This is the first time I have participated in the general
debate since the declaration of the Plurinational State
of Bolivia and my fifth as President — since I took on
enormous responsibilities towards my people, acting
through social movements.
I would like to quickly say that in four and a half
years in government, we have begun to bring profound
structural and social change to Bolivia. Fortunately,
two weeks ago, the United Nations recognized that
extreme poverty had decreased from 41 to 32 per cent.
In four and a half years, our small country of
10 million inhabitants has seen its national reserves
grow from $1.7 billion to $9 billion. The rate of
economic growth is currently 5 per cent, while before I
arrived it was barely 3 per cent.
There has been a democratization of the national
economy, with grants and subsidies that have allowed
for the improvement of the economic situation of the
poorest and most abandoned — in particular those of
the rural and indigenous movement, but also our
brothers and sisters the workers, and our brothers and
sisters from the barrios of Bolivia’s big cities.
However, the improvement of our economy has
basically come with the recovery of our oil and gas
reserves, and with the nationalization of these natural
resources. Let me say that earlier, and unfortunately,
under instructions from the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), our natural resources were privatized.
Moreover, the IMF contracts stated that the owner, the
transnational oil company, would have the rights from
the wellhead. The Fund Governors were telling us that
as long as the oil or gas was underground, it belonged
to the Bolivian State and the Bolivian people, but that
once it was taken out and reached the wellhead, it was
the property of the transnationals. From these
mega-fields the oil transnationals received 82 per cent
of the gas and oil revenue, while the Bolivian people
were left with only 18 per cent.
It is a matter of responsibility. Countries that
invest have the right to recover their investment and
they have the right to make profits, but not 82 per cent
of all of the profits from our oil and gas resources. On
1 May 2006, the Government decreed, first, that the
State would take control of all oil fields. We
nationalized them. Secondly, so that the investing
company, seeking to recover their investment, could do
so and make a profit. We looked at the numbers
35 10-54833
carefully in order to ensure that the company would not
be harmed. Our data showed that with 18 per cent of
the profit, they would recover their investment and
they would even have access to profits.
What I did with our supreme decree, after taking
total State control of gas and oil, was to ensure that the
State, the Bolivian people, received 82 per cent of the
profits and the investing oil company, 18 per cent.
These companies continue to be present in our country
and continue to invest in Bolivia. We had discovered
that there was an ongoing sacking of our natural
resources and this alone has brought changes to our
economy. For example, since 1940, Bolivia had never
had a budget surplus, only deficits. But once we had
nationalized oil and gas, in 2006, the first year of my
administration, we had a surplus. With this surplus, we
were able to provide grants and subsidies for some of
the most vulnerable sectors of the population, namely,
young people and the elderly.
In February 2003, when I was a union leader and
National Deputy, the International Monetary Fund
instructed the then Government to institute an income
tax or to increase fuel prices in order to decrease the
budget deficit — not to eliminate it, but to decrease it.
The Government decided to institute an income tax.
There was an uprising by those affected by this tax,
and in two days of confrontation there were 15 dead.
I would like to say from here at the United
Nations to the world and to the Bolivian people that,
without income taxes and without increasing fuel
prices, we had a surplus in the first year of our
administration. It was so important to have recovered
our natural resources and to have recovered our
companies providing basic services.
Sooner or later the International Monetary Fund
has to redress the damage it has done to Bolivia and to
Latin America. But it appears that the International
Monetary Fund, under the pretext of structural
adjustment, is continuing to impose policies on some
countries — policies of pillaging natural resources. It
did us great harm. I am demanding officially that the
International Monetary Fund pay for the economic
damage and the damage to human beings that resulted
from these impositions which, in Bolivia, resulted in
death, injury and hunger. So I am very pleased that we have begun to
change Bolivia. Of course, it is impossible to meet all
the demands that our indigenous brethren have been
making for 500 years, or that other brethren or regions
have been making for hundreds of years — or indeed
the demands which have arisen from 20 years of
neoliberal Government in our country.
We are living in times of deep and sweeping
changes. We have an enormous responsibility to future
generations. The fate of Planet Earth depends on what
we do or do not do.
We know ourselves. We have many ideological
differences. We have many differences in our
programmes, our cultures and our societies. We have
many differences from one continent to another. The
economic asymmetries are profound. But despite these
differences we at the United Nations must work
together, united. Why united? We must be united so
that human rights will be well and truly protected
around the world. I come here to propose an alliance of
all presidents and Governments so that we can save
humankind and save Planet Earth — or save
humankind by saving Planet Earth.
