UN General Assembly
2004

to be a tribal memory or a type of behaviour belonging to other, none too remote times in the history of Europe itself. The big questions are: what justifies a pre- emptive attack? Which country or countries pose a sufficient threat to allow taking such a risk? Why attack one country and not another, perhaps equally dangerous one? Are the sufferings of some people more meaningful than the sufferings of others, and consequently more deserving of action? Should the conventions of international law be cast aside by 36 Members of the United Nations, as they are by lawless terrorists? What I would like to do today is reflect on the things we can learn from the past that can guide us towards a more promising and safer future. For countries with a deep respect and admiration for the history of freedom of the United States — and Andorra counts itself among those countries — it is a source of consternation to note that the doctrine of pre- emptive attack has generated a level of distrust among