Julian Bond: It is my great pleasure to introduce His Holiness the Dalai Lama, honored for his efforts to help create a free and democratic Tibet. Your Holiness.
The Dalai Lama: Could you increase the lights a bit on the audience? Thank you. Very good.
My English is very poor, and also my English is getting older, so it is difficult to express myself fully. So occasionally I will use my translator. I am extremely happy and privileged to participate in this gathering. I learned some new things, and also got some kind of feeling, more convincing, from ordinary people: if they realize the objective clearly, then once determined, you can change things. That I feel is a great inspiration. And then also, I really admire some of these detailed presentations, like that of the former president of Costa Rica-wonderful, wonderful. And all the presentations, really, very impressive.
Now, my own presentation: compassion in society and the case of Tibet. I believe that in human actions, the prime mover is motivation. So the immediate result is that it is very, very important to tackle the symptoms of these things. In the long run, it is very, very important, I feel, to look at motivation and whether there is a possibility to change that motivation. That, in the long run, is very, very crucial. So long as negative motivation or negative emotion is not changed, then although there are certain rules and certain methods to stop or to check these, through various ways human beings have the ability to find some ways to express their negative feeling. Therefore, in the long run, we need to look at our motivation, and try to change motivation. That means: try to cultivate the right kind of motivation, and try to reduce negative motivation.
Basically, the concept of 'I' is the key thing. The things that surround you, all these ultimately are designated, so the designator is supreme. Something like the center of the whole universe, I feel, is the self. That's why I think, like in many countries, their own country is the center of the universe. So that is, I think, very true. Within the country, ultimately, the person himself or herself is the center of the whole universe. It is true. Now, that self wants happiness, does not want suffering. And, generally speaking, violence produces suffering. Compassion or non-violence brings us happiness. Therefore, violence we consider to be negative, and non-violence we consider to be something positive. I think the hurricane that happened in Central America [Hurricane Mitch], these kinds of violent things are without any motivation. So we call it a natural disaster. That we can't avoid. But the other type of violence, which is created by humans ourselves, there motivation is involved. Those kinds of violence, which are a result of human motivation, those we can change, we can reduce; and there is the possibility to eliminate them. So therefore, we need to try to change our attitude, try to cultivate the right kind of motivation.
How? Through which method? I feel that prayer or religious belief is to some extent useful, and can be helpful. But basically, I feel that simply awareness-awareness of the consequences of the long term and short term: if we make clear the negative consequences for the long term, if we make them clear to people, I think eventually people can develop a clear realization that these negative things, these violent activities, are bad because they bring painful experience and unhappiness. Now again, what is violence and non-violence? We can't judge. We can't make a clear demarcation between violence and non-violence on a superficial basis. It is related with motivation. Out of sincere motivation, certain verbal actions, as well as physical actions, look more wrathful, more violent, harsher; but in essence, because these activities come out of sincere motivation or compassion or a sense of caring, they are essentially non-violent. On the other hand: with negative motivation, try to cheat, try to exploit, try to deceive, and use nice words, a big smile-although an artificial smile, some kind of smile-and with some gift, it looks like non-violence, a friendly gesture. But because of the motivation, I think it is the worst kind of violence. So I feel that in certain cases violence can be said to be a manifestation or expression of compassion, although non-violence is actually the expression of compassion. Therefore, the concepts of non-violence and compassion are very, very close.
So, in order to promote non-violence and reduce violence, ultimately we have to address motivation through education, through awareness. Here, I want to share with you about the concept of war. I feel, I believe, that in ancient time, when people remained separately, more or less independently, there was no need for other people's cooperation. You can survive, you can live, completely independently. Under those circumstances, the concept of war, destruction of your enemy, and the victory of your side were a real possibility. Now, today's world is no longer that kind of reality. Your survival, your success, your progress, is very much related with others' well being. Therefore, under these circumstances, even your enemy-who is politically different, or for some other reason you categorize as an enemy-in the economic field and in some other fields, you are still very much inter-dependent. Under these circumstances, destruction of your enemy is actually destruction of yourself. Judging from that viewpoint, the concept of "we" and "they" no longer exists. So the concept of war, destruction of the other side, is not relevant to today's situation. Therefore, firstly, I think it is very important to make clear the concept of war: not only is it a painful experience, but also it is self-destruction.
