I would
particularly like to congratulate the President of
the General Assembly and his country Antigua and
Barbuda, a member of the Group of Latin American
and Caribbean States and the Community of Latin
American and Caribbean States. It is an honour for all
Latin Americans that he is presiding over the General
Assembly at its sixty-eighth session.
I would like to begin by expressing our solidarity
with the victims of the attacks in Kenya and Pakistan,
and generally to all the victims of the terrorist attacks
occurring in various parts of the world. I say this not
out of formal sympathy or for reasons of protocol, but
because our country, Argentina, along with the United
States of America, is the only one on the American
continent to have suffered a terrorist attack — in
our case, on two occasions: in 1992, when the Israeli
Embassy in the city of Buenos Aires was blown up,
and two years later, when the Jewish community centre
AMIA in Argentina was bombed. Some of the relatives
of the victims are here with us, as always, and I can see
them from here. Clearly, we are talking about victims.
These were not soldiers or fighters. They were people
who were getting on a bus, perhaps entering a bar or
going to work, and who were surprised by an explosion.
They had not taken part in any war; they were not
combatants or soldiers; they had not chosen to go
and fight. So I am thinking of those victims and their
families, who deserve our solidarity and the strongest
possible condemnation of all forms of terrorism.
In the context of this sixty-eighth session of the
Assembly, we see the Syrian question as a common
thread. Almost in a premonition, only a short while
ago I was here at the United Nations, presiding over a
meeting of the Security Council, of which Argentina is
a non-permanent member for 2013-2014. On 6 August,
just about a month and a half ago, we proposed a
measure to reform the Security Council. We stated
that the functioning and the rationale of the Council
actually reflected another era, that of the Cold War,
when fear of nuclear holocaust had led to the creation of
the Organization, uniting the forces that had defeated
Nazi Germany, and then produced a bipolar world. That
fear of nuclear war resulted in a system with veto power
so that no one would be able to push a button and blow
up the world. The fact is that that instrument, which
worked in 1945, has now been shown to be dysfunctional
and completely obsolete — and not only as regards the
Syrian question, but also when it comes to dealing with
issues affecting peace and security around the world.
Incidentally, I would like to express my appreciation
for the fact that for the first time we have been given
the opportunity to speak at such a late hour of the day,
because it has somewhat interrupted the inertia of the
course of the meeting. There are times when we come
to these meetings with a format, almost a monologue,
that makes it difficult to present arguments or counter-
arguments that take into account the statements made
by previous speakers. I have listened very carefully
to almost all of the addresses given earlier today.
Obviously, I paid particular attention to those that touch
on the global decision-making system, and, of course,
because I am a staunch supporter of multilateralism, I
paid a lot of attention to the first address, by Secretary-
General Ban Ki-moon.
In many of those statements I heard mention of
21 August. On 6 August, we spoke of the need for
Security Council reform and of the fact that the right
of veto is no longer necessary. There should be a
system — such as those used by regional organizations
of the Americas, such as the Union of South American
Nations, Community of Latin American and Caribbean
States or the Southern Common Market and its
associated States — in which decisions are taken by
consensus. Why is that? Governmental administration
is different, as the power of veto is necessary in order
to govern. When dealing with conflict resolution
and management, if one party to the conflict, or
an interested party, has the right of veto, that right
necessarily becomes an obstacle to the resolution of
the conflict. We did not know what would occur 15 or
16 days later. Many have noted that the crisis in Syria
erupted on 21 August.
In fact, it is extremely difficult to understand
that the current crisis in Syria was only recognized
on 21 August, when we became aware of chemical
weapons. Syria has been caught up in that conflict for
over two and a half years. Over 150,000 people have
lost their lives and 99 per cent of them died as a result
of conventional weapons — not chemical weapons. I
remember that at the last meeting of the Group of Twenty
(G-20), during a discussion about Syria, I asked, “What
is the difference between a death resulting from bullets,
anti-personnel mines, missiles or hand grenades, and a
death resulting from chemical weapons?” Each is more
or less equally shocking. As it is not the first time,
why is there talk of chemical weapons as if it were the
first time that chemical weapons or weapons of mass
destruction have been used?
