Bolivia

Being present at this forum is very important to express what we think, what we feel and what we work on, but it is also important to express major differences between Presidents and between Governments, our differences on policies, programmes, projects, 11 11-50847 principles and values with some countries in this world. This morning we heard the statements of some Presidents, and I realized that there are enormous differences between the so-called small countries, developing countries, underdeveloped countries, compared with some Powers. For example, in the debate here at the United Nations there is a clear difference between the culture of life and the culture of death, between truth and falsehood and between peace and war. Of course, we all have the right to have our differences. We have a right to deep differences about life, but I believe that our Organization, the United Nations, has a duty to make it possible to align the constant work of Governments to guarantee peace and the equality and dignity of all those living on plant Earth. When I say that there is a deep difference between the culture of life and the culture of death, I feel that it will be difficult for us to come to an understanding with economic policies that concentrate capital in the hands of a few. Data show that 1 per cent of the world’s population holds 50 per cent of its wealth. If there are such deep differences, how can we resolve the problem of poverty? And if we cannot put an end to poverty how can we guarantee lasting peace? Furthermore, imperialism seeks to control the sources of energy throughout the world, and to that end it has instruments to impose, control and constantly invade. And it is not just now; it has always been so. I remember when I was a child seeing rebellions of peoples against the capitalist system, against economic models that involved the permanent pillaging of our natural resources. Left-leaning union leaders and political leaders were accused of being Communists in order to arrest them. There was military intervention against social forces. People were confined, exiled, killed, persecuted and jailed, accused of being socialists, Maoists, Leninists and Marxist-Leninists. I feel that that has ended. We are no longer accused of being Marxists or Leninists, but now drug- trafficking and terrorism are given as excuses. In countries with many natural resources, particularly related to energy, we are threatened by foreign intervention, when Presidents, Governments and peoples are not pro-capitalist or pro-imperialist. And then there is talk about a lasting peace. How can there be a lasting peace where there are United States military bases? How can there be lasting peace when there are military interventions? I believe that our United Nations is subordinate to the Security Council. What is the use of the United Nations if a group of countries decides on interventions, on killings? It is a Security Council for whom? It is a Security Council for Presidents, Governments, peoples who are pro-imperialist or pro-capitalist. But it is the Insecurity Council for Presidents, peoples or Governments who seek liberation — not only cultural liberation, but also economic liberation: the recovery of their economic resources. Those are the deep divisions between the Presidents from the various continents who are taking part in our debates. If we want the Organization to have the authority to see that its resolutions are respected, we should think of founding afresh the United Nations. We cannot continue on the current footing. Why do I say that? Every year at the United Nations, almost 100 per cent of the Member States — the United States and Israel being the exceptions — decide that the economic blockade of Cuba should be ended. Who ensures that that decision is respected? The Security Council will never ensure that such United Nations resolutions are respected; the United Nations cannot ensure respect for that decision of the whole world to lift the blockade against Cuba. I cannot understand how the resolutions of an Organization of all the countries of the world are not respected. What, then, is the United Nations? It is time for an in-depth debate on founding afresh this great Organization, the largest in the world. We should debate its role so that the United Nations is recognized and respected by the peoples of the world. That can happen only with the re-establishment of the United Nations as a body which fights for the equality of all the inhabitants of planet Earth, for the dignity of all those whom we represent at the United Nations. I have heard a number of interventions about Palestine. Of course, Palestine has our full support. Bolivia not only supports recognition of Palestine at the United Nations, but also wishes to welcome Palestine to the United Nations. Here I have a profound observation. When Israel bombs, attacks, kills and takes Palestinian land, there is no Security Council for 11-50847 12 that; there is no international organization that can stop those bombings and killings, the genocide in Palestine. When there was a coup d’état in Honduras, where were the military bases to defend a President elected by the Honduran people? Where was the Security Council or the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to defend democracy in Honduras? It is time for us to think deeply about this. When there are anti-imperialist Presidents with anti-capitalist Governments, the empire tries to create internal