Argentina, 2013

I would

particularly like to congratulate the President of

the General Assembly and his country Antigua and

Barbuda, a member of the Group of Latin American

and Caribbean States and the Community of Latin

American and Caribbean States. It is an honour for all

Latin Americans that he is presiding over the General

Assembly at its sixty-eighth session.

I would like to begin by expressing our solidarity

with the victims of the attacks in Kenya and Pakistan,

and generally to all the victims of the terrorist attacks

occurring in various parts of the world. I say this not

out of formal sympathy or for reasons of protocol, but

because our country, Argentina, along with the United

States of America, is the only one on the American

continent to have suffered a terrorist attack — in

our case, on two occasions: in 1992, when the Israeli

Embassy in the city of Buenos Aires was blown up,

and two years later, when the Jewish community centre

AMIA in Argentina was bombed. Some of the relatives

of the victims are here with us, as always, and I can see

them from here. Clearly, we are talking about victims.

These were not soldiers or fighters. They were people

who were getting on a bus, perhaps entering a bar or

going to work, and who were surprised by an explosion.

They had not taken part in any war; they were not

combatants or soldiers; they had not chosen to go

and fight. So I am thinking of those victims and their

families, who deserve our solidarity and the strongest

possible condemnation of all forms of terrorism.

In the context of this sixty-eighth session of the

Assembly, we see the Syrian question as a common

thread. Almost in a premonition, only a short while

ago I was here at the United Nations, presiding over a

meeting of the Security Council, of which Argentina is

a non-permanent member for 2013-2014. On 6 August,

just about a month and a half ago, we proposed a

measure to reform the Security Council. We stated

that the functioning and the rationale of the Council

actually reflected another era, that of the Cold War,

when fear of nuclear holocaust had led to the creation of

the Organization, uniting the forces that had defeated

Nazi Germany, and then produced a bipolar world. That

fear of nuclear war resulted in a system with veto power

so that no one would be able to push a button and blow

up the world. The fact is that that instrument, which

worked in 1945, has now been shown to be dysfunctional

and completely obsolete — and not only as regards the

Syrian question, but also when it comes to dealing with

issues affecting peace and security around the world.

Incidentally, I would like to express my appreciation

for the fact that for the first time we have been given

the opportunity to speak at such a late hour of the day,

because it has somewhat interrupted the inertia of the

course of the meeting. There are times when we come

to these meetings with a format, almost a monologue,

that makes it difficult to present arguments or counter-

arguments that take into account the statements made

by previous speakers. I have listened very carefully

to almost all of the addresses given earlier today.

Obviously, I paid particular attention to those that touch

on the global decision-making system, and, of course,

because I am a staunch supporter of multilateralism, I

paid a lot of attention to the first address, by Secretary-

General Ban Ki-moon.

In many of those statements I heard mention of

21 August. On 6 August, we spoke of the need for

Security Council reform and of the fact that the right

of veto is no longer necessary. There should be a

system — such as those used by regional organizations

of the Americas, such as the Union of South American

Nations, Community of Latin American and Caribbean

States or the Southern Common Market and its

associated States — in which decisions are taken by

consensus. Why is that? Governmental administration

is different, as the power of veto is necessary in order

to govern. When dealing with conflict resolution

and management, if one party to the conflict, or

an interested party, has the right of veto, that right

necessarily becomes an obstacle to the resolution of

the conflict. We did not know what would occur 15 or

16 days later. Many have noted that the crisis in Syria

erupted on 21 August.

In fact, it is extremely difficult to understand

that the current crisis in Syria was only recognized

on 21 August, when we became aware of chemical

weapons. Syria has been caught up in that conflict for

over two and a half years. Over 150,000 people have

lost their lives and 99 per cent of them died as a result

of conventional weapons — not chemical weapons. I

remember that at the last meeting of the Group of Twenty

(G-20), during a discussion about Syria, I asked, “What

is the difference between a death resulting from bullets,

anti-personnel mines, missiles or hand grenades, and a

death resulting from chemical weapons?” Each is more

or less equally shocking. As it is not the first time,

why is there talk of chemical weapons as if it were the

first time that chemical weapons or weapons of mass

destruction have been used?