There are four main objectives, the first being the
protection of human rights. I commend the many
Governments that last week adopted a proposal from
the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia
that water be recognized as a human right. Next will be
energy and after that communication. We must move
forward and respond to the needs of the most
vulnerable — the poor, the disenfranchised, the
migrants. All basic services in Bolivia are a human
right under the Constitution. And we are currently
translating that concept into practice, so that all these
basic services will truly be a human right. That is why
I think it important to have an alliance now, in this new
millennium, to see that human rights are guaranteed for
all.
I should also like to say that it is indefensible in
the twenty-first century to continue to persecute and
expel migrants — whether they are migrants because
of economic problems or because of climate change or
a natural disaster. I would like to take this opportunity
to say that I learned from the media that President
Obama is rejecting the Arizona law. We must recognize
the need to put an end to policies — wherever they
originate, including the return policies of Europe —
that have the effect of expelling migrants. When our
10-54833 36
ancestors migrated because of war or famine from
Europe to Latin America there was no expulsion of
migrants. Those European migrants took over
thousands of hectares and pillaged natural resources,
and no one said anything. But now that our brothers
and sisters, driven by lack of work, emigrate in search
of jobs in the United States or Europe, they suffer
persecution, discrimination and expulsion. This has to
stop. Our alliance must also examine the fate of these
brothers and sisters.
I have also heard it said that walls or fences are
being built in, for example, Mexico and Palestine. As
far as I know, fences are only built to keep in cattle,
sheep and cows. We cannot confuse human beings with
animals and build fences to keep them in. It makes no
sense. But I also want to say: how can we prevent
human beings from going from one continent to
another? We have heard much opinion in this debate on
the subject of free-market policies. Are commodities to
circulate freely around the world but not human
beings? What type of discriminatory policies do we
have? Those walls of shame must disappear. I listened
carefully to the address by the Secretary-General. He
wants the United Nations to be strong in the interests
of good governance. I share that opinion but believe
that we can only achieve this when we resolve the
problems of the world’s most defenceless people, who
are migrants in this case. And that is why it is
important for us to be rid of these walls.
But there is something else that is unthinkable in
the twenty-first century: the economic blockade of
Cuba. Everyone calls for the lifting of this embargo,
imposed because Cuba was a Communist or socialist
country. I want you to know that I too preside over a
Government that is anti-capitalist, which, I think, is
why the United States Department of State tries to
marginalize and exclude us. That is not a solution.
People will continue to rebel against systems and
economic models that do not resolve the problems of
the majority in all our countries. I respectfully ask
President Obama to put an end to the economic
blockade of Cuba and the economic blockade of the
Gaza Strip in Palestine. If the United States is — and
we all know this to be the case — the supreme world
Power, it has the authority to end this injustice and this
violation of the human rights of millions around the
world.
The second objective of this alliance of
Governments to save humanity is its most important
responsibility: determining how to save Mother Earth.
What concerns me greatly is that some countries,
instead of conserving Nature, are looking at how to
make a business out of climate change, putting a price
on Nature. We must not privatize our forests; we must
not sell carbon bonds as if the forest’s only role were to
absorb carbon dioxide. Any country that does so is
making a grave mistake.
I want to share something from our culture and
our experience in the indigenous world. We indigenous
peoples live in harmony with Mother Earth, in
harmony with Nature. Why do we live in harmony with
Nature? We came from the Earth, we live on the Earth
and to earth we will return. The Earth, Planet Earth,
Nature, “Pachamama”, Mother Earth — this is our
home, this is our mother. The Earth gives us life: water,
natural resources, the abundance of Nature. How can
we turn Mother Nature into a business?
Because of the discussion I have with social
movements around the world, particularly with
indigenous movements, I am convinced that the planet
can exist without human beings, but human beings
cannot exist without the planet. As human beings have
rights, like the right to life, so too does the planet,
Mother Nature, have the right to life. Just as we human
beings reproduce, biodiversity has a right to
regenerate. For these and many other reasons besides,
we have the obligation to save Planet Earth.
Within that context, our proposal is quite simple.
Here at the United Nations we must develop a project
to protect the rights of Mother Earth. This morning
President Obama referred to the adoption in 1948 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the
United Nations. That was 62 years ago; before that we
did not have rights. Later civil, economic and political
rights were adopted. Three years ago the rights of
indigenous peoples were adopted here. Now in this
millennium we should adopt the rights of Mother
Earth. And if we do not do this, we will be responsible
for a world disaster.
To take an example: in a plane some people travel
in first class, others in business class, while the
majority travel in coach, economy class. If the plane
crashes, no one survives — neither the first-class
passenger nor the economy-class passenger. Is that
what we want? It will be the same if we do not save
Mother Earth. The transnational company with lots of
money, the millionaire — all of us will be equally
37 10-54833
affected by the environmental problems that come with
climate change.