And then when we talk about non-violence, peace, this does not mean that we remain indifferently, passively. Problems and contradictions always remain there. I believe that as long as human beings remain there, as long as human intelligence remains there, some kind of conflict, some kind of contradiction always remains there. And if we look at contradictions or different ideas, they are not necessarily negative. Even if we look at our body, there are many elements co-existing. These elements are opposing one another, they are contradictory. I think the forces, which contradict one another, are the basis of further development. Things remain more balanced, and that is healthy. Therefore, as long as this smart human brain remains there, some kind of contradiction is always there. Even within one single person. Because of the power of imagination, the power of vision, you get some kind of different ideas: in the morning, something different; and in the evening, something different. There are big differences-contradiction. Sometimes, the contradictions are so big, and if you have no ability to overcome that, then suicide also sometimes happens. So, contradictions, disagreements, are always there.
We need some kind of method or technique to overcome that contradiction. That, I feel, is compromise. Today's reality: the only way to solve a problem is compromise. Since my interest is very much related with the others' interests, you can't sacrifice others' interests. Therefore, compromise, 50-50. If possible, one's own side 60%, other side 40%! If possible. I think that's the best. Otherwise, in reality there is no possibility of 100% victory for oneself. But still, I feel that while reality is much changed, our perception, our way of thinking, still remains behind. We are carrying a certain way of thinking which is essentially an old way of thinking. I think from that way, "my nation," "their nation," "my religion," "other religion"-sometimes these have the beautiful name "patriotism." With too much narrow-minded patriotism, nationalism, sometimes people become mad. Still, the situation in which we live is much changed, but the people who are in that situation, their thinking still is something a little different. So sometimes I feel that this is one of the causes of our unnecessary pain, unnecessary problems. Therefore, we need education that the concept of violence is very bad, that it is not a realistic way to solve the problem, and that compromise is the only realistic way to solve the problem. I think that to the child's mind, the younger generation, the new generation, right from the beginning we have to make clear this reality. In that way, I think our whole attitude towards oneself, towards the world, towards others, can be a more healthy attitude. This I usually call "inner disarmament." Without inner disarmament, it is very difficult to achieve genuine, lasting world peace.
So, firstly, I think it is extremely important to look inward and try to promote the right kind of attitude, which is based on awareness or reality. I think the main thing is a sense of caring for one another. A sense of caring for others is actually the best way of caring for oneself. Because human nature is a social animal, I think in simple things, we need human companions. We need human companions with a genuine human smile. That provides us comfort, satisfaction. As I mentioned yesterday, the moment you think of others, this automatically opens our inner door. Through that way you can communicate with others very easily, without any difficulties. The moment you think just of yourself and disregard others, then because of your own attitude, you also get the feeling that other people also have a similar attitude towards you. That brings suspicion, fear. Result? You yourself lose inner calmness. Therefore, usually I say that selfishness is basically right-as I mentioned earlier, self, and the happiness of that self, is very right. It's our original right. Also, we have every right to overcome suffering. So that's right. Judging from that, of course that kind of selfishness is right. But selfishness that leads to no hesitation to harm another, to exploit another, that kind of selfishness is blind selfishness. Therefore, I sometimes jokingly describe: if we are selfish, we should be "wise" selfish rather than "foolish" selfish. I feel that the moment you take a sense of caring for others, that brings inner strength. Inner strength brings us inner tranquillity, more self-confidence. So, through these things, even though your surroundings may not be friendly or may not be positive, still you can sustain your peace of mind. That much, according to my own little experience, I can tell you.
So, tranquillity or peace of mind: if we believe or expect it through money or through power, this is wrong. The ultimate potential to create peace of mind, a happy person, a successful future, a happy future, much depends on our inner qualities, not on money or external facilities. Of course, external facilities, monies, these are useful, we need them. But they are not the ultimate source or condition of our inner peace. Therefore, through inner disarmament we can develop some kind of a healthy mental attitude. That also is very beneficial for health. With peace of mind, a calm mind, your body elements become more balanced. Constant worry, constant fear, agitation of mind, are very bad for health. So, therefore, peace of mind not only brings peace and tranquillity in our mind, but also has a very good effect for our body. With inner disarmament, now we need external disarmament. As I mentioned earlier, according to reality, no longer is there room for war, for destruction. From the sense of compassion, from a compassionate viewpoint, destruction, killing others, destruction, discriminating against even one's enemy: today's enemy, if you treat them well, the next day will be a good friend.
