Interesting speech... as Blair looks for a post 911 "vision". Imperfect, but its all we've got at the moment.
M ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Armitage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:30 AM Subject: [CSL]: Blair's Speech > ["After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say: I WANT TO SEE THE MANAGER." -- William S. Burroughs. Here is the (acting) > deputy manager's explanation of the current state of the planet. John.] > =============================================================== > http://www.labour.org.uk/ > Wednesday 3 October 2001 > Speech by Tony Blair, Prime Minister, Labour Party conference, Brighton 2001 > --- CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY --- > In retrospect the Millennium marked only a moment in time. It was the events > of 11 September that marked a turning point in history, where we confront > the dangers of the future and assess the choices facing humankind. > It was a tragedy. An act of evil. From this nation, goes our deepest > sympathy and prayers for the victims and our profound solidarity with the > American people. > We were with you at the first. We will stay with you to the last. > Just two weeks ago, in New York, after the church service I met some of the > families of the British victims. > It was in many ways a very British occasion. Tea and biscuits. It was > raining outside. Around the edge of the room, strangers making small talk, > trying to be normal people in an abnormal situation. And as you crossed the > room, you felt the longing and sadness; hands clutching photos of sons and > daughters, wives and husbands; imploring you to believe them when they said > there was still an outside chance of their loved ones being found alive, > when you knew in truth that all hope was gone. > And then a middle aged mother looks you in the eyes and tells you her only > son has died, and asks you: why? > I tell you: you do not feel like the most powerful person in the country at > times like that. > Because there is no answer. There is no justification for their pain. Their > son did nothing wrong. The woman, seven months pregnant, whose child will > never know its father, did nothing wrong. > They don't want revenge. They want something better in memory of their loved > ones. > I believe their memorial can and should be greater than simply the > punishment of the guilty. It is that out of the shadow of this evil, should > emerge lasting good: destruction of the machinery of terrorism wherever it > is found; hope amongst all nations of a new beginning where we seek to > resolve differences in a calm and ordered way; greater understanding between > nations and between faiths; and above all justice and prosperity for the > poor and dispossessed, so that people everywhere can see the chance of a > better future through the hard work and creative power of the free citizen, > not the violence and savagery of the fanatic. > I know that here in Britain people are anxious, even a little frightened. I > understand that. People know we must act but they worry what might follow. > They worry about the economy and talk of recession. > And, of course there are dangers; it is a new situation. > But the fundamentals of the US, British and European economies are strong. > Every reasonable measure of internal security is being undertaken. > Our way of life is a great deal stronger and will last a great deal longer > than the actions of fanatics, small in number and now facing a unified world > against them. > People should have confidence. > This is a battle with only one outcome: our victory not theirs. > What happened on 11 September was without parallel in the bloody history of > terrorism. > Within a few hours, up to 7000 people were annihilated, the commercial > centre of New York was reduced to rubble and in Washington and Pennsylvania > further death and horror on an unimaginable scale. Let no one say this was a > blow for Islam when the blood of innocent Muslims was shed along with those > of the Christian, Jewish and other faiths around the world. > We know those responsible. In Afghanistan are scores of training camps for > the export of terror. Chief amongst the sponsors and organisers is Usama Bin > Laden. > He is supported, shielded and given succour by the Taliban regime. > Two days before the 11 September attacks, Masood, the Leader of the > Opposition Northern Alliance, was assassinated by two suicide bombers. Both > were linked to Bin Laden. Some may call that coincidence. I call it payment > - payment in the currency these people deal in: blood. > Be in no doubt: Bin Laden and his people organised this atrocity. The > Taliban aid and abet him. He will not desist from further acts of terror. > They will not stop helping him. > Whatever the dangers of the action we take, the dangers of inaction are far, > far greater. > Look for a moment at the Taliban regime. It is undemocratic. That goes > without saying. > There is no sport allowed, or television or photography. No art or culture > is permitted. All other faiths, all other interpretations of Islam are > ruthlessly suppressed. Those who practice their faith are imprisoned. Women > are treated in a way almost too revolting to be credible. First driven out > of university; girls not allowed to go to school; no legal rights; > unable to go out of doors without a man. Those that disobey are stoned. > There is now no contact permitted with western agencies, even those > delivering food. The people live in abject poverty. It is a regime founded > on fear and funded on the drugs trade. The biggest drugs hoard in the world > is in Afghanistan, controlled by the Taliban. Ninety per cent of the heroin > on British streets originates in Afghanistan. > The arms the Taliban are buying today are paid for with the lives of young > British people