I recall a statement made by another leader
today with reference to the terrible gas chambers of
the Nazis, the gas in the trenches and the chemical
weapons used in other instances. I also remember
hearing about and reading about — as I had not yet
been born — the nuclear holocaust in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and the consequences of using those weapons
on many generations of Japanese people.
I remember when I was much younger — the
President of Uruguay also recalled the time of his
youth, I was less than 20 years of age, and many others
will probably also remember — when napalm and
phosphorous were used during the Viet Nam War. That
was recorded forever in the Pulitzer prize-winning
photographs of naked boys and a naked girl. I remember,
as if it were today, that naked young girl running down
a road after having been hit by napalm in a bombing.
I also remember, in all fairness, the suffering of the
people of the United States when they saw the doors of
the planes open and they saw the corpses of the soldiers
who had gone to fight being removed, wrapped in black
plastic bags. I can imagine the pain of each girlfriend,
each sister, each wife, each daughter of the soldier
who had died, trying to understand why. Many did not
understand why the soldiers had had to lose their lives
many thousands of kilometres away from their country.
It is so irrational, so unjust. There are no just wars.
Only peace is just.
On 6 August, in the discussions on the issue of peace
and security, it was stated that peace and security are not
military concepts; rather, they are political concepts.
Today, I was pleased to hear the Secretary-General
mention that very concept, which we had referred to
in the Security Council — namely, that peace and
security are not military but rather political concepts.
Therefore, we welcome the fact that an agreement has
been reached on the question of Syria. My country
opposed direct intervention — bombing. It was quite
simple. The argument that, in order to avoid deaths, you
would cause even more deaths could not be sustained
by any reasoning or even common sense. We did not
speak out at that time only to speak. Furthermore, we
were not discussing just any country, but one with great
respect for the norms of international law.
My country, Argentina, has signed the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), making
Argentina one of the most advanced countries — if not
the most advanced country — in developing nuclear
power for peaceful and scientific purposes. We sell
nuclear power generators to Egypt, Algeria and
Australia. We also use nuclear energy for medical
purposes. We do not condemn the use of nuclear energy
for warfare while at the same time deploying nuclear
submarines. That has been our experience, for example,
in connection with the sovereignty dispute involving
our Malvinas Islands, since the United Kingdom has
militarized the southern Atlantic region and sent nuclear
submarines. We have no double standards. We are not
hypocritical. We have not only signed the NPT but are
also parties to the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court (ICC), as was also mentioned by the
Secretary-General in his statement.
In other words, when we speak of condemning
dictators, we are actually parties to the Rome Statute and
can be brought before the Court. We are also members
of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
in Washington, D.C. It is curious that many who speak
of respect for human rights, the relevant institutions,
international law and the ICC and often refer to human
rights have not signed the treaties on the subject.
If one is to speak of human rights, Argentina
has accomplished a great deal. We were a founding
Member of the Organization and promoted the creation
of a human rights secretariat within the United Nations
and the International Convention for the Protection of
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. I am joined
here by the head of the Asociación Madres de Plaza de
Mayo. She was also with me in Paris to sign the treaty,
of which we are a founding party.
I referred to human rights because there was
something said today about human rights in another
speech. It has been said here that if this is the world
in which people want to live, then they should say so
and be prepared to face the cold logic of mass graves.
Argentina too can speak of mass graves. Even today,
well into the twenty-first century, we continue to
come upon mass graves that hold the remains of the
thousands of prisoners and those who disappeared
under the genocidal dictatorship that began 24 March
1976, which was similar to the one that took power
on 11 September 1973 in our sister republic of Chile,
overthrowing the democratically elected Government
of Salvador Allende.
