I first had the honour of addressing the
General Assembly in September 1989, shortly after assuming the presidency of
Bolivia. I anticipated then that the vertiginous changes taking place in and
around us would bear the hallmark of what I termed the revolution of
democracy.
Today, after all we have experienced in this brief but intense period, we
can see more clearly that the growth of universal awareness among men and
women has not only given democracy, as a system, a global dimension for the
first time in the history of mankind, but has also meant that its power for
change and its potential for transformation are clearly challenging old ideas,
old structures and old habits.
I will say without fear of contradiction if I may be permitted to
paraphrase what someone has said that democracy is racing round the globe,
no longer a phantasmal newcomer but rather a wind of renewal and hope.
Accordingly, what we must now surely call global democracy is shedding
new light on old truths, leading us to understand better, for example, that
power is, by definition, something to be shared; that we need a new and better
understanding of the dynamics of consensus and dissent; and that the various
forms of intermediation necessary for social life are now in crisis.
Indeed, the more complex the organizational processes of a particular
government, as is the case in democracy, the greater the need for that power
to be shared if we wish to see it adequately maintained and developed. By the
same token, the more rudimentary and simple power is, as is the case in
authoritarianism and dictatorship, the less evident is the necessity of
sharing power.
Similarly, we can now see that the useful consensus on the basis of which
the old democracies of the industrialized countries were built, with
government and opposition thinking and acting virtually in the same way, seems
to citizens a worn-out mechanism that hampers change. Paradoxically, at the
opposite pole, in the young democracies of developing countries, the citizenry
zealously calls for consensus as an essential means of uniting the nation's
forces in pursuit of indispensable changes.
It would seem, then, that where the art of consensus was perfected, the
need is arising to learn how to manage dissent in an appropriate way; and
where dissent had become a way of life and a cause of stagnation, there is a
need in turn to learn how to build consensus. This could well be described as
the dynamics of consensus and dissent under democracy.
As to the forms of intermediation to be found in social life, we also see
that the citizens of universal democracy are striving to reduce intermediacy,
striving to take the initiative in everyday life in a more direct way. It is
then that the citizen comes to regard intermediation as something of his own
that is inescapable, genuine, close, efficient, transparent and
representative. Therefore, we should not be surprised today to find a state
of crisis in the political, religious, trade-union and cultural forms of
intermediation, and even in that great intermediator, the State itself.
This last point is especially useful and relevant as we turn to an
examination of the present state of our Organization, for, in our view, what
has come to be called the crisis of the United Nations seems to be in essence
nothing other than a crisis of intermediation. I say this because in fact we
have always thought that the United Nations represents the most advanced
mechanism of intermediation on Earth but that, in order to continue to be
such, it must adapt itself to the newly emerging global scenarios of the
revolution of democracy.
For nearly half a century after its inception, the United Nations played
the privileged role of intermediary during the era of hegemonic blocs and the
cold war. That indicated the quantity and quality of intermediation possible
within that context, at the same time creating a way of sharing international
power and a method of managing the dynamics of consensus and dissent, within
the prevailing balance, managing in that context to determine even its own
structure, organization and functioning. Under that old order, the United
Nations achieved great credibility. And although in many places peace was not
always preserved, the Organization achieved something that appeared
impossible: prevention of a nuclear conflagration between opposing and
seemingly irreconcilable blocs.
But things have changed dramatically and, with them, so must our
Organization. In saying this I believe I am voicing what all of us in the
Assembly are thinking. It is clear that the new world order needs new
credibility, which the United Nations must earn. The citizens and nations of
global democracy are placing unavoidable challenges before our Organization,
challenges that require us to adapt its structures, modernize its machinery
and identify new priorities and thus the new intermediation that is possible
in terms of quantity and quality. And, with no other aim in mind than that of
seeking answers, allow me to illustrate these ideas by describing a few
selected developments which, in addition to being new, have the common feature
of having gained global proportions, which makes them particularly deserving
of the Organization's keenest attention.