buying their drugs on British streets. > That is another part of their regime that we should seek to destroy. > So what do we do? > Don't overreact some say. We aren't. > We haven't lashed out. No missiles on the first night just for effect. > Don't kill innocent people. We are not the ones who waged war on the > innocent. We seek the guilty. > Look for a diplomatic solution. There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the > Taliban regime. > State an ultimatum and get their response. We stated the ultimatum; they > haven't responded. > Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no > moral ambiguity about this: nothing could ever justify the events of 11 > September, and it is to turn justice on its head to pretend it could. > The action we take will be proportionate; targeted; we will do all we > humanly can to avoid civilian casualties. But understand what we are dealing > with. Listen to the calls of those passengers on the planes. Think of the > children on them, told they were going to die. > Think of the cruelty beyond our comprehension as amongst the screams and the > anguish of the innocent, those hijackers drove at full throttle planes laden > with fuel into buildings where tens of thousands worked. > They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they > could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would have > done so and rejoiced in it? > There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no > point of understanding with such terror. > Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must. > Any action taken will be against the terrorist network of Bin Laden. > As for the Taliban, they can surrender the terrorists; or face the > consequences and again in any action the aim will be to eliminate their > military hardware, cut off their finances, disrupt their supplies, target > their troops, not civilians. We will put a trap around the regime. > I say to the Taliban : surrender the terrorists; or surrender power. It's > your choice. > We will take action at every level, national and international, in the UN, > in G8, in the EU, in NATO, in every regional grouping in the world, to > strike at international terrorism wherever it exists. > For the first time, the UN Security Council has imposed mandatory > obligations on all UN members to cut off terrorist financing and end safe > havens for terrorists. > Those that finance terror, those who launder their money, those that cover > their tracks are every bit as guilty as the fanatic who commits the final > act. > Here in this country and in other nations round the world, laws will be > changed, not to deny basic liberties but to prevent their abuse and protect > the most basic liberty of all: freedom from terror. New extradition laws > will be introduced; new rules to ensure asylum is not a front for terrorist > entry. This country is proud of its tradition in giving asylum to those > fleeing tyranny. We will always do so. But we have a duty to protect the > system from abuse. > It must be overhauled radically so that from now on, those who abide by the > rules get help and those that don't, can no longer play the system to gain > unfair advantage over others. > Round the world, 11 September is bringing Governments and people to reflect, > consider and change. And in this process, amidst all the talk of war and > action, there is another dimension appearing. > There is a coming together. The power of community is asserting itself. We > are realising how fragile are our frontiers in the face of the world's new > challenges. > Today conflicts rarely stay within national boundaries. > Today a tremor in one financial market is repeated in the markets of the > world. > Today confidence is global; either its presence or its absence. > Today the threat is chaos; because for people with work to do, family life > to balance, mortgages to pay, careers to further, pensions to provide, the > yearning is for order and stability and if it doesn't exist elsewhere, it is > unlikely to exist here. > I have long believed this interdependence defines the new world we live in. > People say: we are only acting because it's the USA that was attacked. > Double standards, they say. But when Milosevic embarked on the ethnic > cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo, we acted. > The sceptics said it was pointless, we'd make matters worse, we'd make > Milosovic stronger and look what happened, we won, the refugees went home, > the policies of ethnic cleansing were reversed and one of the great > dictators of the last century, will see justice in this century. > And I tell you if Rwanda happened again today as it did in 1993, when a > million people were slaughtered in cold blood, we would have a moral duty to > act there also. We were there in Sierra Leone when a murderous group of > gangsters threatened its democratically elected Government and people. > And we as a country should, and I as Prime Minister do, give thanks for the > brilliance, dedication and sheer professionalism of the British Armed > Forces. > We can't do it all. Neither can the Americans. > But the power of the international community could, together, if it chose > to. > It could, with our help, sort out the blight that is the continuing conflict > in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where three million people have > died through war or famine in the last decade. > A Partnership for Africa, between the developed and developing world based > around the New African Initiative, is there to be done if we find the will. > On our side: provide more aid, untied to trade; write off debt; help with > good governance and infrastructure; training to the soldiers, with UN > blessing, in conflict resolution; encouraging investment; and access to our > markets so that we practise the free trade we are so fond