United Kingdom, 2012

I am proud that

this year Britain welcomed the world to the Olympic

and Paralympic games and put on a great display,

showing that while we may have only the twenty-

second-largest population in the world, we can roll out

one of its warmest welcomes.

I am honoured, too, that in the coming year I have

been asked to co-chair the high-level panel designed to

help us build on one of the greatest achievements of the United Nations, the Millennium Development Goals.

Britain takes that work very seriously. I am convinced

that we need to focus more than ever on the building

blocks that take countries and people from poverty to

prosperity. By those building blocks I mean the absence

of conflict and corruption and the presence of property

rights and the rule of law. We should never forget that

for many in the world the closest relative of poverty is

injustice. Development has never been just about aid

or money, but I am proud that Britain is a country that

keeps its promises to the poorest in our world.

A year ago I stood here and argued that the Arab

Spring represented an unprecedented opportunity for

advancing peace, prosperity and security. One year

on, some believe that the Arab Spring is in danger of

becoming an Arab winter. They point to the riots on

the streets, to Syria’s descent into a bloody civil war, to

frustration at the lack of economic progress and to the

emergence of newly elected Islamist-led Governments

across the region.

But I believe those people are in danger of drawing

the wrong conclusion. Today is not the time to turn back,

but to keep the faith and to redouble our support for open

societies and for people’s demands for a job and a voice.

Yes, the path is challenging. But democracy is not, and

never has been, simply about holding an election. It is

not one person, one vote, once. Democracy is about

establishing the building blocks of true democracy:

the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law,

with the majority prepared to defend the rights of the

minority; the freedom of the media; a proper place for

the army in society; and the development of effective

State institutions, political parties and a wider civil

society.

I am not so naive as to believe that democracy

alone has some magical healing power. I am a liberal

Conservative, not a neo-conservative. I respect each

country’s different histories and traditions. I welcome

the steps taken in countries where reform is happening

with the consent of the people. I know that every

country takes its own path, and that progress will

sometimes be slow. Some countries have achieved

stability and success based on tradition and consent.

Others have endured decades in which the institutions

of civil society were deliberately destroyed, political

parties banned, free media abolished and the rule of

law twisted for the benefit of the few. We cannot expect

the damage of decades to be put right in a matter of

months. But the drive for opportunity, justice and the rule of law and the hunger for a job and a voice are not

responsible for the problems in the region. In fact, quite

the opposite: the building blocks of democracy, fair

economies and open societies are part of the solution,

not part of the problem. We in the United Nations

must step up our efforts to support the people of those

countries as they build their own democratic future.

Let me take the key arguments in turn. First, there

are those who say there has been too little progress,

that the Arab Spring has produced few tangible

improvements in people’s lives. That is not right. Look

at Libya since the fall of Al-Qadhafi. We have seen

elections to create a new Congress, and now plans to

integrate armed groups into the national police and

army. None of that is to ignore the huge and sobering

challenges that remain.

The murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens was a

despicable act of terrorism. But the right response is

to finish the work that Chris Stevens gave his life to.

That is what the vast majority of Libyans want, too, as

we saw so inspiringly in Benghazi last weekend, when

they took to the streets in the thousands, refusing to

allow extremists to hijack their chance for democracy.

The Arab Spring has also brought progress in

Egypt, where the democratically elected President

has asserted civilian control over the military; in

Yemen and Tunisia, where elections have brought new

Governments to power; and in Morocco, where there

is a new Constitution and a Prime Minister appointed

on the basis of a popular vote for the first time. Even

further afield, Somalia has also taken the first vital step

forward by electing a new President. So there has been

progress. None of it would have come about without

people standing up last year and demanding change,

or without the United Nations having the courage to

respond to those crises.

Secondly, there is the argument that the removal of

dictators has somehow started to unleash a new wave of

violence, extremism and instability. Some argue that in

a volatile region, only an authoritarian strong man can

maintain stability and security. Or even, some argue,

that recent events prove that democracy in the Middle

East brings terrorism, not security, and sectarian

conflict, not peace. Again, I believe we should reject

that argument.

I have no illusions about the danger that political

transition can be exploited by violent extremists. I

understand the importance of protecting people and defending national security. Britain is determined

to work with our allies to do that. But democracy

and open societies are not the problem. The fact is

that, for decades, too many were prepared to tolerate

dictators like Al-Qadhafi and Al-Assad on the basis

that they would keep their people safe at home and

promote stability in the region and the wider world. In

fact, neither was true. Not only were theose dictators

repressing their people, ruling by control not by consent,

plundering the national wealth, and denying people

their basic rights and freedoms, they were funding

terrorism overseas as well. Brutal dictatorships made

the region more dangerous not less; more dangerous

because those regimes dealt with frustration at home

by whipping up anger against their neighbours, against

the West, against Israel; and more dangerous, too,

because people denied a job and a voice were given no

alternative but a dead-end choice between dictatorship

and extremism.

What was heartening about the events of Tahrir

Square was that the Egyptian people found their voice

and rejected that false choice. They withheld their

consent from a Government that had lost all legitimacy,

and they chose instead the road to a more open and fair

society. The road is not easy, but it is the right one. I

believe it will make countries safer in the end.

Next, there are those who say that, whatever may

have been achieved elsewhere, in Syria the Arab Spring

has unleashed a vortex of sectarian violence and hatred

with the potential to destroy the whole region. Syria

does present some profound challenges. But those who

look at Syria today and blame the Arab Spring have got

it the wrong way round. We cannot blame the people

for the behaviour of a brutal dictator. The responsibility

lies with the brutal dictator himself.