The first of these is what I would describe as the dialectic of the
universal and the particular, or, alternatively, the dialectic of
universalisms and particularisms. I am referring to the obvious fact that
peoples today are expressing two attitudes that are seemingly contradictory
but are none the less part of the same dynamic.
On the one hand they are striving for complementarity through processes
of integration that are laying out ever broader geographical, political,
economic and commercial areas that already constitute a new world geography.
On the other hand, simultaneously and paradoxically, those same peoples and
citizens are reaffirming their identity and their essence, sometimes
intransigently demanding their own cultural, historic, religious, and
immediate political frameworks. In an apparent contradiction, they seem to be
trying to experience, simultaneously and complementarily, the great and the
small, the longer-term and the immediate, the universal and the particular.
The second of these developments arises from the fact that the market
economy has gained ascendancy in the same manner as democracy and, together
with them, the awareness of a better life and the need for well-being and
human and social development have also become global. Consequently, we face
as never before the urgent need for a form of solidarity that will enable us
to hit upon an appropriate relationship between the market economy, democracy,
and human development. That solidarity, by emphasizing social development
and, for many of our countries, in a frontal assault upon poverty, will enable
us also to redefine the foundations of new social legitimacy for States,
internally and internationally.
The third development has to do with something that we agreed upon at the
recent Conference in Rio de Janeiro. We live in a single global ecosystem and
we are all jointly responsible for its conservation and clean-up. We also
agreed that little purpose would be served by preserving a world to be
inhabited by an impoverished human race, which clearly implies that the
ecological stewardship of the planet does not run counter to our peoples'
needs for development. Consequently, it remains for us promptly to endow the
Commission on Sustainable Development with the resources, powers and machinery
it will need to fulfil the objectives we have set for ourselves. That means
implementing Agenda 21, a true plan of action for the next century, as a point
of departure for offsetting the historical environmental debt we have spoken
of in other forums.
The fourth development pertains to technology. In the joint
deliberations the Presidents of the Ibero-American countries engaged in to
mark the Quincentennial of 1492, we concluded that the final explanation for
all colonial processes is to be found in a confrontation in which the winner
achieves ascendancy by virtue of his technological superiority, and that this
first technological defeat lies at the root of dependency and
marginalization. We then agreed that in order to redress that situation it
was necessary to share technological power more democratically, and that one
appropriate way to do so might well be to declare as the common heritage of
mankind those basic technologies that are indispensable to satisfy adequately
the equally basic rights of mankind: health, nutrition, education and
housing. I venture to reiterate that initiative before the Assembly with an
explicit proposal by Bolivia to the international community that we should
seek participatory, creative and markedly personal machinery that would become
the main thrust of the work of the social summit we should now convene.
The fifth, and last, development I wish to bring to the attention of the
Assembly relates to a right which is already recognized under Article 19 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of our Organization, which states
that everyone has the right to
"seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers." (resolution 217 (III). Article 19)
Representatives will surely agree that in recent decades technology has
turned information, too, into a phenomenon of equally global proportions. At
the same time, the universal revolution of democracy has instilled an
unprecedented awareness among citizens of their right to inform and be
informed. That growing awareness is in turn linked to the observable fact
that the gap now separating the well-informed citizen from the poorly informed
citizen seems quantitatively and qualitatively greater, or at least equal to,
that other gap separating extremes of wealth and poverty.
All of this leads us, in modern terms, to the perception that information
has become the Gordian knot or, if you wish, the crossroads of human rights.
Indeed, although it may appear an arbitrary simplification, the
better-informed citizen eats more and better than the citizen who is not
well-informed and has greater opportunities, among other things, to obtain
access to better health and education. The problem becomes all the more acute
when, as mentioned earlier, information today has become a phenomenon that is
increasingly dependent on advanced technology and, consequently, the exercise
of the right conferred by the aforementioned Article 19 of the Declaration
really depends on each citizen's greater or lesser opportunity to have access
to technology on an equal footing.
