Your Majesties, Your Royal Highness, Honourable Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen.
The International Atomic Energy Agency and I are humbled, proud, delighted and above all strengthened in our resolve by this most worthy of honours.
My sister-in-law works for a group that supports orphanages in Cairo. She and her colleagues take care of children left behind by circumstances beyond their control. They feed these children, clothe them and teach them to read.
At the International Atomic Energy Agency, my colleagues and I work to keep nuclear materials out of the reach of extremist groups. We inspect nuclear facilities all over the world, to be sure that peaceful nuclear activities are not being used as a cloak for weapons programmes.
My sister-in-law and I are working towards the same goal, through different paths: the security of the human family.
But why has this security so far eluded us?
I believe it is because our security strategies have not yet caught up with the risks we are facing. The globalization that has swept away the barriers to the movement of goods, ideas and people has also swept with it barriers that confined and localized security threats.
A recent United Nations High-Level Panel identified five categories of threats that we face:
1. Poverty, Infectious Disease, and Environmental Degradation;
2. Armed Conflict – both within and among states;
3. Organized Crime;
4. Terrorism; and
5. Weapons of Mass Destruction.
These are all 'threats without borders' – where traditional notions of national security have become obsolete. We cannot respond to these threats by building more walls, developing bigger weapons, or dispatching more troops. Quite to the contrary. By their very nature, these security threats require primarily multinational cooperation.
But what is more important is that these are not separate or distinct threats. When we scratch the surface, we find them closely connected and interrelated.
We are 1,000 people here today in this august hall. Imagine for a moment that we represent the world's population. These 200 people on my left would be the wealthy of the world, who consume 80 per cent of the available resources. And these 400 people on my right would be living on an income of less than $2 per day.
This underprivileged group of people on my right is no less intelligent or less worthy than their fellow human beings on the other side of the aisle. They were simply born into this fate.
In the real world, this imbalance in living conditions inevitably leads to inequality of opportunity, and in many cases loss of hope. And what is worse, all too often the plight of the poor is compounded by and results in human rights abuses, a lack of good governance, and a deep sense of injustice. This combination naturally creates a most fertile breeding ground for civil wars, organized crime, and extremism in its different forms.
In regions wher
e conflicts have been left to fester for decades, countries continue to look for ways to offset their insecurities or project their 'power'. In some cases, they may be tempted to seek their own weapons of mass destruction, like others who have preceded them.
* * * * * * *
Ladies and Gentlemen.
Fifteen years ago, when the Cold War ended, many of us hoped for a new world order to emerge. A world order rooted in human solidarity – a world order that would be equitable, inclusive and effective.
But today we are nowhere near that goal. We may have torn down the walls between East and West, but we have yet to build the bridges between North and South – the rich and the poor.
Consider our development aid record. Last year, the nations of the world spent over $1 trillion on armaments. But we contributed less than 10 per cent of that amount – a mere $80 billion – as official development assistance to the developing parts of the world, where 850 million people suffer from hunger.
My friend James Morris heads the World Food Programme, whose task it is to feed the hungry. He recently told me, "If I could have just 1 per cent of the money spent on global armaments, no one in this world would go to bed hungry."
It should not be a surprise then that poverty continues to breed conflict. Of the 13 million deaths due to armed conflict in the last ten years, 9 million occurred in sub-Saharan Africa, where the poorest of the poor live.
Consider also our approach to the sanctity and value of human life. In the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, we all grieved deeply, and expressed outrage at this heinous crime – and rightly so. But many people today are unaware that, as the result of civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 3.8 million people have lost their lives since 1998.
Are we to conclude that our priorities are skewed, and our approaches uneven?
* * * * * * *
Ladies and Gentlemen. With this 'big picture' in mind, we can better understand the changing landscape in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
There are three main features to this changing landscape: the emergence of an extensive black market in nuclear material and equipment; the proliferation of nuclear weapons and sensitive nuclear technology; and the stagnation in nuclear disarmament.
Today, with globalization bringing us ever closer together, if we choose to ignore the insecurities of some, they will soon become the insecurities of all.
Equally, with the spread of advanced science and technology, as long as some of us choose to rely on nuclear weapons, we continue to risk that these same weapons will become increasingly attractive to others.
I have no doubt that, if we hope to escape self-destruction, then nuclear weapons should have no place in our collective conscience, and no role in our security.
To that end, we must ensure – absolutely – that no more countries acquire these dea
dly weapons.
