Each year we come together to
reaffirm the founding vision of this institution. For most
of recorded history, individual aspirations were subject
to the whims of tyrants and empires, and divisions of
race, religion and tribe were settled through the sword
and the clash of armies.

The idea that nations and peoples could come
together in peace to solve their disputes and advance a
common prosperity seemed unimaginable. It took the
awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking.
The leaders who built the United Nations were not naive.
They did not think that this body could eradicate all
wars. But in the wake of millions dead and continents
in rubble and with the development of nuclear weapons
that could annihilate a planet, they understood that
humanity could not survive the course it was on. They
gave us this institution, believing that it could allow
us to resolve conflicts, enforce rules of behaviour and
build habits of cooperation that would grow stronger
over time.

For decades, the United Nations has in fact made
a difference, from helping to eradicate disease to

educating children and brokering peace. But like
every generation of leaders, we face new and profound
challenges, and this body continues to be tested. The
question is whether we possess the wisdom and the
courage as nation States and members of an international
community to squarely meet those challenges. Can the
United Nations meet the test of our time?

And for much of my tenure as President, some of
our most urgent challenges have revolved around an
increasingly integrated global economy and our efforts
to recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetime.
Now, five years after the global economy collapsed and
thanks to coordinated efforts by the countries here
today, jobs are being created, global financial systems
have stabilized and people are once again being lifted
out of poverty. But this progress is fragile and unequal,
and we still have work to do together to assure that our
citizens can access the opportunities that they need in
order to thrive in the twenty-first century.

Together, we have also worked to end a decade of
war. Five years ago nearly 180,000 Americans were
serving in harm’s way, and the war in Iraq was the
dominant issue in our relationship with the rest of the
world. Today, all of our troops have left Iraq. Next year an
international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan,
having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of
Al Qaida that attacked us on 9/11.

For the United States, those new circumstances
have also meant shifting away from a perpetual war
footing. Beyond bringing our troops home we have
limited the use of drones so that they target only those
who pose a continuing imminent threat to the United
States, when capture is not feasible and when there
is a near certainty of no civilian casualties. We are
transferring detainees to other countries and trying
terrorists in courts of law, while working diligently to
close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Just as we have
reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military
capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we have
begun to review the way that we gather intelligence,
so that we properly balance the legitimate security
concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy
concerns that all people share.

As a result of such work and cooperation with
allies and partners, the world is more stable than it was
five years ago. But even a glance at today’s headlines
indicates that dangers remain. In Kenya, we have
seen terrorists target innocent civilians in a crowded
shopping mall. Our hearts go out to the families of
those who have been affected. In Pakistan, nearly 100
people were recently killed by suicide bombers outside
a church. In Iraq, killings and car bombs continue to be
a terrible part of life.

Meanwhile, Al-Qaida has splintered into regional
networks and militias, which does not give them the
capacity at this point to carry out attacks like 9/11
but does pose serious threats to Governments and
diplomats, businesses and civilians all across the globe.
Just as significantly, the convulsions in the Middle East
and North Africa have laid bare deep divisions within
societies, as an old order is upended and people grapple
with what is coming next. Peaceful movements have too
often been answered by violence from those resisting
change and from extremists trying to hijack change.
Sectarian conflict has re-emerged, and the potential
spread of weapons of mass destruction continues to cast
a shadow over the pursuit of peace.

Nowhere have we seen those trends converge
more powerfully than in Syria. There, peaceful
protests against an authoritarian regime were met with
repression and slaughter. In the face of such carnage,
many retreated to their sectarian identities — Alawite
and Sunni, Christian and Kurd — and the situation
spiralled into civil war.

The international community recognized the stakes
early on, but our response has not matched the scale of
the challenge. Aid cannot keep pace with the suffering
of the wounded and displaced. A peace process is
stillborn. America and others have worked to bolster
the moderate opposition, but extremist groups have still
taken root to exploit the crisis.

Al-Assad’s traditional allies have propped him up,
citing principles of sovereignty to shield his regime.
On 21 August, the regime used chemical weapons in
an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including
hundreds of children. Today, the crisis in Syria and the
destabilization of the region goes to the heart of broader
challenges that the international community must now
confront. How should we respond to conflicts in the
Middle East and North Africa — conflicts between
countries, but also conflicts within them? How do we
address the choice between standing callously by while
children are subjected to nerve gas and embroiling
ourselves in someone else’s civil war? What is the role of
force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of
a region and undermine all basic standards of civilized
conduct? And what is the role of the United Nations and
international law in meeting cries for justice?

Today, I want to outline where the United States of
America stands on those issues.

With respect to Syria, we believe that, as a starting
point, the international community must enforce the ban
on chemical weapons. When I stated my willingness to
order a limited strike against the Al-Assad regime in
response to its brazen use of chemical weapons, I did
not do so lightly. I did so because I believe that it is
in the national security interests of the United States
and in the interest of the world to meaningfully enforce
a prohibition whose origins are older than the United
Nations itself. The ban against the use of chemical
weapons, even in war, has been agreed to by 98 percent
of humanity. It is strengthened by the searing memories
of soldiers suffocated in the trenches, Jews slaughtered
in gas chambers, Iranians poisoned in the many tens of
thousands.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Al-Assad
regime used such weapons on 21 August. United
Nations inspectors gave a clear accounting of their
findings that advanced rockets had fired large
quantities of sarin gas at civilians. Those rockets were
fired from a regime-controlled neighbourhood and
landed in opposition neighbourhoods. It is an insult to
human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution
to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out
this attack.

I know that in the immediate aftermath of the attack
there were those who questioned the legitimacy of even
a limited strike in the absence of a clear mandate from
the Security Council. But without a credible military
threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no
inclination to act at all. However, as I have discussed
with President Putin for over a year, most recently in
St. Petersburg, my preference has always been to work
for a diplomatic resolution to this issue, and in the past
several weeks, the United States, Russia and our allies
have reached an agreement to place Syria’s chemical
weapons under international control and then destroy
them.

The Syrian Government took a first step by giving
an accounting of its stockpiles. Now, there must be a
strong Security Council resolution to verify that the
Al-Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there
must be consequences if they fail to do so. If we cannot
agree even on that, then that will show that the United
Nations is incapable of enforcing the most basic of
international laws. On the other hand, if we succeed, it
will send a powerful message that the use of chemical
weapons has no place in the twenty-first century and
that this Organization means what it says.

Our agreement on chemical weapons should
energize a larger diplomatic effort to reach a political
settlement within Syria. I do not believe that military
action by those within Syria or by external Powers can
achieve a lasting peace, nor do I believe that America
or any nation should determine who will lead Syria.
That is for the Syrian people to decide. Nevertheless, a
leader who has slaughtered his own citizens and gassed
children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead
a badly fractured country. The notion that Syria can
return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy.

It is time for Russia and Iran to realize that insisting
on Al-Assad’s rule will lead directly to the outcome that
they fear — an increasingly violent space for extremists
to operate in. In turn, those of us who continue to
support the moderate opposition must persuade them
that the Syrian people cannot afford a collapse of State
institutions and that a political settlement cannot be
reached without addressing the legitimate fears and
concerns of Alawites and other minorities.

We are committed to working this political track,
and as we pursue a settlement, let us remember that
this is not a zero-sum endeavour. We are no longer in
a cold war. There is no great game to be won, nor does
America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-
being of its people, the stability of its neighbours, the
elimination of chemical weapons and ensuring that it
does not become a safe haven for terrorists. I welcome
the influence of all nations that can help bring about a
peaceful resolution of Syria’s civil war.

As we move the Geneva process forward, I
urge all nations represented here to step up to meet
the humanitarian needs in Syria and surrounding
countries. America has committed over a billion dollars
to that effort, and today I can announce that we will be
providing an additional $340 million. No aid can take
the place of a political resolution that gives the Syrian
people the chance to begin rebuilding their country, but
it can help desperate people survive.

What broader conclusions can be drawn from
America’s policy towards Syria? I know that there are
those who have been frustrated by our unwillingness
to use our military might to depose Al-Assad and
believe that a failure to do so indicates a weakening of
America’s resolve in the region. Others have suggested
that my willingness to direct even limited military

strikes to deter the further use of chemical weapons
shows that we have learned nothing from Iraq, and that
America continues to seek control over the Middle East
for our own purposes. The situation in Syria mirrors
a contradiction that has persisted in the region for
decades. The United States is chastised for meddling in
the region and accused of having a hand in all manner
of conspiracies. At the same time, the United States is
blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region’s
problems and for showing indifference toward suffering
Muslim populations.

