On behalf of the people of Costa Rica, I convey my greetings to the President of the General Assembly and wish her every success. I also greet the Secretary- General, Kofi Annan, Nobel Peace laureate and tireless defender of dialogue and understanding among the peoples of the Earth. I come before the Assembly overwhelmed by the same emotion and the same sense of urgency as I felt when I did so for the first time, 20 years ago. Then, I came burdened with the deepest distress of my people. I came to remind the world that, in the “waist of America”, five small nations were engaged in a struggle between life and death, between freedom and oppression, between war and peace. I came to ask the international community not to let violence turn Central America into a barren land where the seeds of the most beautiful human dreams could not grow. The world has changed since then. The finest children of Central America no longer inherit war as their birthright, and our countries have ceased to be pawns in the immense global chess game of the cold war. For Central Americans, it is impossible to think that the old days were better. I am convinced that humanity has reasons to be optimistic and that, as William Faulkner said, man will prevail. But I also know that the progress made towards human freedom, dignity and well-being are no more than small victories in a long and epic battle. We have just set out on the road towards the full realization of human beings, and it is strewn with obstacles. If we are to continue on the road towards human emancipation from misery, if we are to transform development and human rights into something more than the utopian dream that they are today for hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, we will need more than good intentions. We will need courage to call things what they are, to correct mistakes and to make urgent decisions. With optimism and vehemence, I propose to the Assembly that we now take three courses of action that could have powerful effects on the well-being of all humanity. First, we must denounce increases in military spending, the arms race and the weapons trade as offences to the human condition. Secondly, we must make a reality, through free trade, of the promise that the globalized economy holds for humanity and in particular for the world’s poorest peoples. Thirdly, we must defend, with all our strength and eloquence, international law and the United Nations, proposing reforms that will enable us successfully to adapt to the tremendous changes that the world is undergoing. For quite some time I have argued that the struggle for human development is linked to the struggle for disarmament and demilitarization. It is no badge of honour for our species that global military spending exceeded $1 trillion in 2005 — the same level of spending, in real terms, as at the end of the cold war. That represents eight times the annual investment necessary to achieve, in the span of a decade, all the Millennium Development Goals, in every country. 21 06-52737 The investment that the most industrialized nations make in their military — they are responsible for 83 per cent of global military spending — is 10 times greater than the amount of resources that they dedicate to official development assistance. The United States, the richest country on the planet, spends, at the very least, 25 times more on the military than it gives in aid. Is this not a clear example of twisted priorities, not to mention profoundly irrational? Indeed, at the end of the day, rationality is what counts. Since the tragic events of 11 September 2001, global military spending has increased by a little more than $200 billion. There is not a single indicator that suggests that that colossal increase has made the world more secure and human rights more widely enjoyed. On the contrary, we feel increasingly vulnerable and fragile. Perhaps it is time to think of other ways to deploy those resources. Perhaps it is time to realize that, with a sum much smaller than that one, we could guarantee access to potable water and primary education for every person in the world. Perhaps there would be enough left over, as Gabriel García Marquez once suggested, “to perfume Niagara Falls with sandalwood on an autumn day”. Perhaps it is time to understand that this is what would probably make us happier and certainly more secure. Every weapon is a visible sign of the delay in meeting the needs of the poor. I am not the only one to have said so. The same thing was said, memorably, by a man of arms, President Eisenhower, nearly half a century ago: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.” While it is sad that the richest nations, through military spending, are denying development opportunities to the poorest, it is sadder still that the poor are complicit in destroying their own future. Indeed, it is tragic that the Governments of some of the most underdeveloped countries continue to supply their troops with tanks, warplanes and missiles, supposedly to protect a population afflicted by hunger and ignorance. My region of the world has not escaped that phenomenon. In 2005, the countries of Latin America spent almost $24 billion on weapons and troops — an amount that has risen 25 per cent in real terms over the last decade and increased substantially in the past year. Latin America has begun a new arms race, even though it has never been more democratic and there have been very few military conflicts between countries in the past century. In that respect, I believe Costa Ricans have reason to be very proud. Since 1948, thanks to the vision of our former President, José Figueres, a very wise man, Costa Rica abolished its army and declared peace on the world, and we bettered our life. As I did 20 years ago in my first message to the General Assembly, I can say today with satisfaction that I come from a country without weapons, that our children have never seen a tank, an attack helicopter, a warship or a cannon. As I did 20 years ago, I can say that in my country, fathers and grandfathers explain to the young people the curious architecture of some of our schools, which is due to the fact that, long ago, those schools were military barracks. I can say that in my homeland, none of our citizens, man or woman, knows oppression, and that not a single Costa Rican lives in exile. I can say today that mine is a nation of liberty. This is a path that neither my country nor I are willing to abandon. Not only that: It is a path that we wish all humanity to follow. Today I would like to propose an idea. I propose that we all give life to the Costa Rican consensus, through which we create mechanisms to forgive debt and provide international financial support to developing nations that invest more and more in education, health and housing, and less and less in soldiers and weapons. It is time that the international financial community reward not only those whose spending is orderly, as it has done to date, but also those whose spending is ethical. I propose to the Assembly as well that we approve, as soon as possible, an arms trade treaty prohibiting countries from transferring weapons to States, groups or individuals if there is reason to believe that such arms will be used to violate human rights or international law, or if there are clear indications that they will be used to hinder the process of sustainable development. 