Argentina, 2011

Exactly

eight years ago, in this same context and from this

same rostrum, the President of my country, Néstor

Carlos Kirchner, addressed the Assembly, four years

after having assumed the presidency of the Argentine

Republic with only 22 per cent of the vote. Given the

situation of the Argentine Republic — which had fallen

into default in 2001, where about a quarter of the

population was unemployed and levels of destitution

and poverty had exceeded 50 per cent — he stated that

the multilateral credit institutions needed reform,

particularly the International Monetary Fund, as did the

political bodies of this honourable Organization.

President Kirchner made five speeches to the

General Assembly, and I have made four. This is my

fourth statement as President of the Republic. In each

of our addresses we have made the same calls to a

world that has changed significantly since 2003, when

the Argentine Republic was cast as a black sheep gone

astray and which found itself in default because of a

continued failure to fulfil its obligations. In reality, we

were victims, used as guinea pigs in the experiments of

the 1990s and neoliberal policies.

25 11-50692

Much has happened since then, when Argentina

defaulted on the largest debt — at least, so far — in the

history of humanity, $160 billion. Over the past eight

years, Argentina has restructured its debt, reducing it

from 160 per cent to less than 30 per cent of gross

domestic product (GDP). The rates of poverty and

indigence have been reduced to single digits, and we

must continue that fight. Our unemployment rate is

among the lowest, and we have completed the most

significant cycle of economic growth in our 200 years

of history.

Among the emerging countries of our region,

Latin America, Argentina has had the leading growth

rate and is regularly paying its debt without turning to

capital markets. I am not going to list all of the

numbers, but they are very compelling. In 2003, we

spent 2 per cent of GDP on education and 5 per cent on

debt payments. Today, Argentina devotes 6.47 per cent

of its GDP to education and spends 2 per cent to debt

payment.

The situation in the world is quite different. Many

regions and countries have severe problems. Argentina

does not pretend to be a model or an example for

anyone, but we do wish to reaffirm the need to

formulate clear rules with regard to the transfer of

capital in the area of financial speculation. Many

speakers before me, and doubtless many more to come

will do the same, have complained about financial

commodity speculation, especially in the food sector.

When we compare the growth of global financial

stocks to global GDP — what all of the citizens and

businesses of the world produce in goods and services — it

becomes clear why we are facing a world where

speculation is out of control, careening from one side

to the other and from one country or region to another,

affecting currencies, economies and the daily lives of

citizens, destroying jobs and preventing people from

obtaining a dignified education and health care.

If we look at the relationship between global

GDP and financial stocks in the 1980s, we see that it

was a one-to-one relationship. There was a financial

stock that was exactly equal to the goods and services

being produced by the world. From the 1990s, figures

skyrocketed. In 2008 total financial stocks, total

financial activity in the world, reached 3.6 times the

global GDP. This meant a tremendous gap between

what we produce and what is in what I call the “enter

key” economy. I call it that because, if we go looking

for these shares, they are mere keystrokes transferring

numbers from one place to another, from one currency

to another, producing unparalleled market volatility

and recurrent crises whereby exchanges go up and

down on a daily basis. This not only destroys

thousands of jobs but also generates immense profits

that someone is pocketing.

We would like to reiterate once again, in the light

of our own experience — and I reiterate once again

that I do not want to set up a model — the need for

multilateral credit organizations to work extremely

hard on regulating the global movement of capital and

financial speculation. If this does not happen, it will be

impossible to achieve that ever elusive market stability,

and as a result, the economies of both emerging

countries, which have been sustaining the growth of

the global economic activity, and developed countries

alike will be overwhelmed.

It is crucial that this message be understood,

because today we may see speculation on food;

yesterday, it was on oil, and tomorrow, it could be on

little candies, if that would be profitable and beneficial

to the moving of this capital, which gets transferred

from one side of the world to the other without any

control or regulation whatsoever.

Here I must say that, as a member of the Group of

20 at the London meeting — when it was decided to

inject an enormous amount of financial resources into

the financial sector that was experiencing problems —

I maintained that it was necessary to guarantee that

those resources being injected into the financial world

could later return to the real economy, the concrete

economy, to be able to generate employment, products

and services.

Unfortunately, we continue to find ourselves in

the same situation, because other than the changes that

I would describe as purely cosmetic, we have gone no

further with the necessary regulation.

Moreover, the credit ratings agencies — which

bear a great deal of the responsibility for much of what

has happened — rate Argentina, for example, as a

marginal economy. Until very recently, they

categorized economies on the brink of default higher

than that of Argentina. Therefore, transparent

regulation of the ratings agencies is needed, as they

bear a great responsibility for the crisis we are

currently seeing in various regions — which will, of

course, have an impact on all countries.