conflicts with what appear to be major confrontations, making it appear in the media that a certain President should fall, or it tries to divide a country to justify intervention. When there was a coup d’état in Honduras and there were killings in Palestine, where was NATO? Where was the Security Council? They were nowhere to be found. For those and many other reasons, it is important to think again about re-establishing the United Nations. How can we Presidents and Governments face our responsibility of freeing our countries? Let me speak of some important aspects of my experience as President. First, our natural resources can never be privatized. They can never be handed over to transnational companies, whether they be minerals, oil or other natural resources. Before I became President, hydrocarbons were in the hands of transnational companies. What did the contracts say? They declared that the owner assumed the right of ownership at the mouth of the well. Governments told us that as long as the resource — gas, oil — was underground it belonged to all Bolivians, but the minute it came out of the ground it belonged instead to the transnational companies. In the contracts they concocted the idea that the contract holder acquired ownership at the mouth of the well; as soon as the oil and gas came out of the ground they no longer belonged to Bolivians. That was a constant pillaging of our natural resources. On 1 May 2006, we nationalized and recovered our natural resources through a supreme decree. From then on our national economy began to change. From then on Bolivia stopped being a beggar State. Before 2006 — I say this very sincerely — Bolivia was a small country sometimes considered an underdeveloped or developing country; it does not matter what term is used. We have just 10 million inhabitants. Investment in Bolivia in 2005 was only $600 million, and more than 50 per cent of it was credits or international cooperation. Less than 50 per cent consisted of our own resources. How much investment has there been this year? The answer is $3.6 billion, with 20 per cent or 30 per cent of that being through international cooperation or credits, while almost 80 per cent is our own resources, thanks to our recovery of hydrocarbons, gas. How our economy has changed! From 1948 until 2005 Bolivia never had a fiscal surplus; it was in deficit. In our first year in charge — 2006 — we achieved a fiscal surplus. We also created bonds for children and the elderly. We started to democratize our economy, apart from increasing investment. For the 180 years after Bolivia was founded in 1825, what international reserves did we have until 2005? The answer is $1.7 billion. Over 180 years, Governments of all kinds — liberal, military dictatorships, neo-liberal — were able to save for Bolivia only $1.7 billion. In less than six years we have saved over $10 billion; Bolivia now has $11.7 billion in international reserves. In 2005, we were the next to last country in terms of international reserves. Now we have improved, thanks to the recovery and nationalization of hydrocarbons. Recovering natural resources, having them in the hands of the State, is very important for improving the economy; we cannot privatize natural resources and hand them over to the transnationals. We can have partners. That is fine. But companies cannot be the owners of our natural resources. The State, the people, must be the owner. I mention this experience because thanks to our decision, responding to the call of the Bolivian people, we started to change the national economy. I have a second point. Basic public services can never be provided by private businesses. I am speaking of water, energy, electricity and the telephone service. This morning, someone said that the prices of agricultural products are rising by 25 per cent or 30 per cent — even 50 per cent in some cases — and have been doing so for four or five years. Prices are going up because we do not yet control agricultural production. Since the State has controlled basic services in Bolivia, electricity, telephone and drinking 13 11-50847 water tariffs have not risen, because they are basic. Public utilities must be the responsibility of the State, and not of the private sector. How can we allow water, the stuff of life, to be in private hands? I welcome the support we have received from the General Assembly for water to be a human right and express thanks on behalf of the people and Government of Bolivia. It is our responsibility to implement throughout the world the concept of water as a human right, thus supporting the least privileged when it comes to water. My third point concerns the constant struggle of peoples for dignity and sovereignty. In Bolivia I too have to put up with a United States military base. And what do the uniformed United States outsiders do? They command the national police and the armed forces, because of political decisions of former Presidents, those who preceded me in the Palacio Quemada, as it is known in some sectors of society. The Chimore airport could not be used without the permission of the United States embassy. That woke us up to the importance of defending the dignity and sovereignty of our peoples. What I have described gave rise to a great movement, not only social and cultural, but also electoral. It led to a political liberation movement, a movement to return dignity to all Bolivians, and to my attaining the presidency. When I became President, I closed the