I realize that some of that is inevitable, given
America’s role in the world, but such contradictory
attitudes have a practical impact on the American
people’s support for our involvement in the region
and allow leaders in the region, and the international
community sometimes, to avoid addressing difficult
problems themselves. So let me take this opportunity
to outline what has been United States policy towards
the Middle East and North Africa and what will be my
policy during the remainder of my presidency.

The United States of America is prepared to use
all elements of our power, including military force,
to secure these core interests in the region. We will
confront external aggression against our allies and
partners, as we did in the Gulf War. We will ensure
the free flow of energy from the region to the world.
Although America is steadily reducing its own
dependence on imported oil, the world still depends
upon the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption
could destabilize the entire global economy. We will
dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people.
Wherever possible, we will build the capacity of our
partners, respect the sovereignty of nations and work
to address the root causes of terror, but when it is
necessary to defend the United States against terrorist
attack, we will take direct action. Finally, we will not
tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass
destruction. Just as we consider the use of chemical
weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national
security, we reject the development of nuclear weapons
that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region and
undermine the global non-proliferation regime.

Now, to say that those are America’s core interests
is not to say that they are our only interests. We deeply
believe that it is in our interest to see a Middle East and
North Africa that are peaceful and prosperous, and we
will continue to promote democracy, human rights and
open markets, because we believe that those practices
help achieve peace and prosperity. But I also believe
that we can rarely achieve those objectives through
unilateral American action, particularly military
action. Iraq has shown us that democracy cannot
simply be imposed by force. Rather, such objectives are
best achieved when we partner with the international
community and with the countries and peoples of the
region.

So what does that mean going forward? In the near
term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two
particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons
and the Arab-Israeli conflict. While those issues are
not the cause of all of the region’s problems, they have
been a major source of instability for far too long, and
resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a
broader peace.

The United States and Iran have been isolated
from one another since the Islamic revolution of 1979.
That mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long
complained of a history of United States interference
in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing
an Iranian Government during the cold war. On the
other hand, Americans see an Iranian Government that
has declared the United States an enemy and directly
or through proxies has taken Americans hostage, killed
United States troops and civilians and threatened our
ally Israel with destruction.

I do not believe such a difficult history can be
overcome overnight. The suspicion runs too deep. But
I do believe that, if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s
nuclear programme, that can serve as a major step down
a long road towards a different relationship, one based
on mutual interests and mutual respect.

Since I took office, I have made it clear, in letters
to the Supreme Leader in Iran and, more recently, to
President Rouhani, that America prefers to resolve its
concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme peacefully,
although we are determined to prevent Iran from
developing a nuclear weapon. We are not seeking regime
change, and we respect the right of the Iranian people
to access peaceful nuclear energy. Instead, we insist
that the Iranian Government meet its responsibilities
under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons and Security Council resolutions. Meanwhile,
the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the
development of nuclear weapons, and President
Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic
Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.

Those statements made by our respective
Governments should offer the basis for a meaningful
agreement. We should be able to achieve a resolution
that respects the rights of the Iranian people while
giving the world confidence that the Iranian programme
is peaceful. But to succeed, conciliatory words will
have to be matched by actions that are transparent and
verifiable. After all, it is the Iranian Government’s
choices that have led to the comprehensive sanctions
that are currently in place. That is not simply an issue
between the United States and Iran. The world has
seen Iran evade its responsibilities in the past and has
an abiding interest in making sure that Iran meets its
obligations in future.

But I want to be clear. We are encouraged by the
fact that President Rouhani received from the Iranian
people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course.
Given President Rouhani’s stated commitment to reach
an agreement, I am directing John Kerry to pursue this
effort with the Iranian Government, in close cooperation
with the European Union, the United Kingdom, France,
Germany, Russia and China.

The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I
firmly believe that the diplomatic path must be tested.
For while the status quo will only deepen Iran’s isolation,
Iran’s genuine commitment to go down a different path
will be good for the region and the world, and will help
the Iranian people meet their extraordinary potential in
commerce and culture, in science and education.

We are also determined to resolve a conflict that
goes back even further than our differences with
Iran: the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.
I have made it clear that the United States will never
compromise our commitment to Israel’s security, nor
our support for its existence as a Jewish State. Earlier
this year, in Jerusalem, I was inspired by young Israelis
who stood up for the belief that peace was necessary,
just and possible, and I believe that there is a growing
recognition within Israel that the occupation of the West
Bank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the Jewish
State. But the children of Israel have the right to live in
a world where the nations assembled in this body fully
recognize their country and where we unequivocally
reject those who fire rockets at their homes or incite
others to hate them.

Likewise, the United States remains committed to
the belief that the Palestinian people have a right to live
in security and dignity in their own sovereign State. On
the same trip, I had the opportunity to meet with young
Palestinians in Ramallah whose ambition and incredible
potential are matched only by the pain they feel in
having no firm place in the community of nations. They
are understandably cynical as to whether real progress
will ever be made, and they are frustrated by their
families enduring the daily indignity of occupation.
But they, too, recognize that two States is the only real
path to peace, because, just as the Palestinian people
must not be displaced, the State of Israel is here to stay.

The time is now ripe for the entire international
community to get behind the pursuit of peace. Already
Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a
willingness to take significant political risks. President
Abbas has put aside efforts to short-cut the pursuit
of peace and come to the negotiating table. Prime
Minister Netanyahu has released Palestinian prisoners
and reaffirmed his commitment to a Palestinian State.
Current talks are focused on final status issues of
borders and security, refugees and Jerusalem.

So now the rest of us must be willing to take risks
as well. Friends of Israel, including the United States,
must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and
democratic State depends upon the realization of a
Palestinian State, and we should say so clearly. Arab
States, and those who have supported the Palestinians,
must recognize that stability will be served only through
a two-State solution and a secure Israel. All of us must
recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat
extremists throughout the region and embolden those
who are prepared to build a better future. Moreover,
ties of trade and commerce between Israelis and Arabs
could be an engine of growth and opportunity at a
time when too many young people in the region are
languishing without work. So let us emerge from the
familiar corners of blame and prejudice. Let us support
Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are prepared to walk
the difficult road to peace.

Real breakthroughs on these two issues — Iran’s
nuclear programme and Israeli-Palestinian peace — would
have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle
East and North Africa. But the current convulsions
arising out of the Arab Spring remind us that a just and
lasting peace cannot be measured only by agreements
between nations. It must also be measured by our ability
to resolve conflict and promote justice within nations.
And by that measure, it is clear that all of us have a lot
more work to do.

When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and
Egypt, the entire world was filled with hope. And

although the United States, like others, was struck by
the speed of transition, and although we did not — and
in fact could not — dictate events, we chose to support
those who called for change. We did so based on the
belief that while these transitions will be hard and take
time, societies based upon democracy and openness
and the dignity of the individual will ultimately be
more stable, more prosperous and more peaceful.

Over the last few years, particularly in Egypt,
we have seen just how hard this transition will be.
Mohammed Morsi was democratically elected, but
proved unwilling or unable to govern in a way that was
fully inclusive. The interim Government that replaced
him responded to the desires of millions of Egyptians
who believed the revolution had taken a wrong turn, but
it, too, has made decisions inconsistent with inclusive
democracy, through an emergency law and restrictions
on the press, civil society and opposition parties.

Of course, America has been attacked by all sides
of this internal conflict, simultaneously accused of
supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and engineering
its removal from power. In fact, the United States has
purposely avoided choosing sides. Our overriding
interest throughout these past few years has been to
encourage a Government that legitimately reflects
the will of the Egyptian people and recognizes true
democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights,
the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a
strong civil society.

That remains our interest today. And so, going
forward, the United States will maintain a constructive
relationship with the interim Government that promotes
core interests like the Camp David Accords and counter-
terrorism. We will continue support in areas such as
education that directly benefit the Egyptian people.
But we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain
military systems, and our support will depend upon
Egypt’s progress in pursuing a more democratic path.

Our approach to Egypt reflects a larger point: the
United States will at times work with Governments
that do not meet — at least in our view — the highest
international expectations, but who work with us on our
core interests. Nevertheless, we will not stop asserting
principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether
that means opposing the use of violence as a means
of suppressing dissent or supporting the principles
embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. We will reject the notion that those principles
are simply Western exports, incompatible with Islam or
the Arab world. We believe that they are the birthright
of every person. And while we recognize that our
influence will at times be limited, although we will be
wary of efforts to impose democracy through military
force, and although we will at times be accused of
hypocrisy and inconsistency, we will be engaged in the
region for the long haul. For the hard work of forging
freedom and democracy is the task of a generation.
That includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that
continue to surface in places like Iraq, Bahrain and
Syria.