11-50692 26

It is regrettable that we have been asking for the

reform, reorganization and modification of the

multilateral credit bodies for so long now. Indeed, we

believe that this task should already have been begun,

already formulated, in order to avoid precisely what we

are experiencing now. For some people it is just a

matter of numbers on the stock market, but for others

they signal the destruction of the hopes of a lifetime.

As I was saying to a colleague the other day

during a visit to Europe, economic crises always end

up impacting the political system. There cannot be a

serious economic crisis, in which millions of people

fall into poverty and lose their jobs, homes, education

and health, without that also signalling profound

political transformation. And when such political

transformation results in further serious economic

crises, the result is experiences that I will not go into

now. Totalitarianism often came out of crises. The

twentieth century produced crises that were not

adequately solved by political means.

I call once again for the reform of this important

Organization, which represents multilateralism —

something we have always consistently defended. We

need a more pluralistic and diverse world, and to make

political bodies such as the United Nations, and

crucially the Security Council, more democratic.

We do not agree on the need to expand the

number of permanent members; on the contrary, we

believe that the permanent member category should be

eliminated. The right to veto also should be eliminated,

as it really prevents the Security Council from carrying

out the true functions that it had in the bipolar world in

which it was originally conceived. At that time, the

right to veto was necessary, because in that bipolar

world, with the fear of a nuclear holocaust, that right

gave to Council members the balance necessary to

ensure the security of humankind. Today, that balance

is broken. Permanent seats and the right to veto are not

about defending security or universal stability; rather,

they are often about the position of Council members

exercising their right.

In my most recent statement before the Assembly

(see A/65/PV.14), I believe I concluded by expressing

my hope that this year Palestine would be become the

194th Member of the concert of the United Nations.

My country, Argentina, like most South American

nations, has recognized the State of Palestine.

I sincerely believe that blocking the entry of

Palestine could perhaps be seen by some as benefiting

the State of Israel. But allow me to say to Assembly

members, on the authority we have as a country that

has suffered from the scourge of international

terrorism, that to prevent Palestine from becoming a

member of this Assembly means to continue providing

alibis to those who engage in international terrorism

and who in that repudiation find precisely one of the

false arguments they use to justify their crimes.

I believe that the non-inclusion of Palestine this

year, far from providing greater security and stability

in the world, will bring about greater insecurity and

conditions that are utterly unfavourable to what should

be the prestige of a body that should represent the

interests of all citizens of the world.

For that reason, I ask that God will enlighten

those who must make this historic and structural

decision of global significance so that greater balance

can be achieved and so that this year Palestine will be

able to take its seat number 194. I am sure that if we

succeed in that endeavour we will help to create a

world that is not only safer, but more just.

I would like to make another point, one linked to

the situation that we have been describing, with regard

to what is shown by the injustice of certain

countries — five, to be exact — on the Security

Council having veto rights. Once again, we have come

to the heart of the United Nations to raise an issue that

is just as vital, and not only to Argentines.

The question of sovereignty over the Malvinas

Islands is also a trial by fire for this body in terms of

whether it is possible for it to comply with a policy that

is essentially multilateral and under which all members

are obliged to accept the resolutions of this Assembly.

Ten General Assembly resolutions have invited

the United Kingdom and my country to sit down to

negotiate and discuss our sovereignty. Bear in mind

that Argentina is not asking for those resolutions to be

implemented in terms of recognizing sovereignty. No,

it is simply asking for compliance with some of the

provisions of the 10 United Nations resolutions on the

matter.

Perhaps we could also list the 29 resolutions of

the Special Political and Decolonization Committee

and the 11 resolutions and 8 declarations of the

Organization of American States, as well as the

27 11-50692

resolutions of various forums — Ibero-American

forums, the Union of South American Nations, the

Common Market of the South, meetings of the Arab

and African countries — and the entire world. Through

such resolutions and declarations, all of them have

been demanding that this issue be addressed. The

United Kingdom has systematically refused to do so

and has obviously used its status as a veto-wielding

member of the Security Council to that end.

The year 2013 will mark the passage of 180 years

since the Argentines were expelled by force of arms

from our Malvinas Islands. Next year will mark

30 years since an incident — which the United

Kingdom took advantage of — that was committed by

the most terrible dictatorship in memory, of which we

Argentines were ourselves victims.

I am proud to be the Government that has set an

example for the world in terms of human rights and the

prosecution of those responsible for committing crimes

and acts of genocide. That is why I believe that

focusing on that incident is nothing other than one of

the many excuses given to justify non-compliance with

United Nations resolutions. What is worse, I ask all of

those who see themselves in the mirror of a future

world in which natural resources will be necessary, to

see how our natural resources, our fisheries and our

petroleum resources, are being stolen and illegally

seized by those who have no right to do so. Obviously,

I do not feel it necessary to emphasize the fact that no

one can lay claim to an overseas territory that is more

than 14,000 kilometres away. That is clearly an illegal

occupation.

Once again, we call upon the United Kingdom to

comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.