We must see to it that nuclear-weapon states take concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament.
And we must put in place a security system that does not rely on nuclear deterrence.
* * * * * * *
Are these goals realistic and within reach? I do believe they are. But then three steps are urgently required.
First, keep nuclear and radiological material out of the hands of extremist groups. In 2001, the IAEA together with the international community launched a worldwide campaign to enhance the security of such material. Protecting nuclear facilities. Securing powerful radioactive sources. Training law enforcement officials. Monitoring border crossings. In four years, we have completed perhaps 50 per cent of the work. But this is not fast enough, because we are in a race against time.
Second, tighten control over the operations for producing the nuclear material that could be used in weapons. Under the current system, any country has the right to master these operations for civilian uses. But in doing so, it also masters the most difficult steps in making a nuclear bomb.
To overcome this, I am hoping that we can make these operations multinational – so that no one country can have exclusive control over any such operation. My plan is to begin by setting up a reserve fuel bank, under IAEA control, so that every country will be assured that it will get the fuel needed for its bona fide peaceful nuclear activities. This assurance of supply will remove the incentive – and the justification – for each country to develop its own fuel cycle. We should then be able to agree on a moratorium on new national facilities, and to begin work on multinational arrangements for enrichment, fuel production, waste disposal and reprocessing.
We must also strengthen the verification system. IAEA inspections are the heart and soul of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. To be effective, it is essential that we are provided with the necessary authority, information, advanced technology, and resources. And our inspections must be backed by the UN Security Council, to be called on in cases of non-compliance.
Third, accelerate disarmament efforts. We still have eight or nine countries who possess nuclear weapons. We still have
27,000 warheads in existence. I believe this is 27,000 too many.
A good start would be if the nuclear-weapon states reduced the strategic role given to these weapons. More than 15 years after the end of the Cold War, it is incomprehensible to many that the major nuclear-weapon states operate with their arsenals on hair-trigger alert – such that, in the case of a possible launch of a nuclear attack, their leaders could have only 30 minutes to decide whether to retaliate, risking the devastation of entire nations in a matter of minutes.
These are three concrete steps that, I believe, can readily be taken. Protect the material and strengthen verification. Control the fuel cycle. Accelerate disarmament
efforts.
But that is not enough. The hard part is: how do we create an environment in which nuclear weapons – like slavery or genocide – are regarded as a taboo and a historical anomaly?
* * * * * * *
Ladies and Gentlemen.
Whether one believes in evolution, intelligent design, or Divine Creation, one thing is certain. Since the beginning of history, human beings have been at war with each other, under the pretext of religion, ideology, ethnicity and other reasons. And no civilization has ever willingly given up its most powerful weapons. We seem to agree today that we can share modern technology, but we still refuse to acknowledge that our values – at their very core – are shared values.
I am an Egyptian Muslim, educated in Cairo and New York, and now living in Vienna. My wife and I have spent half our lives in the North, half in the South. And we have experienced first hand the unique nature of the human family and the common values we all share.
Shakespeare speaks of every single member of that family in The Merchant of Venice, when he asks: "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"
And lest we forget:
There is no religion that was founded on intolerance – and no religion that does not value the sanctity of human life.
Judaism asks that we value the beauty and joy of human existence.
Christianity says we should treat our neighbours as we would be treated.
Islam declares that killing one person unjustly is the same as killing all of humanity.
Hinduism recognizes the entire universe as one family.
Buddhism calls on us to cherish the oneness of all creation.
Some would say that it is too idealistic to believe in a society based on tolerance and the sanctity of human life, where borders, nationalities and ideologies are of marginal importance. To those I say, this is not idealism, but rather realism, because history has taught us that war rarely resolves our differences. Force does not heal old wounds; it opens new ones.
* * * * * * *
Ladies and Gentlemen.
I have talked about our efforts to combat the misuse of nuclear energy. Let me now tell you how this very same energy is used for the benefit of humankind.
At the IAEA, we work daily on every continent to put nuclear and radiation techniques in the service of humankind. In Vietnam, farmers plant rice with greater nutritional value that was developed with IAEA assistance. Throughout Latin America, nuclear technology is being used to map underground aquifers, so that water supplies can be managed sustainably. In Ghana, a new radiotherapy machine is offering cancer treatment to thousands of patients. In the South Pacific, Japanese scientists are using nuclear techniques to study climate change. In India, eight new nuclear plants are under construction, to provide clean electricity for a growing nation – a case in point of the ris
ing expectation for a surge in the use of nuclear energy worldwide.