I recall a statement made by another leader

today with reference to the terrible gas chambers of

the Nazis, the gas in the trenches and the chemical

weapons used in other instances. I also remember

hearing about and reading about — as I had not yet

been born — the nuclear holocaust in Hiroshima and

Nagasaki and the consequences of using those weapons

on many generations of Japanese people.

I remember when I was much younger — the

President of Uruguay also recalled the time of his

youth, I was less than 20 years of age, and many others

will probably also remember — when napalm and

phosphorous were used during the Viet Nam War. That

was recorded forever in the Pulitzer prize-winning

photographs of naked boys and a naked girl. I remember,

as if it were today, that naked young girl running down

a road after having been hit by napalm in a bombing.

I also remember, in all fairness, the suffering of the

people of the United States when they saw the doors of

the planes open and they saw the corpses of the soldiers

who had gone to fight being removed, wrapped in black

plastic bags. I can imagine the pain of each girlfriend,

each sister, each wife, each daughter of the soldier

who had died, trying to understand why. Many did not

understand why the soldiers had had to lose their lives

many thousands of kilometres away from their country.

It is so irrational, so unjust. There are no just wars.

Only peace is just.

On 6 August, in the discussions on the issue of peace

and security, it was stated that peace and security are not

military concepts; rather, they are political concepts.

Today, I was pleased to hear the Secretary-General

mention that very concept, which we had referred to

in the Security Council — namely, that peace and

security are not military but rather political concepts.

Therefore, we welcome the fact that an agreement has

been reached on the question of Syria. My country

opposed direct intervention — bombing. It was quite

simple. The argument that, in order to avoid deaths, you

would cause even more deaths could not be sustained

by any reasoning or even common sense. We did not

speak out at that time only to speak. Furthermore, we

were not discussing just any country, but one with great

respect for the norms of international law.

My country, Argentina, has signed the Treaty on the

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), making

Argentina one of the most advanced countries — if not

the most advanced country — in developing nuclear

power for peaceful and scientific purposes. We sell

nuclear power generators to Egypt, Algeria and

Australia. We also use nuclear energy for medical

purposes. We do not condemn the use of nuclear energy

for warfare while at the same time deploying nuclear

submarines. That has been our experience, for example,

in connection with the sovereignty dispute involving

our Malvinas Islands, since the United Kingdom has

militarized the southern Atlantic region and sent nuclear

submarines. We have no double standards. We are not

hypocritical. We have not only signed the NPT but are

also parties to the Rome Statute of the International

Criminal Court (ICC), as was also mentioned by the

Secretary-General in his statement.

In other words, when we speak of condemning

dictators, we are actually parties to the Rome Statute and

can be brought before the Court. We are also members

of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

in Washington, D.C. It is curious that many who speak

of respect for human rights, the relevant institutions,

international law and the ICC and often refer to human

rights have not signed the treaties on the subject.

If one is to speak of human rights, Argentina

has accomplished a great deal. We were a founding

Member of the Organization and promoted the creation

of a human rights secretariat within the United Nations

and the International Convention for the Protection of

All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. I am joined

here by the head of the Asociación Madres de Plaza de

Mayo. She was also with me in Paris to sign the treaty,

of which we are a founding party.

I referred to human rights because there was

something said today about human rights in another

speech. It has been said here that if this is the world

in which people want to live, then they should say so

and be prepared to face the cold logic of mass graves.

Argentina too can speak of mass graves. Even today,

well into the twenty-first century, we continue to

come upon mass graves that hold the remains of the

thousands of prisoners and those who disappeared

under the genocidal dictatorship that began 24 March

1976, which was similar to the one that took power

on 11 September 1973 in our sister republic of Chile,

overthrowing the democratically elected Government

of Salvador Allende.

