Holy See, 2008

As the last

speaker on your list, Mr. President, I think I can

congratulate you on this important debate, and quote

the Latin saying, dulce est in fundo, which you know

very well — sweetness comes at the end.

As you assume the presidency of the General

Assembly at its sixty-third session, my delegation

wishes you all the best in your endeavours and looks

forward to working with you in order to address the

many challenges facing the global community.

This general debate is an occasion for those

responsible for the national life of every country to

come together to take the pulse of the world situation.

By its nature and structure, the United Nations

normally creates neither events nor trends, but rather

serves as a sounding board where events and trends are

submitted for debate and a coherent, consensual and

timely response.

This year has been dominated by a number of

challenges and crises: natural and man-made

calamities, staggering economies, financial turmoil,

rising food and fuel prices, the impact of climate

change, local wars and tensions. We have been called

to this Hall once again to identify the common causes

and denominators underlying those diverse crises and

to craft adequate long-term solutions.

One of the clear facts, recognized by all, is that

every crisis presents a mixture of natural factors and

elements of human responsibility. However, they are

all too often compounded by the tardy responses,

failures or reluctance of leaders to exercise their

responsibility to protect their populations.

When speaking within these walls of the

responsibility to protect, the common understanding of

the term is found in the 2005 World Summit Outcome

Document, which refers to the responsibility of the

international community to intervene in situations

where individual Governments are not able or willing

to assure the protection of their own citizens.

In the past, the language of protection was too

often a pretext for expansion and aggression. In spite

of the many advances in international law, that same

understanding and practice tragically continues today.

However, during the past year, in this same Hall there

has been growing consensus and greater inclusion of

this expression as a vital component of responsible

leadership. The responsibility to protect has been

invoked by some as an essential aspect of the exercise

of sovereignty at the national and international levels,

while others have relaunched the concept of the

exercise of responsible sovereignty.

For his part, Pope Benedict XVI, in his address to

the General Assembly last April, also recognized that,

from the very ancient philosophical discourses on

governance to the more modern development of the

nation State, the responsibility to protect has served

and must continue to serve as the principle shared by

all nations in governing their populations and

regulating relations between peoples. Those statements

reassert the historical and moral basis for States to

govern. Likewise, they reassert that good governance

08-53141 50

should no longer be measured simply within the

context of a State’s rights or sovereignty, but rather by

its ability to care for those who entrust it with the grave

moral responsibility to lead.

We the peoples who formed the United Nations

conceived the responsibility to protect as the core basis

for the United Nations. The founding leaders believed

that the responsibility to protect would consist not

primarily of the use of force in order to restore peace

and human rights, but rather in States coming together

to detect and denounce early symptoms of every kind

of crisis, mobilizing Governments, civil society and

public opinion to find the causes and to offer solutions.

The various agencies and bodies of the United Nations

also reaffirm the importance of the responsibility to

protect in their ability to work in close proximity and

solidarity with affected populations and to put

detection, implementation and monitoring mechanisms

into place. It is incumbent not only upon States, but

also upon the United Nations to ensure that the

responsibility to protect serves as the underlying

measure and motivation of all its work.

While many continue to question and debate the

real causes and medium- and long-term consequences

of the various financial, humanitarian and food crises

around the world, the United Nations and its

membership have the responsibility to provide

direction, coherence and resolution. It is not only the

credibility of the Organization and our global leaders

that is at stake, but rather and more importantly the

ability of the human community to provide food and

security and to protect basic human rights so that all

peoples have the opportunity to live with freedom from

fear and want, thus realizing their inherent dignity.

One area in which our best intentions require

urgent action is climate change. My delegation

commends Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his

leadership in recognizing the urgency of tackling that

issue, and we commend States and civil society for

making the necessary political and personal sacrifices

to ensure a better future.

The challenge of climate change and the various

solutions proposed and put into action have led us to

call attention to a preoccupation and inconsistency

existing today in the realm of international and national

law — that all that is technically possible must be

legally licit.

In adopting ever more stringent norms to protect

the environment and nature, it is often rightly affirmed

that not all environmental activity should be allowed

and sanctioned by law just because it is technically

possible and economically profitable. Indiscriminate

deforestation, the dumping of radioactive waste and

invasive and devastating acts on nature are often more

expedient and technically possible, but because they

provoke our conscience, as well as our responsibility

towards creation, we decide to invoke the principle that

even though it is possible it should not be legally licit.

However, when passing from the ecological field

to that of humans, we have a tendency to affirm the

opposite principle — that all which is technically

possible should be legally licit and consequently

pursued. Whether regarding the production of arms for

war, biotechnological engineering, the taking of human

life, reproductive technology or the structure of the

family itself, we have the tendency to advocate that all

which is technologically possible should also be legally

licit. That inconsistency calls into question whether we

truly place humans at the centre of decision-making.

The global community must come together to

reverse that contradiction and engage in a political

discourse that recognizes the centrality of humans in

all aspects of political and technological development.

The same principles that lead us to oppose unchecked

technology and policies that destroy the environment

should also guide us in our prudent use of technologies

and the creation of policies that directly impact the

lives of individuals. Short of that, we will succumb to

an inconsistency that penalizes the individual and

human society and risks paving the way towards the

imposition of laws by the more powerful and the

creation of a new mass of losers.

As we embark on this session of the General

Assembly, we strive to fashion an Organization that

reflects our highest and best intentions and carefully

places the needs of all people, regardless of their

economic and political standing, at the centre of our

decisions and responsibility.