How wonderful it would have been, after all the
speeches condemning genocidal dictators, if someone
back then had come to the aid of the Argentine and
Chilean and so many other peoples of the American
continent who, in the midst of the Cold War, were the
sacrificial victims of murderous dictators. But it was
also said here that, if those who cared about human
rights were moved to act on someone’s behalf, perhaps
if that concern had at least coincided with the interests
of some great Power, they would have acted differently.
We have spoken of those things here, including the
need to put an end to that double standard, and we have
said that the resolutions and decisions of a multilateral
organization such as the United Nations must take place
on a level playing field for the weak and the strong, the
small and the large.
We have been waiting since 1965, when the
plenary and many resolutions of the Assembly and
the Committee on Decolonization required both
Argentina and the United Kingdom to sit down to
hold a dialogue — another word that I have repeatedly
heard in every speech. There is a dispute over the
matter of sovereignty over the Malvinas, and yet,the
United Kingdom has turned a cold shoulder. And so
we continue with double standards, which some people
do not like to hear mention of. But hypocrisies are like
witches; evidently, they exist.
I have also heard — I should add that I have heard
with pleasure, so not everything has to do with double
standards — that there has at last been recognition, as
an essential basis for beginning to untie the Gordian
knot that the matter of the Middle East represents, of
the need to recognize the State of Palestine and the
right of the State of Israel to live securely within its
borders. Moreover, I think it has quite rightly been said
that it is impossible to achieve security for the State of
Israel unless there is also recognition of the existence,
and support for the viability of the physical existence
of, the State of Palestine. We can do no less than agree
on that characterization.
I have also heard the new President of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, and I have heard the comments that
the great Powers have made about that change of
Government. If I understood correctly, there appears
to be a kind of new expectation of change in the face
of the new authorities in the Republic of Iran, with
which, as the Assembly knows, we have a disagreement
that stems from — a cause of mine — a formal case
by the Argentine judiciary against five Iranian citizens
in connection with their participation in the bombing
of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina. It has
now been 10 years since, for the first time, on 25 May
2003, then President Néstor Kirchner called in this
same Hall for the Islamic Republic of Iran to cooperate
in clarifying the facts of that case. Year after year
until 2007, he continued to do so, and from 2007 until
today I myself have also continued to do so. A little
over a year ago, we received a reply from the then
Foreign Minister of Iran offering to initiate talks and
reach an agreement on cooperation. Why? For a very
simple reason. Because the case has been stalled for
19 years. Nothing has moved. If there are five Iranian
accused, the only one with whom I can and must speak
so that the judge can take a deposition from those five
citizens is obviously the Republic of Iran. That seems
very obvious, but often in this peculiar world, even in
my own country, which is also a bit peculiar, obvious
things have to be explained.
I have also heard today about imperfect choices.
I liked that expression, which was used by one of
the Presidents. I think that when Argentina spends
10 years asking for cooperation and then suddenly
someone finally says “Fine, we are going to talk; we
are going to cooperate”, there was no other possible
choice except to sit down together. That issue used was
internally in our country to attack us politically, and
here too in the United States by the vulture funds to pit
us against the United States Congress and say that we
were reaching an agreement, a treaty, with Iran. But
on what? Nuclear weapons? No. On a strategic alliance
to attack the West? No. On an agreement to convert to
Islam? No. The agreement was simply to unblock the
procedural impasse in order for the Argentine judiciary
to take depositions from the accused, while at the same
time ensuring due process through a commission of
international jurists who would be neither Iranian nor
Argentine and whose actions would not be binding.
The treaty was approved in my country nine months
ago. I could almost say that the baby is about to be
born, if I were to put it in biological terms or in terms
of childbirth. It was approved by all the appropriate
organisms, including the Parliament. It was published
in the official bulletin. The world knows that Argentina
has duly complied with that treaty. To those who found
it so convenient for Iran — after nine years with no
news or notification or agreement from the Iranian
authorities, I wonder if we were not right ourselves
when we affirmed and said that it was a way to unblock
the issue.