We understand that such long-standing issues
cannot be solved by outsiders; they must be addressed
by Muslim communities themselves. But we have seen
grinding conflicts come to an end before, most recently
in Northern Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants
finally recognized that an endless cycle of conflict was
causing both communities to fall behind a fast-moving
world. And so we believe that those same sectarian
conflicts can be overcome in the Middle East and North
Africa.

To summarize, the United States has a hard-earned
humility when it comes to our ability to determine
events inside other countries. The notion of American
empire may be useful propaganda, but it is not borne
out by America’s current policy or public opinion.
Indeed, as recent debates within the United States over
Syria clearly showed, the danger for the world is not an
America that is too eager to immerse itself in the affairs
of other countries or to take on every problem in the
region as its own. The danger for the world is that the
United States, after a decade of war, rightly concerned
about issues back home and aware of the hostility
that our engagement in the region has engendered
throughout the Muslim world, may disengage, creating
a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to
fill.

I believe that such disengagement would be a
mistake. I believe that America must remain engaged
for our own security, but I also believe that the world
is better for it. Some may disagree, but I believe that
America is exceptional, in part because we have shown
a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and
treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-
interest, but for the interests of all. I must be honest,
though; we are far more likely to invest our energy
in those countries that want to work with us, that
invest in their people instead of in a corrupt few, and
that embrace a vision of society where everyone can

contribute — men and women, Shia or Sunni, Muslim,
Christian or Jew. Because from Europe to Asia, from
Africa to the Americas, nations that have persevered on
a democratic path have emerged more prosperous, more
peaceful and more invested in upholding our common
security and our common humanity. And I believe that
the same will hold true for the Arab world.

That leads me to a final point. There will be
times when the breakdown of societies is so great and
the violence against civilians so substantial, that the
international community will be called upon to act.
That will require new thinking and some very tough
choices. While the United Nations was designed to
prevent wars between States, increasingly we face
the challenge of preventing slaughter within States.
And those challenges will grow more pronounced
as we are confronted with States that are fragile or
failing — places where horrendous violence can put
innocent men, women and children at risk with no hope
of protection from their national institutions.

I have made it clear that even when America’s core
interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to
do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect basic
human rights. But we cannot and should not bear that
burden alone. In Mali, we supported both the French
intervention that successfully pushed back Al-Qaida
and the African forces who are keeping the peace. In
East Africa, we are working with partners to bring the
Lord’s Resistance Army to an end. And in Libya, when
the Security Council provided a mandate to protect
civilians, America joined a coalition that took action.
Because of what we did there, countless lives were
saved and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.

I know that some now criticize the action in
Libya as an object lesson. They point to the problems
that the country now confronts — a democratically
elected Government struggling to provide security;
armed groups, in some places extremists, ruling parts
of a fractured land — and these critics argue that any
intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. Look
at Libya. No one is more mindful of those problems
than I am, for they resulted in the death of four
outstanding United States citizens who were committed
to the Libyan people, including Ambassador Chris
Stevens — a man whose courageous efforts helped save
the city of Benghazi. But does anyone truly believe that
the situation in Libya would be better if Al-Qadhafi had
been allowed to kill, imprison or brutalize his people
into submission? It is far more likely that without
international action, Libya would now be engulfed in
civil war and bloodshed.

We live in a world of imperfect choices. Different
nations will not agree on the need for action in every
instance, and the principle of sovereignty is at the centre
of our international order. But sovereignty cannot be
a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder or an
excuse for the international community to turn a blind
eye. While we need to be modest in our belief that we
can remedy every evil, and while we need to be mindful
that the world is full of unintended consequences,
should we really accept the notion that the world is
powerless in the face of a Rwanda or a Srebrenica? If
that is the world that people want to live in, they should
say so and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.

I believe that we can embrace a different future. If
we do not want to choose between inaction and war, we
must get better — all of us — at the policies that prevent
the breakdown of basic order through respect for the
responsibilities of nations and the rights of individuals,
through meaningful sanctions for those who break
the rules, through dogged diplomacy that resolves the
root causes of conflict and not merely its aftermath,
and through development assistance that brings hope
to the marginalized. And yes sometimes, all this will
not be enough and there will be moments when the
international community will need to acknowledge that
the multilateral use of military force may be required to
prevent the very worst from occurring.

Ultimately, that is the international community
that America seeks — one where nations do not covet
the land or resources of other nations, but one in which
we carry out the founding purpose of this institution
and where we all take responsibility; a world in which
the rules established out of the horrors of war can help
us resolve conflicts peacefully and prevent the kind of
wars that our forefathers fought; a world where human
beings can live with dignity and meet their basic needs,
whether they live in New York or Nairobi, in Peshawar
or Damascus.

These are extraordinary times with extraordinary
opportunities. Thanks to human progress, a child
born anywhere on Earth today can do things that
60 years ago would have been out of reach for the mass
of humankind. I saw this in Africa, where nations
moving beyond conflict are now poised to take off.
America is with them: partnering to feed the hungry
and to care for the sick and to bring power to places
off the grid. I see it across the Pacific region, where

hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in
a single generation. I see it in the faces of young people
everywhere who can access the entire world with the
click of a button and who are eager to join the cause of
eradicating extreme poverty, combating climate change,
starting businesses, expanding freedom, and leaving
behind the old ideological battles of the past. That is
what is happening in Asia and Africa, it is happening
in Europe and the Americas. That is the future that the
people of the Middle East and North Africa deserve as
well, one where they can focus on opportunity, instead
of on whether they will be killed or repressed because
of who they are or what they believe.

Time and again, nations and people have shown
a capacity to change, to live up to humanity’s highest
ideals, to choose a better history. Last month, I stood
where 50 years ago Martin Luther King Jr. told America
about his dream, at a time when many people of my
race could not even vote for President. Earlier this year,
I stood in the small cell where Nelson Mandela endured
for decades, cut off from his own people and the world.
Who are we to believe that today’s challenges cannot be
overcome, when we have seen what changes the human
spirit can bring? Who in this Hall can argue that the
future belongs to those who seek to repress that spirit,
rather than to those who seek to liberate it?

I know what side of history I want the United States
of America to be on. We are ready to meet tomorrow’s
challenges with you, firm in the belief that all men
and women are in fact created equal, each individual
possessed with a dignity and inalienable rights that
cannot be denied. That is why we look to the future
not with fear, but with hope. That is why we remain
convinced that this community of nations can deliver
a more peaceful, prosperous, and just world to the next
generation.


I wish to extend my sincere
congratulations to you, Sir, on your election as
President of the General Assembly at its sixty-eighth
session. The fact that you were elected by consensus
speaks in unequivocal terms of the high esteem in
which you are held by your colleagues and the respect
that you command in this forum. I am confident that
your vast practical experience at the multilateral level
will serve you in good stead as you guide this session
to a fruitful outcome. In the same breath, I pay tribute
to your predecessor, Mr. Vuk Jeremi., for his astute
stewardship at the previous session.

Allow me to begin by expressing our solidarity
with the people of Kenya, while condemning in the
strongest terms the cowardly acts of terrorism that were
seen last week.

I thank you, Sir, for selecting as the theme for this
session “The post-2015 development agenda: setting
the stage”, which, in my delegation’s view, embodies
the fundamental concerns of all countries, but will
find particular resonance with small island developing
States (SIDS) like Grenada. This is an area where the
multilateral system must demonstrate its effectiveness
not only to improve the lives of ordinary citizens but also
to maintain confidence in our multilateral institutions.
We look forward to key performance indicators linked
to tangible outcomes, rather than more analysis and
more reports.

Grenada endorses the call made at the United
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development for
the future we want. In that context, we must build on
the successes of the Millennium Development Goals
and Agenda 21. Indeed, for a post-2015 development
agenda we welcome a framework that goes beyond gross
domestic product and recognizes the assets of natural
capital. Grenada encourages the international financial
institutions to go even further by also recognizing the
liabilities associated with natural disasters caused by
climate change. Those liabilities underscore the need
to reassess the basis on which small island developing
States are graduated to middle-income status, thereby
losing access to concessionary funding that is sorely
needed.

The unilateral graduation of many small island
developing States to middle-income status is premature.
I therefore reiterate the call made in Agenda 21 for a
more holistic and comprehensive set of indicators for
classifying States. Grenada endorses support for low-
income and fragile economies. Moreover, it is clear that
several of the SIDS newly promoted to middle-income
status continue to struggle with high debt burdens,
which are worsened by climate change and high fossil-
fuel import bills. Many SIDS also struggle with low
productivity and low levels of competitiveness and with
severe financial constraints, and, in some cases, they
struggle with limited prospects for immediate growth.

