"I Come as a witness to hope"
Address to the United Nations
H.H. John Paul II
October 5, 1995
Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
1. It is an honour for me
to have the opportunity to address this international Assembly
and to join the men and women of every country, race, language
and culture in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the
founding of the United Nations Organization. In coming before
this distinguished Assembly, I am vividly aware that through you
I am in some way addressing the whole family of peoples
living on the face of the earth. My words are meant as a
sign of the interest and esteem of the Apostolic See and of the
Catholic Church for this Institution. They echo the voices of
all those who see in the United Nations the hope of a better
future for human society.
I wish to express my
heartfelt gratitude in the first place to the Secretary General,
Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for having warmly encouraged this
visit. And I thank you, Mr. President, for your cordial welcome.
I greet all of you, the members of this General Assembly: I am
grateful for your presence and for your kind attention.
I come before you today
with the desire to be able to contribute to that thoughtful
meditation on the history and role of this Organization which
should accompany and give substance to the anniversary
celebrations. The Holy See, in virtue of its specifically
spiritual mission, which makes it concerned for the integral
good of every human being, has supported the ideals and goals of
the United Nations Organization from the very beginning.
Although their respective purposes and operative approaches are
obviously different, the Church and the United Nations
constantly find wide areas of cooperation on the basis of their
common concern for the human family. It is this awareness which
inspires my thoughts today; they will not dwell on any
particular social, political, or economic question; rather, I
would like to reflect with you on what the extraordinary changes
of the last few years imply, not simply for the present, but for
the future of the whole human family.
A Common Human
Patrimony
2. Ladies and Gentlemen!
On the threshold of a new millennium we are witnessing an
extraordinary global acceleration of that quest for freedom
which is one of the great dynamics of human history. This
phenomenon is not limited to any one part of the world; nor is
it the expression of any single culture. Men and women
throughout the world, even when threatened by violence, have
taken the risk of freedom, asking to be given a place in
social, political, and economic life which is commensurate with
their dignity as free human beings. This universal longing for
freedom is truly one of the distinguishing marks of our time.
During my previous Visit
to the United Nations on 2 October 1979, I noted that the quest
for freedom in our time has its basis in those universal
rights which human beings enjoy by the very fact of their
humanity. It was precisely outrages against human dignity which
led the United Nations Organization to formulate, barely three
years after its establishment, that Universal Declaration of
Human Rights which remains one of the highest expressions of the
human conscience of our time. In Asia and Africa, in the
Americas, in Oceania and Europe, men and women of conviction and
courage have appealed to this Declaration in support of their
claims for a fuller share in the life of society.
3. It is important for us
to grasp what might be called the inner structure of this
worldwide movement. It is precisely its global character which
offers us its first and fundamental "key" and confirms that
there are indeed universal human rights, rooted in the nature of
the person, rights which reflect the objective and inviolable
demands of a universal moral law. These are not abstract
points; rather, these rights tell us something important about
the actual life of every individual and of every social group.
They also remind us that we do not live in an irrational or
meaningless world. On the contrary, there is a moral
logic which is built into human life and which makes
possible dialogue between individuals and peoples. If we want a
century of violent coercion to be succeeded by a
century of persuasion, we must find a way to discuss the
human future intelligibly. The universal moral law written on
the human heart is precisely that kind of "grammar" which is
needed if the world is to engage this discussion of its future.
In this sense, it is a
matter for serious concern that some people today deny the
universality of human rights, just as they deny that there is a
human nature shared by everyone. To be sure, there is no single
model for organizing the politics and economics of human
freedom; different cultures and different historical experiences
give rise to different institutional forms of public life in a
free and responsible society. But it is one thing to affirm a
legitimate pluralism of "forms of freedom", and another to deny
any universality or intelligibility to the nature of man or to
the human experience. The latter makes the international
politics of persuasion extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Taking the Risk of
Freedom
4. The moral dynamics of
this universal quest for freedom clearly appeared in Central and
Eastern Europe during the non-violent revolutions of 1989.