The fact is that there is now a new Government to
whose speeches I listened attentively, and a President
who declared in statements I read that he in no way
denied the Holocaust. That is very important. At least
it is important to me and to many citizens around
the world. Even today, he specifically declared that
through the recent election, by displacing a leader
whose positions we have all heard, so there is no point
in repeating them, Iranian society had proved that it
wanted more moderate positions. We have heard, from
this very rostrum and these very microphones, that there
is a will to agree, to talk, to be an open and peaceful
democratic society, and to act in goodwill.
The President of France referred to the nuclear
case as the important matter pertaining to Iran; I
would like to speak about the issue of the Asociación
Mutual Israelita Argentina as the other major issue.
They said they would make gestures by opening up to
negotiations, and that they did not want weapons for
military use. In other words, as I understood it, they
were saying that they would adhere to what we support,
which is non-proliferation. Now we wait to be told if
the agreement has been approved, or when it will be.
Moreover, we await the announcement of the date for
the establishment of the commission, as well as a date
for the Argentine judge to travel to Tehran — yes, to
Tehran; we are not afraid and we will go there.
We believe in the goodwill of people, and there is
no reason for us not to believe that they actually want
peace. Everyone who has spoken here has said they
wanted peace and that they loved one another, so we
believe everyone. But we also hope to see everyone
acting consistent with their words and actions. I
therefore wanted to put this specific question on the
table. I have no doubt that, if the words we have heard
here are true, we will see a positive response. I say that
to avoid any misunderstanding as to our deep conviction
and belief in the rules of international law, and also
to make it clear that our patience does not mean that
we are naive or even foolish. We think that more than
enough time has gone by, and we think answers are now
needed. The victims deserve this. The Islamic Republic
of Iran deserves that too, if it really wants to show to
the world that this is a different Government and that
its actions are also different. I trust that this will be the
case. I have no reason to think otherwise.
As for other matters that I wish to discuss, let me
say that we are “serial abiders” when it comes to the
norms of international law. We are also “serial victims”
of other unwritten rules that are nevertheless very
important in today’s world of finance and economics.
They are norms not written by the major international
financial centres or the risk-rating agencies or those
that speculate, like the vulture funds, when it comes to
dealing with countries that, like Argentina, defaulted
on their debt, in the case of Argentina in 2001.
There has also been talk here of poverty and the
need for children to have access to education. I wish to
read out two paragraphs of the address by the Secretary-
General. The first has to do with weapons, wherein he
speaks about poverty and points out that
“at a time of pressing human need, spending on
weapons remains absurdly high. Let us get our
priorities right and invest in people instead of
wasting billions of dollars on deadly weapons.”
(A/68/PV.5, p. 3)
For the record, Argentina does not produce any
chemical weapons, or even sell conventional weapons.
It would be interesting to find out — as I mentioned
at the G-20 — who supplies weapons to the rebel
groups that are fighting the Syrian Government. It goes
without saying that the Government of Syria possesses
the weapons of a State. We would like to know who
supplies the weapons to those who fight the Syrian
Government. This is not about taking any sides; rather
it is just about putting forward something that is quite
logical, for the weapons trade is today a real business.
Did we really have to wait for 1,000 people to die
as a result of chemical weapons to realize that 150,000
others had died before them? Why was an arms
embargo not declared two years ago to prevent so many
deaths? Well, that should be answered by those who sell
weapons. We do not sell them and therefore cannot give
an answer to that question — although we suspect what
it would be.
I would also like to read out another very significant
passage in which the Secretary-General talked about
the economic situation. Although the question of Syria
has been the common thread running through the
whole Assembly, it is clear that the economic crisis that
started here in the United States with the bankruptcy of
Lehman Brothers in 2008 still, despite all speeches and
things we have seen and heard, continues to generate
volatility and fragility. The latter is a term that was
often invoked, and not just in the G-20.
