Andorra, 2006

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.