Also, I think now we have a bigger issue. Because of the population, and because of other factors, environmental problems, these are beyond national boundaries. These are not a question of my nation's survival; these are a question of the survival of humanity. These bigger issues, I think these are our common responsibility to tackle. Compared to these bigger things, small, small things within ourself are minor. They are minor. Once all the bigger issues are solved, then there will be time to discuss-even, if necessary, to quarrel-among ourselves concerning these small, small things.
Therefore, external disarmament is, I feel, very, very important. Already, there is some movement there. Now, my dream is that one day the whole world should be demilitarized, but you cannot achieve that overnight. Also, you cannot achieve that without a proper, systematic plan. However, it is very important to make some kind of a clear target. Even though it may take 100 years, or 50 years, that doesn't matter. Make some kind of a clear idea or clear target; then try to achieve that step-by-step. I think as a first step, we have already started with the elimination of anti-personnel mines. And the elimination of biological weapons-these things are now starting. Also, we are already now reducing nuclear weapons. Eventually, there should be the total ban of nuclear weapons. I think this is now foreseeable; the idea of its possibility is now coming. I think these are great, hopeful signs. So, that is external disarmament.
There are two things: inner disarmament and external disarmament. Then, through that way, as I mentioned earlier, problems always remain, so we need some kind of humanistic way to solve problems: compromise. Sometimes I express that this century, which is my generation's century, more or less has became like the century of bloodshed. Although within this century a lot of achievement has taken place, from certain aspects, this century remains a century of bloodshed or a century of violence. Now, we humanity, general speaking, I think through difficult, painful experience, the human being is becoming more mature, so now we are talking about peace, about non-violence. This is now becoming a political force or a political idea. I think this is a very good sign.
Therefore, next century should be a century of dialogue. We, the present generation, have to make a clear picture, we have to make some kind of preparation, for a happier, friendly, peaceful next century. So that when my generation is ready to say good-bye, we can hand over to the next fresh, broad-minded generation a more hopeful world; then they look after themselves. This is my feeling. And then, judging from various developments, it seems that in spite of some unhappy or painful conflicts here and there, generally speaking, I think things are getting better and better due to more awareness. And also, I think human thinking is becoming more open.
Therefore, as a conclusion, it is very, very important to remain with hope and determination. If we lose hope and remain with pessimism, that is the greatest failure. So, in spite of difficulties, ah! remain with optimism: Ah! these things change, can be overcome. That kind of determination and hope, that is the key factor for a brighter future. So that much I wanted to share with you. If you agree, then try to think more and investigate, and eventually implement. If you feel these are too idealistic, not practical, then forget! No problem.
Thank you.
DISCUSSION AMONG THE PARTICIPANTS
Julian Bond: Thank you, Your Holiness. A beginning? Jody Williams.
Jody Williams: Given the situation with Tibet and China, how do you apply your philosophy, which we have just heard-of hope, determination, compromise-to change between Tibet and China?
The Dalai Lama: Hmmm. In fact, that was supposed to be the theme of my talk! I have forgotten! Actually, I really feel that about the Tibetan situation, more or less many people know. And if I repeat it, then, of course, it is only painful information or experiences. Then this moment: since formal meetings with Chinese officials ceased-that was August 1993-since then, we have kept contact through other channels, more informal channels. Recently, since the beginning of this year, the nature of the contact is becoming more substantive. So it seems to me that for the Chinese officials in Tibet, I think their main concern is day-to-day stability. If on a day-to-day basis there are no demonstrations in the street, then they feel this is O.K. They are not much concerned about long-term consequences as a result of this present suppressive policy. Actually, this is counterproductive. But in Peking, naturally, they will look from various aspects. Therefore, it seems that some leaders are thinking in a more moderate or more serious way. Therefore, I think this is a time when it is better to be low-key. So, let us see what new developments arise within the next few months. This is my thinking.
When some recent Nobel Laureates, and also the representative of Aung San Suu Kyi, explain about their nation's difficulties, then a little sadness feeling came in my mind. You can express very freely. I have to look from various aspects, so sometimes it is a little difficult. So, while I am hearing some of the Nobel Laureates express themselves freely, I felt, "I wish." Anyway, the Tibet situation: I think there is a possibility to develop some kind of mutual trust. I feel that's the key thing. Also, through meeting person-to-person regularly and often, that is the best way to eliminate suspicion. One of the obstacles between me and the Chinese government is too much suspicion. That is my feeling. Anyway, many people are really showing genuine concern and sympathy. This I very much appreciate.
