Speech by Dr. Oscar Arias

Missouri Southern State College
April 12, 1999

Peace and Human Progress in Latin America

I would like to thank all of those who have made my visit to Missouri Southern State College possible, especially Mr. Richard Massa. Indeed, it is a great honor to be part of this international symposium, and to discuss Peace and Human Progress in Latin America with the distinguished group of students, educators, and activists that has gathered on this occasion.

I want to begin tonight by placing our consideration of human development in the Americas with the context of a changing world order. Undoubtedly, you are all aware that we have experienced a global financial crisis. But the nature of this worldwide crisis, and its implications for peace and progress in our hemisphere, deserve careful re-examination.

Critics of globalization have long pointed to its bitter-sweet effects. While advances in communications and the weakening of restraints on capital have allowed a few individuals to gain enormous fortunes, these changes have only worsened global inequalities. Truly, each of us must face the monstrous inhumanity of a system that allows a few individuals to hold as much wealth as some small and impoverished nations. How many of you realize that the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the poorest forty-eight countries? These unprecedented levels of inequality are not only unjust, they are unsustainable. For we know that when poverty and inequality remain at such insidious levels, the eruption of armed conflict is inevitable.

Recently, we have seen that the global economic order is subject to panic and rapid fluctuation. As wealthy financiers lost money in weakened East-Asian economies, in Indonesia, or in Brazil, pundits and bank officials began to speak of a “crisis.” But even now, only months after traumatic devaluations have begun, there seems to be a consensus that this downturn was only a small setback in a well-functioning system.

But I tell you tonight that there is a much deeper crisis underlying the financial panic, one which this consensus of experts overlooks. I say that it is an economic crisis when nearly a billion and a half people in our world have no access to clean water, and a billion live in miserably substandard housing. I say it is a spiritual crisis when – as Gandhi said – many people are so poor that they can only see God in the form of bread, and when other individuals seem only to have faith in a capricious God whose “invisible hand” guides the free market. I say it is a moral crisis when 40,000 children die each day from malnutrition and disease. And I say it is a democratic crisis when 1.3 billion people live on incomes of less than one dollar a day, and in their unrelenting poverty are totally excluded from public decision-making.

I believe that the advent of the new millennium is a crucial occasion on which to reevaluate past development in Latin America, and to place a resolute moral code at the center of future policies. In the last decade, Latin America, too, has been thrown into the fray of “globalization.” The phenomenon of intense global integration is not new to the region, which has always struggled for economic self-determination against colonial and neo-imperial structures. But what is new is the computerized, hyperactive flow of capital. Now, 1.5 trillion dollars worth of largely unregulated currency transactions are processed every day. This frantic quest for quick riches has created a hollow, speculative economy, unattached to human labor and unaccountable to human need. Too often, currency speculation is seen as a form of gambling; huge profits are made through investments that last only days or even just a few hours. Bankers create immense profits for the most privileged, but leave a devastating trail of destabilization and misery in their wake.

Last month, Kofi Annan argued that, “Globalization is a fact of life, but I believe that we have underestimated its fragility. The problem is this: the spread of markets far outpaces the ability of societies and their political systems to adjust to them, let alone guide the course they take. History teaches us that such an imbalance between the economic, social, and political realms can never be sustained for long.”

While Latin America has, no doubt, entered a new phase in its regional development, I can say with equal certainty that the final force and significance of this new era have yet to be determined. Globalization, if skillfully managed, can be a great opportunity. It can be a promising chance for progress. But we must remember that unregulated markets are not divine or uncontrollable creatures; they are human creations, subject to moral oversight and intervention. Those working today can decide whether the age of globalization will be remembered as a time of profit and plunder, or as a time of diversity and enlightenment. All of us here must consciously affirm the values and priorities that will guide our efforts to forge a new program of development for the region. And we must build democratic institutions that can respond to our turbulent times and allow for true regional self-determination.