We see millions of people unemployed around the
world, a situation that very much reminds us of that in
Argentina in 2001 when we defaulted on our own debt.
This is linked to the fact that we are also serial victims
of the unwritten rules of the lobbyists, of risk-rating
agencies and of those who trade in financial derivatives
and speculate like vultures hovering over countries in
default, buying securities at very low prices and then
attempting to make millions. That is the Argentine
case, but it could be the story of any other country, very
soon in fact.
Since the Government of former President Néstor
Kirchner first took office, on 25 May 2003, Argentina
began to explore how to emerge from its debt, which
accounted for 160 per cent of our country’s gross
national product. We had 25 per cent unemployment,
a poverty rate of 54 per cent and more than 30 per cent
in extreme poverty. Many countries could perhaps see
themselves mirrored in that state of affairs.
In 2005 we organized the first restructuring process,
which was accepted by 76 per cent of our creditors.
During my own Government in 2010 we reopened the
debt-restructuring process and managed to secure the
approval of 93 per cent of our creditors. Consider that, in
any country that has insolvency laws, when companies
go bankrupt the law requires the agreement of at least
66 per cent of the creditors in order for the bankruptcy
judge to make the remaining creditors accept the
terms — at least, that is the case in Argentina. I think
the number is the same in the United States, that is,
66 per cent. In addition, here in the United States even
municipalities can declare bankruptcy, and a judge may
decide that, if the sustainability of the municipality is at
stake, an even lower figure is acceptable.
The fact remains that in 2010 Argentina reached
agreement with 93 per cent of its creditors. Since 2005,
Argentina has consistently and in a timely manner paid
each and every one of its debt maturities, so much so
that the last payment was made only a few days ago.
That involved a bond subject to Argentine domestic
law, payable in Buenos Aires. We paid $2.07 billion,
and today our debt to gross domestic product ratio is
a little under 45 per cent, down from 160 per cent, as I
mentioned before. Much of the debt is actually public-
sector debt. The foreign-currency-denominated debt of
Argentina is only 8 per cent of gross domestic product,
due both to national and foreign private holders. I
would reiterate, however, that we have been in strict
compliance.
In 2008, seven years after Argentina defaulted
on its debt, the vulture funds, as we call them,
swooped in. The United Nations is caught between the
vultures of debt and the hawks of war. It is worse than
Hitchcock’s The Birds, since Hitchcock, at least, was
a good director. But what is certain is that bonds were
purchased for $40 million, and they now wish to collect
on that while disregarding the creditors’ agreement to
certain arrangements and extensions. The creditors,
like any group of creditors, wanted to be repaid and
so approved certain arrangements and extensions. But
the vulture funds want to recover the whole nominal
value of the bonds, without arrangements, extensions or
delay. From the $40 million that they initially bought in
the so-called self-regulated markets, they will recover
$1.7 billion. So from 2008, we are talking about a yield
of over 1,300 per cent.
I would like to ask the Secretary-General where
we can find businesspeople devoted to creating jobs,
innovating and investing in production if, in this kind
of casino economy, somebody can buy $40 million in
defaulted bonds and then secure a court decision that
enables them to collect $1.3 or $1.7 billion.
This is not only an Argentinian problem; this is a
problem that involves the whole world. This is why we
wish to thank the Republic of France for having gone
to the United States Supreme Court and presented itself
as amicus curiae. We also thank the former head of the
International Monetary Fund, Anne Krueger. She is not
and has never been a very good friend of Argentina’s,
but she also did that.
We also remember the former United States
Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neill, who, when it
was decided to leave Argentina to its own devices in
2001, amidst a social and institutional crisis that left
30 people dead as a result of violence in the streets,
said that American plumbers should not have to pay
for an Argentine fiesta. Today, I say that the millions
of Argentines who went back to work, the millions of
Argentines who can once again entertain hopes and
dreams, the scientists who returned to the country and
the children who once again have access to education
do not have to pay for the lobbyists’ fiesta. These
lobbyists, by participating in political campaigns and
contributing money to the politicians’ campaigns here,
have the lobbying power they need to destabilize the
international financial system. Is that not remarkable?