How wonderful it would have been, after all the

speeches condemning genocidal dictators, if someone

back then had come to the aid of the Argentine and

Chilean and so many other peoples of the American

continent who, in the midst of the Cold War, were the

sacrificial victims of murderous dictators. But it was

also said here that, if those who cared about human

rights were moved to act on someone’s behalf, perhaps

if that concern had at least coincided with the interests

of some great Power, they would have acted differently.

We have spoken of those things here, including the

need to put an end to that double standard, and we have

said that the resolutions and decisions of a multilateral

organization such as the United Nations must take place

on a level playing field for the weak and the strong, the

small and the large.

We have been waiting since 1965, when the

plenary and many resolutions of the Assembly and

the Committee on Decolonization required both

Argentina and the United Kingdom to sit down to

hold a dialogue — another word that I have repeatedly

heard in every speech. There is a dispute over the

matter of sovereignty over the Malvinas, and yet,the

United Kingdom has turned a cold shoulder. And so

we continue with double standards, which some people

do not like to hear mention of. But hypocrisies are like

witches; evidently, they exist.

I have also heard — I should add that I have heard

with pleasure, so not everything has to do with double

standards — that there has at last been recognition, as

an essential basis for beginning to untie the Gordian

knot that the matter of the Middle East represents, of

the need to recognize the State of Palestine and the

right of the State of Israel to live securely within its

borders. Moreover, I think it has quite rightly been said

that it is impossible to achieve security for the State of

Israel unless there is also recognition of the existence,

and support for the viability of the physical existence

of, the State of Palestine. We can do no less than agree

on that characterization.

I have also heard the new President of the Islamic

Republic of Iran, and I have heard the comments that

the great Powers have made about that change of

Government. If I understood correctly, there appears

to be a kind of new expectation of change in the face

of the new authorities in the Republic of Iran, with

which, as the Assembly knows, we have a disagreement

that stems from — a cause of mine — a formal case

by the Argentine judiciary against five Iranian citizens

in connection with their participation in the bombing

of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina. It has

now been 10 years since, for the first time, on 25 May

2003, then President Néstor Kirchner called in this

same Hall for the Islamic Republic of Iran to cooperate

in clarifying the facts of that case. Year after year

until 2007, he continued to do so, and from 2007 until

today I myself have also continued to do so. A little

over a year ago, we received a reply from the then

Foreign Minister of Iran offering to initiate talks and

reach an agreement on cooperation. Why? For a very

simple reason. Because the case has been stalled for

19 years. Nothing has moved. If there are five Iranian

accused, the only one with whom I can and must speak

so that the judge can take a deposition from those five

citizens is obviously the Republic of Iran. That seems

very obvious, but often in this peculiar world, even in

my own country, which is also a bit peculiar, obvious

things have to be explained.

I have also heard today about imperfect choices.

I liked that expression, which was used by one of

the Presidents. I think that when Argentina spends

10 years asking for cooperation and then suddenly

someone finally says “Fine, we are going to talk; we

are going to cooperate”, there was no other possible

choice except to sit down together. That issue used was

internally in our country to attack us politically, and

here too in the United States by the vulture funds to pit

us against the United States Congress and say that we

were reaching an agreement, a treaty, with Iran. But

on what? Nuclear weapons? No. On a strategic alliance

to attack the West? No. On an agreement to convert to

Islam? No. The agreement was simply to unblock the

procedural impasse in order for the Argentine judiciary

to take depositions from the accused, while at the same

time ensuring due process through a commission of

international jurists who would be neither Iranian nor

Argentine and whose actions would not be binding.

The treaty was approved in my country nine months

ago. I could almost say that the baby is about to be

born, if I were to put it in biological terms or in terms

of childbirth. It was approved by all the appropriate

organisms, including the Parliament. It was published

in the official bulletin. The world knows that Argentina

has duly complied with that treaty. To those who found

it so convenient for Iran — after nine years with no

news or notification or agreement from the Iranian

authorities, I wonder if we were not right ourselves

when we affirmed and said that it was a way to unblock

the issue.