of preaching. > But it's a deal: on the African side: true democracy, no more excuses for > dictatorship, abuses of human rights; no tolerance of bad governance, from > the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr Mugabe's > henchmen in Zimbabwe. Proper commercial, legal and financial systems. > The will, with our help, to broker agreements for peace and provide troops > to police them. > The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the > world as a community focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, it > will become deeper and angrier. > We could defeat climate change if we chose to. Kyoto is right. We will > implement it and call upon all other nations to do so. > But it's only a start. With imagination, we could use or find the > technologies that create energy without destroying our planet; we could > provide work and trade without deforestation. > If humankind was able, finally, to make industrial progress without the > factory conditions of the 19th Century; surely we have the wit and will to > develop economically without despoiling the very environment we depend upon. > And if we wanted to, we could breathe new life into the Middle East Peace > Process and we must. > The state of Israel must be given recognition by all; freed from terror; > know that it is accepted as part of the future of the Middle East not its > very existence under threat. The Palestinians must have justice, the chance > to prosper and in their own land, as equal partners with Israel in that > future. > We know that. It is the only way, just as we know in our own peace process, > in Northern Ireland, there will be no unification of Ireland except by > consent - and there will be no return to the days of unionist or Protestant > supremacy because those days have no place in the modern world. So the > unionists must accept justice and equality for nationalists. > The Republicans must show they have given up violence - not just a ceasefire > but weapons put beyond use. And not only the Republicans, but those people > who call themselves Loyalists, but who by acts of terrorism, sully the name > of the United Kingdom. > We know this also. The values we believe in should shine through what we do > in Afghanistan. > To the Afghan people we make this commitment. The conflict will not be the > end. We will not walk away, as the outside world has done so many times > before. > If the Taliban regime changes, we will work with you to make sure its > successor is one that is broad-based, that unites all ethnic groups, and > that offers some way out of the miserable poverty that is your present > existence. > And, more than ever now, with every bit as much thought and planning, we > will assemble a humanitarian coalition alongside the military coalition so > that inside and outside Afghanistan, the refugees, 41/2 million on the move > even before 11 September, are given shelter, food and help during the winter > months. > The world community must show as much its capacity for compassion as for > force. > The critics will say: but how can the world be a community? Nations act in > their own self-interest. Of course they do. But what is the lesson of the > financial markets, climate change, international terrorism, nuclear > proliferation or world trade? It is that our self-interest and our mutual > interests are today inextricably woven together. > This is the politics of globalisation. > I realise why people protest against globalisation. > We watch aspects of it with trepidation. We feel powerless, as if we were > now pushed to and fro by forces far beyond our control. > But there's a risk that political leaders, faced with street demonstrations, > pander to the argument rather than answer it. The demonstrators are right to > say there's injustice, poverty, environmental degradation. > But globalisation is a fact and, by and large, it is driven by people. > Not just in finance, but in communication, in technology, increasingly in > culture, in recreation. In the world of the internet, information technology > and TV, there will be globalisation. And in trade, the problem is not > there's too much of it; on the contrary there's too little of it. > The issue is not how to stop globalisation. > The issue is how we use the power of community to combine it with justice. > If globalisation works only for the benefit of the few, then it will fail > and will deserve to fail. But if we follow the principles that have served > us so well at home - that power, wealth and opportunity must be in the hands > of the many, not the few - if we make that our guiding light for the global > economy, then it will be a force for good and an international movement that > we should take pride in leading. > Because the alternative to globalisation is isolation. > Confronted by this reality, round the world, nations are instinctively > drawing together. In Quebec, all the countries of North and South America > deciding to make one huge free trade area, rivalling Europe. In Asia, ASEAN. > In Europe, the most integrated grouping of all, we are now 15 nations. > Another 12 countries negotiating to join, and more beyond that. > A new relationship between Russia and Europe is beginning. > And will not India and China, each with three times as many citizens as the > whole of the EU put together, once their economies have developed > sufficiently as they will do, not reconfigure entirely the geopolitics of > the world and in our lifetime? > That is why, with 60 per cent of our trade dependent on Europe, three > million jobs tied up with Europe, much of our political weight engaged in > Europe, it would be a fundamental denial of our true national interest to > turn our backs on Europe. > We will never let that happen. > For 50 years, Britain has, uncharacteristically, followed not led in Europe. > At each