Right from the beginning, I tried to solve this problem through direct communication with the Chinese government. That means from 1979 until 1986, I tried my best, but it did not materialize. The Chinese government formally or officially did not even admit that there was a problem about Tibet. The only problem was my return. Then the Chinese government made a five-point proposal about my return. And I told the Chinese government this is not the real issue. The main issue is six million Tibetan people, their right, their welfare, preservation of their culture, their spirituality. Then, in the meantime, inside Tibet things are getting worse and worse. Therefore, there is no other alternative except to appeal to the international community. Since then, the response year by year is really increasing, and is very, very encouraging. So, I want to take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation.
And I want to make clear: the final solution must be found through direct communication with the Chinese government. I feel that there should not be any basis of suspicion since I am not seeking independence. I am seeking genuine autonomy, self-rule, because my main concern is the preservation of Tibetan Buddhist culture as well as Buddhist spirituality. This is something not only of interest for the six million Tibetan people but also for the larger human community in that part of the world. And particularly, among the Chinese. Historically, there are quite a number of Chinese following Tibetan Buddhism. Therefore, the preservation of the Tibetan Buddhist culture, Tibetan Buddhism, is the interest of the Chinese also, in the long run. Therefore, my aim or my goal is very clear. The Chinese government right from the beginning considered Tibet as a unique case. That is what Chairman Mao and also Chou En-Lai made very clear to us: the Chinese central government does not consider Tibet like any other Chinese province. The Tibetan case is a special case. Also, the constitution of the People's Republic of China provided for self-rule or autonomy. Now in the Tibetan case, it provided for a Tibetan autonomous region, Tibetan autonomous counties, and districts. Like that. So the problem is that this autonomy is not a meaningful autonomy. I am seeking genuine autonomy. That means foreign affairs and defense are handled by the Chinese central government; the rest of the things-which we can manage-for those, Tibetans should have the full authority.
Julian Bond: Your Holiness, you spoke of suspicion on both sides. What is the root of the suspicion on both sides?
The Dalai Lama: The Tibetan side. There is a Tibetan saying: "Once you have been bitten by a snake, you will even fear the next time you see a rope." But basically, I believe the People's Republic of China is in the process of changing. That's definite. Year by year, things are better and better. Now, the Chinese government side. There is an authoritarian system. Right from the beginning, the Tibetan community, when we became refugees, we started to work for democratization. So we can't stop the expression of Tibetan individuals or groups of Tibetans; we can't control them. People in the Tibetan refugee community here and there sometimes express their grievances or their resentment. There is a historical right for these things. Then the Chinese government gets more suspicion. All these, are they created by me, or does the Dalai Lama not control fully these things? I can't even control them.
Of course, once things that we are seeking become clear from the Chinese central government-genuine self rule-then of course I can persuade the Tibetan community: "Ah! Now we are getting something. So, therefore, please don't carry on these kinds of demonstrations and these things." Until that situation develops, I also find it difficult convincing the Tibetan refugee community that it should not carry on certain kinds of expressions. So I think that also is a basis of suspicion.
Julian Bond: You know, this happens to all professors. Professor Hopkins.
Jeffrey Hopkins: The first question is for Your Holiness. How do you deal with Tibetan youth who are frustrated with oppression from the Chinese Communist government and turn to violence?
The Dalai Lama: I always explain, as I mentioned before: violence is not the human way. I believe, fundamentally, human nature is positive, gentleness; therefore, the non-violent way is the human way. Also, through non-violence, whatever we achieve, whatever result, there is no negative side effect. Through violence, even though we may get some kind of satisfaction, negative side effects also remain. And then, most important, whether we like it or not, we have to live side by side. So, in the long future, generation to generation, in order to live happily, peacefully, friendly, it is extremely important, while we are carrying on the struggle, it must be according to the principle of non-violence. Sometimes some youth have a little more frustration. Sometimes, we have had a heated argument.
But now I had other ammunition: now we get more and more support from the Chinese community. Not only outside, but even in mainland China. Some writers, some thinkers, some educationists-although a small number, but growing-they are expressing their solidarity, their sympathy and their concern. And they are critical about the central government's policy. These are, I think, the result of our non-violent method or approach.
Jeffrey Hopkins: The next question is for President Arias. Can you please comment on capital punishment, a form of punishment used often in the United States.
Oscar Arias Sánchez: There is not much I could say. In my country, we abolished capital punishment since 1888.
Bobby Muller: Could I jump in on that real quick? Because I'm going to Chicago next weekend, and there is an interesting meeting going on there. They've invited 75 people who were found guilty of murder, placed on death row, and were subsequently found to be innocent to come to that convention. Think about that.
