I'm really delighted to have U.N. High Commissioner Louise Arbour here. She has been here ever since she has been in office and so have human rights defenders from many countries around the world. Some of whom, as you know, every year have not been permitted to leave their country at the last minute. Or unfortunately, in the last few years, sometimes they have been obstructed by our own American government in coming to our country because they were controversial in their community. We have government leaders here, religious leaders, and guests, and I want to introduce and welcome all of you.                             

This is the fourth annual Human Rights Defenders Policy Forum, and it may very well be our most ambitious one, and possibly the most important of all. Next year, as almost all of you know, will be the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There has been a new organization formed recently called the Defenders of Human Rights, but we also have a title of The Elders. And I and 11 other, you might say, political has-beens, including the former Secretary General of the United Nations and former presidents and so forth, will be working on this. One of us is Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and the first one to hold a U.N. High Commission on Human Rights post, and her primary goal for us Elders, who come from all around the world, is to highly promote the reminder of what the Universal Declaration comprises and to renewour efforts to enforce or improve the honoring of its various provisions.

At this point, I would say that adherence to the Universal Declarations principles are fragmented or spasmodic, at best, compared to what the commitment was 10 years ago, 15 years ago, or when I was in the White House. And it's very important that all of us collectively in this room and those we represent, those we know, commit ourselves to a renewal of our fervent commitment to implement the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

One of the problems is that leadership from the United States has dissipated. And it is not likely to improve for the next 500 days, 2 hours, and 49 minutes. But I don't think there is any doubt that the American people, collectively and almost individually, would express their commitment to the human rights principles that we all cherish. The defenders who come here to meet with us each year are vivid reminders of a need that still exists, and I hate to say the growing need, maybe year by year, that still exists in the world's commitments to the honoring of these commitments.

I'm really proud that the U.N. High Commissioner is here, and The Carter Center is represented and many NGOs, but I have to say, in honesty, that we are not adequate. The United Nations Council on Human Rights, the High Commission on Human Rights, and the collective commitment of all the NGOs committed to human rights have proven to be inadequate. And I think one of the reasons is that we have not adequately marshaled all the potential supporters of the Universal Declaration. We need some help. We need some others to join us in this crusade, those who share the basic values, but whose voices are not heard, at least effectively.

Sometimes there are divisions or gaps between, or among, those who have pledged to enforce human rights, but that is not always evident. I remember in 1989, The Carter Center had an annual award called the Carter-Menil Human Rights Prize. We gave a $100,000 prize to the outstanding human rights heroes in the world. And that year we honored two human rights groups who represented highly conflicting constituencies -- al-Haq, representing the Palestinians, and B'Tselem, representing Israelis. But they came and shared the honors, and they also made almost identical speeches on behalf of people who were then, and still are, in conflict, both political and sometimes military conflict.

So where can we find major allies to join with the rest of us? I would say that this conference has identified those potential allies, the major religions in the world. They have the same potential that B'Tselem and al-Haq did, and still do. And that is that there is no incompatibility between their adoption of basic principles, whether it's Hinduism or Islam or Buddhism or Christians, Catholics, or Protestants or others – we all share the same basic commitments, publicly espoused without an apology. And I think without any conflict. We are all dedicated to peace. Christians worship the Prince of Peace, and all other major religions endorse a concept of peace instead of war to resolve disputes and to have  an environment within which people can enjoy the other human rights. We are all committed to human freedoms and to economic and social justice and to the alleviation of suffering, care for the disfranchised and the impotent and the needy. So there is a common foundation on which the major religions have an opportunity to work together. There are sharp divisions, though, within almost every major religion,Judaism and Catholicism and obviously in Islam, sometimes leading to war.

One of the sharpest divisions that affects my life has been the division among Baptists. A few years ago, we had the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, a very conservative, sometimes fundamentalist group, and the more moderate Baptists try to heal their wounds and find common ground. After many hours of discussion, we finally did agree on two things. One was that we would reach out to people in our own local community, to those who were different from us. White churches would reach out to churches predominately black or Hispanic and so forth. And the other thing was a commitment to human rights. Those are the only two things on which we could agree. Unfortunately, the human rights reaching out was designed to protect Christians who were being persecuted in other countries, but the concept was the same.