I am proud to say that, during the last two decades, Latin America has set forth on a democratic mission without precedent in our history. This should give us all cause for hope. Nevertheless, it is only natural to wonder about the sustainability and quality of the democracies that have emerged in Latin America. Although we have regular elections, more than two hundred million human beings are living and dying in poverty. Almost one hundred million exist in abject poverty and extreme misery. On his recent trip to Mexico, Pope John Paul II addressed this situation, and spoke out against an economic system so far removed from religious and democratic values. He argued that “the human race is facing forms of slavery which are new and more subtle that those of the past… and for far too many people, freedom remains a word without meaning.” Virtually excluded from our political system, and condemned to a “short and brutish” existence, these two hundred million Children of a lesser God are a constant reminder that Latin America’s fundamental dilemmas have yet to be resolved.

How much irresponsibility can our societies tolerate? We have known for a long time that Latin America has the worst distribution of wealth in the world. The income gap that exists between rich and poor is by far the widest and most profound on this planet. As Carlos Fuentes has pointed out, twenty-four individuals in Mexico possess more wealth than twenty-four million of their fellow citizens. Furthermore, the richest twenty percent of Brazil’s population earn thirty-two times more than the poorest twenty percent. This ongoing income disparity has dragged us through along, violent succession of populist and authoritarian cycles. Latin Americans have reaped a bitter harvest from this lasting inequality.

Recognizing these challenges, we must adopt development policies that allow us to break with the pernicious legacies that poverty and inequality have created. To this end, I would like to discuss three tasks of particular importance to our work: fighting corruption, creating just aid policies, and combating militarism.

Popular disenchantment with the political system is as much a result of government lethargy in combating increasing poverty, as it is a reflection of the corruption and cynicism that threaten democracy on a daily basis. Too often, our governments have suffered from the disservice of irresponsible officials. These people have constructed unethical networks of privilege and used political power to benefit themselves. When exposed, these acts are profoundly disillusioning, and poison public confidence in democracy. Yet many politicians have practiced a form of corruption even more sinister. They avoid taking stances on serious and controversial issues, instead saying only what public opinion polls indicate will be well-received. They hide consequential facts about the challenges to social justice, and speak instead to the rosy fictions of general prosperity. They preach the virtue of free elections and public will, but practice deference to the wealthy individuals who make large donations to their campaigns. The truth of this irresponsibility is not lost on the people of the Americas, who grow cynical and decline to participate in the injured formal mechanisms of democracy.

Latin America has suffered continuously from the effect of corruption. Thus, it is not surprising that our political systems are greatly hampered by a lack of credibility. Too often, the political elite of Latin America disregards basic democratic principles and pursues a self-interested demagoguery.

As we respond to the challenges of the new millennium, we must see that politics go hand-in-hand with responsibility and morality. Fortunately, the information age offers great potentials for fighting corruption. As we plan for development, we must combine technological progress and moral will to make government agencies more efficient and transparent, the people more educated, and public officials more accountable. We must embrace the difficult talks of leadership, telling people what they need to know instead of what they want to hear. Truly, to govern is to educate, not to please – to convince and not to conquer.

A second important issue that we must address is the role of the international community in the regional development of the Americas. I argue that the richest and most powerful nations have a special responsibility to embrace their human obligations and to promote trade and aid policies which truly empower the developing world. In general, however, countries have shied away from this responsibility. UNICEF reports that total aid from the world’s seven richest nations has been cut by 30 percent since 1992. This is a decrease of fifteen billion dollars a year.

The United States continues to maintain a lop-sided foreign policy toward Latin America, which is based almost exclusively on profit-seeking. When asked to name the largest element in the federal budget, fifty percent of all U.S. citizens choose aid to foreign countries. In fact, funds available for such assistance are negligible. The U.S. spends less than .1 percent of its GNP on foreign aid, only one eighth of what many Nordic countries give. Former U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles noted almost half a century ago that “the U.S. has no friends in Latin America, only interests.” Sadly, many seem to live by the words of this distinguished diplomat to this very day. Although President Clinton has now pledged generous assistance to a Central America ravaged by Hurricane Mitch, appropriate legislation has been stalled in Congress in recent months.