These projects, and a thousand others, exemplify the IAEA ideal: Atoms for Peace.
But the expanding use of nuclear energy and technology also makes it crucial that nuclear safety and security are maintained at the highest level.
Since the Chernobyl accident, we have worked all over the globe to raise nuclear safety performance. And since the September 2001 terrorist attacks, we have worked with even greater intensity on nuclear security. On both fronts, we have built an international network of legal norms and performance standards. But our most tangible impact has been on the ground. Hundreds of missions, in every part of the world, with international experts making sure nuclear activities are safe and secure.
I am very proud of the 2,300 hard working men and women that make up the IAEA staff – the colleagues with whom I share this honour. Some of them are here with me today. We come from over 90 countries. We bring many different perspectives to our work. Our diversity is our strength.
We are limited in our authority. We have a very modest budget. And we have no armies.
But armed with the strength of our convictions, we will continue to speak truth to power. And we will continue to carry out our mandate with independence and objectivity.
The Nobel Peace Prize is a powerful message for us – to endure in our efforts to work for security and development. A durable peace is not a single achievement, but an environment, a process and a commitment.
* * * * * * *
Ladies and Gentlemen.
The picture I have painted today may have seemed somewhat grim. Let me conclude by telling you why I have hope.
I have hope because the positive aspects of globalization are enabling nations and peoples to become politically, economically and socially interdependent, making war an increasingly unacceptable option.
Among the 25 members of the European Union, the degree of economic and socio-political dependencies has made the prospect of the use of force to resolve differences almost absurd. The same is emerging with regard to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, with some 55 member countries from Europe, Central Asia and North America. Could these models be expanded to a world model, through the same creative multilateral engagement and active international cooperation, where the strong are just and the weak secure?
I have hope because civil society is becoming better informed and more engaged. They are pressing their governments for change – to create democratic societies based on diversity, tolerance and equality. They are proposing creative solutions. They are raising awareness, donating funds, working to transform civic spirit from the local to the global. Working to bring the human family closer together.
We now have the opportunity, more than at any time before, to give an affirmative answer to one of the oldest questions of a
ll time: "Am I my brother's keeper?"
What is required is a new mindset and a change of heart, to be able to see the person across the ocean as our neighbour.
Finally, I have hope because of what I see in my children, and some of their generation.
I took my first trip abroad at the age of 19. My children were even more fortunate than I. They had their first exposure to foreign culture as infants, and they were raised in a multicultural environment. And I can say absolutely that my son and daughter are oblivious to colour and race and nationality. They see no difference between their friends Noriko, Mafupo, Justin, Saulo and Hussam; to them, they are only fellow human beings and good friends.
Globalization, through travel, media and communication, can also help us – as it has with my children and many of their peers – to see each other simply as human beings.
* * * * * * *
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highness, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Imagine what would happen if the nations of the world spent as much on development as on building the machines of war. Imagine a world where every human being would live in freedom and dignity. Imagine a world in which we would shed the same tears when a child dies in Darfur or Vancouver. Imagine a world where we would settle our differences through diplomacy and dialogue and not through bombs or bullets. Imagine if the only nuclear weapons remaining were the relics in our museums. Imagine the legacy we could leave to our children.
Imagine that such a world is within our grasp.