The fact is that there is now a new Government to

whose speeches I listened attentively, and a President

who declared in statements I read that he in no way

denied the Holocaust. That is very important. At least

it is important to me and to many citizens around

the world. Even today, he specifically declared that

through the recent election, by displacing a leader

whose positions we have all heard, so there is no point

in repeating them, Iranian society had proved that it

wanted more moderate positions. We have heard, from

this very rostrum and these very microphones, that there

is a will to agree, to talk, to be an open and peaceful

democratic society, and to act in goodwill.

The President of France referred to the nuclear

case as the important matter pertaining to Iran; I

would like to speak about the issue of the Asociación

Mutual Israelita Argentina as the other major issue.

They said they would make gestures by opening up to

negotiations, and that they did not want weapons for

military use. In other words, as I understood it, they

were saying that they would adhere to what we support,

which is non-proliferation. Now we wait to be told if

the agreement has been approved, or when it will be.

Moreover, we await the announcement of the date for

the establishment of the commission, as well as a date

for the Argentine judge to travel to Tehran — yes, to

Tehran; we are not afraid and we will go there.

We believe in the goodwill of people, and there is

no reason for us not to believe that they actually want

peace. Everyone who has spoken here has said they

wanted peace and that they loved one another, so we

believe everyone. But we also hope to see everyone

acting consistent with their words and actions. I

therefore wanted to put this specific question on the

table. I have no doubt that, if the words we have heard

here are true, we will see a positive response. I say that

to avoid any misunderstanding as to our deep conviction

and belief in the rules of international law, and also

to make it clear that our patience does not mean that

we are naive or even foolish. We think that more than

enough time has gone by, and we think answers are now

needed. The victims deserve this. The Islamic Republic

of Iran deserves that too, if it really wants to show to

the world that this is a different Government and that

its actions are also different. I trust that this will be the

case. I have no reason to think otherwise.

As for other matters that I wish to discuss, let me

say that we are “serial abiders” when it comes to the

norms of international law. We are also “serial victims”

of other unwritten rules that are nevertheless very

important in today’s world of finance and economics.

They are norms not written by the major international

financial centres or the risk-rating agencies or those

that speculate, like the vulture funds, when it comes to

dealing with countries that, like Argentina, defaulted

on their debt, in the case of Argentina in 2001.

There has also been talk here of poverty and the

need for children to have access to education. I wish to

read out two paragraphs of the address by the Secretary-

General. The first has to do with weapons, wherein he

speaks about poverty and points out that

“at a time of pressing human need, spending on

weapons remains absurdly high. Let us get our

priorities right and invest in people instead of

wasting billions of dollars on deadly weapons.”

(A/68/PV.5, p. 3)

For the record, Argentina does not produce any

chemical weapons, or even sell conventional weapons.

It would be interesting to find out — as I mentioned

at the G-20 — who supplies weapons to the rebel

groups that are fighting the Syrian Government. It goes

without saying that the Government of Syria possesses

the weapons of a State. We would like to know who

supplies the weapons to those who fight the Syrian

Government. This is not about taking any sides; rather

it is just about putting forward something that is quite

logical, for the weapons trade is today a real business.

Did we really have to wait for 1,000 people to die

as a result of chemical weapons to realize that 150,000

others had died before them? Why was an arms

embargo not declared two years ago to prevent so many

deaths? Well, that should be answered by those who sell

weapons. We do not sell them and therefore cannot give

an answer to that question — although we suspect what

it would be.

I would also like to read out another very significant

passage in which the Secretary-General talked about

the economic situation. Although the question of Syria

has been the common thread running through the

whole Assembly, it is clear that the economic crisis that

started here in the United States with the bankruptcy of

Lehman Brothers in 2008 still, despite all speeches and

things we have seen and heard, continues to generate

volatility and fragility. The latter is a term that was

often invoked, and not just in the G-20.