This is an indication of the ability of us to work together. This past October, my wife and I were in India building houses for Habitat for Humanity. It's basically a Christian organization, but we were building houses in a predominately Hindu country. Rosalynn and I helped to build one of the 100 homes. It was a duplex. Half of it was to going to be occupied by a family who was Hindu, the other half by Muslims. There was a spirit of harmony and friendship and desire for accommodation that was truly emotional. There were many tears shed.

One tremendous advantage of religious organizations is their proximity to their involvement in local congregations; whether it's a mosque or church or synagogue, it doesn't matter. But I think almost by definition the focal points for religious services have intimate and personal ties to the people that comprise in totality an entire population of a country. And so the knowledge of persecution by a government can first be detected by the priests or the rabbis or others. Most often this sensitive acceptance or knowledge of human rights persecution is not shared. It doesn't go anywhere else. There is no knowledge or ability of a local pastor or rabbi to know what to do when they know that some of their people they care for are being persecuted by the government. That is a real tragedy.

Collectively, sometimes the big organizations give human rights awards. My wife and I have been given two or three of them, with sometimes even a small cash benefit. But the expansion of that, even to an entire denomination, or religious faith, is not extended in a practical way to support basic human rights.

That information exists among people in this assembly, the different human rights NGOs, the High Commission, and others. But there is an incompatibility between those of us who consider ourselves to be human rights activists, on the one hand, and the much more vast array of religious groups who have the same basic principle, but don't know how to react to human rights abuse. My own belief and hope is that maybe out of this small conference, we can explore some ways to form that partnership, which will marshal at least a part of that tremendous religious organization, in its multiple facets that already exist.

There is another question that arises, at least in my coaching, maybe some others. I don't think that churches – and I use that in the collective sense -- I need not say mosque and so forth every time -- the churches who fervently protect human rights, which is primarily an abuse by governments, that is not necessarily a violation of a separation of church and state, because quite often, as the churches protect human rights, in my country or others, it is an adversarial relationship. Because quite often, most often, the basic human rights violations with which we're concerned are perpetrated by governments. So there is no problem with that. But there are sometimes--I've experienced it in this country, and I've seen it happen throughout Latin American--that there is a problem because the church leaders are in bed with the perpetrators of human rights violations. And when I became president, most of the countries in Latin America were dictatorships. You can go down a long list of them – Chile, Paraguay, and Peru and Ecuador and Brazil and Argentina and so forth. And in almost every case, the church leaders were very cozy with the dictators because they shared an element of power and influence. The so-called liberation of theology champions was condemned and stigmatized by church leaders. We see that in other instances as well. And that, I think, is something that many religious organizations would be willing to reexamine. Even, I would guess, the Vatican. If a legitimate and reasonable proposal wassubmitted to the Pope, it may be that he would re-read the Universal Declaration principles and say, "We stand for this." That would be a very wonderful step forward.

I think most of the human rights violations that are endorsed or condoned by, or sometimes initiated by religious groups are based on fundamentalism where powerful men, always men, have the leadership of a religious group and they feel that they are superior to all women and that they have a special relationship with God. And therefore anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong, or inferior, and sometimes subhuman. This leads to armed conflict, and in some cases, to terrorism.

Well, we have some wonderful opportunities here, in my opinion, to form initial stages of improved cooperation and commitment between the more secular groups of human rights champions and religious organizations. I think we need a clear, brief statement that summarizes the Universal Declaration and a way, to propose this to the various religious groups that might be receptive. What NGOs can do is offer information and advice and cooperation to those members of religious groups that are willing to be more fervent in pursuing the same goals that all of us have espoused. So my hope is, and my belief is, that this conference can open the door to great progress. And I'm very gratified that all of you have come to participate in it. Thank you.