Unfolding in specific times and places, those historical events
nonetheless taught a lesson which goes far beyond a specific
geographical location. For the non-violent revolutions of 1989
demonstrated that the quest for freedom cannot be suppressed.
It arises from a recognition of the inestimable dignity and
value of the human person, and it cannot fail to be
accompanied by a commitment on behalf of the human person.
Modern totalitarianism has been, first and foremost, an assault
on the dignity of the person, an assault which has gone even to
the point of denying the inalienable value of the individual's
life. The revolutions of 1989 were made possible by the
commitment of brave men and women inspired by a different, and
ultimately more profound and powerful, vision: the vision of man
as a creature of intelligence and free will, immersed in a
mystery which transcends his own being and endowed with the
ability to reflect and the ability to choose — and thus capable
of wisdom and virtue. A decisive factor in the success of those
non-violent revolutions was the experience of social
solidarity: in the face of regimes backed by the power of
propaganda and terror, that solidarity was the moral core of the
"power of the powerless", a beacon of hope and an enduring
reminder that it is possible for man's historical journey to
follow a path which is true to the finest aspirations of the
human spirit.
Viewing those events from
this privileged international forum, one cannot fail to grasp
the connection between the values which inspired those people's
liberation movements and many of the moral commitments inscribed
in the United Nations Charter: I am thinking for example of the
commitment to "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights (and)
in the dignity and worth of the human person"; and also the
commitment "to promote social progress and better standards of
life in larger freedom" (Preamble). The fifty-one States which
founded this Organization in 1945 truly lit a lamp whose light
can scatter the darkness caused by tyranny — a light which can
show the way to freedom, peace, and solidarity.
The Rights of
Nations
5. The quest for freedom
in the second half of the twentieth century has engaged not only
individuals but nations as well. Fifty years after the end of
the Second World War, it is important to remember that that
war was fought because of violations of the rights of nations.
Many of those nations suffered grievously for no other reason
than that they were deemed "other". Terrible crimes were
committed in the name of lethal doctrines which taught the
"inferiority" of some nations and cultures. In a certain sense,
the United Nations Organization was born from a conviction that
such doctrines were antithetical to peace; and the Charter's
commitment to "save future generations from the scourge of war"
(Preamble) surely implied a moral commitment to defend every
nation and culture from unjust and violent aggression.
Unfortunately, even after
the end of the Second World War, the rights of nations continued
to be violated. To take but one set of examples, the Baltic
States and extensive territories in Ukraine and Belarus were
absorbed into the Soviet Union, as had already happened to
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia in the Caucasus. At the same
time the so-called "People's Democracies" of Central and Eastern
Europe effectively lost their sovereignty and were required to
submit to the will dominating the entire bloc. The result of
this artificial division of Europe was the "cold war", a
situation of international tension in which the threat of a
nuclear holocaust hung over humanity. It was only when freedom
was restored to the nations of Central and Eastern Europe that
the promise of the peace which should have come with the end of
the war began to be realized for many of the victims of that
conflict.
6. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, spoke eloquently
of the rights of persons; but no similar international
agreement has yet adequately addressed the rights of nations.
This situation must be carefully pondered, for it raises urgent
questions about justice and freedom in the world today.
In reality the problem of
the full recognition of the rights of peoples and nations has
presented itself repeatedly to the conscience of humanity, and
has also given rise to considerable ethical and juridical
reflection. I am reminded of the debate which took place at the
Council of Constance in the fifteenth century, when the
representatives of the Academy of Krakow, headed by Pawel
Wlodkowic, courageously defended the right of certain European
peoples to existence and independence. Still better known is the
discussion which went on in that same period at the University
of Salamanca with regard to the peoples of the New World. And in
our own century, how can I fail to mention the prophetic words
of my predecessor, Pope Benedict XV, who in the midst of the
First World War reminded everyone that "nations do not die",
and invited them "to ponder with serene conscience the rights
and the just aspirations of peoples" (Benedict XV, To the
Peoples at War and their Leaders, 28 July 1915)?