That is why I want to tell you how important it is
that we prepare for Cancún, where we will have a great
opportunity. I will propose there that we have an
alliance of all the presidents and heads of government
of the world, headed by the Secretary-General of the
United Nations. What will the alliance be for? So that
together we can determine how to cool the planet. We
are talking about global warming. How can we cool the
planet? We, as peoples and Governments, are
responsible for humankind. The people, at a summit in
Cochabamba, Bolivia, said that we must stabilize the
temperature increase at 1 degree Celsius. The
developed countries, which are primarily responsible
for global warming, must commit to reducing their
greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent during the
second period of the Kyoto Protocol. Let us assume our
responsibilities to cool Planet Earth.
I would like to discuss the serious situation in
which my country finds itself. We sometimes buy drills
to deal with droughts, and yet even by drilling we
cannot find water. And if we do find it, it is buried ever
deeper and occurs in ever-smaller quantities. Soon,
despite all our drilling to obtain water, we will not find
it. So what use will the drills be then? Our mountains
are losing their snow fields. This is extremely serious. I
therefore find it extremely important that we stabilize
the temperature increase at 1 degree Celsius, as the
people of the world have said.
The third objective, so frequently mentioned in
statements, is peace. We are all fighting for peace. We
are all fighting for freedom, but the basis of freedom is
equality and justice for all peoples. There will not be
peace without social justice. Moreover, peace is not
made with military bases; peace is not ensured by
military interventions undertaken on the pretext of
fighting against drug trafficking and terrorism but
really aimed at developing geopolitical interests —
aims I do not share. Yes, we must combat drug
trafficking. The best way to do so, I would say, is to
put an end to banking secrecy. It is not right that the
United States Government should decertify countries
that are not following the capitalist line. The Bolivian
Government is making an effort to reduce coca crops.
But while the major cocaine-producing countries are
certified, the country that makes a real effort against
drug trafficking, a small country, is decertified.
These are, of course, political decisions, and that
is why I draw the conclusion that anti-imperialist,
anti-capitalist countries will never be certified by the
United States Government. In the end, this does not
concern or affect my Government. We are convinced
that there will be this type of scare tactic, harassment
and intimidation. That has always existed. But there
are contradictions here as well. The United Nations
tells us that coca cultivation has increased by 1 per
cent, while the United States Department of State says
that coca crops have increased by 9.4 per cent. Whom
are we to believe — the United States or the United
Nations? Imagine the spin that is put on this to penalize
a Government or a country. The reports recognize the
strong efforts undertaken by the national Government
in the fight against drug trafficking. For example, dried
coca is down to 43,000 tons from 43,500. But even this
effort is not recognized, which is why we are
convinced that this is clearly a political problem.
I believe that it is important to put an end to the
acts of aggression, to the interventions in such
countries as Afghanistan and Iraq, and to the threats to
Iran. Let us put an end to the entire nuclear arsenal,
because the nuclear arsenal is a threat to life. Let us
begin with the United States and then continue with all
the other countries. And this is not merely an attempt
to punish a country that may wish to implement other
policies. Instead of spending so much money allegedly
on defence and security, in the end it is for war. If we
are responsible to humankind, we must change
everyone’s mindset.
The last objective of this alliance would be to
work together to strengthen the United Nations, but we
also have to begin to democratize the United Nations.
This is a very difficult task, of course. We have heard
statements made by heads of government and by
presidents. Some anti-capitalist presidents are accused
of being authoritarian or totalitarian, of being dictators.
Delegations know, and the world knows, how a coup
d’état in a country such as Honduras can be ensured
here. This morning President Obama talked about
working with countries that fight against poverty. In
Bolivia we have greatly reduced poverty, and yet
investments are cut. He has said that he will work with
democratic Governments. In Bolivia, in five years I
have won two referendums and three elections, all with
more than 50 or 60 per cent of the vote. Where is the
dictatorship? Where is the authoritarianism? The
authoritarianism is here at the United Nations. Some
10-54833 38
Governments, some countries have permanent seats
with the right to veto. That is authoritarianism, and that
is why we must begin to democratize the United
Nations if we want to move ahead with a democratic
mindset or focus. We must start by practising
democracy here. But, above all, I want to tell you,
brothers and sisters present here, that we must work
together to ensure that, sooner or later, the United
Nations becomes an anti-capitalist Organization, if we
are to save humankind. If we do not do that, we will be
held responsible. And I assume my responsibility by
telling you this in a direct and straightforward way. I
am not at all scared because I know what the
consequences of capitalism are — in particular, with
regard to the destruction of Mother Earth.
I was thinking that our United Nations — and as
a President I feel part of the United Nations — should
have a slogan, a war cry for the effort to save
humankind. I propose to the Assembly and its
President that our war cry should be “The planet or
death; we shall win!” And I wish to say that, from what
I have learned in my four and a half years as President
of my country, if there is the political will to serve the
people of the world, the people of the world can be
saved.