Betty Williams: I love the saying I heard quite a while ago. It says, "Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?" And to me, the death penalty is legalized murder.
Julian Bond: President Arias Sánchez.
Oscar Arias Sánchez: This might sound very harsh. It's a hard line, but I use it from time to time with my friends in Washington. In this country, it's murder to kill one person, but if you kill 100,000, then it's foreign policy.
Jeffrey Hopkins: This is a question for Betty Williams. The topic of over-population has come up during this conference. What is your opinion with regard to how to reduce over-population?
Betty Williams: That's a question I am frequently asked, too. Before you can talk to people in countries where they are starving, before a woman can hear anything about birth control, you have to feed her belly. We are dealing with that problem the wrong way, too, because what happens in situations like this-and I have seen it first-hand-the only comfort that man and woman have is in the comfort of each other. The result of that is a child. But before that man or woman can hear anything you've got to say about over-populating, you've got to feed them.
Jeffrey Hopkins: This is a question for Harn Yawnghwe. Could you please share with us the source of your openness and compassion toward a government that has caused your people such immense suffering.
Harn Yawnghwe: Do you really want to know?
Jeffrey Hopkins: Yes.
Harn Yawnghwe: I really don't know-well, I do. I guess it comes from a belief that even the generals, even the people who are doing all these things, are human. They have families, they have children. Some of them may be doing it through ignorance, some of them may be doing it because they have been wrongly told. Of course, you may feel that the ones responsible, the generals, should know better, but they don't. Myself, I have also made mistakes. I have also had different convictions, which I thought were very right. I haven't really thought deeply enough about it-it just is. Sorry.
Jody Williams: Could I do an anecdote about that? One of my closest friends had an extremely unpleasant encounter with two men, who I wish I could call "gentlemen," who left her beaten and naked in the street. For many years, I had the greatest hope that I would run into them sometime and do the same to them, or worse. And then I got involved in trying to stop the violence in Central America, and watched what happened to people over time who only sought violent revenge against people who have done things to them or people they love. You become them. Violence does breed violence. It changes one's own being. And it was only after many years of seeing that personally, that I realized that if I were to meet the two gentlemen in question, I would rather talk to them and ask them about their own humanity than do them harm, and be like them.
Harn Yawnghwe: If I could add to that, I agree. And, really, if you can't forgive someone for doing something, I think it hurts you more than it hurts them. It eats away, and it eats away, and it eats away, and eventually you are nothing but bitterness.
Jeffrey Hopkins: This question is for Dr. Menchú Tum. Who has been the most influential person in your life?
Dr. Rigoberta Menchú Tum: Beyond the indigenous communities themselves, beyond the indigenous women that I have always known in my life, I have been very much inspired by Nelson Mandela. Not only have I been inspired by him, but I continue to be inspired by him, and I expect that next year I will be able to speak with him a lot, because I cannot let this century end without being with him. But I also have other idols. Martin Luther King: I have always been very, very positively impressed by his struggle against racism in the United States. And also Gandhi. And then also many, many people in Central America that I have known all my life who unfortunately lost their lives in the wars of the last decade.
Jeffrey Hopkins: The last question is for His Holiness. What do you think is the best way for Americans and the U.S. to help Tibet?
The Dalai Lama: Among the public, and especially among students, and also in both Houses, there is very strong sympathy and support. And I think as a reflection of the public's concern and the House's concern, the administration also is taking a great interest and is taking seriously the Tibetan issue. When President Clinton visited China, he personally spoke about the Tibetan issue. I think in general, mainly from the public side, it reminds the world about the Tibetan issue. Then also, I feel, since there are many Chinese students here, and many Chinese-American citizens-many American Chinese-I think it is very useful to make known about Tibetan culture, about Tibetan Buddhist spirituality. Last year, I visited Taiwan. Mainly, of course, the trip was non-political and of a spiritual nature. There are many Taiwanese Buddhists. Some of them have a negative understanding, or a little suspicion, or are doubtful about Tibetan Buddhism. As a result of our meeting, my explanation about Buddhadharma, then these sort of got clear-awareness and understanding about Tibetan Buddhism. They really want to study and to practice. So, similarly, I think, among the Chinese brothers and sisters, there are many who do not know what Tibetan Buddhist culture is. Now, year by year, more books, more materials, on Tibetan culture, Tibetan Buddhism, are coming. That's also useful, helpful, to make known among our Chinese brothers and sisters about Tibetan culture and Tibetan Buddhism. So that's my feeling.