and every step. There are debates central to our future coming up: > how we reform European economic policy; how we take forward European > defence; how we fight organised crime and terrorism. > Britain needs its voice strong in Europe and bluntly Europe needs a strong > Britain, rock solid in our alliance with the USA, yet determined to play its > full part in shaping Europe's destiny. > We should only be part of the single currency if the economic conditions are > met. They are not window-dressing for a political decision. They are > fundamental. But if they are met, we should join, and if met in this > Parliament, we should have the courage of our argument, to ask the British > people for their consent in this Parliament. > Europe is not a threat to Britain. Europe is an opportunity. > It is in taking the best of the Anglo-Saxon and European models of > development that Britain's hope of a prosperous future lies. The American > spirit of enterprise; the European spirit of solidarity. We have, here also, > an opportunity. Not just to build bridges politically, but economically. > What is the answer to the current crisis? Not isolationism but the world > coming together with America as a community. > What is the answer to Britain's relations with Europe? Not opting out, but > being leading members of a community in which, in alliance with others, we > gain strength. > What is the answer to Britain's future? Not each person for themselves, but > working together as a community to ensure that everyone, not just the > privileged few get the chance to succeed. > This is an extraordinary moment for progressive politics. > Our values are the right ones for this age: the power of community, > solidarity, the collective ability to further the individual's interests. > People ask me if I think ideology is dead. My answer is: > In the sense of rigid forms of economic and social theory, yes. > The 20th Century killed those ideologies and their passing causes little > regret. But, in the sense of a governing idea in politics, based on values, > no. The governing idea of modern social democracy is community. Founded on > the principles of social justice. That people should rise according to merit > not birth; that the test of any decent society is not the contentment of the > wealthy and strong, but the commitment to the poor and weak. > But values aren't enough. The mantle of leadership comes at a price: the > courage to learn and change; to show how values that stand for all ages, can > be applied in a way relevant to each age. > Our politics only succeed when the realism is as clear as the idealism. > This Party's strength today comes from the journey of change and learning we > have made. > We learnt that however much we strive for peace, we need strong defence > capability where a peaceful approach fails. > We learnt that equality is about equal worth, not equal outcomes. > Today our idea of society is shaped around mutual responsibility; a deal, an > agreement between citizens not a one-way gift, from the well-off to the > dependent. > Our economic and social policy today owes as much to the liberal social > democratic tradition of Lloyd George, Keynes and Beveridge as to the > socialist principles of the 1945 Government. > Just over a decade ago, people asked if Labour could ever win again. Today > they ask the same question of the Opposition. Painful though that journey of > change has been, it has been worth it, every stage of the way. > On this journey, the values have never changed. The aims haven't. Our aims > would be instantly recognisable to every Labour leader from Keir Hardie > onwards. But the means do change. > The journey hasn't ended. It never ends. The next stage for New Labour is > not backwards; it is renewing ourselves again. Just after the election, an > old colleague of mine said: "Come on Tony, now we've won again, can't we > drop all this New Labour and do what we believe in?" > I said: "It's worse than you think. I really do believe in it". > We didn't revolutionise British economic policy - Bank of England > independence, tough spending rules - for some managerial reason or as a > clever wheeze to steal Tory clothes. > We did it because the victims of economic incompetence - 15% interest rates, > 3 million unemployed- are hard-working families. They are the ones - and > even more so, now - with tough times ahead - that the economy should be run > for, not speculators, or currency dealers or senior executives whose pay > packets don't seem to bear any resemblance to the performance of their > companies. > Economic competence is the pre-condition of social justice. > We have legislated for fairness at work, like the minimum wage which people > struggled a century for. But we won't give up the essential flexibility of > our economy or our commitment to enterprise. > Why? Because in a world leaving behind mass production, where technology > revolutionises not just companies but whole industries, almost overnight, > enterprise creates the jobs people depend on. > We have boosted pensions, child benefit, family incomes. We will do more. > But our number one priority for spending is and will remain education. > Why? Because in the new markets countries like Britain can only create > wealth by brain power not low wages and sweatshop labour. > We have cut youth unemployment by 75 per cent. > By more than any Government before us. But we refuse to pay benefit to those > who refuse to work. Why? Because the welfare that works is welfare that > helps people to help themselves. > The graffiti, the vandalism, the burnt out cars, the street corner drug > dealers, the teenage mugger just graduating from the minor school of crime: > we're not old fashioned or right-wing to take action against this social > menace. > We're standing up for the people we represent, who play by the