And such a short time has elapsed between Paul
O’Neill’s assertion and what we are saying today.
We are not asking for anything. We just want to
be allowed to pay. It is remarkable. We started by
defaulting on our debt and now they will not let us
pay it back. It seems almost absurd, in a world that is
grappling with debt restructuring involving millions of
men and women. Even here in the United States, there
are men and women who are unemployed and have lost
their homes, not to speak of the devastation we see in
Europe.
Obviously, Argentina and many of the countries
represented here today do not have the good fortune
of being countries that issue reserve currencies, but
we have expressed our willingness to honour our
commitments. I think this should be recognized,
unless the idea is to use a country like Argentina as an
example, because it was able to climb out of the hole, to
create jobs and generate growth, and to pay its creditors
without applying the prescriptions that the International
Monetary Fund tried to impose upon it.
Incidentally, there is also a need for global market
regulation and market interventions. Wonderful
statements have been made in the Group of 20 regarding
tax havens, ratings agencies and capital flows, but what
is certain is that the world needs global laws for global
governance. Just as we ask for Security Council and
General Assembly resolutions to be respected, we also
ask for rules and for respect for the sovereignty of
countries, especially those countries like ours that wish
to honour their commitments.
Finally, I would like to address the Assembly on
this very special day. Today we see war, human rights
violations and other violations intertwined. Perhaps
some are of a more subtle nature, such as losing one’s
job, one’s rights, one’s livelihood or one’s hope. I think,
at the core, our duty as world leaders is to build a truly
different history.
Many of those who have already spoken have made
somewhat ambivalent statements. Some have been
encouraging, while others have been disillusioned as a
result of not having been able to do what they wanted,
almost as if their desire to do something had just been
a whim, and when they were not allowed to, they grew
frustrated. I believe that the one thing we cannot do
when we have the responsibility of governing and
when we might be able to govern a country with a lot
of power is to lose our temper or, even worse, make
mistakes. Making mistakes is the one thing we should
not do, because mistakes are not paid for by the leaders
who make decisions or imperfect choices. Mistakes are
paid for in human lives, not only if we are talking about
war, but also if we are talking about the economy. In
that case, they are paid for in terms of unemployment,
lack of access to health care, education, housing and
security.
There is cheap labour available for drug trafficking,
which we talk so much about fighting. One of the keys
to fighting drug trafficking is to put an end to cheap
labour in emerging and underdeveloped countries. We
must also put an end to money-laundering for drug
trafficking in central countries, because the money
is not laundered in the countries that produce the raw
materials. Money-laundering takes place in the central
countries. It is right to say this, because we hear so
much talk about drug trafficking and other things.
I would conclude with a phrase by the Secretary-
General that I really liked. I thought his invitation was
most appropriate. It was specifically an invitation to
turn hope into action through hard work, commitment,
dignity and integrity. He ended with the words “with
passion”. I am a person with a lot of passion. Some say
that I am sometimes a bit too passionate and a bit too
forceful in my statements. “With passion”, he said, but
above all with compassion. He said that we can build
a future that the people want and the world needs with
passion and compassion.
It is not the first time I have heard this word. I must
confess that I heard it many years ago, and very often,
in my own country. Perhaps I did not understand it at
the time, this passion. It was used then, and is still used
today, by a cardinal from Argentina who is today Pope
and whom I would also like, as a Christian, to thank
for the key role he played in dealing with the question
of Syria. Compassion and passion — that means the
passionate embrace of hope, of the future, of the things
that are yet to come, and compassion for those who are
less privileged, for the most vulnerable, for those who
are waiting for so many things, who have done nothing
to deserve extreme poverty and be Godforsaken, and
compassion for all those who are victims — of war, of
unemployment, of extreme poverty and misery — in
other words, of our own failures as world leaders.