We see millions of people unemployed around the

world, a situation that very much reminds us of that in

Argentina in 2001 when we defaulted on our own debt.

This is linked to the fact that we are also serial victims

of the unwritten rules of the lobbyists, of risk-rating

agencies and of those who trade in financial derivatives

and speculate like vultures hovering over countries in

default, buying securities at very low prices and then

attempting to make millions. That is the Argentine

case, but it could be the story of any other country, very

soon in fact.

Since the Government of former President Néstor

Kirchner first took office, on 25 May 2003, Argentina

began to explore how to emerge from its debt, which

accounted for 160 per cent of our country’s gross

national product. We had 25 per cent unemployment,

a poverty rate of 54 per cent and more than 30 per cent

in extreme poverty. Many countries could perhaps see

themselves mirrored in that state of affairs.

In 2005 we organized the first restructuring process,

which was accepted by 76 per cent of our creditors.

During my own Government in 2010 we reopened the

debt-restructuring process and managed to secure the

approval of 93 per cent of our creditors. Consider that, in

any country that has insolvency laws, when companies

go bankrupt the law requires the agreement of at least

66 per cent of the creditors in order for the bankruptcy

judge to make the remaining creditors accept the

terms — at least, that is the case in Argentina. I think

the number is the same in the United States, that is,

66 per cent. In addition, here in the United States even

municipalities can declare bankruptcy, and a judge may

decide that, if the sustainability of the municipality is at

stake, an even lower figure is acceptable.

The fact remains that in 2010 Argentina reached

agreement with 93 per cent of its creditors. Since 2005,

Argentina has consistently and in a timely manner paid

each and every one of its debt maturities, so much so

that the last payment was made only a few days ago.

That involved a bond subject to Argentine domestic

law, payable in Buenos Aires. We paid $2.07 billion,

and today our debt to gross domestic product ratio is

a little under 45 per cent, down from 160 per cent, as I

mentioned before. Much of the debt is actually public-

sector debt. The foreign-currency-denominated debt of

Argentina is only 8 per cent of gross domestic product,

due both to national and foreign private holders. I

would reiterate, however, that we have been in strict

compliance.

In 2008, seven years after Argentina defaulted

on its debt, the vulture funds, as we call them,

swooped in. The United Nations is caught between the

vultures of debt and the hawks of war. It is worse than

Hitchcock’s The Birds, since Hitchcock, at least, was

a good director. But what is certain is that bonds were

purchased for $40 million, and they now wish to collect

on that while disregarding the creditors’ agreement to

certain arrangements and extensions. The creditors,

like any group of creditors, wanted to be repaid and

so approved certain arrangements and extensions. But

the vulture funds want to recover the whole nominal

value of the bonds, without arrangements, extensions or

delay. From the $40 million that they initially bought in

the so-called self-regulated markets, they will recover

$1.7 billion. So from 2008, we are talking about a yield

of over 1,300 per cent.

I would like to ask the Secretary-General where

we can find businesspeople devoted to creating jobs,

innovating and investing in production if, in this kind

of casino economy, somebody can buy $40 million in

defaulted bonds and then secure a court decision that

enables them to collect $1.3 or $1.7 billion.

This is not only an Argentinian problem; this is a

problem that involves the whole world. This is why we

wish to thank the Republic of France for having gone

to the United States Supreme Court and presented itself

as amicus curiae. We also thank the former head of the

International Monetary Fund, Anne Krueger. She is not

and has never been a very good friend of Argentina’s,

but she also did that.

We also remember the former United States

Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neill, who, when it

was decided to leave Argentina to its own devices in

2001, amidst a social and institutional crisis that left

30 people dead as a result of violence in the streets,

said that American plumbers should not have to pay

for an Argentine fiesta. Today, I say that the millions

of Argentines who went back to work, the millions of

Argentines who can once again entertain hopes and

dreams, the scientists who returned to the country and

the children who once again have access to education

do not have to pay for the lobbyists’ fiesta. These

lobbyists, by participating in political campaigns and

contributing money to the politicians’ campaigns here,

have the lobbying power they need to destabilize the

international financial system. Is that not remarkable?