The point is that per capita income used as a sole
measure without the context of climate vulnerability
does more harm than good. To illustrate that point, as
damaging as Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina were to the

United States economy, the costs ran between 0.5 per
cent and 2 per cent of the gross domestic product of the
United States. That is in sharp contrast to the costs of
between 20 per cent and 200 per cent of gross domestic
product when hurricanes hit island economies.

Therefore, Grenada is joining with other SIDS in
urging the shareholders, the donors and the boards of
the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
to translate the recognition of climate vulnerability
in small island States into a meaningful package of
financial and official development assistance for SIDS.

The issue of the graduation of SIDS is an issue that
has been raised year after year. Let us return to the
General Assembly next year confident that progress on
that matter has been made. In that regard, we wish to
suggest for consideration during your presidency, Sir, a
call for a substantive paper and a debate on the issue.
Ideally, the outcomes of that debate should be provided
as an input towards the 2014 third International
Conference on Small Island Developing States, to be
hosted by Samoa, and as an input to the Secretary-
General’s debate on climate change scheduled for
September 2014.

Also contributing to the indebtedness and fiscal
unsustainability of small island States are the volatility
and high prices for fossil fuels. On average, small
island developing States are paying between 20 cents
and 40 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity, some
as high as $1. That contrasts with prices of 5 cents to
15 cents in developed countries. We welcome, therefore,
the initiative of the Alliance of Small Island States in
establishing the SIDS DOCK Support Programme.
We also wish to express gratitude to the donors and
institutions for helping to facilitate that programme.

In addition, the Government of Grenada is taking
major steps towards creating a green economy. One
of the priorities for Grenada’s Prime Minister, The
Right Honourable Keith Mitchell, is the dismantling of
a monopoly that is contributing to high energy costs
on the island of Grenada. The Government is seeking
partners to help create a level playing field, which
will allow many more private-sector players to have
a role in innovative and substantive power-generation
solutions, while positioning Grenada as an exemplar for
a sustainable planet.

Mr. President, as you have chosen the theme of
sustainability for the sixty-eighth session, so too
has the Government of Grenada chosen sustainable
development as the organizing theme for the
development of our island and for our engagement
with international partners. Grenada is a party to more
than 40 multilateral environmental agreements. The
push to harmonize local laws with those international
instruments is testament to Grenada’s commitment to
that agenda. The reasons are clear, the causes of climate
change and the impacts of climate change are negatively
affecting Grenada’s ability to fulfil its social contract
with its people, including its ability to fully deliver on
the Millennium Development Goals.

So far I have spoken only about economic
sustainability and environmental sustainability. The
third pillar of sustainable development relates to
social sustainability. Grenada is a society in which
social development is given equal weighting with the
importance of investment and economic growth driven
by the private sector. On 13 May, a mere three months
after assuming office, my Government ratified the
International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination. We are proceeding
apace to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities, thus demonstrating that Grenada is
committed to the removal of all forms of discrimination.

Grenada associates itself with efforts to dedicate the
Caribbean region to the development of humanity. We
also acknowledge that through the ages the Arab world
has contributed enormously to the world of science
and mathematics, including the very numerals we use
today. We see a modern Arab world taking positive
steps to take the lead in developing breakthroughs on
the key issues that confront our planet. We very much
welcome initiatives such as Masdar City and the hosting
of the International Renewable Energy Agency by the
United Arab Emirates. The role of Qatar in hosting
the United Nations Climate Change Conference is
also noteworthy. Grenada joins with other countries in
seeking to deepen our relationship with the countries of
the Gulf Cooperation Council and places a high degree
of importance on the peace and security of the region.

We are mindful that the region and the entire United
Nations system have been seized of the issues of peace
and security during United Nations Week. Grenada and
many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean
are home to a vibrant and entrepreneurial diaspora
from the Middle East, including people from Syria and
Lebanon. As a consequence, Grenadian citizens are
very concerned about the prospects for peace in Syria
and the wider Middle East.

Grenada condemns, in the most vehement terms,
atrocities and crimes against humanity. We therefore
believe that those responsible for the recent deadly use
of chemical weapons in Syria must be held accountable
by the international community. Moreover, Grenada
welcomes Security Council resolution 2118 (2013), on
destroying Syria’s chemical weapons, and is encouraged
by the commitment of the Syrian Government to comply
with that resolution. More importantly, my delegation
hopes that that breakthrough could be a stepping stone
to the resolution of the already brutal and bloody civil
war in Syria, which has been fuelled by conventional
weapons.

On 3 June, Grenada joined 83 States in signing
the Arms Trade Treaty on the very first morning that
the Treaty was opened for signature. Work is already
under way at the national level for the ratification of the
Treaty, yet another signal of Grenada’s commitment to
peace and security. Moreover, being the first country
to accede to the Convention on Cluster Munitions,
Grenada intends to use its experience to raise awareness
on that particular matter, especially in the Americas.

On the question of Israeli-Palestinian relations,
Grenada remains convinced that a two-State solution is
essential to ending that conflict and urges both parties
to conduct the present round of negotiations in good
faith. Grenada has good relations with the Government
and people of Israel and is a strong advocate for
Israel’s right to coexist in peace with its neighbours.
Furthermore, Grenada has long been a supporter
of the people of Palestine. Grenada is proud to have
joined with neighbouring countries in recognizing
the State of Palestine and in signing a memorandum
of understanding based upon friendship and upon an
understanding of a two-State solution.

As with most of the world, Grenada looked at
the Arab Spring with great interest. The use of social
media underscores the rise of technology as a tool for
democracy on a 24/7 basis, and my Prime Minister
places great importance on the use of information and
communication technologies as a way to engage our
youth. As Egypt goes through its transition and its
people’s call for freedom, dignity and social justice is
heard, we encourage the leaders to learn the lessons of
the recent past and respond to the will of the people
in moving forward to a system of true democracy and
respect for human rights and inclusive processes for
nation-building.

Finally, my delegation uses this occasion once
more to express our solidarity with the Cuban people,
who continue to suffer from an unnecessary economic,
commercial and financial embargo that is a relic of the
Cold War. Grenada once again calls on the United States
of America to respect the views of the overwhelming
majority of humanity and lift the onerous measures
imposed over five decades ago now.

We support your theme, Mr. President, for this
sixty-eighth session and wish to assure our partners that
they can count on Grenada to be an active participant in
these deliberations and in the implementation of their
outcomes.

Grenada is open for business. My Government
recognizes that a tried-and-tested route to sustainable
development involves a significant component of
foreign direct investment. Grenada therefore reaches
out and seeks new friendships while maintaining and
building upon its existing and long-standing relations
with many States members of this body.

In 2014 Grenada marks its fortieth anniversary of
independence, and we invite each and every Member to
celebrate with us on 7 February. We also see our 40 years
as a milestone that recognizes 40 years of struggle,
40 years of development. But also, more importantly, it
marks 40 years of expectations not yet fully delivered
upon. As such, my Government, under the leadership
of our Prime Minister, sees this year as the year of less
talk and more action, the year of tangible deliverables,
and the year that great socioeconomic strides are made.
We have a young and vibrant population that cannot
wait any longer, that should not wait any longer, and
with the help and cooperation of our friends, new and
old, we will deliver. They will not wait any longer.


As he is not personally able to participate in
this general debate, the President of the Republic of
Benin, Mr. Boni Yayi, has asked me to represent him.

At the outset, I would like congratulate the
President on his election to the presidency of the General
Assembly at its sixty-eighth session and, through him,
to honour his country, Antigua and Barbuda, for that
success, which demonstrates the trust that it enjoys
within the international community. I would also like
to congratulate the outgoing President, His Excellency
Mr. Vuk Jeremi., who demonstrated great leadership in
fulfilling his very busy term of office. I would also like
to thank Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his efforts
at the head of the world Organization, in particular
since January 2012, as part of the implementation of his
programme “The future we want” (resolution 66/288,
annex).

Benin fully supports the implementation of
that programme, which focuses on issues that are
fully consistent with the views and priorities of the
Governments of the least developed countries (LDCs),
in particular those of my Government with regard to
governance matters, namely, sustainable development
and preventing conflicts, disasters and violations of
human rights, as well as ensuring the participation of
all stakeholders in the management of public affairs.