06-52737 22 I hope that the United Nations, at this session of the General Assembly, will approve the formation of a governmental group of experts that will draft the text of a binding treaty on the subject of international arms transfers. It is time to close the door on the arms trade and on the endless trail of death it leaves in its wake. It is time also to open the door to other forms of commerce — the legitimate and licit trade of goods and services — on which the prosperity of the peoples of the world depends. I know that in the Assembly there exists a wide range of opinions about the best way to promote global trade so as to provide genuine opportunities for all countries. In a globalized world, the challenge facing developing nations is simple: if we cannot export more goods and services, we will end up exporting more people. The strongest argument in favour of opening up economies is, quite simply, that it helps to reduce poverty. I sometimes marvel that some continue to insist that globalization is a negative force that is increasing global poverty. On the contrary: according to the World Bank, the number of people living in poverty has fallen by almost 200 million over the past two decades, largely owing to the advances of India and China — two countries that have embraced globalization and have opened up their markets with particular enthusiasm. Trade liberalization can thus be defended on the basis of the benefits that it brings for the poorest people. If we truly want to meet the ethical challenge of reducing global poverty, wisdom and caution must prevail so that the Doha round can be successful. But I want to stress that the defence of free trade must be honest and consistent. We should seek commercial exchanges that are equally free for all countries. The practice among developed nations of pressing for the elimination of commercial barriers only in the sectors in which they have a clear comparative advantage is ethically indefensible. Furthermore, developing countries need and demand free trade in agriculture. Until we make progress on this issue, we will have to continue paraphrasing George Orwell’s famous words, and say that in free trade everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. Developing countries need development assistance and solidarity from industrialized countries, but what we need from them above all is consistency. If they extol the virtues of a free market, then let that market actually be free. If in their countries they promote admirable forms of social justice through the welfare state, then let them put that principle into practice on an international scale. If their credo of democracy prevails within their borders, then let them support a more just balance of power within all international organizations. The third major challenge to which I want to refer today is the strengthening of global governance and the reform of its institutions. This task begins with the defence of multilateralism and the strict adherence of all countries to international law and the fundamental principles of the Charter, the most elemental safeguard against anarchy in the world. Costa Rica, since it lacks an army, is perhaps the country most in need of an effective international system to guarantee its security. It is essential that the most powerful nations on Earth understand that the survival of international law and of the United Nations is fundamental for their own security; that the mere existence of this forum is one of the great achievements of our species; and that the United Nations represents the triumph of hope over fear, of tolerance over fanaticism and of reason over force. As I stand here today, I would so much like to hear once more the powerful voice of John F. Kennedy, telling the world, as he did in 1961, “To that world assembly of sovereign States, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support — to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective, to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak, and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.” This is the globalization that can transform the lives of all human beings for the better — a globalization in which all countries are, as we are here, equal in rights; a globalization in which each people can make its voice heard and hear the voices of others and in which the exercise of the tolerance that we practise every day in this Hall is the norm, not the exception. The great British writer Aldous Huxley once wondered whether this world was not another planet’s 23 06-52737 hell. I do not think it is. It is just a marvellous and complex place, inhabited by a species that is barely in its infancy and that, like an infant, has scarcely begun to understand its immense power to create and to destroy. For good or for ill, our species writes its history in draft form, never cleanly, always debating with itself — like each one of us — in a perpetual conflict between the good and bad angels of our nature. In this conflict, the victories of the human spirit, as certain as they may seem, are always incomplete, gradual and tentative, and setbacks are always possible. The Earth is not hell. It is a place where there is no perfection — and never will be; just goodness and greatness punctuated by misfortunes, errors and suffering. The indisputable achievements of the past 20 years tell us that, in spite of our sorrows, human beings continue the march of progress. But now is the time to correct costly mistakes, to right our course and to abandon the destructive behaviour that will make our march of progress infinitely more difficult and tortuous than it should be. If today we do not confront the rise in military spending and the arms trade; if we do not encourage the poorest countries to invest their scarce resources in life and not in death; if we do not conquer the fear and hypocrisy that impede truly free trade throughout the world; and if we do not strengthen the institutions and the international norms that can protect us against global anarchy, we will be condemned to walk on the edge of a precipice and to engage in futile actions, having to start all over again, like Sisyphus, after every achievement. I believe that we must supplement optimism with courage and the will to change. I believe that it is time for humanity to build the brightest future that we could possibly dream of.