尊敬的陛下、尊敬的殿下、尊敬的挪威诺贝尔委员会各位成员、阁下、女士们、先生们：
这一崇高的荣誉使国际原子能机构和我本人倍感骄傲、自豪和喜悦，并且最重要的是激励了我们的决心。
我的弟媳在开罗一个为孤儿院提供服务的团体工作。她和她的同事照料着这些由于无能为力而被遗弃的儿童。他们为这些孩子提供吃穿，教他们读书。
我和我的同事们在国际原子能机构为防止核材料落入极端主义团伙之手而在努力奋斗。我们对全世界的核设施进行检查，以确保不将和平核活动作为幌子谋求武器计划。
我和我的弟媳正在通过不同的方式致力于实现人类大家庭安全这一相同的目标。
但是，为什么我们迄今得不到这种安全呢？
我认为，这是因为我们的安全战略还解决不了我们当前所面临的危险。全球化冲开了货物、思想和人口流动的壁垒，但也随之扫除了局部和地区安全威胁的屏障。
最近，一个联合国高级别小组确定了我们当前所面临的五种威胁：
1，贫穷、传染性疾病和环境恶化；
2，国家内部和国家之间的武装冲突；
3，有组织犯罪；
4，恐怖主义；
5，大规模杀伤性武器。
这些都是“没有疆界的威胁”。在这种威胁下，传统的国
家安全观已经过时。我们不能靠建造更多的围墙、发展更大的武器或派遣更多的军队来应对这些威胁。恰恰相反，从其真正的性质来看，应对这些安全威胁应主要通过多国合作来实现。
但是更重要的是，这些威胁并不是个别或孤立的。当我们透过表面就会发现，它们是密切联系和相互交织的。
今天，在这个庄严的大厅里出席仪式的有1000人。暂且想象我们代表全世界的人口。在我左边的200人是这个世界上的富人，消耗着80%的可得资源。而在我右边的400人却靠着每天不到2美元的收入生活。
我右边这些经济地位低下的人群的智慧或价值一点也不比过道另一边的他们的同人们逊色。他们只是生于这种命运。
在现实世界中，生活条件的这种失衡不可避免地导致机遇上的不平等，并且在很多情况下导致无望。而且更糟的是，滥用人权、缺乏善政和深深的不公正时常又使穷人的困境雪上加霜，这进而又加剧了滥用人权、缺乏善政和不公正感。这种结合自然为内战、有组织犯罪和各种形式的极端主义提供了赖以滋生的最肥沃的土壤。
在冲突导致积怨长达数十载的地区，各国不断寻求各种方式来弥补它们的不安全感或策划它们的“力量”。在一些情况下，它们可能非常渴望像已经走过其前面的其他国家那样寻求大规模杀伤性武器。
女士们、先生们，
在15年前冷战结束时，我们很多人都期待出现一个世界新秩序，一个根植于人类团结、平等、兼容并蓄和有效的世界秩序。
但在今天，我们远没有达到这一目标。我们或许已经推倒了东西方之间的高墙，但我们仍需架设沟通南方和北方——穷国和富国——之间的桥梁。
现在让我们来看看我们的发展援助情况。去年，世界各国的军备支出超过一万亿美元。而我们给世界发展中地区官方发展援助的金额还不到10%，仅为800亿美元，在这些地区有8.5亿人正在忍饥挨饿。
我都朋友詹姆斯·莫里斯领导着世界粮食计划署，他的任务就是给饥饿者提供食物。他最近告诉我，“如果我能够得到占全球军备开支区区1%的资金，在这个世界上就不会有人空着肚子睡觉了。
因此，贫困继续滋生冲突就不应当是一件什么奇怪的事了。最近10年，在因武装冲突而丧生的1300万人中，有900万是在生活最贫困的撒哈拉以南非洲。
下面让我再来谈谈我们对人类生命的神圣和价值的方法。在2001年9月美国遭受恐怖袭击之后，我们大家都深感悲痛，对这种令人发指的罪行表示愤慨，事实也的确如此。但是，现在有很多人还没有意识到，自1998年以来，在刚果民主共和国已有380万人死于内战。
我们可否得出我们
的优先事项有偏差和我们的方法有失衡的结论呢？
女士们、先生们，看了这种”宽银幕影片”，我们就能够更好地了解防止核扩散和核裁军方面不断变化的情景。
这种不断变化的情景有三个主要特征，即庞大的核材料和核设备黑市的出现、核武器和敏感核技术的扩散以及核裁军的停滞不前。
今天，随着全球化把我们更加紧密地联系在一起，如果我们选择忽视一些人的不安全，那么他们就将很快成为所有人的不安全。
同样，随着先进科学技术的传播，只要我们中的一些国家选择依赖核武器，那么我们就会继续甘冒这些同样的武器对其他国家也愈加具有诱惑力的危险。