7. Today the problem of
nationalities forms part of a new world horizon marked by a
great "mobility" which has blurred the ethnic and cultural
frontiers of the different peoples, as a result of a variety of
processes such as migrations, mass-media and the globalization
of the economy. And yet, precisely against this horizon of
universality we see the powerful re-emergence of a certain
ethnic and cultural consciousness, as it were an explosive need
for identity and survival, a sort of counterweight to the
tendency toward uniformity. This is a phenomenon which must not
be underestimated or regarded as a simple left-over of the past.
It demands serious interpretation, and a closer examination on
the levels of anthropology, ethics and law.
This tension between the
particular and the universal can be considered immanent in human
beings. By virtue of sharing in the same human nature, people
automatically feel that they are members of one great family, as
is in fact the case. But as a result of the concrete historical
conditioning of this same nature, they are necessarily bound in
a more intense way to particular human groups, beginning
with the family and going on to the various groups to which they
belong and up to the whole of their ethnic and cultural group,
which is called, not by accident, a "nation", from the Latin
word "nasci": "to be born". This term, enriched with another
one, "patria" (fatherland/motherland), evokes the reality of the
family. The human condition thus finds itself between these two
poles — universality and particularity — with a vital tension
between them; an inevitable tension, but singularly fruitful if
they are lived in a calm and balanced way.
8. Upon this
anthropological foundation there also rest the "rights of
nations", which are nothing but "human rights" fostered at the
specific level of community life. A study of these rights is
certainly not easy, if we consider the difficulty of defining
the very concept of "nation", which cannot be identified a
priori and necessarily with the State. Such a study must
nonetheless be made, if we wish to avoid the errors of the past
and ensure a just world order.
A presupposition of a
nation's rights is certainly its right to exist: therefore no
one — neither a State nor another nation, nor an international
organization — is ever justified in asserting that an
individual nation is not worthy of existence. This
fundamental right to existence does not necessarily call for
sovereignty as a state, since various forms of juridical
aggregation between different nations are possible, as for
example occurs in Federal States, in Confederations or in States
characterized by broad regional autonomies. There can be
historical circumstances in which aggregations different from
single state sovereignty can even prove advisable, but only on
condition that this takes place in a climate of true freedom,
guaranteed by the exercise of the self-determination of the
peoples concerned. Its right to exist naturally implies that
every nation also enjoys the right to its own language and
culture, through which a people expresses and promotes that
which I would call its fundamental spiritual "sovereignty".
History shows that in extreme circumstances (such as those which
occurred in the land where I was born) it is precisely its
culture that enables a nation to survive the loss of political
and economic independence. Every nation therefore has also the
right to shape its life according to its own traditions,
excluding, of course, every abuse of basic human rights and in
particular the oppression of minorities. Every nation has the
right to build its future by providing an appropriate education
for the younger generation.
But while the "rights of
the nation" express the vital requirements of "particularity",
it is no less important to emphasize the requirements of
universality, expressed through a clear awareness of the
duties which nations have vis-à-vis other nations and
humanity as a whole. Foremost among these duties is certainly
that of living in a spirit of peace, respect and solidarity
with other nations. Thus the exercise of the rights of nations,
balanced by the acknowledgement and the practice of duties,
promotes a fruitful "exchange of gifts", which strengthens the
unity of all mankind.
Respect for
Differences
9. During my pastoral
pilgrimages to the communities of the Catholic Church over the
past seventeen years, I have been able to enter into dialogue
with the rich diversity of nations and cultures in every part of
the world. Unhappily, the world has yet to learn how to live
with diversity, as recent events in the Balkans and Central
Africa have painfully reminded us. The fact of "difference", and
the reality of "the other", can sometimes be felt as a burden,
or even as a threat. Amplified by historic grievances and
exacerbated by the manipulations of the unscrupulous, the fear
of "difference" can lead to a denial of the very humanity of
"the other": with the result that people fall into a cycle of
violence in which no one is spared, not even the children. We
are all very familiar today with such situations; at this moment
my heart and my prayers turn in a special way to the sufferings
of the sorely tried peoples of Bosnia-Hercegovina.