Debt forgiveness should be part of an expanded program of just humanitarian support. From 1982 to 1990, debtor countries in the South paid their creditors in the North $6.5 billion dollars in interest and $6 billion dollars in principle payments per month – as much as the entire developing world spends on education and health. Yet their debts were sixty percent greater in 1990 than in 1982. Honduras and Nicaragua, the two countries hit hardest by Hurricane Mitch, have a combined foreign debt of over $10 billion dollars. Last year, each paid approximately $1 million dollars a day to service its debt. And this issue also is of profound concern in other parts of the world as well. Debt is a severe problem in Africa, where overwhelming obligations prevent the world’s poorest countries from investing in human security.

Some argue that forgiving these debts would disrupt the economy and show unfair preferences. But these arguments ignore several important precedents. The United States forgave Egypt $7 billion dollars of its debt after the gulf war. And Great Britain still owes $14 billion dollars in deferred loans from World War II. In truth, many developing countries have seen that outstanding loans represent for some creditors a means of gaining unfair leverage in trade negotiations.

Previous debt relief efforts have been slow and ineffective. Too often, they have tied assistance to restrictive conditions designed to benefit investors and not struggling citizens. For this reason, and to ensure that forgiven debt money is not spent on more deadly weaponry, I have proposed that a reinvigorated debt relief effort should reward countries that reduce their military spending and devote funds to human development. The Canadian government’s recent embrace of a similar proposal is a hopeful indication that the world’s most developed nations will move in this direction at the upcoming G-8 summit in Germany.

A final area we must address in creating development policies for the new millennium is military spending. I am proud that in the past decade the number of armed conflicts in South America has decreased, and that Central America has entered a new era of peace. Still, militaries in many countries remain an entrenched part of the political culture, weakening democratic institutions and demanding funds that could be spent on health and education.

The nations of Latin America must strive to increase the transparency of their militaries. And they must exercise preventive diplomacy in regard to arms purchases. In 1997, when President Clinton lifted a long-standing ban on high-technology weapons sales to Latin America, I proposed that all governments in the region agree to a two-year moratorium on the purchase of these arms. The majority of Latin American and Caribbean nations agreed to this initiative. Perhaps because of this we have, of late, seen noteworthy restraint in the high-technology weapons trade. Regional leaders should work from this resolve, and move toward further demilitarization.

In the last few years, two Latin American nations have taken historic steps toward ending once and for all the vicious cycle of poverty and militarism. Following the restoration of democracy to Panama in 1989, I worked on a campaign to abolish this country’s national army, as Costa Rica itself did in 1949. The campaign was successful, and as a result, Costa Rica and Panama now enjoy the safest border in the world. More recently, I have helped promote promising legislation in Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. This country, too, has fully defunded its armed forces. And if Haiti approves the elimination of its military in a new constitution, it could continue to dedicate resources to crucial development needs. Progress in these two nations has shown the world that Costa Rica is not a unique case. The abolition of national armed forces is truly a viable option for many countries

While Latin American nations must take responsibility for ending traditions of militarism, countries like the United States must also acknowledge their role in perpetuating conflict and arms build-up. We know that, as a whole, military spending in industrialized nations is down from its Cold War peak. But weapons contractors in these countries have continued to produce billions of dollars worth of armaments, and in fact have increased their weapons sales abroad. Their new clients are the impoverished countries of the developing world, places where the majority of contemporary conflicts take place. Truly, the United States provides the most blatant example of moral irresponsibility in its arms export policy. Currently, the U.S. is responsible for 43 percent of all weapons sales in the world. And, from 1993 to 1997, 85 percent of U.S. arms sales to the developing world went to non-democratic governments.

I have always condemned arms-producing and exporting countries whose commercial avarice is the primary cause of elevated military expenditures in the developing world. Often, in our region, weapon acquisitions originate out of contract negotiations by arms manufacturers and, frequently, diplomatic pressure from the countries where the industries are located. It is paradoxical that developed countries justify arms trafficking as a natural response to an existing demand, while at the same time they insist that drug trafficking be restricted on the supply side.

This rationale would be represented by a Colombian or Bolivian arguing that exporting mind-altering drugs to the United States is justified because such production creates jobs in the agricultural, industrial, and commercial sectors of these countries. Moreover, it could be further disputed that, if these drugs were not exported from Colombia or Bolivia, they simply would be supplied by other countries.