I believe that a matter of such great importance requires special
treatment and attention on the part of our Organization. With that in mind,
it seems most appropriate to suggest that serious and urgent consideration be
given to the inclusion as a central focus of the World Conference on Human
Rights in 1993 the topic of citizens' information. I say "citizens'"
information because I am not referring to that other matter, relating more to
information among nations, which came to be known as the "new international
information order". Rather, I am referring to the citizens' right to
information and to the urgent need to guarantee, in principle and in reality,
equality for mankind with regard to information.
I wish to share with the Assembly my impression that, if we keep up with
history in moving along this road, we will be arming mankind against what
might be the most serious threat to democracy: the new authoritarianism, or,
if you prefer, the great dictatorship of the twenty-first century - the
perverse, systematic, sophisticated, invisible and elusive subjugation of the
citizens to the distorted and monopolistic control of information technology.
Allow me now to devote a few moments of my statement to recent
developments in my country. The curtain has just fallen on a period which is
now gone, perhaps never to return. In my country, the signs of new times are
much more visible than in other regions. Members here have themselves often
expressed that judgment and often urged and encouraged the efforts of my
people, who may now take pride in achievements that have impressed sceptics
and enlightened those whose minds were weighed down by the weary logic of the
past.
Bolivia is a nation at peace, and, collectively and individually, it is
perhaps one of the safest on the continent. It has consolidated its
democratic system and is making concordance the basic instrument of its
political endeavours.
On 9 July, all my country's political parties Government and
opposition, right and left made a solemn commitment to carry forward in the
coming months the basic tasks of modernizing the State and society through
judicial, electoral and educational reforms, reforms in the administrative and
political machinery and, finally, reforms in the Constitution itself.
How encouraging it is to have left behind the Bolivia of factionalism,
one of the nightmares of the twentieth century, and to be entering the
twenty-first century free of those shackles.
We have built, first, financial stability and, then, growth. To do this,
it was necessary to face squarely the need to carry out the in-depth reform
and modernization of the economic system. That reform stands on four
foundations: stimulating competitiveness in the economy and freeing it from
tariff barriers, subsidies and State protection; expanding the scope for
private initiative in order to achieve the broadest citizen participation in
economic growth; stimulating investment, generating employment and extending
the benefits of development to the majority of Bolivians; and transforming the
State into an efficient manager respectful of solidarity, and into the main
party responsible for infrastructure and human development.
In this way, and based on the wisdom and capabilities of its people,
Bolivia has achieved the lowest rates of inflation in South America in the
last three years. At the same time, its growth rate was one of the highest in
the region, and per capita income has grown systematically during my
Administration.
All of this has brought us to a time of happiness and harmony. For the
first time in my country's contemporary history, there are more Bolivians
coming back than leaving, and more money flowing in than flowing out of
Bolivia. Never before has so much been invested in health, education and
basic sanitation, simply because we have never had as much access as we have
today to concessional resources, which are coming to Bolivia thanks to the
international community's confidence in the responsible way in which my
country is being governed. We are building an optimistic Bolivia, a Bolivia
with a future and with international stature.
While Bolivia is a country which reaches the Atlantic through the major
watercourses of the Amazon and the Rio de la Plata, it is by history,
geography and culture a country of the Pacific Ocean. There is no better
place than this forum of peace for me to reiterate that an unjust war deprived
us of the status of a maritime nation, in which our life as a republic began,
and thereby turned Bolivia into a country without a seacoast. The Bolivian
people will never give up its aspiration to the sea and to a sovereign and
useful presence on the Pacific coast. It matters not how much effort and
sacrifice may be required in pursuit of that objective.