From bitter experience,
then, we know that the fear of "difference", especially when it
expresses itself in a narrow and exclusive nationalism which
denies any rights to "the other", can lead to a true nightmare
of violence and terror. And yet if we make the effort to look at
matters objectively, we can see that, transcending all the
differences which distinguish individuals and peoples, there is
a fundamental commonality. For different cultures are but
different ways of facing the question of the meaning of personal
existence. And it is precisely here that we find one source of
the respect which is due to every culture and every nation:
every culture is an effort to ponder the mystery of the world
and in particular of the human person: it is a way of giving
expression to the transcendent dimension of human life. The
heart of every culture is its approach to the greatest of all
mysteries: the mystery of God.
10. Our respect for the
culture of others is therefore rooted in our respect for each
community's attempt to answer the question of human life. And
here we can see how important it is to safeguard the
fundamental right to freedom of religion and freedom of
conscience, as the cornerstones of the structure of human
rights and the foundation of every truly free society. No one is
permitted to suppress those rights by using coercive power to
impose an answer to the mystery of man.
To cut oneself off from
the reality of difference — or, worse, to attempt to stamp out
that difference — is to cut oneself off from the possibility of
sounding the depths of the mystery of human life. The truth
about man is the unchangeable standard by which all cultures
are judged; but every culture has something to teach us about
one or other dimension of that complex truth. Thus the
"difference" which some find so threatening can, through
respectful dialogue, become the source of a deeper understanding
of the mystery of human existence.
11. In this context, we
need to clarify the essential difference between an unhealthy
form of nationalism, which teaches contempt for other
nations or cultures, and patriotism, which is a proper
love of one's country. True patriotism never seeks to advance
the well-being of one's own nation at the expense of others. For
in the end this would harm one's own nation as well: doing wrong
damages both aggressor and victim. Nationalism, particularly in
its most radical forms, is thus the antithesis of true
patriotism, and today we must ensure that extreme nationalism
does not continue to give rise to new forms of the aberrations
of totalitarianism. This is a commitment which also holds true,
obviously, in cases where religion itself is made the basis of
nationalism, as unfortunately happens in certain manifestations
of so-called "fundamentalism".
Freedom and Moral
Truth
12. Ladies and Gentlemen!
Freedom is the measure of man's dignity and greatness.
Living the freedom sought by individuals and peoples is a great
challenge to man's spiritual growth and to the moral vitality of
nations. The basic question which we must all face today is the
responsible use of freedom, in both its personal and
social dimensions. Our reflection must turn then to the question
of the moral structure of freedom, which is the inner
architecture of the culture of freedom.
Freedom is not simply the
absence of tyranny or oppression. Nor is freedom a licence to do
whatever we like. Freedom has an inner "logic" which
distinguishes it and ennobles it: freedom is ordered to the
truth, and is fulfilled in man's quest for truth and in
man's living in the truth. Detached from the truth about the
human person, freedom deteriorates into license in the lives of
individuals, and, in political life, it becomes the caprice of
the most powerful and the arrogance of power. Far from being a
limitation upon freedom or a threat to it, reference to the
truth about the human person — a truth universally knowable
through the moral law written on the hearts of all — is, in
fact, the guarantor of freedom's future.
13. In the light of what
has been said we understand how utilitarianism, the
doctrine which defines morality not in terms of what is good but
of what is advantageous, threatens the freedom of individuals
and nations and obstructs the building of a true culture of
freedom. Utilitarianism often has devastating political
consequences, because it inspires an aggressive nationalism on
the basis of which the subjugation, for example, of a smaller or
weaker nation is claimed to be a good thing solely because it
corresponds to the national interest. No less grave are the
results of economic utilitarianism, which drives more
powerful countries to manipulate and exploit weaker ones.