military base. How is it possible in this new millennium, in the twenty-first century, for there still to be foreign military bases all around the world? How is it possible for there still to be interventions decided upon by the Security Council? That situation is a threat to humanity, an attack on the dignity of all the countries of the world. That is why we must develop proposals for the United Nations that will make it possible not only to free all the people living on this planet, but to restore dignity to them. My fourth point concerns international financial institutions. I remember that when I was a union leader Governments could never obtain the resources for investment. We were told that Bolivia did not have the capacity to borrow. Bolivia did not have easy access to international loans. But what did the International Monetary Fund do? It made loans conditional. It told Governments that if they privatized refineries and telecommunications they would give credits of $30 million to $40 million. A usurious bank, conditional credits and credits requiring security are no solution. No credits were given to States, or to the productive sector. They were all for services and trade. Above all, they went to the transnationals. When I became President, one of the transnational oil companies told me that the Government would have to guarantee a credit of $100 million to build a pipeline. I wondered about the purpose. Finally, the oil company, Transredes, was conspiring politically, and we therefore decided to nationalize its properties — oil and gas pipelines. We expelled it. Then we began to invest through the State company, Yacimientos, without borrowing a single dollar, and the Carrasco Cochabamba pipeline is now under construction. But if the transnational had continued to be responsible, we would certainly have had to guarantee a loan for it. As the Assembly is aware, I come from the indigenous peasant movement. When our families talk about a company, they think of it as something that has a lot of money and is made up of millionaires. So I could not understand how a company could ask the Government to lend it money for an investment. The international financial institutions deal through companies, but who has to pay? It is the peoples, the States. So we must create other financial institutions. Fortunately, we are making good progress in South America. The Bank of the South will be completely different from the usurious banks that feather their own nests and make money through speculation. That must end. Regional integration will free us from the domination of those banks. It is important for us to go further in that integration. In Bolivia we have barriers to overcome, and other countries of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) also have problems. For example, we have a historic demand upon Chile for a sovereign corridor to the Pacific. We decided to have recourse to international tribunals to ask for that access. Resolution 37/10 of 15 November 1982 establishes in its annex, the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, that recourse to an international tribunal to settle disputes between States should not be considered an unfriendly act. 11-50847 14 Bolivia has right and reason on its side in going to an international tribunal, because our landlocked state results from an unjust war, an invasion. For Bolivia, calling for a solution in the international sphere means for Bolivia redressing a historic injustice. Bolivia is a friendly, peaceful State which gives priority to dialogue with its neighbours. We therefore keep open channels for bilateral negotiation with Chile, without, however, renouncing the right to go to an international court. There is regional involvement as well, since this is not just a bilateral problem, but is a regional problem as well. Peoples are not responsible for the landlocked state of Bolivia. Those responsible are, as always, the oligarchies, the transnationals, which wish to protect their access to natural resources. The 1904 Treaty did not lead to either peace or friendship, because for more than a century Bolivia had no access to a sovereign port of its own. I take this opportunity to call on the United Nations, other international organizations and especially the region to support us, so that we can return with sovereignty to the Pacific Ocean. In addition, there is another movement of countries taking place, that of the countries of Latin America with the Caribbean. I would say that it is a new Organization of American States, without the United States, in order to free us of certain impositions, with the benefit of our experience in UNASUR. I say that because we no longer find ourselves obliged, when there are conflicts between countries and within democracies, to have somebody coming from outside and above to re-establish order. Presidents and Governments meet to resolve internal problems. This is a great liberation for us. I also take this opportunity to touch on a central topic: the fight against drug trafficking. United States imperialism is using the war on drugs for political ends. The United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in Bolivia was not fighting drug trafficking; it was controlling it for political purposes. The DEA would implicate union leaders or anti-imperialist political leaders. Many politicians have been saved from that dirty work of the empire in attempting to implicate us in drug trafficking, which still goes