Once again, we meet at the United Nations to share
concerns, problems and experiences and to discuss the
various ways in which we can serve our peoples
worldwide.
Since this morning I have listened closely to
statements, starting with that of the Secretary-
General — to whom I offer a special, revolutionary
greeting — until this moment, when we just heard the
President of Iran. In all of these statements, there has
been great convergence on problems such as the
financial crisis, problems arising from the
environmental crisis and problems concerning stability
and institutionalization of democracies in a number of
countries. There have also been ideas and proposals
such as those offered by the Secretary-General, who
called for unity among Presidents and unity within the
United Nations. I fully agree that it is important that
we Presidents and Governments unite to meet the
demands of our peoples, in order to resolve these
crises.
I would say that in my country the crises have
been imposed from above and from outside. We need
unity within the United Nations for the sake of the
equality of our peoples; we need unity for dignity; we
need unity above all to tackle the deep economic
divergences, the deep asymmetries between continents,
between families and between countries. But it must be
unity in a context of complementarity, in order to meet
our peoples’ demands.
There is an ongoing debate on the financial crisis
and on climate change, as well as on the problems of
democracy and the energy and food crises. I welcome a
number of the statements that addressed and focused
on the origins of this crisis. But the majority of
Presidents and the majority of the statements referred
only to the effects, not to the causes.
I would like to speak frankly to the Assembly —
my listeners here, and to all others who are following
the debates taking place in this global forum. I would
like to say that the origin of these crises was the
unbridled accumulation of capital in a few hands, the
irretrievable looting of natural resources and the
commercialization of Mother Earth. And above all, I
believe their origin lies in an economic model, an
economic system, namely, capitalism.
If we do not tell our peoples the truth about the
origin of this crisis, then we will be misleading
ourselves and the international community too. We will
be misleading our peoples, who have great
expectations of their Presidents and Governments and
of forums such as this one.
Although we are promoting and seeking peace, in
the light of our experience, we know that we will not
find social peace while there is economic inequality,
and all the less when there are military bases in some
countries. These may be located on many continents,
including Latin America and South America. How can
we hold discussions when United States military bases
provoke distrust among peoples?
I would like to briefly tell the Assembly that I
was a victim of the military bases operating in my
country before assuming the presidency, before the
social movements were not merely opposed to policies
but also actors in a new country of equality and social
justice. All of us were victims of the United States
military presence in Bolivia, and as victims we know
what uniformed armed United States personnel can do
in South American countries. For that reason, I would
like to say that when there is a United States military
base, particularly in Latin America — I do not know
about their conduct in Europe or on other continents,
but in Latin America, the presence of military bases is
no guarantee of social peace or of democracy.
Certainly, it cannot guarantee the integration of our
countries, much less of the peoples who are seeking to
bring about deep-wrought changes in our social,
economic and cultural structures.
09-52228 38
Now we have Honduras. If there is a United
States military base in Honduras, why can this military
base not guarantee democracy? It cannot because there
are Presidents who change these countries, which are
constantly threatened by military bases.
I hail the courage of our colleague, President
Zelaya of Honduras, who is democratically and
pacifically resisting with the aim of restoring
democracy. My respect and admiration go to him as he
strives together with his defiant people to uphold
democracy. How good it would be if the United
Nations, this great international organization, were to
adopt a resolution issuing an ultimatum to the military
dictatorship in Honduras to withdraw and restore the
only internationally recognized President.
I am convinced that the United States Southern
Command does not accept Latin American countries or
their Presidents that are seeking liberation. I have even
heard from some friends, comrades and brothers that
they supported the dictatorships in Bolivia and
elsewhere in Latin America. They say that the only
reason there has been no coup d’état in the United
States is that there is no United States Embassy in the
United States. There are coups d’état occurring
everywhere, but let me say that in September last year
there was an attempted coup d’état in Bolivia, and
thanks to the union forces and the involvement of the
international community, particularly from the southern
cone, we were able to halt that civilian — not
military — coup d’état.
For these reasons, we are convinced that military
bases cannot guarantee democracy, integration or
social peace.
We have also been discussing the subject of
climate change, and I would like to take this
opportunity to propose a number of issues to the
Assembly which are of the utmost importance for all of
us who inhabit Mother Earth. For the indigenous
movement, this is Mother Earth — or, for many others,
planet Earth or the environment. For those of us who
live in harmony with Mother Earth, not just in harmony
with human beings, Mother Earth is something sacred.
It is Mother Earth which gives life, which provides
water, natural resources, oxygen. We all promote the
well-being of our peoples. We are struggling and
fighting and working for the well-being of our peoples,
but first of all, we must ensure the well-being of
Mother Earth.
If we cannot guarantee the well-being of Mother
Earth, then it will be impossible to guarantee the well-
being of our countrymen or of all the peoples on planet
Earth. I have reached the conclusion that Mother
Earth — or planet Earth — can and will exist forever
with or without human life. But human life cannot
exist without planet Earth — Mother Earth.
After having listened to many statements and
after having listened to my brothers, I have reached the
conclusion that at this point in time, in this new
twenty-first century, it will be more important than
ever before to defend the rights of Mother Earth than to
defend human rights.
If we do not protect the rights of Mother Earth,
there will be no point in defending human rights. I am
prepared to discuss this concept, and sooner or later
everyone will understand why it is so important to
defend the rights of Mother Earth.
As we are currently discussing climate change, I
propose to Presidents, representatives and all our other
brothers and sisters who are listening throughout the
world our very simple, three-point proposal.