我毫不怀疑，如果我们希望避免自我毁灭，则核武器应在我们的集体良知中无立锥之地，并在我们的安全中不起任何作用。
为此，我们必须绝对确保不再有更多国家获得这些致命的武器。
我们必须努力促进有核武器国家向核裁军迈出实际步骤。
而且，我们必须建立一个不依赖核威慑的安全制度。
这些目标是实现和可以达到的吗？我相信它们是。但是，这就迫切需要采取三个步骤。
首先，要防止核材料和放射性物质落入极端主义团伙之手。2001年，国际原子能机构和国际社会共同发起了世界范围的活动以加强这类物质的安全；保护核设施；确保强放射源的安全；培训执法官员；监督边境口岸。在这4年时间里，我们已完成了大约一半的工作。但是这样还不够迅速，因为我们是在和时间赛跑。
其次，加强对可用于武器的核材料生产过程的控制。在现有制度下，任何国家都享有为民用目的掌握这些生产过程的权利。但是这样做的结果，是这些国家也掌握了制造核弹的最困难的步骤。
为了克服这一缺陷，我希望我们能够使这些生产过程多国化，这样，任何国家就都不能对这方面的任何过程取得独有的控制。我的计划是首先建立在国际原子能机构控制之下的燃料储备库，以便每个国家都能确信它将获得为开展真正意义上的和平核活动所需的燃料。这种供应保证将消除对每个国家发展本国燃料循环存在的动因和理由。然后，我们应当能够同意暂停建设新的国内设施，并开始实施有关浓缩、燃料生产、废物处置和后处理方面的多国安排。我们还必须加强核查系统。国际原子能机构的检查措施是核不扩散制度的核心和灵魂。为了保证其有效性，我们必须获得必要的授权、情报资料、先进技术和资源。我们的检查工作必须得到联合国安理会的支持，并在出现违约的情况下可以提交安理会解决。
第三，加速裁军努力。我们仍然有八九个国家拥有核武器。我
们现在还有27000枚核弹头。我认为27 000枚核弹头太多了。
如果有核武器国家减少这些核武器的战略作用，那将是一个良好的开端。让很多人难以理解的是，在冷战结束逾15年之后，主要核武器国家的核武库还处于一触即发的警戒状态，这样一来，在可能发动核打击的情况下，这些国家的领导人仅有30分钟时间决定是否进行报复，因而冒着在几分钟之内使整个国家遭到毁灭的危险。
我认为能够随时采取这三个实际步骤，这就是保护核材料和加强检查；控制燃料循环和加速裁军努力。
但仅有这些是不够的，真正困难的是，我们怎样创造一个环境，在这个环境中，核武器如同奴隶制或种族灭绝一样被认为是一种禁忌和一个历史的反常现象。
女士们、先生们，
无论一个人相信进化论、智慧设计论还是神创论，但有一件事是确定无疑的。自有史以来，人类就一直以宗教、意识形态、种族渊源和其他借口而相互交战，并且没有一种文明曾经欣然放弃它最强大的武器。今天，我们似乎同意我们能够共享现代技术，但我们仍然拒绝承认我们的价值，即我们所共有的那部分最核心的价值。
我是一个埃及的穆斯林，在开罗和纽约接受了教育，现生活在维也纳。我和我的妻子半生在北方国家生活，半生在南方国家度过。我们亲身体验了人类大家庭无与伦比的特性和我们所有人所共同拥有的普遍价值。
莎士比亚在《威尼斯商人》中谈到这个大家庭的每一位成员时，曾发出这样的追问：“你们若戳伤我们，我们不也会淌血？你们若搔我们的痒，我们不也会笑？你们若对我们下毒，我们不也会死掉？若是你们欺侮了我们，难道我们不会复仇？”
我们不能忘记：
没有一种宗教建立在不容忍的基础之上，也没有一种宗教不珍视人类生命的神圣。
犹太教要我们珍惜人类生活的美丽和快乐。
基督教告诉我们善待邻居就像希望别人善待我们自己。
伊斯兰教宣告不公正地杀死一个人如同杀死所有的人类。
印度教认识到整个世界如同一家。
佛教呼唤我们珍视天地万物的和谐统一。
一些人会说，相信一个建立在宽容和人类生命至高无上之基础上的社会，其国界、国籍和意识形态都变得无关紧要，这未免太过理想主义了。我要对他们说，这不是理想主义，而是现实主义，因为历史教导我们，战争很少能够解决我们的分歧。无理无法治愈旧的伤口，它只能造成新的创伤。
女士们、先生们，
我已谈到我们要努力与滥用核能作斗争。现在让我告诉你们这种同样的能源是如何被用于造福人类的。