Dr. Rigoberta Menchú Tum: I did not want to end without saying that I want to reiterate what His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said: that all of our actions, all of our motivations, are motivations for others, for young people, to act in society with institutions and with others, and also, in the belief of the possibility that human beings can change. We human beings can change. We were not born bad. We become involved in one or another negative action, but we were not born that way. I thought it was very important to reiterate this, to believe in us, as a human species. We are bad, we human beings, but we can change. And, finally, what I really want to say is, "Thank you, thank you," to the University of Virginia and "Thank you," to you and you [Nobel Laureates] for these two wonderful days that we have had here together that have been unprecedented, really very unprecedented, in which we have all learned so very, very much, and which are also a motivation for those of us here.
Julian Bond: Thank you.
Betty Williams: Now, I'd just like to say something about acting locally. You see this little pin that we are wearing? It says "$8.00" on it. You've got people working on this campus for very, very low wages. It's time you changed that.
Julian Bond: It may seem redundant, but before we continue with the program-and there is more-I hope you will join me in thanking the Dalai Lama and all of the participants in the past two days.
Ladies and gentlemen, before I ask the university president, John Casteen, to come and close out this afternoon, two quick things. First, it has been a great, great honor and pleasure for me to have served in this role over the past two days. I was thinking, looking at the listing conference participants had been given, that it had been my great pleasure to meet Ralph Bunche, who won the Prize in 1950; Chief Albert Lutuli, who won it in 1960; Dr. Martin Luther King, who won it in 1964; Henry Kissinger, who won it in 1973. And it was my great pleasure, just two weeks ago, to meet Nelson Mandela. A real thrill. I have been incredibly entranced with the opportunity to have sat next to, and sat in the room backstage, and to have overheard conversations among all of the notables gathered at this table. It was a rare, rare privilege, and a great, great honor. And now, it's my great pleasure to read a draft statement which they have all agreed to.
NOBEL PEACE LAUREATE JOINT DECLARATION
November 6, 1998
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, have gathered in Charlottesville to participate in a conference presented by the University of Virginia and the Institute for Asian Democracy on human rights, conflict, and reconciliation. We wish to use this opportunity to reaffirm our missions to the international community.
Whereas, the children of the world are oftentimes victims of conflict and require protection, we must establish safe havens for children of war and advance the cause of children's rights;
Whereas, the vast majority of arms sales are to non-democratic governments and scarce resources are devoted to education, housing and health, we call upon all nations to adopt the International Code of Conduct for Arms Transfers and to dedicate their resources to erasing the gap between the world's rich minority and its poor majority;
Whereas, in order to find a peaceful resolution to the Tibet issue, we urge that the Chinese government enter into negotiations that will serve the interests of the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. Also, that these negotiations be conducted expeditiously, as an indication of China's good will and sincere intent;
Whereas, the UN General Assembly has adopted resolutions calling for upholding the will of the Burmese people as expressed in the 1990 elections and further calls for the State Peace and Development Council to enter into a substantive political dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and representatives of ethnic groups as the best means of promoting national reconciliation and democracy, we urge that the UN. resolutions be implemented fully;
Whereas, the dignity of the indigenous peoples of the world continue to be marginalized, we must accept and respect other peoples, communities and cultures, and integrate the mosaic languages, traditions, and peoples into the community of nations;
Whereas, the people of East Timor have the right to self-determination as recognized by several UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, we call for an internationally supervised referendum to determine their future political status;
Whereas, the world community has responded to the global landmine crisis with the Mine Ban Treaty, already signed by 133 governments and ratified by 49, we call upon the signatory states to ratify and non-signatories to join as soon as possible and all governments to expand their commitment to mine clearance and victim assistance;
We resolve that, it is our hope that this declaration will advance not only our own initiatives but bring about a more peaceful world. Moreover, we urge the international community to seek new ways of promoting justice, reconciliation, and peace in societies making the transition from repression to democracy and from conflict to civil societies under the rule of law.
Betty Williams, Northern Ireland (1976)
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, South Africa (1984)
President Oscar Arias Sánchez, Costa Rica (1986)
His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Tibet (1989)
Harn Yawnghwe, participating on behalf of Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma (1991)
Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Guatemala (1992)
José Ramos-Horta, East Timor (1996)
Jody Williams, United States (1997)
Bobby Muller, United States (1997) for the International Campaign to Ban Landmines