Two years from the 2015 deadline established for
the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), we can see that major efforts have been made
by States to achieve the Goals. Assessments conducted
at different levels have shown that least developed
countries are falling far behind in implementing the
Goals, in spite of the significant progress that has been
made.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that achieving the Goals
has become a top priority of my Government’s work
and mobilizes a significant share of available resources.
We should therefore welcome the campaign started in
April to commence the countdown of the last 1,000
days leading up to the 31 December 2015 deadline.

We have reason to hope that the new dynamic
and the new life that has been breathed into efforts of
the international community will enable significant
improvement in the performance of least developed
countries. Benin has taken that opportunity to develop
a road map that includes a stopwatch for the last 1,000
days in order to speed up the achievement of the Goals
by 2015. My country is one of 16 African countries
deemed able to achieve at least five of the eight MDGs
by that date.

I would like to commend the leadership of the
United Nations and its relevant bodies, as well as other
partner agencies, in mobilizing energies to assist States
in achieving the Goals. It is important to fully include
in the post-2015 development agenda those MDGs
that have not been achieved on time and give them top
priority in order to ensure there is continuity with the
new normative framework established by the United
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development held
in Rio de Janeiro and the demands that will result from
the goals currently being developed. In that regard, the
main theme for the general debate of the sixty-eighth
session — “The post-2015 development agenda: setting
the stage” — is quite timely and perfectly in line with
the consultations that have taken place at various levels
to develop that agenda.

Thanks to the meticulous clarification of issues and
challenges by the High-level Panel of Eminent Persons
on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, appointed by
the Secretary General to present recommendations
to him, we have a galvanizing vision and appropriate
materials to build a unique, coherent programme
regarding all those points, and pragmatic enough to
ensure that everybody on the planet is placed on a
sustainable development path so everyone can have
access to shared a prosperity that leaves no country or
person aside.

The post-2015 development agenda must be
universal in nature. It must also be broken down into
specific measures targeting reforms and corrective
measures needed to re-establish any balances that have
been upset or threatened. From that standpoint, it is
of crucial importance that the situations of greatest
current concern to the international community should
enjoy particular attention, as stipulated in principle 6 of
the 1992 Rio Declaration. We should therefore strongly
support what is stated in the Secretary-General’s report
entitled “A life of dignity for all” (A/68/202), that
the needs of the least developed and most vulnerable
countries should form the basis for defining the goals
of the programme.

It is a welcome fact that the situation in those
countries has already been the subject of significant
thinking, with key action programmes that cover
periods that go far beyond 2015. In that regard, the
Istanbul Programme of Action for the Least Developed
Countries for the Decade 2011-2020 is and should
be perceived as an integral part of the post-2015
development agenda. Its main aim is to ensure the
transition of half of the 49 least developed countries to
a higher-income level by 2020.

Against that backdrop, Benin is quite clear about
its responsibility as the head of the global coordination
bureau for the LDCs. We intend to propose the holding
of an international conference on the theme “New
partnerships for developing the productive capacities
of LDCs in the context of the implementation of the
Istanbul Programme of Action”, to be held in Cotonou
in April 2014. That effort already enjoys strong support
from the United Nations and some development partners
from diverse cooperation frameworks, whether they are
North-South, South-South or according to other types
of triangular partnerships. I appeal for goodwill to
help make that voluntary initiative a decisive turning
point in terms of mobilizing the necessary resources
to help least developed countries make the leap to
industrialization based on their competitive advantages.
That route offers LDCs a possibility for creating decent
jobs so they can make the most of their demographic
advantages and turn that into a factor for stability and
prosperity.

We must enhance the role of quality, relevant
and transformative education at the heart of the
social, economic and development agendas — an
education system focused on the real needs of society
and the modern world. In that regard, I welcome the
establishment by the Secretary-General of the Global
Education First initiative, which is a platform for
leading an open debate on the aims of education in
the current context and to prepare children for living
active, productive and personally enriching lives. That
is a prerequisite for meeting the challenge of social
inclusion of young people.

Benin has been honoured to participate actively
since February in the work of the group of Member States
championing the initiative. I urge the international
community to support that noble project, which is a
guarantee of adequate, inclusive training for youth. I
call on all countries to join the Initiative in order to
contribute to the collective thinking and its efficient
implementation.

At Rio de Janeiro we affirmed the inextricable
link that exists among the economic, social and
environmental pillars of sustainable development.
However, that vision will not materialize if we set aside
the existing relationship among peace, security and
development. We should invest more in guaranteeing
peace and security as an essential factor for sustainable
development. At a time when we are thinking about the
broad outlines of the post-2015 development agenda, we
should also forge a consensus on the path to follow and
the means to strengthen the bases of international law
pursuant to respect for the essential principles of the
Charter of United Nations, to which all States Member
of the Organization have freely acceded.

We must constantly strive to bolster the ramparts of
peace; without them, any development will be in vain,
in the light of the destruction that comes from conflicts
triggered by their violation. I would take as an example
the atrocities that we see, sometimes at a frightening
level, such as what occurred in Syria with the use of
banned chemical weapons, which we condemn in the
firmest possible terms.

We must reinforce the clout of the international
regulatory regimes and make progress in the area
of disarmament, whose paralysis carries great risk
for humankind. In that regard, too, we welcome the
conclusion of the Arms Trade Treaty.

We must better harness the mechanisms for the
peaceful settlement of disputes and conflict prevention.
The partnership between the United Nations and
regional organizations is a valuable tool for building
a more integrated and solidarity-based world. That
solidarity must be clearly displayed against the rise of a
violent extremism that is increasingly dangerous when
it takes root in our societiees by associating itself with
transnational organized crime networks.

All those all equally pressing challenges that the
international community needs to address. We would
benefit from adopting a preventive and proactive, as
well as healing, approach in order to improve the health
of our planet and constantly expand the vital space
necessary for ensuring that humans flourish, if we
really want to ensure the universal access to peace and
shared prosperity that we all so sorely want.

The very encouraging way in which the crisis in
Mali was managed is to the credit of the partnership
between the United Nations and regional organizations.
It proved what the international community can achieve
if it uses its levers of our collective security system in
time. Benin has been honoured to take an active part,
alongside other African countries, in the noble mission
of rebuilding the State in Mali.

The election of President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita
is the start of a new era where Mali is returning to the
family of free nations struggling to bring happiness to
their peoples. In that connection, the policies adopted
in the United Nations integrated strategy for the Sahel
must be decisively implemented in order to transform
challenges into opportunities for growth and progress
for the peoples of the region for the certain benefit of
international peace and security.

We must also commend the efforts undertaken
to stabilize the countries of the Great Lakes region,
especially the Democratic People’s Republic of the
Congo, as well as Somalia, where the African Union
has shown its ability to restore and rebuild peace,
with, of course, the support of the United Nations. The
case of the Central African Republic gives us pause,
as it requires a commitment from the international
community commensurate with seriousness of the
current challenges.

The resurgence of piracy and armed robbery at sea
in the Gulf of Guinea has had an enormous impact on
the economies of the countries of the Atlantic coast and
in the hinterlands. The initiatives undertaken with the
support of the United Nations and the backing offered
by our bilateral partners have enabled us to set up
information-sharing centres pursuant to resolutions
2018 (2011) and 2039 (2012) of the Security Council. That
was the aim of the joint summit on maritime security
of the Heads of State and Government of the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the
Economic Community of Central African States
(ECCAS) and the Commission of the Gulf of Guinea
that took place in Yaoundé on 24 and 25 June. That
followed the meeting of Foreign Ministers and Defence
Ministers of ECOWAS, ECCAS and the Gulf of Guinea
Commission that took place in Cotonou on 18 and
19 March. After Yaoundé, there was the Malabo summit
of the Heads of State of the Gulf of Guinea Commission
held on 9 July, which took the historic decision to open
the Gulf of Guinea Commission to all States in the area
of the Gulf of Guinea, which gives the arrangements an
inclusive technical consultation framework.

Strengthening regional cooperation means that
we need to set up an international support mechanism
to improve cost-sharing in order to guarantee lasting
results. It is important for the Security Council to adopt
a new resolution to that effect.

More than ever, the United Nations must stand firm
in its role as the best forum for a fruitful multilateralism,
where different initiatives come together to give the
necessary impetus for more inclusive and less unjust
global governance that finds comprehensive, lasting
solutions to crises of every stripe that trouble the world
with disastrous repercussions on human security and
human rights.

The delays in the establishment of a Palestinian State
with all the attributes of an independent and sovereign
State, including full membership in the United Nations,
living side by side with the State of Israel within secure
borders and with full international guarantees is still a
subject of concern. In that regard, Benin welcomes the
efforts of the Obama Administration that have led to
the renewal of dialogue between the Palestinians and
Israelis.