Nationalistic and economic
utilitarianism are sometimes combined, a phenomenon which has
too often characterized relations between the "North" and the
"South". For the emerging countries, the achievement of
political independence has too frequently been accompanied by a
situation of de facto economic dependence on other countries;
indeed, in some cases, the developing world has suffered a
regression, such that some countries lack the means of
satisfying the essential needs of their people. Such situations
offend the conscience of humanity and pose a formidable moral
challenge to the human family. Meeting this challenge will
obviously require changes in both developing and developed
countries. If developing countries are able to offer sure
guarantees of the proper management of resources and of
assistance received, as well as respect for human rights, by
replacing where necessary unjust, corrupt, or authoritarian
forms of government with participatory and democratic ones, will
they not in this way unleash the best civil and economic
energies of their people? And must not the developed countries,
for their part, come to renounce strictly utilitarian approaches
and develop new approaches inspired by greater justice and
solidarity?
Yes, distinguished Ladies
and Gentlemen! The international economic scene needs an
ethic of solidarity, if participation, economic growth, and
a just distribution of goods are to characterize the future of
humanity. The international cooperation called for by the
Charter of the United Nations for "solving international
problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian
character" (art. 1.3) cannot be conceived exclusively in terms
of help and assistance, or even by considering the eventual
returns on the resources provided. When millions of people are
suffering from a poverty which means hunger, malnutrition,
sickness, illiteracy, and degradation, we must not only remind
ourselves that no one has a right to exploit another for his own
advantage, but also and above all we must recommit ourselves to
that solidarity which enables others to live out, in the actual
circumstances of their economic and political lives, the
creativity which is a distinguishing mark of the human person
and the true source of the wealth of nations in today's world.
The United Nations
and the Future of Freedom
14. As we face these
enormous challenges, how can we fail to acknowledge the role of
the United Nations Organization? Fifty years after its founding,
the need for such an Organization is even more obvious, but we
also have a better understanding, on the basis of experience,
that the effectiveness of this great instrument for harmonizing
and coordinating international life depends on the international
culture and ethic which it supports and expresses. The United
Nations Organization needs to rise more and more above the cold
status of an administrative institution and to become a moral
centre where all the nations of the world feel at home and
develop a shared awareness of being, as it were, a "family of
nations". The idea of "family" immediately evokes something more
than simple functional relations or a mere convergence of
interests. The family is by nature a community based on mutual
trust, mutual support and sincere respect. In an authentic
family the strong do not dominate; instead, the weaker members,
because of their very weakness, are all the more welcomed and
served.
Raised to the level of the
"family of nations", these sentiments ought to be, even
before law itself, the very fabric of relations between peoples.
The United Nations has the historic, even momentous, task of
promoting this qualitative leap in international life,
not only by serving as a centre of effective mediation for the
resolution of conflicts but also by fostering values, attitudes
and concrete initiatives of solidarity which prove capable of
raising the level of relations between nations from the
"organizational" to a more "organic" level, from simple
"existence with" others to "existence for" others, in a fruitful
exchange of gifts, primarily for the good of the weaker nations
but even so, a clear harbinger of greater good for everyone.
15. Only on this condition
shall we attain an end not only to "wars of combat" but also to
"cold wars". It will ensure not only the legal equality of all
peoples but also their active participation in the building of a
better future, and not only respect for individual cultural
identities, but full esteem for them as a common treasure
belonging to the cultural patrimony of mankind. Is this not
the ideal held up by the Charter of the United Nations when it
sets as the basis of the Organization "the principle of the
sovereign equality of all its Members" (art. 2.1), or when it
commits it to "develop friendly relations between nations based
on respect for the principle of equal rights and of
self-determination" (art. 1.2)? This is the high road
which must be followed to the end, even if this involves, when
necessary, appropriate modifications in the operating model of
the United Nations, so as to take into account everything that
has happened in this half century, with so many new peoples
experiencing freedom and legitimately aspiring to "be" and to
"count for" more.
None of this should appear
an unattainable utopia. Now is the time for new hope,
which calls us to expel the paralyzing burden of cynicism from
the future of politics and of human life. The anniversary which
we are celebrating invites us to do this by reminding us of the
idea of "united nations", an idea which bespeaks mutual
trust, security and solidarity. Inspired by the example of all
those who have taken the risk of freedom, can we not
recommit ourselves also to taking the risk of solidarity
— and thus the risk of peace?
