the
process of its reform. As an idea, however, this place
embodies all of our hopes. As a humanitarian agency
with a host of vital social programmes, the United
Nations does inestimable work. As a forum for rational
discourse committed to reaching global understanding,
its work is absolutely necessary. This should be the
forum in which we try to understand and correctly
interpret the crossroads at which we find ourselves.
The United Nations signifies the world’s moral
conscience — the principle of equality and solidarity
and the protection of human rights and human dignity.
It marks the path to development.
Violence and the rise of religious extremism have
roiled the globe. We all are prey to the unease felt over
the future of the secular State. In one sense, however,
the very idea of the nation-State lies at the heart of
many of our problems. It encourages us to believe in
the rhetoric of “us” against “them”, in exclusive
identities and in outdated ethnocentric discourse. It
obfuscates the growing division between rich and poor
that transcends countries, nations, and continents. It
neglects the fact that most people on this planet seek
only that which will permit them to live in a dignified
manner and be happy in their lives.
Indeed, many States, especially those whose
boundaries reflect a legacy of colonialism, are
constituted without regard to the religious or ethnic
backgrounds of their inhabitants. The civil wars that
are currently tearing apart some countries are but one
example of the enormous difficulties presented by the
artificial construction of such States.
We must not forget that, historically, the West has
never been a good example in terms of religious
tolerance. On the contrary, one might cite the twelfth-
century expulsion of the Jews from England or recall
06-53005 10
the forced conversion of Muslims after the fall of
Granada in 1492, the Inquisition, or the persecution of
the Protestant Huguenots who fled France during the
sixteenth century. Yet in the East — in Jerusalem or
Tehran, for example — Muslims, Jews and Christians
coexisted into the early twentieth century. Those great
cosmopolitan centres flourished in an atmosphere of
genuine religious tolerance.
The original meaning of the term secular
described those religious orders that looked outwards
to the world at large. In the sixteenth century a new
notion of tolerance signified a willingness to accept
different Protestant sects in towns and cities in
Northern Europe. But our modern-day understanding
of tolerance, in which people of all religions can live
together, required centuries. Curiously, this version of
history has been forgotten by those who see secularism
as being opposed to belief. The notion of secularism
has never been oppositional to religion but rather
denotes a mentality willing to contemplate uncertainty
and imperfect knowledge. It does not confuse questions
of faith with scientific questions or seek to disarm the
individual’s liberty of conscience.
Secularism, therefore, recognizes the shared
fallibility of the human race. Religious faith can be
taught, but it cannot be imposed. It cannot lead to
violence and has to coexist with the secular state. Our
common humanity requires us to respect each other
through our diversity.
The genius of tolerance lies in the ability to
listen — to truly listen and attempt to understand. To
listen and learn is not an act of weakness. Indeed, it is
the extremist’s display of strength or desire for revenge
that represents a fatal weakness. Again and again, in
the course of history, we see that a mighty spirit
precedes a fall. Recently we have stood by and
witnessed in dismay the catastrophic results that ensue
from the deployment of military might against
determined guerrilla warfare.
Most of today’s ills have their roots in old and
unresolved problems, but the rhetoric of violence
which surrounds us polarizes us even further,
undermines the possibility of finding a lasting solution
and widens the lines of fracture. We have to think of
ourselves as a single global community where we are
all interdependent.
In the Middle East, we recognize the need for
Israel’s security, as we recognize the need for Palestine
to become a viable State.
Andorra is located in a part of the world which
has always been a place where different cultures have
met and lived in shared prosperity: the Mediterranean.
Today, this has become a new frontier full of tension.
As Europeans, we must seek to revitalize the area,
recalling its ancient history as a home to many
civilizations and their corresponding values — from
Rome to Byzantium and from Athens to Tangiers.
Andorra, like many small countries, long relied
on its isolation for its survival. But in our global world,
mountains can no longer protect us. International
concerns press upon us. Today’s world is
heterogeneous, imperfect and lacking in a common
vision; there are no easy solutions, and questions
cannot be viewed in monochrome. The Millennium
goals that we debated here with such hope are in
danger of receding into distant memory. Is this the fault
of the United Nations? Let us not turn our backs on the
masses, who are tired of suffering, and who see the
United Nations as being their only hope. We must
allow their voices to be heard and welcome them into
the global community. The time has come for us to act
on our promises.
We must recognize that collectively we are the
United Nations. We represent humanity as a whole. We
are betraying it if we do not seek to make the United
Nations a more robust and efficient machine. If we
continue blindly, caring only for our national self-
interest, we betray its trust. Multilateralism, which we
as a group embody in this Hall, is the path that will
lead to many of the solutions. The plight of the
unfortunate should not fall on deaf ears. We should join
together to solidify democratic institutions and
processes, and in so doing fight against poverty, war,
disease, illiteracy and corruption. That should be our
common cause. It is only through this joint effort that
we will be able to raise our approach to a collectively
ethical and morally correct level.
When people do not have enough to eat and when
they are deprived of essential freedoms and justice,
there is only one option left open to them: to seek a
better life by whatever means they can, leaving behind
their native lands. We are currently witnessing mass
migration from the poorest parts of the world to the
richer; all too often, the journey is tragically cut short
11 06-53005
on the high seas. This weighs heavily on our
conscience. Erecting barriers to prevent this process
will never work: their desperation is too great. Millions
of human beings are orphaned from their homelands —
we should have solutions to offer them. There is no
place where this issue is more pressing than sub-
Saharan Africa. The high risk of death does not impede
people from attempting to reach the shores of Europe,
simply because their lives at home have become
unbearable.
We require a concerted and global plan for
migration. This can be achieved only if we act together
through the United Nations to provide the human and
material resources necessary to step-up to the
challenge. In so doing we will better the lives of
millions of people who, quite justifiably, feel cruelly
disenfranchised from the human family. As the writer
Juan Goytisolo put it, “The world provides a home for
those who are homeless”. The United Nations should
certainly be their refuge.
In line with this, Andorra stands ready to
underline its commitment to the United Nations system
and to development as a whole. Two days ago here in
New York, we signed an agreement with UNICEF to
provide €1 million in financing over a five-year period
to help children suffering from HIV/AIDS in
Cameroon. Civil society in our small country is also
playing its part; the Andorran National Committee for
UNICEF will contribute €500,000 to this project over
the same period.
It is true that our world today is a dangerous
place. But there is still immense hope, and this spurs us
on. There is no definitive answer to the problems that
our societies face, and it has been said that our lives as
human beings cannot be perfected. We have a duty,
however, to continually ask questions and to have the
courage to overcome the problems of our age.
Our ideas are the greatest advantage that we
have; they are the motors of progress. For us, this
means democracy, shared prosperity, tolerance, the rule
of law, respect for human rights and the pursuit of
freedom through the defence of fundamental human
liberties. Those are the best weapons we have to fight
absolutism and inequality. It is here at the United
Nations that our voices should be heard and here that
we should be able to defend those principles.
Finally, I should like to express our gratitude to
the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for his great
work over the past 10 long and complicated years. We
salute and congratulate him for all that he has done to
maintain and apply the principles enshrined in the
Charter. I speak for all Andorrans in expressing my
esteem for him and his great efforts.