Along the same lines, the paralysis in the United
Nations with respect to different political and military
crises shows how urgent it is to reform the international
system, in particular the Security Council. Achieving
that reform would be real proof of the commitment
of the United Nations to inclusive and less polemic
management of the great problems of today.

The Government of Benin is firmly committed
to the universality, indivisibility and interdependence
of all human rights, which it considers to be the
third pillar of the United Nations system. They are
considerations that govern our participation in the
work of the Human Rights Council, where we strive to
promote a correlation between the behaviour of States
and the international obligations they have undertaken
through a mutual open dialogue and mutually enriching
cooperation as the most effective way for developing
and protecting universally recognized human rights
and the fight against impunity.

Governments must undertake to create more
cohesion between stakeholders and to ensure
understanding and consensus on essential matters
and avoid internal divisions that undermine the State

while negative forces are constantly striving to wreak
havoc. My Government is committed to strengthening
the principles of democracy and the implementation of
effective local development policies. My Government
remains convinced that promoting, developing and
shoring up democracy, far from being a luxury, is a
vital and unavoidable necessity for all African States.

That is why Benin is striving each day to find the
ways and means to strengthen and streamline its political
system so as to permanently anchor it in universal
values. I remain convinced that democracy can be
viable and useful for the people only if it contributes to
development, to promoting the dignity and fundamental
rights of citizens, to strengthening social justice and to
maintaining peace and international security.

In conclusion, I would like to express the compassion
of the people of Benin to the brotherly people of Kenya
for the tragedy they have experienced following the
recent terrorist attack. The same compassion goes out
to all those people in the world who are suffering from
intolerance and its attendant violence.


I address the General
Assembly today with a sense of deep humility — humility
in the wake of the great architects of world peace who
have stood here before me — and pride. In that regard,
I will utilize my maiden address to this body to pay
homage to those who fostered the birth and initial
dynamics of the United Nations. I therefore find it more
than appropriate to utilize the principles contained in
the Charter of the United Nations as a ready compass
with which to set my course as I navigate the issues that
occupy the forefront of our attention.

Before indicating my own country’s perspectives
on present trends, let me take the opportunity to
congratulate you, Sir, a representative of a Member
State from my own Caribbean region, on your election
to serve as President of the General Assembly. It is a
clear acknowledgement by members of the General
Assembly that all States, large or small, have a deep
and broad interest in how international relations are
evolving and a legitimate contribution to make towards
resolving the problems that are having a negative
impact on us.

At this juncture, permit me to commence my
navigation. The first principle of the Charter reads as
follows:

“To maintain international peace and security, and
to that end: to take effective collective measures
for the prevention and removal of threats to the
peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression
or other breaches of the peace, and to bring
about by peaceful means, and in conformity with
the principles of justice and international law,
adjustment or settlement of international disputes
or situations which might lead to a breach of the
peace”.
Our world vibrates with dynamic political changes,
some welcome, and some threatening to the interests
of small States and therefore unwelcome. Like other
Member States, we prefer the peaceful resolution of
disputes, and therefore welcome the developments in
the Middle East, specifically in relation to Syria, where
the option of a peaceful and negotiated resolution has
taken precedence over the option of war. It is important
that in such matters we not get caught up in the emotions
of the moment. We must be cerebral in our approach,
because emotion is no substitute for intelligence, nor
rigidity for prudence. We do not underestimate the
difficulties inherent in the resolution of issues and
disputes between nations in the Middle East. But we
stand for the right to self-determination as a basic
principle of any people’s existence, and hope that in
other parts of the region the long-standing claims to
entitlement on the part of the people of Palestine will
continue to be pursued, primarily through persistent
negotiation as against any inclination to the threat of
violence and war. We are fortunate to have the United
Nations as a framework within which we can always
proceed to negotiate with patience and persistence until
agreement and/or compromise is reached.

The second principle of the Charter of the United
Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations
based on respect for the principle of the equal rights
and self-determination of peoples, and to take other
appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
Saint Lucia, as a small State in a hemisphere of both
small and large States, emphasizes the use of diplomacy
as a prime instrument for the pursuit of normalized
relations. We note the increasing mutual involvement
of the peoples on both sides of the China Strait and
express the hope that that will lead to normal relations
beneficial to all the peoples of the world. In that regard,
we welcome the response of the membership of the
International Civil Aviation Organization to embrace
the participation of the Republic of China on Taiwan in

aspects of its proceedings. That can be an appropriate
model for the further engagement of Taiwan in the
activities of international organizations, thus permitting
that country to play its role more effectively in global
development.

In the same context, the Government of Saint Lucia
reiterates its support for the inclusion of Cuba in all
regional and hemispheric organizations that it wishes
to join. We support the removal of what can clearly be
seen as forced exclusions, which are surely no longer
permissible under the new rules and regimes of balanced
diplomacy. As is evident, the exclusion of Cuba from
normal and complete intercourse remains an open
wound in the heart of our hemisphere. It is unnecessary
and needs to be ended. Saint Lucia therefore emphasizes
its support for persistent international efforts towards
the removal of the unconscionable embargo that inhibits
Cuba’s legitimate efforts at economic growth and full
hemispheric cooperation.

The third principle of the Charter is to achieve
international cooperation in solving international
problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian
character, and in promoting and encouraging respect
for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for
everyone without distinction to race, sex, language
or religion. That is in consonance with the theme
chosen for this year’s general debate, namely, “The
post-2015 development agenda: setting the stage”.
Over a decade ago, when the world was entering the
twenty-first century, the United Nations took the lead
in setting the international development agenda. At
that time, we made a loud and clear declaration of war
against extreme poverty and hunger, illiteracy, gender
inequality, child mortality, poor maternal health care,
HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, environmental
degradation, as well as against the forces that seek to
fragment our global partnership for development.

Our declaration was appropriately entitled the
Millennium Declaration, and the goals contained
therein were time-bound and target-driven. Today,
less than two years before the 2015 deadline arrives,
we find ourselves facing new, and increasingly critical,
development challenges. Youth unemployment has
reached crisis proportions globally, and high debt levels
have threatened the solvency and stability of small
States. Climate change and the increasing ferocity
of natural and man-made disasters are threatening
the environmental sustainability, and even the very
existence, of small island developing States (SIDS).

Global interdependence demands that the strong
help the weak, so that everyone can get strong.
Therefore, the setting of the post-2015 development
agenda is a watershed moment in global history, and all
countries must participate meaningfully in the process.
The rich must resist the temptation to retreat inward,
as that can idle the global economic engine. The post-
2015 development agenda must be driven by common
aspirations, shared goals and a unified vision of a
secure and stable world that we can proudly bequeath
to our children.

Saint Lucia and several other States have already
embarked upon and completed post-2015 consultations,
with the support of the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP). At least 20 such national
consultations have been conducted across the world,
and they have provided invaluable inputs for the post-
2015 agenda. They emphasize that Saint Lucia and
other SIDS have serious vulnerabilities that seem to
have escaped the gross domestic product-focused eyes
of some of our development partners. The post-2015
agenda must therefore address, in a very real sense,
the issues of concern to SIDS, such as the rise in sea
level, non-communicable diseases, and the assessment
of loss and damage caused by natural and man-made
disasters and the funding needed for recovery. We are
also concerned about the causes of climate change,
particularly our over-dependence on fossil fuels, and
its destructive impact on the debt profiles of our small
and vulnerable economies.

In that regard, we want to arrest the adverse
consequences of climate change before they cripple us,
and we want to accelerate the transition to renewable
energy using clean, green technology. In May 2012,
our region hosted the Conference on Achieving
Sustainable Energy for All in Small Island Developing
States in Barbados and, together with UNDP and other
international partners, we resolved to set targets for
increasing the renewable component of our energy
mix. Moreover, a month ago in Barbados, at the
third interregional preparatory meeting for the third
International Conference on Small Island Developing
States, to be held in Apia, Samoa, in 2014, SIDS
reaffirmed their commitment and renewed calls for the
world to pay attention to their special vulnerabilities.

That is in keeping with the fourth principle of the
Charter of the United Nations, which asserts that the
Organization is to be a centre for harmonizing the
actions of nations in the attainment of the common

ends mentioned earlier. In that regard, we recognize a
number of United Nations initiatives.

First, we note that the outcome document of the
High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly
on the Millennium Development Goals requested the
Secretary-General to initiate thinking on a post-2015
development agenda and to include recommendations
in his annual report on efforts to accelerate progress on
achieving the MDGs.

Secondly, we recognize that the 2012 United
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development has
initiated an inclusive intergovernmental process for
preparing a set of sustainable development goals.