Beyond Fear: the
Civilization of Love
16. It is one of the great
paradoxes of our time that man, who began the period we call
"modernity" with a self-confident assertion of his "coming of
age" and "autonomy", approaches the end of the twentieth century
fearful of himself, fearful of what he might be capable of,
fearful for the future. Indeed, the second half of the twentieth
century has seen the unprecedented phenomenon of a humanity
uncertain about the very likelihood of a future, given
the threat of nuclear war. That danger, mercifully, appears to
have receded — and everything that might make it return needs to
be rejected firmly and universally; all the same, fear for
the future and of the future remains.
In order to ensure that
the new millennium now approaching will witness a new
flourishing of the human spirit, mediated through an authentic
culture of freedom, men and women must learn to conquer fear.
We must learn not to be afraid, we must rediscover a spirit
of hope and a spirit of trust. Hope is not empty optimism
springing from a naive confidence that the future will
necessarily be better than the past. Hope and trust are the
premise of responsible activity and are nurtured in that inner
sanctuary of conscience where "man is alone with God" (Gaudium
et Spes, 16) and he thus perceives
that he is not alone amid the enigmas of existence, for
he is surrounded by the love of the Creator!
Hope and trust: these may
seem matters beyond the purview of the United Nations. But they
are not. The politics of nations, with which your Organization
is principally concerned, can never ignore the transcendent,
spiritual dimension of the human experience, and could never
ignore it without harming the cause of man and the cause of
human freedom. Whatever diminishes man — whatever shortens the
horizon of man's aspiration to goodness — harms the cause of
freedom. In order to recover our hope and our trust at the end
of this century of sorrows, we must regain sight of that
transcendent horizon of possibility to which the soul of man
aspires.
17. As a Christian, my
hope and trust are centered on Jesus Christ, the two thousandth
anniversary of whose birth will be celebrated at the coming of
the new millennium. We Christians believe that in his Death and
Resurrection were fully revealed God's love and his care for all
creation. Jesus Christ is for us God made man, and made a
part of the history of humanity. Precisely for this reason,
Christian hope for the world and its future extends to every
human person. Because of the radiant humanity of Christ,
nothing genuinely human fails to touch the hearts of Christians.
Faith in Christ does not impel us to intolerance. On the
contrary, it obliges us to engage others in a respectful
dialogue. Love of Christ does not distract us from interest in
others, but rather invites us to responsibility for them, to the
exclusion of no one and indeed, if anything, with a special
concern for the weakest and the suffering. Thus, as we approach
the two thousandth anniversary of the birth of Christ, the
Church asks only to be able to propose respectfully this message
of salvation, and to be able to promote, in charity and service,
the solidarity of the entire human family.
Ladies and Gentlemen! I
come before you, as did my predecessor Pope Paul VI exactly
thirty years ago, not as one who exercises temporal power —
these are his words — nor as a religious leader seeking special
privileges for his community. I come before you as a witness: a
witness to human dignity, a witness to hope, a witness to the
conviction that the destiny of all nations lies in the hands of
a merciful Providence.
18. We must overcome
our fear of the future. But we will not be able to overcome it
completely unless we do so together. The "answer" to that
fear is neither coercion nor repression, nor the imposition of
one social "model" on the entire world. The answer to the fear
which darkens human existence at the end of the twentieth
century is the common effort to build the civilization of
love, founded on the universal values of peace, solidarity,
justice, and liberty. And the "soul" of the civilization of love
is the culture of freedom: the freedom of individuals and the
freedom of nations, lived in self-giving solidarity and
responsibility.
We must not be afraid
of the future. We must not be afraid of man. It is no
accident that we are here. Each and every human person has been
created in the "image and likeness" of the One who is the origin
of all that is. We have within us the capacities for wisdom and
virtue. With these gifts, and with the help of God's grace, we
can build in the next century and the next millennium a
civilization worthy of the human person, a true culture of
freedom. We can and must do so! And in doing so, we shall
see that the tears of this century have prepared the ground for
a new springtime of the human spirit.
Return to In the Heart of JPII
Page...