rules and > have a right to expect others to do the same. > And especially at this time let us say: we celebrate the diversity in our > country, get strength from the cultures and races that go to make up Britain > today; and racist abuse and racist attacks have no place in the Britain we > believe in. > All these policies are linked by a common thread of principle. > Now with this second term, our duty is not to sit back and bask in it. It is > across the board, in competition policy, enterprise, pensions, criminal > justice, the civil service and of course public services, to go still > further in the journey of change. All for the same reason: to allow us to > deliver social justice in the modern world. > Public services are the power of community in action. > They are social justice made real. The child with a good education > flourishes. The child given a poor education lives with it for the rest of > their life. How much talent and ability and potential do we waste? How many > children never know not just the earning power of a good education but the > joy of art and culture and the stretching of imagination and horizons which > true education brings? Poor education is a personal tragedy and national > scandal. > Yet even now, with all the progress of recent years, a quarter of 11 year > olds fail their basic tests and almost a half of 16 year olds don't get five > decent GCSEs. > The NHS meant that for succeeding generations, anxiety was lifted from their > shoulders. For millions who get superb treatment still, the NHS remains the > ultimate symbol of social justice. > But for every patient waiting in pain, that can't get treatment for cancer > or a heart condition or in desperation ends up paying for their operation, > that patient's suffering is the ultimate social injustice. > And the demands on the system are ever greater. Children need to be better > and better educated. > People live longer. There is a vast array of new treatment available. > And expectations are higher. This is a consumer age. People don't take what > they're given. They demand more. > We're not alone in this. All round the world governments are struggling with > the same problems. > So what is the solution? Yes, public services need more money. We are > putting in the largest ever increases in NHS, education and transport > spending in the next few years; and on the police too. We will keep to those > spending plans. And I say in all honesty to the country: if we want that to > continue and the choice is between investment and tax cuts, then investment > must come first. There is a simple truth we all know. For decades there has > been chronic under-investment in British public services. Our historic > mission is to put that right; > and the historic shift represented by the election of June 7 was that > investment to provide quality public services for all comprehensively > defeated short-term tax cuts for the few. > We need better pay and conditions for the staff; better incentives for > recruitment; and for retention. We're getting them and recruitment is > rising. > This year, for the first time in nearly a decade, public sector pay will > rise faster than private sector pay. > And we are the only major government in Europe this year to be increasing > public spending on health and education as a percentage of our national > income. > This Party believes in public services; believes in the ethos of public > service; and believes in the dedication the vast majority of public servants > show; > and the proof of it is that we're spending more, hiring more and paying more > than ever before. > Public servants don't do it for money or glory. They do it because they find > fulfilment in a child well taught or a patient well cared-for; or a > community made safer and we salute them for it. > All that is true. But this is also true. > That often they work in systems and structures that are hopelessly old > fashioned or even worse, work against the very goals they aim for. > There are schools, with exactly the same social intake. One does well; the > other badly. > There are hospitals with exactly the same patient mix. One performs well; > the other badly. > Without reform, more money and pay won't succeed. > First, we need a national framework of accountability, inspection; and > minimum standards of delivery. > Second, within that framework, we need to free up local leaders to be able > to innovate, develop and be creative. > Third, there should be far greater flexibility in the terms and conditions > of employment of public servants. > Fourth, there has to be choice for the user of public services and the > ability, where provision of the service fails, to have an alternative > provider. > If schools want to develop or specialise in a particular area; or hire > classroom assistants or computer professionals as well as teachers, let > them. If in a Primary Care Trust, doctors can provide minor surgery or > physiotherapists see patients otherwise referred to a consultant, let them. > There are too many old demarcations, especially between nurses, doctors and > consultants; > too little use of the potential of new technology; > too much bureaucracy, too many outdated practices, too great an adherence to > the way we've always done it rather than the way public servants would like > to do it if they got the time to think and the freedom to act. > It's not reform that is the enemy of public services. It's the status quo. > Part of that reform programme is partnership with the private or voluntary > sector. > Let's get one thing clear. Nobody is talking about privatising the NHS or > schools. > Nobody believes the private sector is a panacea. > There are great examples of public service and poor examples. There are > excellent private sector companies and poor ones. There are areas where the > private sector