Thirdly, we note that the work of the
Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on
Sustainable Development Financing, on which Saint
Lucia is represented, has proceeded in a positive
fashion. That work includes initiatives of the Caribbean
Community (CARICOM) region aimed at applying
policies to address the effects of the global recession
and of new trends and rules that negate our effective
participation in international trade. Such initiatives
are promoted by our regional institutions, such as the
Caribbean Development Bank, whose President recently
highlighted the need for new urgency in implementing
policies to help the Bank’s member States to emerge
from the effects of the global recession.

Fourthly, we take special cognizance of the special
event just held and convened by you, Mr. President, to
follow up on efforts to achieve the MDGs. We concur
with the recommendations that propose a framework
for countries like mine to come up with an evolving
response to the new international environment that
recognizes how urgent it is that developed countries
fulfil their official development aid commitments, and
how critical the MDGs are for meeting the basic needs
of people in developing countries.

It is vital that all such initiatives on the part of the
global community include arrangements such as an
adaptation fund that can enhance the ability of small
island developing States to begin constructing facilities
that can protect our countries from sea-level rise and
natural disasters. Do we lie supine on our backs and hug
the elusive phantom of hope? No. Given the turbulent
and unpredictable world situation that we small States
face, we have been compelled to reassess, restructure
and reformulate domestic and foreign policy postures
to enable us to realistically readjust our economic and
political strategies and reshape our external relations
along more contemporary and multidimensional
lines. In that regard, Saint Lucia has been making a
special effort in the area of regional and international
outreach. Within our hemisphere, we have witnessed
the establishment and active engagement of both the
Union of South American Nations and the Community
of Latin American and Caribbean States, and Saint
Lucia, like other Caribbean Community States, has
actively engaged with them where eligible.

It is in that spirit that we have also joined the
Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America,
so as to broaden our activities in the hemisphere and
ensure that we take full advantage of efforts to advance
our country’s economic growth, reduce the economic
inequalities that result from our small size and ensure
our full participation in the regional and global
decision-making that inevitably affects us.

As I speak of a better balance of global relations
and the evolution of emergent political principles and
practices, Saint Lucia joins with other CARICOM
colleagues in drawing attention to a decision of the
CARICOM Heads of State, taken at their thirty-fourth
regular meeting, in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago,
in July. That decision mandates our Governments to
collectively seek reparations, on behalf of our citizens
and countries, for the period of exploitation experienced
during the transatlantic slave trade. Our Governments
have therefore initially agreed to the establishment of
a Caribbean reparations commission that will prepare
the relevant documentation and strategies for pursuing
the practical achievement of that goal, with a central
focus of righting the wrongs of the past and elevating
the status of our people. In that regard, we will continue
to conduct a process of diplomatic outreach, not only
within our own hemisphere and the States of the African
continent, the geographic location of our ancestors, but
also within the wider United Nations family.

I would like to reiterate the importance for small
States like Saint Lucia of deliberate and sustained
efforts to resolve disputes peacefully. We support
strengthening the institutional arrangements of the
United Nations in order to help it better fulfil its
mandate. As the Assembly is aware, CARICOM has
been actively engaged in developments relating to
reform of the Security Council. It is an issue that Saint
Lucia’s Permanent Representative has been directly
involved in, particularly the question of expanding both
the permanent and non-permanent membership of the

Council and thereby giving that body’s decision-making
greater legitimacy. We look forward to further progress
on the matter.

For my part, I can only echo the words of the great
Russian writer Nikolai Ostrovsky, who said,

“Man’s dearest possession is life. It is given to
him but once, and he must live it so as to feel no
torturing regrets for wasted years, never know the
burning shame of a mean and petty past; so live
that, dying, he might say: all my life and all my
strength were given to the finest cause in all the
world — the fight for the liberation of mankind”.
It is to that aim that my country and I devote every
moment of our time.
As I conclude, Mr. President, I thank you and
extend to you Saint Lucia’s best wishes and support
for your successful tenure of office as you pursue
the tasks of the coming year, some visible and some
undoubtedly not yet foreseen. Saint Lucia’s hope is that
as we navigate uncharted waters, we continually refer
to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
to which I have referred, in order to ensure that our
great Organization remains on course, as together, with
mutual purpose and mutual aid, we make a new period
in history.


At the outset, on behalf of the Holy See, I have
the honour to congratulate Ambassador John Ashe on
his election to the presidency of the General Assembly
at its sixty-eighth session. I am also pleased to convey
to the President and to other participating delegations
the warmest greetings from His Holiness Pope Francis,
who assures the Assembly of his kind thoughts and
prayers that the session will be crowned with success.

In the first days of his pontificate, Pope Francis
inspired enthusiasm and hope for a new horizon based
on a culture of togetherness that should form the basis
of all personal, societal and international relations.
That culture specifically recognizes the value of others:
the individual, social groups and States. It is founded
on human dignity and transcendence. It acts to reaffirm
faith, which is perceived with fear in certain segments

of contemporary society and wrongly accused of
leading to intolerance — when in fact it promotes
understanding and unity among peoples and peace.

It is my hope that this session of the General
Assembly will be inspired by the same spirit of
universal solidarity that was demonstrated during the
international day for prayer convened by the Pope on
7 September, which brought together religious leaders
of all faiths. May the session follow that path and inspire
a new dynamism such that all nations will take action
to resolve the ongoing conflicts and heal the wounds of
humankind.

The choice of the theme for this session — “The
post-2015 development agenda: setting the stage” — is
a timely one. The process of the implementation of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), including
the progress made and the limitations and difficulties
encountered, has demonstrated the importance of
establishing common goals for all members of the
international community that will bring them together,
galvanize them and assess their efforts — including
the United Nations and its specialized entities, regional
organizations and States. In that regard, it is important
that at this session the Assembly revisit the fundamental
concepts that make up the heart of the United Nations,
as they remain relevant to setting new goals for the
post-2015 agenda.

In the context of comprehensive human
development, the foregoing should be guided by
promoting the family, based on the union of a man and
a woman and the protection of the rights of the family
as the basic social nucleus and the foundation of all
stable and sustainable development. Those goals should
also promote a dignified life for all humankind, from
the oldest to the youngest child still at home, as well
as those living in the most difficult social situations or
most isolated areas.

As the deadline set to achieve the Millennium
Development Goals approaches, it is easy to see that
they have not been universally achieved. That is due, in
part, to limitations and lack of clarity, including along
ethical lines, and especially due to the difficulty in
creating an efficient consensus on the implementation
of Goal 8, in view of the resources necessary to achieve
the seven others.

In terms of that Goal, the decisions made following
the 2008 crisis aimed to find an equitable way to
manage the international financial sector and reform
the international financial institutions. Nevertheless,
it is regrettable to note that discussions on measures
to control the global economy took place among small,
limited groups of States, such as the Group of 20
(G-20); they did not include the poorest or least
populated States. While that was justified from a
practical point of view, such an approach does not
legitimize its decisions, which could have important
consequences for other States Members of the United
Nations that are neither direct nor indirect participants
in the G-20.

In order to guarantee the future implementation of
common goals for the post-2015 agenda, international
legal mechanisms must urgently be devised to ensure the
participation of all States in drafting and implementing
sweeping shared economic decisions. At the same time,
it will be insufficient to create financial or business
structures that are recognized as fair and equitable by
all States if we do not assess the results of the goals in
the long term, with the aim of guaranteeing that the
lives of those in need are clearly improving.

The future development goals of the post-2015
agenda should therefore identify monitoring and
adjustment mechanisms to deal with economic trends
and promote the elimination of hunger worldwide, the
gradual disappearance of slums, universal access to
drinking water and improved sanitation for all, among
other things.

That framework would be incomplete without
considering an external development factor that is
essential to the implementation of the MDGs, namely,
peace. While it is true that injustice and excessive
social and economic inequalities among peoples and
nations represent a constant threat to peace and lead
to war, it is also true that war, terrorism, organized
crime and other forms of armed violence at the national
and international levels represent the most significant
obstacles to development. Therefore, the matter of the
post-2015 development agenda should today be viewed
in the context of the serious conflicts under way — first
and foremost the conflict in Syria.

In facing such wars and massacres, it is crucial
that the international community choose the path of
development, with greater determination and courage.
If peace is considered the sine qua non of comprehensive
human development, it is important to return to certain
basic principles that the international community
solemnly swore to follow nearly 70 years ago.