Al-Assad is today inf laming Syria’s sectarian

tensions, just as his father did as far back as the slaughter

in Hama 30 years ago. And not only in Syria; Al-Assad

has colluded with those in Iran who are set on dragging

the region into wider conflict. The only way out of

Syria’s nightmare is to move forward towards political

transition and not to give up the cause of freedom. The

future for Syria is a future without Al-Assad. It has to

be based on mutual consent, as was clearly agreed in

the International Conference on Syria held in Geneva

in June. If anyone was in any doubt about the horrors

that Al-Assad has inf licted on his people, just look at

the evidence published this week by Save the Children:

schools used as torture centres, children used for target practice. A 16-year-old Syrian called Wael who was

detained in a police station in Daraa said: “I have seen

children slaughtered. No, I do not think I will ever be

OK again...lf there was even 1 per cent of humanity in

the world, this would not happen”.

The blood of those young children is a terrible stain

on the reputation of the United Nations. In particular,

it is a stain on those who have failed to stand up to

these atrocities and those who in some cases aided

and abetted Al-Assad’s regime of terror. lf the United

Nations Charter is to have any value in the twenty-

first century, we must now join together to support

a rapid political transition. At the same time, no one

of conscience can turn a deaf ear to the voices of

suffering. Security Council members have a particular

responsibility to support the United Nations appeal for

Syria. Britain, already the third biggest donor, is today

announcing a further $12 million in humanitarian

support, including new support for UNICEF’s work

to help Syrian children. We look to our international

partners to do more as well.

Of course, the Arab Spring has not removed

overnight the profound economic challenges that

these countries face. Too many countries face falling

investment, rising food prices and bigger trade deficits.

But it is completely wrong to suggest that the Arab

Spring has somehow created those economic problems.

It is a challenging time for the world economy as

a whole. There was never going to be an economic

transformation overnight, not least because far from

being successful open-market-based economies, many

of these countries were beset by vested interests and

corruption, with unaccountable institutions. That has,

one might say, created a double problem. Not just

fragile economies, but worse, people were told they had

experienced free enterprise and open markets when

they had experienced nothing of the sort.

So we must help these countries unwind the legacy

of endemic corruption, military expenditure they

cannot afford, natural resources unfairly exploited; in

short, the mass kleptocracy that they suffered under for

too long.

While I am on the subject of stolen assets, we also

have a responsibility to help these countries get back

the stolen assets that are rightfully theirs, just as we

have returned billions of dollars of assets to Libya. It

is simply not good enough that the Egyptian people

continue to be denied those assets long after Mubarak

has gone.

Today, I am announcing a new British task force to

work with the Egyptian Government to gather evidence,

trace assets, work to change European Union law and

pursue the legal cases that will return the stolen money

to its rightful owners, the Egyptian people.

Finally, perhaps most challenging of all for Western

countries like mine, is the argument that elections

have simply opened the door to Islamist parties whose

values are incompatible with truly open societies. My

response to this is clear. We should respect the outcome

of elections. But we should not compromise on our

definition of what makes an open society. We should

judge Islamists by what they do.

The test is this. Will they entrust the rights of

citizenship to fellow countrymen and countrywomen

who do not share their specific political or religious

views? Do they accept that, unlike the dictators they

replaced, they should never pervert the democratic

process to hold onto power if they lose the consent

of the people they serve? Will they live up to their

commitments to protect the rule of law for all citizens,

to defend the rights of Christians and minorities and

to allow women a full role in society, in the economy

and in politics? The truth is this: we cannot build

strong economies, we cannot build open societies and

we cannot have inclusive political systems if we lock

out women. The eyes of the world today may be on the

brothers, but the future is as much in the hands of their

mothers, their sisters and their daughters.

Holding Islamists to account must also mean that

if they attempt to undermine the stability of other

countries, encourage terrorism instead of peace or

promote conflict instead of partnership, we will oppose

them. That is why Iran will continue to face the full

force of sanctions and scrutiny from the United Nations

until it gives up its ambitions to spread a nuclear shadow

over the world. It is also why we should not waver from

our insistence that Hamas give up violence. Hamas must

not be allowed to dictate the way forward. Palestinians

should have the chance to fulfil the same aspirations for

a job and a voice as others in the region, and we support

their right to have a State and a home. And Israelis

should be able to fulfil their own aspirations to live in

peace and security with their neighbours.

Of course there are challenges in working with

Governments that have different views and cultural

traditions. But there is a fundamental difference

between Islam and extremism. Islam is a great religion

observed peacefully and devoutly by more than 1 billion people. Islamist extremism is a warped political

ideology supported by a minority that seeks to hijack

that great religion, to gain respectability for its violent

objectives. It is vital that we make that distinction.

In Turkey, we see a Government with roots in

Islamic values but with democratic politics, an open

economy and a responsible attitude to supporting

change in Libya, Syria and elsewhere in the region.

I profoundly believe the same path is open to Egypt,

Tunisia and their neighbours. We must help them take

it. Democracy and Islam can flourish alongside one

another. Let us judge Governments not by their religion,

but by how they act and what they do. Let us engage with

the new democratic Governments in Egypt, Tunisia and

Libya so their success can strengthen democracy, not

undermine it.

There is no doubt that we are in the midst of

profound change and that many uncertainties lie

ahead. But the building blocks of democracy, fair

economies and open societies are part of the solution,

not the problem. Indeed, nothing in the last year has

changed my fundamental conviction. The Arab Spring

represents a precious opportunity for people to realize

their aspirations for a job, a voice and a stake in their

future. We in the United Nations must do everything

we can to support them.