To this end, we have laid out a strategy of peace and integration, a
gradual and pragmatic strategy by which an appropriate solution to Bolivia's
landlocked situation can be found that could be generally and mutually
beneficial to the countries of the region. Proof of the soundness and impact
of that strategy is the outcome of the Mariscal de Santa Cruz agreements
signed with Peru on 24 January in the southern city of Ilo. Although not
encompassing the sovereignty to which we aspired, and although not in the
location which historically is rightfully ours, agreement has been reached on
a commercial and industrial duty-free zone and on administration of the port
by Bolivian and Peruvian entrepreneurs. Moreover, a tourism area of
5 kilometres of beach has been granted, and it has already been named
"Boliviamar".
Three years ago I described to the Assembly Bolivia's national strategy
to fight the production of, trafficking in and illicit consumption of
narcotics, a strategy which my Government was then beginning to implement,
asking the international community for its understanding and support. In 1989
there were reasons to fear that drug trafficking might irremediably corrode
the political and institutional system of Bolivia, that it might come to
dominate the economy as a whole and might lead, sooner or later, to escalating
violence. Although at that time there were doubts as to Bolivia's ability to
carry out the plan, today I can say categorically that cocaine traffic has
ceased to be a strategic risk for Bolivia.
Bolivia is proof that the struggle against drug trafficking not only is
possible but can also be successful. Against the temptation to yield to
discouragement and pessimism, Bolivia stands out as a symbol, as a banner of
hope and optimism. We have systematically reduced the areas devoted to coca
growing; we have reduced the production of paste and cocaine hydrochloride; we
have taken firm action in the selection of specialized personnel, following
criteria of efficiency and honesty; and we have broken up the main networks of
drug trafficking in Bolivia by means of a decree-law known as the "Repentance
Decree", as a result of which the leaders of these organizations are now in my
country's jails.
All this was possible because we managed to avoid the imposition from
outside of concepts and plans ill-suited to our national reality. On the
contrary, we forged ahead with a peaceful struggle, ruling out the
militarization of the struggle and spared the country from the confrontation
and violence which had occurred elsewhere. In the light of this unquestionably
positive picture, Bolivia asks the international community to redouble its
efforts to reduce consumption, to control chemical precursors and to increase
quantitatively and qualitatively the resources allocated to improved
functioning of alternative development mechanisms, Bolivia's substantive
contribution to the body of knowledge on this topic.
Above all, we ask most earnestly that the coca leaf not be confused with
cocaine: the coca leaf is a good thing and is an expression of an age-old
cultural tradition originating in the Andes; cocaine, by contrast, is foreign,
alien, and came from outside.
From this rostrum, I pay a tribute to all the Bolivians who made possible
the enormous advances we have achieved in this fight against one of the
cruelest and most pernicious forms of corruption in contemporary society. I
wish to express my special thanks to the self-sacrificing workers and farmers
of my country.
Tomorrow, at the offices of the Interamerican Development Bank in
Washington, intergovernmental meetings will begin with a view to defining the
composition of the governing board of the Development Fund for Indigenous
Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, created on the initiative of the
Ibero-American countries meeting at the Guadalajara and Madrid summits.
Bolivia, a country of original indigenous stock, like so many others of
our continent, asks the international community to support this programme,
which is vital for the lives of many men and women, especially as we prepare
to celebrate 1993 as the International Year for the World's Indigenous People
with the theme of "Indigenous people a new partnership".
This is the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly. But for the
peoples of the Americas, and in particular the Ibero-American peoples, this
session marks the quincentennial of 1492. It is therefore a psychological
reality for us that one chapter of history is drawing to a close and another
is opening, one in which mankind will continue its tireless search,
discovering and building new worlds.
That is why Bolivia, a peaceful country of the South, which is
experiencing the profound challenges of development, is also concerned about
the fate of the industrialized North, where, following the natural euphoria
after the end of the cold war and the victory of democracy, there have been
worrying signs of uncertainty, lack of confidence and pessimism. I say I am
concerned about the North because, in contrast with the past, we are now all
living in one global political ecosystem, where threats, risks, victories and
failures have repercussions for us all.
For its part, Bolivia is prepared, together with other countries, to run
the shared risk of building a new and better world. In that endeavour, there
is only one requirement: that no one ignore anyone else.