The United Nations was created, at that time, “to
save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”
and “to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the
institution of methods, that armed force shall not be
used, save in the common interest”. The right to wage
war, which authorized the political and autonomous
use of military force, was replaced by providing the
Security Council with the power to authorize the use of
force which, under the Charter of the United Nations,
includes only one exception, namely, legitimate self-
defence, the conditions and limitations of which are
described in Article 51 of the Charter.

In that context, it is possible to consider that
following the tragedies of the First World War and the
Second World War, States created an international set
of norms that provide legal instruments that establish
the law based on the highest sense of justice. Indeed,
international law is no longer synonymous with the
laws of the international community, that is, laws based
on the traditions and customs of various States. Based
on the Charter of the United Nations, States sought
to reaffirm that international law was a legal system
whose fundamental objective, even if it is not the
only one, was to control the use of violence between
States, and in which the limitation of the use of force
to cases and under the conditions stipulated in the
Charter itself represents a fundamental constitutional
norm. Therefore, the limitation of the use of force is the
primary and essential principle in terms of the ultimate
goal of any legal system aimed at the protection of
individuals and their fundamental rights.

It is tragic that today, in spite of the valuable
United Nations legal principles, the implementation
mechanisms and procedures have not managed to
prevent serious civil and regional conflicts or protect
people. The African continent has many real or potential
situations of conflict, with dozens of armed groups that
sow death and suffering throughout the population.
In that regard, I would particularly like to refer to the
situation in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo and in the Central African Republic.

The Middle East continues to be a subject of
great concern, and in some countries of the American
continent drug trafficking has reached the level where
traffickers can wage war against States. There are
also significant hotbeds of tension in many regions of
Asia. In many of those conflicts, there have been or are
still United Nations peacekeeping operations working
in coordination with regional organizations. In that
regard, a tradition of great merit has been established,
which dates back to the origins of the Organization
itself. However, history has also shown that, when
the necessary means are insufficient or the prevailing
national and international interests weigh too heavily,
United Nations intervention cannot be realized or, if it
is undertaken, has only limited success.

Despite those difficulties, the whole experience
of peacekeeping and peacebuilding developed by the
United Nations should be seen as positive, including
those operations that have had weak immediate
results, because it is itself a concrete expression of the
two key principles of natural law, namely, the rights
intrinsically linked to human dignity. The first requires
that we do everything reasonably possible to avoid war,
given the evils and injustice that war leads to; and the
second affirms the permanent validity of moral law
during armed conflict. In that regard, acts deliberately
contrary to individual’s rights and those universal
principles are crimes, which in the most serious cases
can be described as crimes against humanity.

It is clear that, in the lives of people, armed conflicts
have led to deep divisions and serious harm that require
many years to heal. Today the example of greatest
concern to the entire world is the serious conflict that
has developed in Syria, which has already led to 110,000
dead, 4 million internally displaced persons and more
than 2 million refugees in neighbouring countries,
including in Lebanon and Jordan. It risks becoming
an international conflict at any moment. In addition to
the terrible loss of life, the conflict is destroying some
of the richest heritage of history, culture and human
coexistence, strongly linked to the three monotheistic
religions and the whole European culture heritage. In
recalling the long history during which, together, the
different parts of society built that heritage and sewed
the fabric of human relationships, I would like to note
the deep concern of the Holy See for the fate of the
Christian communities and other minorities, who should
not be forced in any way into exile, but rather should be
given a leading role in the future configuration of their
country, given their contribution to the common good.

The most recent report of the Independent
International Commission of Inquiry, established by the
Human Rights Council, demonstrates that massacres
and other serious violations of human rights have been
committed by the parties to the conflict. The same
experts vehemently affirmed that there was no possible
military solution. In that context, the Holy See would

like to reaffirm that any action that might aggravate or
even extend the conflict and increase the unspeakable
suffering of innocent people should be avoided.

In his recent letter to the Group of 20 leaders
meeting in Saint Petersburg, the Holy Father, recalling
the responsibility of the international community
with regard to Syria, described as regrettable the
fact that too many partisan interests had prevailed
since the Syrian conflict began and had prevented
the finding of a solution to the pointless massacre we
are witnessing. In recalling his words, I would like to
urge the leaders of States not to remain indifferent in
the face of the tragedies that have been afflicting the
Syrian people for far too long. To each and every one
of the leaders, in repeating the Pope’s words, I would
like to make a heartfelt appeal that they find ways to
overcome their differences and give up any useless
attempt at a military solution. On the contrary, there
should be a new commitment to seek, with courage and
determination, a peaceful solution through dialogue
and negotiation between the interested parties with the
firm support of the international community. Moreover,
all the Governments of the world have the moral duty
to give priority to any initiative that would promote the
provision of humanitarian assistance to those who are
suffering on account of the conflict within and outside
the country.

We would also note that, during the Syrian crisis,
the bodies and agencies of the United Nations system
have sought to deploy all available means to protect
civilians. Member States have, for far too long, shown
a lack of the courage needed to give priority to the
international resolution of the conflict. The Secretary-
General recently spoke of the collective failure of the
international community’s ability to prevent and avoid
the atrocities committed in Syria. Along those lines, I
would like to recall the concept of the responsibility
to protect, which the Secretary-General also referred
to, and I would also like to underscore the importance
of that responsibility for the Holy See. The adoption
of a political and legal concept of the responsibility
to protect during the 2005 World Summit, held from
14 to 16 September 2005, was a great step forward
by the international community. Unfortunately,
the responsibility to protect has sometimes been
erroneously understood to be a justification for the
use of arms, but in reality it means something quite
different. It is a profound and urgent spirit of solidarity
that calls upon everyone, starting with heads of State, to
understand their responsibilities with regard to serious
humanitarian crises wherever they occur and to commit
to ensuring that all emergency measures are put in
place — diplomatic and economic measures and those
related to public opinion, as well as the mechanisms
stipulated by the Charter of the United Nations — to
arrive at an effective solution. To provide continuity
to the ongoing debate on the responsibility to protect,
it would be a good idea to consider ways to explicitly
include that concept in the mandate of the Security
Council, under Article 24 of the Charter, and possibly
under Article 39.

In that context, the Syrian tragedy is both a
challenge and an opportunity for the United Nations
to breathe new life into all its bodies, mechanisms and
procedures in a specific, creative and positive manner.
In that regard, we must welcome the unanimous
adoption by the Security Council of resolution 2118
(2013), on 27 September. My delegation hopes that
the agreement that was reached on that document will
provide a definite impetus to the Geneva process, so as
to make it finally possible to restore stability and bring
about reconciliation in the country.

A peaceful and lasting solution to the conflict
in Syria would set a significant precedent for the
upcoming century and would indicate the path to be
taken in addressing other conflicts that the international
community has not yet been able to resolve. It would
greatly facilitate the inclusion of the principle of the
responsibility to protect in the Charter of the United
Nations. And, more generally from the point of view
of economic and social development, it would be the
most clear demonstration of the will to undertake,
with honesty and effectiveness, a path of sustainable
development post-2015.

Pope Francis, through his prophetic words and
actions on 7 September, launched a huge global
movement of prayer for peace, the results of which
were immediately clear in the public’s spontaneous and
sincere support for that goal. The scope of that effort
went beyond differences of religion, culture, nationality
or geographical origin, and exerted a strong influence
on world leaders. Accompanying the Holy Father and
under his leadership, the competent authorities of the
Holy See also took diplomatic action aimed at stopping
the violence and promoting dialogue between the parties
involved in the conflict, thereby putting into practice
one of the main goals of their international presence.
Along with the Pope and in line with the theme for this
session, we would like to reiterate here at the general

debate that war is the specific refusal to commit to the
achievement of the major social and economic goals that
the international community has set for itself. Indeed,
there can be no economic development without peace.
Armed conflict never leads to peace, which is crucial
for that development.

The Holy See believes, in line with the theological
and ethical teaching of the Catholic Church, that
because of the evils and injustices that any war entails,
we must do everything possible to avoid it. This is also
why the Church strongly urges everyone to pray and
act so that divine goodness frees us from the ancient
bondage of war.

My delegation, recalling those ethical principles
that inspire and animate the international activity
of the Holy See, has no ambition other than to make
a contribution of a moral nature to this session of the
General Assembly, while at the same time expressing
its recognition for the work done by various bodies and
United Nations agencies to relieve the suffering caused
by the Syrian crisis and other conflict situations. We
encourage them to continue their humanitarian work.

My delegation also strongly appeals to all Member
States to exercise responsibility. Peace will come about,
and the objectives of comprehensive human development
for each inhabitant of the Earth, especially for the
weakest and those who have no voice or representation,
will be achieved if, and only if, every State is capable of
fully assuming its own responsibilities for the common
good of all.