on. Last week some parts of the United States media said that my aircraft had been detained in the United States with traces of cocaine. How false! They are trying to confuse the people, trying to conduct a dirty campaign against my Government and against the State of Bolivia. What does the United States do? It decertifies Bolivia and Venezuela. What moral authority does it have to certify or decertify nations of Latin America, when the United States is the world’s leading drug consumer, when the United States is one of the world’s producers of marijuana — in some years the biggest? What authority does it have to certify or decertify any country? This is another way of trying to scare countries or punish them. However, Bolivia, very responsibly, continues to fight drug trafficking. A report by the State Department recognizes that there has been a net reduction in coca cultivation, with improved interdiction. Where is the market? The market is what drives drug trafficking, and the market is here. Who is decertifying the United States because it has not cut down the market? This morning President Calderón of Mexico said that the drug market continues to grow. Why is no responsibility taken for eliminating the market? As long as there is a market coca leaves and other products will be turned into drugs. A great responsibility must be borne. Here I make an appeal. Let us fight with shared responsibility. Why do we not put an end to banking confidentiality? The biggest drug traffickers put their millions of dollars not in briefcases or backpacks but in the banks. Why is there fear of banking secrecy? In Bolivia we are not afraid. Banking confidentiality must be ended if we want to fight drug trafficking head on. One of the crises on the margin of the crisis of capitalism is the food crisis. New international financial structures give opportunities to people with low incomes by providing microcredits to small producers. We have some experience in Bolivia, where credits at zero interest have been given to producers of rice, wheat, corn and soy at zero interest. Food producers can even pay their debts with their products. Soft credits are given to encourage food production. Yet the international banks never take the small producer into account; they never pay any heed to cooperatives, to associations, which can very well contribute if given the chance. There are new ways to encourage production through fair trade. We have to put an end to the so-called competitive market. In a competition who 15 11-50847 wins? It is the most powerful, those with the greatest advantages. Transnational companies are always the winners. The losers are the small producers, families wanting to rise through their own efforts. Therefore, we are trying in the region to implement policies of complementarity and solidarity, and not of competition. With naked competition we shall never be able to solve the problem of poverty. Finally on this matter, the crisis of capitalism has no exit. When I was a young boy much mention was made of the foreign debt of poor countries. It was said that it could never be paid. Now the situation is quite the opposite: the debts of the poor countries can easily be settled, but the crisis of capitalism is a bottomless hole. The crisis of capitalism is not just because of circumstances; it is structural. What do capitalist or imperialist countries do? They seek any pretext to invade a country and make off with its natural resources. This morning the President of the United States said that Iraq was already free and would govern itself. The Iraqis will be able to govern themselves, of course, but in whose hands is the oil now? The fall of autocracy in Libya was hailed, and now there is democracy, but in whose hands is Libyan oil? The world and the Libyans have come to realize that reason for the invasion and the bombings was not to bring about the fall of Al-Qadhafi by rebels but a desire for Libyan oil. Next year we can review the situation and see which countries have their hands on Libyan oil. There is a desire to overcome the crisis of capitalism by making off with our oil, gas and other natural resources. But we also have the great responsibility of defending the rights of Mother Earth. I continue to be convinced that the best way to defend human rights is to defend the rights of Mother Earth. Here we have the great responsibility of looking after the rights of Mother Earth. Only 60 years ago the Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it was only 60 years ago that the United Nations realized that the human being also has rights. After political rights, economic rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, now we have the enormous responsibility of defending the rights of Mother Earth. We are also convinced that infinite growth on a finite planet is unsustainable and impossible. The limit to growth is the regenerative capacity of the planet’s ecosystems. We therefore call for a new 10 commandments concerning social demands, financial systems, natural resources, basic services, production, and dignity and sovereignty. On that basis we should begin to re- establish the United Nations so that it can be the highest instance to settle issues of peace, poverty, dignity and sovereignty. I hope that my experience as President of Bolivia will be useful to all those present. At the same time, I come to learn from many of them so that I may continue working for the equality and dignity of the Bolivian people.