And such a short time has elapsed between Paul

O’Neill’s assertion and what we are saying today.

We are not asking for anything. We just want to

be allowed to pay. It is remarkable. We started by

defaulting on our debt and now they will not let us

pay it back. It seems almost absurd, in a world that is

grappling with debt restructuring involving millions of

men and women. Even here in the United States, there

are men and women who are unemployed and have lost

their homes, not to speak of the devastation we see in

Europe.

Obviously, Argentina and many of the countries

represented here today do not have the good fortune

of being countries that issue reserve currencies, but

we have expressed our willingness to honour our

commitments. I think this should be recognized,

unless the idea is to use a country like Argentina as an

example, because it was able to climb out of the hole, to

create jobs and generate growth, and to pay its creditors

without applying the prescriptions that the International

Monetary Fund tried to impose upon it.

Incidentally, there is also a need for global market

regulation and market interventions. Wonderful

statements have been made in the Group of 20 regarding

tax havens, ratings agencies and capital flows, but what

is certain is that the world needs global laws for global

governance. Just as we ask for Security Council and

General Assembly resolutions to be respected, we also

ask for rules and for respect for the sovereignty of

countries, especially those countries like ours that wish

to honour their commitments.

Finally, I would like to address the Assembly on

this very special day. Today we see war, human rights

violations and other violations intertwined. Perhaps

some are of a more subtle nature, such as losing one’s

job, one’s rights, one’s livelihood or one’s hope. I think,

at the core, our duty as world leaders is to build a truly

different history.

Many of those who have already spoken have made

somewhat ambivalent statements. Some have been

encouraging, while others have been disillusioned as a

result of not having been able to do what they wanted,

almost as if their desire to do something had just been

a whim, and when they were not allowed to, they grew

frustrated. I believe that the one thing we cannot do

when we have the responsibility of governing and

when we might be able to govern a country with a lot

of power is to lose our temper or, even worse, make

mistakes. Making mistakes is the one thing we should

not do, because mistakes are not paid for by the leaders

who make decisions or imperfect choices. Mistakes are

paid for in human lives, not only if we are talking about

war, but also if we are talking about the economy. In

that case, they are paid for in terms of unemployment,

lack of access to health care, education, housing and

security.

There is cheap labour available for drug trafficking,

which we talk so much about fighting. One of the keys

to fighting drug trafficking is to put an end to cheap

labour in emerging and underdeveloped countries. We

must also put an end to money-laundering for drug

trafficking in central countries, because the money

is not laundered in the countries that produce the raw

materials. Money-laundering takes place in the central

countries. It is right to say this, because we hear so

much talk about drug trafficking and other things.

I would conclude with a phrase by the Secretary-

General that I really liked. I thought his invitation was

most appropriate. It was specifically an invitation to

turn hope into action through hard work, commitment,

dignity and integrity. He ended with the words “with

passion”. I am a person with a lot of passion. Some say

that I am sometimes a bit too passionate and a bit too

forceful in my statements. “With passion”, he said, but

above all with compassion. He said that we can build

a future that the people want and the world needs with

passion and compassion.

It is not the first time I have heard this word. I must

confess that I heard it many years ago, and very often,

in my own country. Perhaps I did not understand it at

the time, this passion. It was used then, and is still used

today, by a cardinal from Argentina who is today Pope

and whom I would also like, as a Christian, to thank

for the key role he played in dealing with the question

of Syria. Compassion and passion — that means the

passionate embrace of hope, of the future, of the things

that are yet to come, and compassion for those who are

less privileged, for the most vulnerable, for those who

are waiting for so many things, who have done nothing

to deserve extreme poverty and be Godforsaken, and

compassion for all those who are victims — of war, of

unemployment, of extreme poverty and misery — in

other words, of our own failures as world leaders.