在国际原子能机构，我们的日常工作
是在各大洲将核技术和辐射技术用于为人类的服务之中。在越南，农民种植在原子能机构援助下培育出来的有更多营养价值的稻米。在整个拉丁美洲，核技术正在被用于绘制地下含水层分布图，以便使水的供应能够得到可持续的管理。在加纳，新的放射治疗机正在为数以万计的癌症患者提供治疗。在南太平洋，日本科学家正在利用核技术研究气候变化。在印度，8个新的核电厂正在建设之中，以便为这个日益发展的国家提供清洁的电力，这恰好为世界范围核能利用急剧上升这一不断增加的预期提供了一个例证。
这些项目和其他千百个项目都证明了国际原子能机构的理想：原子用于和平。
然而，核能和核技术不断扩大的用途也使得保持最高水平的核安全和核保安变得至关重要。
字切尔诺贝利事故以来，我们一直在致力于提高世界各地的核安全业绩。2001年9月发生恐怖主义袭击之后，我们加大了核保安工作的力度。在这两条战线上，我们都建立了一个法律规范和执行标准的国际网络。但是我们最实际的影响一直是在工作现场。由国际专家组成的数百个工作组在世界各地的访问确保了核活动的安全和可靠。
我为在国际原子能机构的2300名辛勤工作的男女职员——这些和我共同分享这一荣誉的同事们——感到非常自豪。他们中的一些人今天也和我一起来到这里。我们来自90多个国家。我们带来了对工作的许多不同视角。多样性是我们的力量源泉。
我们的授权有限，我们的预算也不大，而且我们也没有军队。
然而，有了我们的信念所赋予的力量，我们将继续向权力说真话。我们还将继续独立和客观地执行我们的使命。
诺贝尔和平奖带给我们的是强有力的讯息，这就是继续致力于我们促进安全与发展的工作。持久的和平不是一个单独的成就，而是一个环境、一个进程和一个承诺。
女士们、先生们，
今天，我描绘的情景可能有点严酷。我想以告诉你们我为什么仍抱有希望来结束我的演讲。
我抱有希望，是因为全球化中的积极因素正在使各国和各国人民在政治、经济和社会方面相互依存，并使战争日益成为一种不可接受的选择。
欧洲联盟25个成员国之间在经济和社会政治上的依赖程度使得诉诸武力解决分歧的前景几乎是荒谬的。对于由55个欧洲、中亚和北美国家组成的欧洲安全与合作组织来说，同样的情况也正在出现。能否通过同样具有创造力的多边参与和积极的国际合作将这些模式扩大成为一种强国正义、弱国安全的世界模式呢？
我抱有希望，是因为公民社会越来越广闻博见，并且有更多的参与。他们在急切要
求他们的政府进行改革，以构筑建立在多样化、宽容和平等基础上的民主社会。他们正在提出创造性的方案建议。他们正在提高认识水平，捐赠资金，致力于将区域性的公民精神转向全球性的公民精神，并为建立人类大家庭更密切的联系而努力奋斗。
现在，我们比以往任何时候都更有机会对“我岂是看守我兄弟的吗？”这个有史以来最古老的一个问题给出一个肯定的答案。
所需要的是一种新的思维方式和一种变革的心态，以便能够将大洋彼岸的人视为我们的邻居。
最后，我抱有希望，是因为我在我的孩子们和他们的一些同代人身上所看到的一切。
我19岁时第一次出国，而我的孩子们却比我幸运的多。他们自幼就开始接触外国文化，并在一个多元文化环境中长大。因而，我可以肯定地说，我的儿女们不会在意肤色、种族和国籍。他们不会感觉到他们的朋友典子、玛夫坡、贾斯廷、萨乌洛和胡萨姆有什么不同。对于他们来说，他们只是同仁和好朋友。全球化通过旅行、媒体和通讯活动就像这种全球化在我的孩子们和他们的许多同伴身上所起到的作用一样，也能够帮助我们仅仅将彼此视为人类。
尊敬的陛下、尊敬的殿下、女士们、先生们，
请设想，如果世界各国在发展上的投入与在制造战争机器方面的支出一样多，世界将会发生什么情况。请设想这样一个世界，在这个世界中每个人都能自由和有尊严地生活。请设想这样一个世界，在这个世界上有一个孩子在达尔福尔或温哥华死去时我们都会同样流下泪水。请设想这样一个世界，在这个世界上我们通过外交和对话而不是通过炸弹或子弹解决我们的分歧。请设想，如果惟一遗留的核武器是我们博物馆里的文物，这个世界会怎样。请设想，我们能够把什么样的遗产留给我们的孩子们。
请设想，这样一个世界就在我们的掌握之中。