For many, this comparison may seem rather drastic; however, there is no doubt that both types of sales export death and misery. The fact that selling arms is considered legal while selling drugs is not does not make the first morally defensible. It should be noted that the commerce of arms is one of the largest sources of corruption, to which several – in both developing and developed countries – can attest. If we are frightened by the extent of drug trafficking originating from the South and directed to the North, we must also be scandalized by the scope and magnitude of indiscriminate arms sales from the North to the South.

The United States must help in Latin America’s process of demilitarization by supporting legislation such as the International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers. Over the past two years a committee of seventeen individuals and organizations – all of whom have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – has joined me in promoting this initiative. Building on similar proposals that have been debated before the U.S. Congress and the European Union, this Code of Conduct would demand that any decision to export arms take into account several characteristics pertaining to the country of final destination. The recipient country must endorse democracy, defined in terms of free and fair elections, the rule of law, and civilian control over the military and security forces. Its government must not engage in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. Moreover, the International Code of Conduct would not permit arms sales to any country responsible for armed aggression in violation of international law. Finally, the Code would require the purchasing country to participate fully in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. Our hope is that some day this initiative will be introduced before the UN General Assembly.

Friends:

There are no easy answers to the challenges that Latin America currently faces. Our primary dilemma lies in the sphere of values. People in all of the Americas must realize that it is necessary to build rational, compassionate, and just societies that will afford every human being his or her dignified place.

All of the Americas must adopt this new moral paradigm. Yet it need not be invented from scratch, as its foundation is implicit in the political, philosophical, and religious idea of humankind’s history. We must seek guidance in both those ethical ideas that have already been implemented as well a those which have been merely advocated. These principles are carved on the facades of numerous Houses of Parliament, government palaces, churches, and universities. They are engraved on catacombs, dungeons, and prison cells.

Jesus, Plato, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, the authors of Popol Vuh, Saint Thomas, Rousseau, Locke, Kant, Adam Smith and Marx. The fathers of the American Revolution, Emerson, Lincoln, Mac Donald, Cartier, Boliver, San Martín, Sarmiento, Benito Juárez, and José Martí. Gandhi, Churchill, Keynes, Martin Luther King, Hayek, Popper, Isaiah Berlin and Mother Theresa of Calcutta. These are merely some of the names of figures who have contributed significantly to our moral, intellectual and cultural pantheon.

Certainly, this ethical code of the Americas shall incorporate precepts such as Plato’s The Virtue of the State, Moses’ commandment not to kill, Jesus’ instruction to love thy neighbor as thyself, Gandhi’s warning to never respond with violence, as well as Mandela and Menchú’s dedication of civil rights.

Latin America has a unique potential to establish an ideology based upon all of these values. We need only turn to our unparalleled diversity of races, religions, and virtues. Our society must begin viewing global systems from the perspective of society’s most downtrodden populations: the culturally subjugated and the economically dispossessed. In our democratic faith we must reject condescending or trickle-down solutions to world problems, and instead highlight movements that allow ignored and depreciated populations to become political actors. We must allow communities to decide which forms of development are appropriate for their lives, and which forms of materialism they need not support. And we must see to it that these communities, and not an elite few, are empowered to enact economic plans.

The Dominican Pedro Henríquez Ureña spoke long ago on the historical importance of our task:

“If our region is to be nothing more than an extension of Europe, if the only the only thing we do is provide more territory for the exploitation of man by man . . . . if we do not decide to make this a promised land for all those seeking vainly for it elsewhere, then there is no point to our lives.”

I tell you tonight that persistent deprivation, malignant corruption, and growing inequality are the unfortunate trends that we see at the end of the millennium. It is up to us to change these. Let us reject policies based on cynicism and greed, and instead recognize that economies exist to provide for the health and well-being of all people. Let us work together to eradicate poverty, just as previous generations abolished slavery. And let us provide a visionary example of demilitarization that the rest of the world may follow.

For as we mold this bold program for progress in Latin America, we too will be transformed. In our efforts to create peace and human development we will find ourselves altered by the revived memory of our most noble aspirations. In the end, my friends, we will have created not only a promised land, but also a new, more compassionate people.

Thank you very much.

Back to Symposium Home Page

Back to The Latin America Semester