has worked well; and areas where, as with parts of the > railways, it's been a disaster. > Where the private sector is used, it should not make a profit simply by > cutting the wages and conditions of its staff. > But where the private sector can help lever in vital capital investment, > where it helps raise standards, where it improves the public service as a > public service, then to set up some dogmatic barrier to using it, is to let > down the very people who most need our public services to improve. > This programme of reform is huge: in the NHS, education, including student > finance, - we have to find a better way to combine state funding and student > contributions - ; criminal justice; and transport. > I regard it as being as important for the country as Clause IV's reform was > for the Party, and obviously far more important for the lives of the people > we serve. > And it is a vital test for the modern Labour Party > If people lose faith in public services, be under no illusion as to what > will happen. > There is a different approach waiting in the wings. Cut public spending > drastically; let those that can afford to, buy their own services; and those > that can't, will depend on a demoralised, sink public service. That would be > a denial of social justice on a massive scale. > It would be contrary to the very basis of community. > So this is a battle of values. Let's have that battle but not amongst > ourselves. The real fight is between those who believe in strong public > services and those who don't. > That's the fight worth having. > In all of this, at home and abroad, the same beliefs throughout: that we are > a community of people, whose self-interest and mutual interest at crucial > points merge, and that it is through a sense of justice that community is > born and nurtured. > And what does this concept of justice consist of? > Fairness, people all of equal worth, of course. But also reason and > tolerance. Justice has no favourites; not amongst nations, peoples or > faiths. > When we act to bring to account those that committed the atrocity of 11 > September, we do so, not out of bloodlust. > We do so because it is just. We do not act against Islam. The true followers > of Islam are our brothers and sisters in this struggle. Bin Laden is no more > obedient to the proper teaching of the Koran than those Crusaders of the > 12th Century who pillaged and murdered, represented the teaching of the > Gospel. > It is time the West confronted its ignorance of Islam. Jews, Muslims and > Christians are all children of Abraham. > This is the moment to bring the faiths closer together in understanding of > our common values and heritage, a source of unity and strength. > It is time also for parts of Islam to confront prejudice against America and > not only Islam but parts of western societies too. > America has its faults as a society, as we have ours. > But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of slavery. > I think of its Constitution, with its inalienable rights granted to every > citizen still a model for the world. > I think of a black man, born in poverty, who became Chief of their Armed > Forces and is now Secretary of State Colin Powell and I wonder frankly > whether such a thing could have happened here. > I think of the Statue of Liberty and how many refugees, migrants and the > impoverished passed its light and felt that if not for them, for their > children, a new world could indeed be theirs. > I think of a country where people who do well, don't have questions asked > about their accent, their class, their beginnings but have admiration for > what they have done and the success they've achieved. > I think of those New Yorkers I met, still in shock, but resolute; the fire > fighters and police, mourning their comrades but still head held high. > I think of all this and I reflect: yes, America has its faults, but it is a > free country, a democracy, it is our ally and some of the reaction to 11 > September betrays a hatred of America that shames those that feel it. > So I believe this is a fight for freedom. And I want to make it a fight for > justice too. > Justice not only to punish the guilty. > But justice to bring those same values of democracy and freedom to people > round the world. > And I mean: freedom, not only in the narrow sense of personal liberty but in > the broader sense of each individual having the economic and social freedom > to develop their potential to the full. That is what community means, > founded on the equal worth of all. > The starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in > want and squalor from the deserts of Northern Africa to the slums of Gaza, > to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan: they too are our cause. > This is a moment to seize. > The Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will > settle again. > Before they do, let us re-order this world around us. > Today, humankind has the science and technology to destroy itself or to > provide prosperity to all. > Yet science can't make that choice for us. > Only the moral power of a world acting as a community, can. > "By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more together than we > can alone". > For those people who lost their lives on 11 September and those that mourn > them; now is the time for the strength to build that community. Let that be > their memorial. > --- CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY --- > Back to the top > > **************************************************************************** ******** > Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion > list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic > study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html > **************************************************************************** ********* >
