|
发表于 2017-3-27 17:15:49
|
显示全部楼层
Or do we strengthen our commitment to diplomacy, and to the United
Nations?
I strongly believe there is only one choice, demanded by reason as well as
by conscience, which is the hard work of diplomacy and negotiation and reform of
the UN.
This is not to say that in any way this is an easy road. And there are
reasons for people to feel insecure today.
The level of conflict and lack of solutions combined with the fear of
terrorism; the reality that globalization has bought vast benefits to some and
worsened the lot for others; the sense of disconnect between citizens and
governments, or in some countries, the lack of governance; the overall feeling
that for all our gains in technology and connectedness, the less we are in
control of forces shaping our lives – all these factors and more have
contributed to a sense of a world out of balance, and there are no easy
answers.
And despite the millions of people who have lifted themselves out of
poverty in our lifetime, the difference between the lives of those of us born in
wealthy, democratic societies and those born into the slums and refugee camps in
the world is a profound injustice. We see it and we know it’s wrong, at a simple
human level, that inequality is contributing to instability, conflict and
migration as well as to the sense that the international system serves the few
at the expense of the many.
But again, what, what is our answer, as citizens?
Do we withdraw from the world where before we felt a responsibility to be
part of the solutions?
I am a proud American, and I am an internationalist.
I believe anyone committed to human rights is.
It means seeing the world with a sense of fairness and humility, and
recognizing our own humanity in the struggles of others.
It stems from a love of one’s country, but not at the expense of others –
from patriotism, but not from narrow nationalism.
It includes the view that success isn’t being greater than others, but
finding your place in a world where others succeed, too.
And that a strong nation, like a strong person, helps others to rise up and
be independent.
It is the spirit that made possible the creation of the UN, out of the
rubble and ruin and 60 million dead of World War Two; so that even before the
task of defeating Nazism was complete, that generation of wartime leaders was
forging the UN.
If governments and leaders are not keeping the flame of internationalism
alive than its citizens, we must.
The challenge is how to restore that sense of balance and hopefulness in
our countries, while not sacrificing all we have learnt about the value and
necessity of internationalism.
Because a world in which we turn our back on our global responsibilities
will be a world that produces greater insecurity, violence and danger for us and
for our children.
This is not a clash between idealism and realism.
It is the recognition that there is no shortcut to peace and security, no
substitute for the long, painstaking effort to end conflicts, expand human
rights and strengthen the rule of law.
We have to challenge the idea that the strongest leaders are those willing
to dismiss human rights on the grounds of national interests. The strongest
leaders are those who are capable of doing both.
Having strong values and the will to act upon them doesn’t weaken our
borders or our militaries – it is their essential foundation.
And none of this is to say that the UN is perfect. Because of course, we
know it is not.
I have never met a field officer who has not railed against the
shortcomings, as I imagine Sergio did in his darkest moments.
And he, like all of us, wanted a UN that was more decisive, less
bureaucratic, and that lived up to its standards. But he never said it was
pointless. And he never threw in the towel.
The UN is an imperfect organization because we are imperfect. It is not
separate from us.
Our decisions, particularly those made by the Security Council, have played
a part in creating the landscape that we are dealing with today.
We should always remember why the UN was formed, and what it is for, and
take that responsibility very seriously.
We have to recognize the damage we do when we undermine the UN or use it
selectively – or not at all – or when we rely on aid to do the job of diplomacy,
or give the UN impossible tasks and then underfund it.
For example, today, there is not a single humanitarian appeal anywhere in
the world that is funded even by half of what is required. In fact, worse than
that. Appeals for countries on the brink of famine today are 17%, 7%, and 5%
funded, for example.
And of course, emergency aid is not the long-term answer.
No one prefers that kind of aid. Not citizens of donor countries. Not
governments. Not refugees. They do not want to be dependent.
It would be far better to be able to invest all of our funds in
infrastructure and schools and trade and enterprises.
But let’s be clear, emergency aid has to continue because many states
cannot or will not protect the rights of citizens around the world.
It is what we spend in countries where we have no diplomacy or our
diplomacy is not working.
And until we do better at preventing and reducing conflict, we are doomed
to be in a cycle of having to help feed or shelter people when societies
collapse.
As another legendary UN leader, who was also killed in the line of duty,
Dag Hammerskold, said “Everything will be all right – you know when? When
people, just people, stop thinking of the United Nations as a weird Picasso
abstraction and see it as a drawing they made themselves”.
The UN can only change if governments change their policies. And if we as
citizens ask governments to do that.
It is moving, if you think about it: We are the future generations
envisioned in the UN Charter.
When our grandparents resolved to “spare future generations the scourge of
war”, as written, they were thinking of us.
But as well as dreaming for our safety, they also left us a
responsibility.
President Roosevelt, addressing the US Congress in January, 1945, six
months before the end of Second World War, said this: “In the field of foreign
policy, we promise to stand together with the United Nations not for the war
alone, but for the victory for which the war was fought”.
And he went on: “The firm foundation can be built and will be built. But
the continuance and assurance of a living peace, in the long run, must be the
work of the people themselves.”
So today, we have to ask ourselves if we are living up to that mission.
They gave us the start. What have we done with it?
It is clear to me that we have made huge strides. But our agreements and
institutions are only as strong as our will to uphold them.
If we do not, for whatever reason, we bequeath a darker, more unstable
world to all of those who come after us. It is not for this that previous
generations shed blood and worked so hard on behalf of all of us.
The memory of those who came before us holds us true to our ideals.
Resting unchanged in time, they remind us [of] who we are and what we stand
for.
They give us hope to stay in the fight, as Sergio did, until his last
breath.
Fourteen years since his death, there is a stronger need than ever before
for us to stay true to the ideals and purposes of the United Nations.
That is what I hope his memory holds for us to today.
We can’t all be Sergios. But I hope all of us can determine that we shall
be a generation that renews its commitment to “unite our strength to maintain
international peace and security”, and “to promote social progress and better
standards of life in larger freedom.”
But in the final analysis, even we do not, even if that level of vision
eludes us and we continue to simply manage rather than overcome our generation’s
challenges, we just have to keep working determinedly, patiently.
And you can be certain, that as you do, that you follow the example of one
of the UN’s finest sons: and that to do even a little of his good, to apply
ourselves to the work he left unfinished, in whatever way we can, is a worthy
task for all of us.
Thank you. |
|