First, the developed countries must acknowledge
and pay the climate debt that they and all humankind
owe Planet Earth.
Secondly, a court for climate justice must be
established to try and to punish those who fail to meet
their commitments and those who continue to damage
Planet Earth. We need a structure that can quantify the
damage caused by some countries and transnational
companies, and therefore it is important that such a
court for climate justice be established.
The third proposal is one of those that have been
developed above all by rural and indigenous
movements: the United Nations must draw up a
declaration of the rights of Mother Earth, in order to
defend the right to life, the right to the regeneration of
bio-capacity, the right to a clean life and the right to
harmony and the coexistence of us all.
I hope that these proposals will be taken into
account during the discussions in Copenhagen. We also
hope that Copenhagen will provide a grand solution to
resolve the serious problems that affect us all, in all the
countries of the world.
I also take this opportunity to take up some of the
proposals made by a number of Presidents. If we want
39 09-52228
to change the world, we must first change the United
Nations. If we want to effect change in our countries,
seeking equality and dignity for our compatriots, why
not first change the structures of the United Nations?
Listening to what many other Presidents said
about the Security Council, I felt that there were many
points of agreement. We need a real democratization of
the United Nations, for which I make the following
suggestions.
The status of permanent membership of the
Security Council and the right to veto must be
abolished. It is not possible in the twenty-first century
to maintain outdated totalitarian practices going back
to the time of monarchies. All countries must have the
same rights within the United Nations. Those who
proclaim themselves to be the leaders of democracy
should give up their privileges and accept true
democratization of the Security Council. We must be
responsible with democracy and begin to democratize
the United Nations.
I shall soon end my short intervention, as I do not
wish to exceed my time limit, in keeping with the
discipline that our peoples teach us. But first I am sorry
to have state a truth that may upset the Government of
the United States. I had great hopes of President
Obama. I welcome his closure of Guantanamo, which
represents progress. But in addition the economic
blockade of Cuba should be ended. That is my
respectful request to the Government and people of the
United States.
Bolivia, like Latin America as a whole, used to
enjoy certain tariff preferences, but under ex-President
Bush they were removed, because we were accused of
not combating drug-trafficking and poverty. We know
that that was a political decision, but ex-President Bush
never took into account Bolivian norms or our
Constitution.
Now, under President Obama’s Government, we
see documents which include references to our new
Constitution, which, for the first time in the 183 years’
existence of the Republic, was approved by a vote of
the Bolivian people. There is a reference to article 56
and respect for private property. That strikes me as
direct interference by the United States Government in
the Constitution and other norms and standards, and I
roundly reject it. What we want is diplomatic relations
not of interference, but of cooperation and investment.
While the new Constitution for the first time
guarantees private property and State property,
fundamentally it guarantees collective property —
property held by associations and cooperatives, and
communal lands belonging to the indigenous, native
movement.
In addition, an accusation is made against me in a
United States report stating that current challenges
include the explicit acceptance and encouragement of
coca production at the highest levels of the Bolivian
Government. That is to say that I encourage the
cultivation of coca. It should be understood that
growing the coca leaf is one thing and that cocaine is
quite another. We do not defend cocaine; we shall fight
it. Indeed, our proposal is zero cocaine. What I have
just said does not mean having free cultivation of the
coca leaf, though in its natural state it is beneficial and
healthy for human life.
We have launched a campaign on decriminalizing
the traditional consumption of the coca leaf. I
guarantee that there will never be free cultivation of
coca, but neither will there a zero coca leaf policy. But
there is a zero cocaine policy. It cannot be said that I
encourage coca cultivation in Bolivia. That is not true.
The Assembly will know that I come from the
trade union and social movements, and that I was a
union leader. Now President, fortuitously and for the
time being, I am extremely concerned that it is said
that the Government will dismantle the union
movement by decree. How could I eliminate the
unions, when they and the social movements are the
backbone of the Evo Morales Government? I have built
union headquarters and encouraged unions, workers
and indigenous peoples, and yet I am accused of
dismantling the unions.
President Obama may not be aware of the
documents to which I have referred, which perhaps
come from the State Department. I perfectly
understand that sometimes when change is desired it is
difficult to change State structures. But after reading
the documents very carefully I wonder how it is
possible for someone who has suffered discrimination
to discriminate against another. At least in Latin
America, the so-called Afro-Americans and
Afro-Bolivians are the sectors most discriminated
against in society, together with the so-called Indians
or indigenous people. We are called “negroes” and
“Indians”. I do not understand how a black person who
has been discriminated against and excluded can
09-52228 40
discriminate against and exclude an Indian. It is a
matter of grave concern.
It is to be hoped that those historic errors can be
rectified, not for the good of the President, and not just
for the good of Bolivians, but for the image of peoples,
such as the people of the United States. I well
understand that sometimes it is not easy to change
structures which may work against our peoples.
Finally, I refer to some historical demands, such
as the return of our access to the sea. Our two peoples,
our brother republics, Chile and Bolivia, feel sufficient
trust in each other to seek to resolve the issue of
maritime access. I hope that it can be settled bilaterally.
If not, intervention by the international community will
be needed. Progress has been made. I feel that there is
trust, which is needed in order to resolve any problem.
Otherwise, important steps must be taken.
I thank my brothers and sisters for listening to
me. I would like to continue to share their experience,
proposals and concerns for the good of mankind as a
whole.