Recently, there have been genuine provocations,

including missile tests in May and July, which were

denounced before the International Maritime

Organization, which also suffered one of those attacks.

Once again, I reiterate to this Assembly and to the

United Kingdom Argentina’s interest in dialogue. It is

true that much time has passed, however. We state

here, before this Assembly, that we will wait for a

reasonable period of time, but if nothing transpires, we

will be forced to begin reviewing the provisional

understandings that are still in effect. We emphasize in

particular that the question of sovereignty must be

included in those understandings.

Members may ask what I am referring to here. It

is the joint statement and exchange of letters of 14 July

1999 on resuming a regular weekly LAN Chile flight

between Punta Arenas and the Malvinas Islands with

two monthly stopovers, one in each direction, in Río

Gallegos.

Argentina has no intention of exacerbating the

situation for any party, but it is also fair that this

Assembly and the United Kingdom be aware that there

must be compliance with the resolutions. We cannot

wait 180 years, or 30 years, just as Palestine cannot be

making pilgrimages over the decades to find a place in

the world. Still less can the Argentines wait to reclaim

the territory that legitimately belongs to us.

I cannot conclude without referring to an issue

that has been mentioned in all of the statements that

President Kirchner and I have delivered here since

2003. A few moments ago, when I spoke of the

question of Palestine, my authority to do so — if

indeed it gives us authority, as such — is derived from

the fact that we are one of the only two countries in the

Americas that have been the target of international

terrorism.

This happened on two occasions. In 1992, there

was the explosion at the Israeli Embassy in Buenos

Aires, and in 1994, there was the blast at the Argentine

Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA), which is one of

the most important mutual associations in Argentina. I

stress not that it is a Jewish association, but that it is an

Argentine association. This was an attack on Argentina.

I am demanding, on the basis of the requirements

of Argentine justice, that the Islamic Republic of Iran

submit to the legal authority and in particular allow for

those who have been accused of some level of

participation in the AMIA attack to be brought to

justice.

Last year, we proposed here that if they did not

trust our country’s justice system, we could take the

approach that was taken for the Lockerbie case: we

could choose a court from a third country, by mutual

agreement, in order for that court to be able to provide

the only thing that we are demanding — that is, justice.

We insist on this because it is a universal demand. It

does not have to do with political positions. This word,

justice, is in the Talmud, the Bible and the Koran, and,

for those who do not believe in anything, I am sure it is

in their country’s constitution.

11-50692 28

The Government of Argentina received, on

16 July, a message from the Foreign Ministry of Iran

stating that it intended to cooperate in initiating a

constructive dialogue with Argentina in order to help

us get at the truth with respect to the brutal attack

against the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association of

18 July 1994. The message that we received from Iran,

although signifying a change of attitude on the part of

the Government, does not satisfy our demands, which,

as I said quite clearly, are for justice.

However, it is an offer of dialogue that Argentina

cannot and must not reject. We are here calling for

dialogue with the United Kingdom and dialogue among

all the parties that make up this body. My country does

this on the basis of its commitment to fulfilling its

obligation to resolve controversies through peaceful

means. This attitude has characterized our country

throughout our history. This means that in one sense,

Argentina must put aside the requirements arising from

our national justice system with respect to prosecuting

the presumed perpetrators of these attacks. In another

sense, we cannot do this, as this is up to judges and

public prosecutors.

What we would like to say, however, is that we

think that this dialogue must be constructive. It must be

a sincere dialogue and must achieve results in order to

be credible and therefore not be understood as just a

delay tactic or a distraction.

I will conclude my statement. Sometimes, I think

of everything that has happened to Argentines. These

things have happened to many countries at various

times, but they have all happened to us, in our country,

during our history. We have had the worst economic

and social disaster in living memory. We still have

today a Power exercising a colonial influence in our

country. International terrorism has twice made us the

target of its attacks. So, if we think of it, it is as if all of

the problems and all of the tragedies and miseries of

this world decided to focus on one single country.

Our capacity to recover, in terms of the economy,

our tireless and never-ending fight to recover what is

ours, our never-ending demand for justice for the

victims of the attacks, and the strength that we have

drawn from all of these tragedies give me the

confidence and certainty that this is the path we have

chosen: that of achieving growth along with social

inclusion for our fellow citizens. It is the path of

ensuring that there is unlimited respect for human

rights, with trials carried out for the sake of

remembrance, truth and justice. It is the path that

ensures that today, as the President of all Argentines, I

can be accompanied here by family members of

victims of the AMIA attack. They have confidence that

the Government will continue to do what it has always

done, which is to defend the values of truth and justice.

That is what gives me great hope that God will

shed light on the path of all those who have to make

decisions, not with a view to elections but with a view

to the destiny of the world in upcoming decades. That

is why I would like to greet everyone today who has

taken the floor or who will take the floor and thank the

entire Assembly for the support that they have each

given, in all of these causes, to my country, the

Argentine Republic.