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.