By Holy See Mission
Statement by H.E. Archbishop Celestino
Migliore
Apostolic Nuncio, Permanent Observer of the Holy See
General Debate of the
63rd session of the General Assembly
of the United Nations
New York, 29 September 2008Mr President,
As you assume the presidency of this 63rd session of the General Assembly, my
delegation wishes you all the best in your endeavors 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 get the pulse of the world situation. By
its nature and structure, the United Nations normally creates neither the events
nor the 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 these 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, these are all
too often compounded by tardy response, 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 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 advancements in international law, this
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 re-launched the concept of the exercise
of responsible sovereignty.
For his part, Pope Benedict XVI, in his address to the General Assembly of the
United Nations 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 to govern their populations and
regulate relations between peoples. These statements highlight the historical
and moral basis for States to govern. Likewise, they reassert that good
governance should no longer be measured simply within the context of “state’s
rights” or “sovereignty” but rather, by its ability to care for those who
entrust leaders with the grave moral responsibility to lead.
Despite the growing consensus behind the responsibility to protect as a means
for greater cooperation, this principle is still being invoked as a pretext for
the arbitrary use of military might. This distortion is a continuation of past
failed methods and ideas. The use of violence to resolve disagreements is always
a failure of vision and a failure of humanity. The responsibility to protect
should not be viewed merely in terms of military intervention but primarily as
the need for the international community to come together in the face of crises
to find means for fair and open negotiations, support the moral force of law and
search for the common good. Failure to collectively come together to protect
populations at risk and to prevent arbitrary military interventions would
undermine the moral and practical authority of this Organization.
The “we the peoples” who formed the United Nations conceived the responsibility
to protect to serve as the core basis for the United Nations. The founding
leaders believed that the responsibility to protect would consist not primarily
in the use of force to restore peace and human rights, but above all, in States
coming together to detect and denounce the early symptoms of every kind of
crises and mobilize the attention of governments, civil society and public
opinion to find the causes and 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 into place mechanisms of detection, implementation and
monitoring.
It is incumbent not only upon States, but also 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. At stake is not only the
credibility of this Organization and global leaders but, 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 and thus realize their inherent dignity.
The United Nations was not created to be a global government but is the product
of the political will of individual member States. Thus, it is the child
orphaned by HIV/AIDS, the boys and girls sold or forced into slavery, those who
wake each morning not knowing if today they will be persecuted for their faith
or the color of their skin, who continue to cry out for an institution and
leaders who will back their words with actions, commitments and results. These
voices, which are too often ignored, must finally be listened to, so that we can
move beyond political, geographical and historical divisions and create an
organization which reflects our best intentions rather than our various
failings.
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 to tackle this issue and we commend States and civil
society in 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, bring us to point out a preoccupation and inconsistency that exist today
in the realm of international and national law, namely, 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 come to the decision 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, namely, that all which is technically
possible should be legally licit and consequently pursued. Whether it regards
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. This inconsistency calls into question whether we truly
place humans at the center of decision making.
The global community must come together to reverse this 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 creation of policies which
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 toward the imposition of laws by the more powerful and the creation of a
new mass of losers.
Mr President,
As we embark on this session of the General Assembly we strive to fashion an
Organization which reflects our highest and best intentions and carefully places
the needs of all people, regardless of their economic and political standing, at
the center of our decisions and responsibility.
Copyright © 2015-2021 The Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations