This cell phone started its trajectory in an artisanal mine in the Eastern Congo. It's mined by armed gangs using slaves, child slaves, what the U.N. Security Council calls "blood minerals," then traveled into some components and ended up in a factory in Shinjin in China. That factory -- over a dozen people have committed suicide already this year. One man died after working a 36-hour shift. We all love chocolate. We buy it for our kids. Eighty percent of the cocoa comes from Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana and it's harvested by children. Cote d'Ivoire, we have a huge problem of child slaves. Children have been trafficked from other conflict zones to come and work on the coffee plantations. Heparin -- a blood thinner, a pharmaceutical product -- starts out in artisanal workshops like this in China, because the active ingredient comes from pigs' intestines. Your diamond -- you've all heard, probably seen the movie "Blood Diamond." This is a mine in Zimbabwe right now. Cotton: Uzbekistan is the second biggest exporter of cotton on Earth. Every year when it comes to the cotton harvest, the government shuts down the schools, puts the kids in buses, buses them to the cotton fields to spend three weeks harvesting the cotton. It's forced child labor on an institutional scale. And all of those products probably end their lives in a dump like this one in Manila.
Ovaj mobitel je započeo svoj put u jednom rudniku u Istočnom Kongu. Iskapa se uz naoružane bande iskorištavanjem djece robova, ono je što Vijeće sigurnosti U.N.-a naziva "krvavim mineralima" zatim je putovao u dijelovima i završio u tvornici u Shinjinu u Kini. Ta tvornica -- već više od desetak ljudi je počinilo samoubojstvo u ovoj godini. Jedan je čovjek umro nakon rada u 36-osatnoj smjeni. Svi mi volimo čokoladu. Kupujemo je svojoj djeci. 80 posto kakaa dolazi iz Obale Bjelokosti i Gane. i ljetinu skupljaju djeca. Obala Bjelokosti, imamo ogroman problem dječjeg roblja. Djecom se trguje iz ratnih područja da dođu i rade na plantaži kave. Heparin - razrjeđivač krvi, farmaceutski proizvod -- stvara se u obrtničkim radionicama kao što ova u Kini, jer aktivni sastojak dolazi iz svinjske utrobe. Vaš dijamant: svi ste čuli, vjerojatno ste gledali film "Krvavi dijamant". To je rudnik u Zimbabveu upravo sada. Pamuk: Uzbekistan je drugi najveći izvoznik pamuka na svijetu. Svake godine kada dođe vrijeme žetve pamuka, vlada zatvori škole, pošalje djecu u autobuse koji ih prevoze do polja pamuka gdje provedu tri tjedna u žetvi pamuka. To je prisilan rad djece na institucionalnoj razini. I svi ovi proizvodi vjerojatno završe svoje živote u nekoj rupi kao ovoj u Manili.
These places, these origins, represent governance gaps. That's the politest description I have for them. These are the dark pools where global supply chains begin -- the global supply chains, which bring us our favorite brand name products. Some of these governance gaps are run by rogue states. Some of them are not states anymore at all. They're failed states. Some of them are just countries who believe that deregulation or no regulation is the best way to attract investment, promote trade. Either way, they present us with a huge moral and ethical dilemma. I know that none of us want to be accessories after the fact of a human rights abuse in a global supply chain. But right now, most of the companies involved in these supply chains don't have any way of assuring us that nobody had to mortgage their future, nobody had to sacrifice their rights to bring us our favorite brand name product.
Ova mjesta, ova izvorišta, predstavljaju rupu u upravljanju. To je najpristojniji opis koji imam za njih. To su tamna mjesta u kojima nastaju globalni lanci ponude -- globalni lanci ponude, koji nam donose naše omiljene brendirane proizvode. Neke ove rupe u upravljanju vode loše države. Neke od njih nisu uopće više države; to su propale države. Neke od njih su samo zemlje koje vjeruju da je deregulacija ili nepostojanje regulacije najbolji način za privlačenje ulaganja, promoviranje trgovine. Kako god bilo, predstavljaju nam veliku moralnu i etičku dilemu. Znam da nitko od nas ne želi imati dodatke nakon činjenice o zloupotrebi ljudskih prava u globalnom lancu ponude. Ali sada, većina kompanija uključenih u te lance ponude, nemaju nikakav način da nas uvjere da se nitko ne treba zaduživati za njihovu budućnost, nitko ne treba žrtvovati svoja prava da nama donese naš omiljeni brendirani proizvod.
Now, I didn't come here to depress you about the state of the global supply chain. We need a reality check. We need to recognize just how serious a deficit of rights we have. This is an independent republic, probably a failed state. It's definitely not a democratic state. And right now, that independent republic of the supply chain is not being governed in a way that would satisfy us, that we can engage in ethical trade or ethical consumption. Now, that's not a new story. You've seen the documentaries of sweatshops making garments all over the world, even in developed countries. You want to see the classic sweatshop, meet me at Madison Square Garden, I'll take you down the street, and I'll show you a Chinese sweatshop.
Nisam došao ovdje da vas deprimiram zbog stanja globalnoga lanca ponude. Trebamo činjenično stanje stvari. Trebamo prepoznati koliko ozbiljan manjak prava imamo. Ovo je neovisna republika, vjerojatno propala država. Ovo definitivno nije demokratska država. I upravo sada, ta neovisna republika lanca ponude nije vođena na način koji nas zadovoljava da možemo sudjelovati u etičkoj trgovini ili etičkoj potrošnji. To nije nova priča. Vidjeli ste dokumentarce o tvornicama koje proizvode odjeću i eksploatiraju radnike u cijelomu svijetu, čak i u razvijenim zemljama. Želite vidjeti klasičnu tvornicu koja eksploatira, nađimo se na Madison Sqaure Gardenu, odvest ću vas ulicom i pokazati kinesku tvornicu.
But take the example of heparin. It's a pharmaceutical product. You expect that the supply chain that gets it to the hospital, probably squeaky clean. The problem is that the active ingredient in there -- as I mentioned earlier -- comes from pigs. The main American manufacturer of that active ingredient decided a few years ago to relocate to China because it's the world's biggest supplier of pigs. And their factory in China -- which probably is pretty clean -- is getting all of the ingredients from backyard abattoirs, where families slaughter pigs and extract the ingredient. So a couple of years ago, we had a scandal which killed about 80 people around the world, because of contaminants that crept into the heparin supply chain. Worse, some of the suppliers realized that they could substitute a product which mimicked heparin in tests. This substitute cost nine dollars a pound, whereas real heparin, the real ingredient, cost 900 dollars a pound. A no-brainer. The problem was that it killed more people.
No uzmite primjer heparina. To je farmaceutski proizvod. Očekujete da je lanac ponude koji vodi do bolnice, vjerojatno izrazito čist. Problem je da aktivni sastojak u njemu -- kao što sam maloprije spomenuo -- dolazi od svinja. Glavni američki proizvođač tog aktivnog sastojka se prije nekoliko godina odlučio preseliti u Kinu jer je najveći svjetski dobavljač svinja. I kada njihova tvornica u Kini -- koja je vjerojatno prilično čista -- dobiva sve sastojke iz klaonice u dvorištu, gdje obitelji kolju svinje i cijede sastojak. Dakle prije nekoliko godina, dogodio se skandal, koji je ubio oko 80 ljudi u cijelomu svijetu, zbog kontaminanata koji su se uvukli u lanac ponude heparina. Gore, neki su od dobavljača shvatili da mogu zamijeniti proizvod koji se ponašao kao heparin na testovima. Taj zamjenski proizvod je koštao devet dolara po funti (lbs), dok je stvarni heparin -- stvarni sastojak -- koštao 900 dolara po funti. Bez pameti. Problem je taj što je to ubilo više ljudi.
And so you're asking yourself, "How come the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed this to happen? How did the Chinese State Agency for Food and Drugs allow this to happen?" And the answer is quite simple: the Chinese define these facilities as chemical facilities, not pharmaceutical facilities, so they don't audit them. And the USFDA has a jurisdictional problem. This is offshore. They actually do conduct a few investigations overseas -- about a dozen a year -- maybe 20 in a good year. There are 500 of these facilities producing active ingredients in China alone. In fact, about 80 percent of the active ingredients in medicines now come from offshore, particularly China and India, and we don't have a governance system. We don't have a regulatory system able to ensure that that production is safe. We don't have a system to ensure that human rights, basic dignity, are ensured.
I sada se pitate, "Kako je Američka uprava za hranu i lijekove dozvolila da se to dogodi? Kako su kineske državne agencije za hranu i lijekove dozvolile da se to dogodi?" I odgovor je vrlo jednostavan: Kinezi definiraju takva postrojenja kao kemijska postrojenja, ne farmaceutska postrojenja, i ne nadziru ih. A Američka uprava za hranu i lijekove ima problem nadležnosti. To je izvanteritorijalno. Oni zapravo provode nekoliko istraga u inozemstvu -- desetak godišnje -- možda 20 u dobroj godini. Postoji 500 takvih postrojenja koji proizvode aktivne sastojke samo u Kini. Zapravo, oko 80 posto aktivnih sastojaka danas u medicini dolazi izvan teritorija (offshore) pogotovo iz Kine i Indije. I mi nemamo sustav upravljanja, nemamo regulatorni sustav u mogućnosti da osigura sigurnu proizvodnju. Nemamo sustav koji će osigurati da ljudska prava, temeljno dostojanstvo budu osigurana.
So at a national level -- and we work in about 60 different countries -- at a national level we've got a serious breakdown in the ability of governments to regulate production on their own soil. And the real problem with the global supply chain is that it's supranational. So governments who are failing, who are dropping the ball at a national level, have even less ability to get their arms around the problem at an international level. And you can just look at the headlines. Take Copenhagen last year -- complete failure of governments to do the right thing in the face of an international challenge. Take the G20 meeting a couple of weeks ago -- stepped back from its commitments of just a few months ago. You can take any one of the major global challenges we've discussed this week and ask yourself, where is the leadership from governments to step up and come up with solutions, responses, to those international problems? And the simple answer is they can't. They're national. Their voters are local. They have parochial interests. They can't subordinate those interests to the greater global public good.
Na nacionalnoj razini -- mi radimo u oko 60 različitih zemalja -- na nacionalnoj razini imamo ozbiljan neuspjeh sposobnosti vlada da reguliraju proizvodnju na vlastitoj zemlji. A stvarni problem s globalnim lancom ponude je da je supranacionalan. Pa vlade koje ne uspijevaju, koje puštaju loptu, na nacionalnoj razini, imaju još manje sposobnosti da se nose s tim problemom na međunarodnoj razini. Samo pogledajte novinske naslove. Uzmite Kopenhagen prošle godine -- potpuni neuspjeh vlada da učine pravu stvar za međunarodni izazov. Uzmite sastanak G20 prije nekoliko tjedana -- ustuknuli su pred svojim obećanjima danim prije tek nekoliko mjeseci. Možete uzeti bilo koji od velikih globalnih izazova koje smo spominjali ovaj tjedan i zapitati se, gdje je vodstvo vlada da se iskažu i iznađu rješenja, odgovori, za međunarodne probleme? I jednostavan je odgovor da ne mogu; nacionalne su. Njihovi glasači su lokalni. Imaju uske interese. Ne mogu podrediti te interese većem globalnom javnom dobru.
So, if we're going to ensure the delivery of the key public goods at an international level -- in this case, in the global supply chain -- we have to come up with a different mechanism. We need a different machine. Fortunately, we have some examples. In the 1990s, there were a whole series of scandals concerning the production of brand name goods in the U.S. -- child labor, forced labor, serious health and safety abuses. And eventually President Clinton, in 1996, convened a meeting at the White House, invited industry, human rights NGOs, trade unions, the Department of Labor, got them all in a room and said, "Look, I don't want globalization to be a race to the bottom. I don't know how to prevent that, but I'm at least going to use my good offices to get you folks together to come up with a response." So they formed a White House task force, and they spent about three years arguing about who takes how much responsibility in the global supply chain. Companies didn't feel it was their responsibility. They don't own those facilities. They don't employ those workers. They're not legally liable. Everybody else at the table said, "Folks, that doesn't cut it. You have a custodial duty, a duty of care, to make sure that that product gets from wherever to the store in a way that allows us to consume it, without fear of our safety, or without having to sacrifice our conscience to consume that product." So they agreed, "Okay, what we'll do is we agree on a common set of standards, code of conduct. We'll apply that throughout our global supply chain regardless of ownership or control. We'll make it part of the contract." And that was a stroke of absolute genius, because what they did was they harnessed the power of the contract, private power, to deliver public goods.
Ako želimo osigurati isporuku ključnih javnih dobara na međunarodnoj razini -- u ovome slučaju, u globalnom lancu ponude -- moramo osmisliti drugačiji mehanizam. Trebamo drugačiju mašineriju. Na sreću, imamo nekoliko primjera. U 1990-ima, dogodila se serija skandala vezanim uz proizvodnju brendiranih dobara u SAD-u -- rad djece, prisilan rad, ozbiljna zloupotreba zdravlja i sigurnosti -- i naposljetku je predsjednik Clinton, 1996., sazvao sastanak u Bijeloj kući, pozvao industriju, nevladine organizacije zaštite ljudskih prava, sindikate, Odjel rada -- skupio ih sve u jednoj prostoriji i rekao, "Gledajte, ne želim da globalizacija bude utrka do dna. Ne znam kako to spriječiti, ali barem mogu koristiti svoje dobre urede da vas ljude skupim zajedno da bismo osmislili odgovor." I tako su oformili operativnu skupinu Bijele kuće, i potrošili oko tri godine raspravljajući o tome tko preuzima koliko odgovornosti u globalnom lancu ponude. Kompanije nisu osjećale da je odgovornost njihova. One ne posjeduju te zgrade. One ne upošljavaju te radnike. One nisu pravno odgovorne. Svi su ostali za stolom rekli, "Ljudi, time ne rješavate problem, imate odgovornost za skrb, obvezu o brizi, u osiguravanju da taj proizvod dođe odnekuda do trgovine na način koji nam omogućava da ga konzumiramo, bez straha za svoju sigurnost, ili bez žrtvovanja svoje savjesti zbog konzumiranja tog proizvoda." Tako su se složili, "U redu. Ono što ćemo napraviti je da ćemo se usuglasiti oko zajedničkog skupa standarda, kodeksa ponašanja. Primjenjivat ćemo to kroz cijeli naš globalni lanac ponude neovisno od vlasništva ili kontrole. Učinit ćemo to dijelom ugovora." I to je bio udarac apsolutnih genija, jer ono što su napravili je da su upregnuli snagu ugovora, privatnu moć, da bi izručili javna dobra.
And let's face it, the contract from a major multinational brand to a supplier in India or China has much more persuasive value than the local labor law, the local environmental regulations, the local human rights standards. Those factories will probably never see an inspector. If the inspector did come along, it would be amazing if they were able to resist the bribe. Even if they did their jobs, and they cited those facilities for their violations, the fine would be derisory. But you lose that contract for a major brand name, that's the difference between staying in business or going bankrupt. That makes a difference. So what we've been able to do is we've been able to harness the power and the influence of the only truly transnational institution in the global supply chain, that of the multinational company, and get them to do the right thing, get them to use that power for good, to deliver the key public goods.
I priznajmo, ugovor velikog međunarodnog brenda za dobavljača u Indiji ili Kini ima uvjerljiviju vrijednost nego lokalni zakon o radu, lokalna regulativa okoliša, lokalni standardi o ljudskim pravima. Te tvornice vjerojatno nikada neće vidjeti inspektora. Ako inspektor i dođe, bilo bi zapanjujuće da je u mogućnosti odoljeti podmićivanju. Čak i da obavi svoj posao, i prozove te tvornice zbog njihovih prekršaja, novčana kazna bi bila sramotna. Ali ako izgubiš ugovor s velikim brendom, to je razlika između održavanja u poslu ili bankrotiranja. To čini razliku. Ono što smo bili u mogućnosti napraviti, je da smo bili u mogućnosti upregnuti moć i utjecaj jedinih stvarnih međunarodnih institucija u globalnom lancu ponude, onih od međunarodnih kompanija, i naveli smo ih da učine pravu stvar, naveli smo ih da koriste tu moć za dobro, da izruče temeljna javna dobra.
Now of course, this doesn't come naturally to multinational companies. They weren't set up to do this. They're set up to make money. But they are extremely efficient organizations. They have resources, and if we can add the will, the commitment, they know how to deliver that product. Now, getting there is not easy. Those supply chains I put up on the screen earlier, they're not there. You need a safe space. You need a place where people can come together, sit down without fear of judgment, without recrimination, to actually face the problem, agree on the problem and come up with solutions. We can do it. The technical solutions are there. The problem is the lack of trust, the lack of confidence, the lack of partnership between NGOs, campaign groups, civil society organizations and multinational companies. If we can put those two together in a safe space, get them to work together, we can deliver public goods right now, or in extremely short supply.
To naravno ne dolazi prirodno za međunarodne kompanije. Nisu stvorene zbog toga; stvorene su da stvaraju novac. Ali to su ekstremno efikasne organizacije. Imaju resurse, i ako možemo dodati volju, odanost, one znaju kako isporučiti taj proizvod. Doći do toga nije jednostavno. Ti lanci ponude koje sam maloprije pokazao na ekranu, oni nisu tamo. Trebate siguran prostor. trebate mjesto gdje ljudi mogu zajedno doći, sjesti bez straha od osude, bez protuoptužbe, da se stvarno suoče s problemom, usuglase oko problema i smisle rješenja. Mi to možemo; tehnička rješenja su tamo. Problem je u nedostatku povjerenja, nedostatku sigurnosti, nedostatku partnerstva između nevladinih organizacija, grupa kampanja, organizacija civilnog društva i međunarodnih kompanija. Ako možemo to dvoje zajedno spojiti u sigurnom prostoru, navesti ih da rade zajedno, možemo isporučiti javna dobra trenutno, ili u ekstremno kratkoj ponudi.
This is a radical proposition, and it's crazy to think that if you're a 15-year-old Bangladeshi girl leaving your rural village to go and work in a factory in Dhaka -- 22, 23, 24 dollars a month -- your best chance of enjoying rights at work is if that factory is producing for a brand name company which has got a code of conduct and made that code of conduct part of the contract. It's crazy. Multinationals are protecting human rights. I know there's going to be disbelief. You'll say, "How can we trust them?" Well, we don't. It's the old arms control phrase: "Trust, but verify." So we audit. We take their supply chain, we take all the factory names, we do a random sample, we send inspectors on an unannounced basis to inspect those facilities, and then we publish the results. Transparency is absolutely critical to this. You can call yourself responsible, but responsibility without accountability often doesn't work. So what we're doing is, we're not only enlisting the multinationals, we're giving them the tools to deliver this public good -- respect for human rights -- and we're checking. You don't need to believe me. You shouldn't believe me. Go to the website. Look at the audit results. Ask yourself, is this company behaving in a socially responsible way? Can I buy that product without compromising my ethics? That's the way the system works.
To je radikalan prijedlog, i ludo je pomišljati da ste 15-ogodišnja djevojčica iz Bangladeša koja napušta svoje ruralno mjesto i odlazi raditi u tvornicu u Dhaku -- za 22, 23, 24 dolara mjesečno -- tvoja najbolja šansa da ostvariš prava na poslu je ako tvornica proizvodi za kompaniju poznatog brenda koja ima kodeks ponašanja i uvela je taj kodeks kao dio ugovora. To je ludo; međunarodne kompanije štite ljudska prava. Znam da će postojati nevjerica. Reći ćete, "Kako im možemo vjerovati?" Pa, ne vjerujemo. To je stara vojna fraza: "Vjeruj, ali provjeri." I tako mi nadziremo. Uzimamo njihove lance ponude, uzimamo sva imena tvornica, radimo slučajan uzorak, šaljemo inspektore nenajavljeno da pregledaju te tvornice, i onda objavljujemo rezultate. Transparentnost je apsolutno kritična za ovo. Možete se nazivati nadležnima, ali nadležnost bez odgovornosti često ne funkcionira. Dakle ono što mi radimo je ne samo da popisujemo međunarodne kompanije, mi im dajemo alat da isporuče javno dobro -- poštuju ljudska prava -- i mi provjeravamo. Ne trebate mi vjerovati. Ne smijete mi vjerovati. Idite na web stranicu. Pogledajte rezultate nadzora. Zapitajte se, ponaša li se ova kompanija na društveno odgovoran način? Mogu li kupiti taj proizvod bez da kompromitiram moju etiku? To je način na koji sustav radi.
I hate the idea that governments are not protecting human rights around the world. I hate the idea that governments have dropped this ball and I can't get used to the idea that somehow we can't get them to do their jobs. I've been at this for 30 years, and in that time I've seen the ability, the commitment, the will of government to do this decline, and I don't see them making a comeback right now. So we started out thinking this was a stopgap measure. We're now thinking that, in fact, this is probably the start of a new way of regulating and addressing international challenges. Call it network governance. Call it what you will. The private actors, companies and NGOs, are going to have to get together to face the major challenges we are going to face. Just look at pandemics -- swine flu, bird flu, H1N1. Look at the health systems in so many countries. Do they have the resources to face up to a serious pandemic? No. Could the private sector and NGOs get together and marshal a response? Absolutely. What they lack is that safe space to come together, agree and move to action. That's what we're trying to provide.
Mrzim ideju da vlade ne poštuju ljudska prava u svijetu. Mrzim ideju da vlade u tome ne uspijevaju. I ne mogu se naviknuti na ideju da ih nikako ne možemo navesti da rade svoj posao. Ja sam u ovome već 30 godina, i za to vrijeme vidio sam sposobnost, odanost, volju vlada da rade taj nazadak I ne vidim da se vraćaju odmah na staro. Tako smo počeli razmišljati da je ovo privremena mjera. Sada razmišljamo, zapravo, da je ovo vjerojatno početak novog načina reguliranja i adresiranja međunarodnih izazova. Nazovite to mrežnim upravljanjem, zovite kako god želite, privatni suučesnici, kompanije i nevladine organizacije, će raditi zajedno da se bore s glavnim izazovima s kojima se suočavamo. Samo pogledajte pandemiju -- svinjska gripa, ptičja gripa, H1N1. Pogledajte zdravstvene sustave u većini zemalja. Imaju li resurse da se suoče s ozbiljnom pandemijom? Ne. Mogu li se privatni sektor i nevladine organizacije ujediniti i organizirati odgovor? Svakako. Ono što im nedostaje je siguran prostor da se skupe, usuglase i krenu u akciju. To im pokušavamo omogućiti.
I know as well that this often seems like an overwhelming level of responsibility for people to assume. "You want me to deliver human rights throughout my global supply chain. There are thousands of suppliers in there." It seems too daunting, too dangerous, for any company to take on. But there are companies. We have 4,000 companies who are members. Some of them are very, very large companies. The sporting goods industry, in particular, stepped up to the plate and have done it. The example, the role model, is there. And whenever we discuss one of these problems that we have to address -- child labor in cottonseed farms in India -- this year we will monitor 50,000 cottonseed farms in India. It seems overwhelming. The numbers just make you want to zone out. But we break it down to some basic realities.
Također znam da to često izgleda kao nevjerojatan stupanj odgovornosti što ljudi i pretpostavljaju. "Želiš da osiguram ljudska prava kroz cijeli globalni sustav ponude. Postoje tisuće dobavljača. Čini se obeshrabrujuće, preopasno, za bilo koju kompaniju da pokuša. Ali postoje kompanije. Imamo 4000 kompanija koje su članice. Neke od njih su jako, jako velike kompanije. Industrija sportskih proizvoda se posebice iskazala i to učinila. Primjer, uzor, je tamo. I kada god raspravljamo o jednom od problema koje trebamo istaknuti -- rad djece na farmama pamuka u Indiji -- ove ćemo godine nadzirati 50 000 farmi pamuka u Indiji. Čini se obeshrabrujuće. Brojevi vas tjeraju da se povučete. Ali mi ih stavljamo u realne okvire.
And human rights comes down to a very simple proposition: can I give this person their dignity back? Poor people, people whose human rights have been violated -- the crux of that is the loss of dignity, the lack of dignity. It starts with just giving people back their dignity. I was sitting in a slum outside Gurgaon just next to Delhi, one of the flashiest, brightest new cities popping up in India right now, and I was talking to workers who worked in garment sweatshops down the road, and I asked them what message they would like me to take to the brands. They didn't say money. They said, "The people who employ us treat us like we are less than human, like we don't exist. Please ask them to treat us like human beings." That's my simple understanding of human rights. That's my simple proposition to you, my simple plea to every decision-maker in this room, everybody out there. We can all make a decision to come together and pick up the balls and run with the balls that governments have dropped. If we don't do it, we're abandoning hope, we're abandoning our essential humanity, and I know that's not a place we want to be, and we don't have to be there. So I appeal to you. Join us, come into that safe space, and let's start to make this happen.
I ljudska prava se pretvaraju u vrlo jednostavan prijedlog: mogu li ovoj osobi vratiti njezino dostojanstvo? Siromašni ljudi, ljudi kojima su ljudska prava narušena -- srž toga je gubitak dostojanstva, nedostatak dostojanstva. Počinje se s vraćanjem dostojanstva nekolicini ljudi. Sjedio sam u sirotinjskoj četvrti u Gurgaonu, kraj Delhija, jedan od blještavijih, sjajnijih novih gradova koji se stvaraju u Indiji upravo sada, I razgovarao sam s radnicima koji su radili u odjevnoj tvornici koja ih eksploatira. I pitao sam ih koju poruku žele da prenesem brendovima. Nisu rekli novac; rekli su, "Ljudi koji nas zapošljavaju tretiraju nas kao da smo manje vrijedni od čovjeka, kao da ne postojimo. Molimo vas recite im da nas tretiraju kao da smo ljudska bića To je moje jednostavno razumijevanje ljudskih prava. To je moj jednostavan prijedlog vama, moja jednostavna molba svakom donosiocu odluka u ovoj prostoriji, svima tamo vani. Svi mi možemo donositi odluke da se okupimo i uzmemo lopte i trčimo s loptama koje su vlade ispustile. Ako to ne napravimo, napuštamo nadu, napuštamo našu iskonsku ljudskost, i znam da to nije mjesto u kojemu želimo biti, i ne želimo biti u njemu. Apeliram na vas, pridružite nam se, dođite u taj siguran prostor, i počnimo to ostvarivati.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam puno.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)