Bolivia, 1992

I first had the honour of addressing the

General Assembly in September 1989, shortly after assuming the presidency of

Bolivia. I anticipated then that the vertiginous changes taking place in and

around us would bear the hallmark of what I termed the revolution of

democracy.

Today, after all we have experienced in this brief but intense period, we

can see more clearly that the growth of universal awareness among men and

women has not only given democracy, as a system, a global dimension for the

first time in the history of mankind, but has also meant that its power for

change and its potential for transformation are clearly challenging old ideas,

old structures and old habits.

I will say without fear of contradiction if I may be permitted to

paraphrase what someone has said that democracy is racing round the globe,

no longer a phantasmal newcomer but rather a wind of renewal and hope.

Accordingly, what we must now surely call global democracy is shedding

new light on old truths, leading us to understand better, for example, that

power is, by definition, something to be shared; that we need a new and better

understanding of the dynamics of consensus and dissent; and that the various

forms of intermediation necessary for social life are now in crisis.

Indeed, the more complex the organizational processes of a particular

government, as is the case in democracy, the greater the need for that power

to be shared if we wish to see it adequately maintained and developed. By the

same token, the more rudimentary and simple power is, as is the case in

authoritarianism and dictatorship, the less evident is the necessity of

sharing power.

Similarly, we can now see that the useful consensus on the basis of which

the old democracies of the industrialized countries were built, with

government and opposition thinking and acting virtually in the same way, seems

to citizens a worn-out mechanism that hampers change. Paradoxically, at the

opposite pole, in the young democracies of developing countries, the citizenry

zealously calls for consensus as an essential means of uniting the nation's

forces in pursuit of indispensable changes.

It would seem, then, that where the art of consensus was perfected, the

need is arising to learn how to manage dissent in an appropriate way; and

where dissent had become a way of life and a cause of stagnation, there is a

need in turn to learn how to build consensus. This could well be described as

the dynamics of consensus and dissent under democracy.

As to the forms of intermediation to be found in social life, we also see

that the citizens of universal democracy are striving to reduce intermediacy,

striving to take the initiative in everyday life in a more direct way. It is

then that the citizen comes to regard intermediation as something of his own

that is inescapable, genuine, close, efficient, transparent and

representative. Therefore, we should not be surprised today to find a state

of crisis in the political, religious, trade-union and cultural forms of

intermediation, and even in that great intermediator, the State itself.

This last point is especially useful and relevant as we turn to an

examination of the present state of our Organization, for, in our view, what

has come to be called the crisis of the United Nations seems to be in essence

nothing other than a crisis of intermediation. I say this because in fact we

have always thought that the United Nations represents the most advanced

mechanism of intermediation on Earth but that, in order to continue to be

such, it must adapt itself to the newly emerging global scenarios of the

revolution of democracy.

For nearly half a century after its inception, the United Nations played

the privileged role of intermediary during the era of hegemonic blocs and the

cold war. That indicated the quantity and quality of intermediation possible

within that context, at the same time creating a way of sharing international

power and a method of managing the dynamics of consensus and dissent, within

the prevailing balance, managing in that context to determine even its own

structure, organization and functioning. Under that old order, the United

Nations achieved great credibility. And although in many places peace was not

always preserved, the Organization achieved something that appeared

impossible: prevention of a nuclear conflagration between opposing and

seemingly irreconcilable blocs.

But things have changed dramatically and, with them, so must our

Organization. In saying this I believe I am voicing what all of us in the

Assembly are thinking. It is clear that the new world order needs new

credibility, which the United Nations must earn. The citizens and nations of

global democracy are placing unavoidable challenges before our Organization,

challenges that require us to adapt its structures, modernize its machinery

and identify new priorities and thus the new intermediation that is possible

in terms of quantity and quality. And, with no other aim in mind than that of

seeking answers, allow me to illustrate these ideas by describing a few

selected developments which, in addition to being new, have the common feature

of having gained global proportions, which makes them particularly deserving

of the Organization's keenest attention.

The first of these is what I would describe as the dialectic of the

universal and the particular, or, alternatively, the dialectic of

universalisms and particularisms. I am referring to the obvious fact that

peoples today are expressing two attitudes that are seemingly contradictory

but are none the less part of the same dynamic.

On the one hand they are striving for complementarity through processes

of integration that are laying out ever broader geographical, political,

economic and commercial areas that already constitute a new world geography.

On the other hand, simultaneously and paradoxically, those same peoples and

citizens are reaffirming their identity and their essence, sometimes

intransigently demanding their own cultural, historic, religious, and

immediate political frameworks. In an apparent contradiction, they seem to be

trying to experience, simultaneously and complementarily, the great and the

small, the longer-term and the immediate, the universal and the particular.

The second of these developments arises from the fact that the market

economy has gained ascendancy in the same manner as democracy and, together

with them, the awareness of a better life and the need for well-being and

human and social development have also become global. Consequently, we face

as never before the urgent need for a form of solidarity that will enable us

to hit upon an appropriate relationship between the market economy, democracy,

and human development. That solidarity, by emphasizing social development

and, for many of our countries, in a frontal assault upon poverty, will enable

us also to redefine the foundations of new social legitimacy for States,

internally and internationally.

The third development has to do with something that we agreed upon at the

recent Conference in Rio de Janeiro. We live in a single global ecosystem and

we are all jointly responsible for its conservation and clean-up. We also

agreed that little purpose would be served by preserving a world to be

inhabited by an impoverished human race, which clearly implies that the

ecological stewardship of the planet does not run counter to our peoples'

needs for development. Consequently, it remains for us promptly to endow the

Commission on Sustainable Development with the resources, powers and machinery

it will need to fulfil the objectives we have set for ourselves. That means

implementing Agenda 21, a true plan of action for the next century, as a point

of departure for offsetting the historical environmental debt we have spoken

of in other forums.

The fourth development pertains to technology. In the joint

deliberations the Presidents of the Ibero-American countries engaged in to

mark the Quincentennial of 1492, we concluded that the final explanation for

all colonial processes is to be found in a confrontation in which the winner

achieves ascendancy by virtue of his technological superiority, and that this

first technological defeat lies at the root of dependency and

marginalization. We then agreed that in order to redress that situation it

was necessary to share technological power more democratically, and that one

appropriate way to do so might well be to declare as the common heritage of

mankind those basic technologies that are indispensable to satisfy adequately

the equally basic rights of mankind: health, nutrition, education and

housing. I venture to reiterate that initiative before the Assembly with an

explicit proposal by Bolivia to the international community that we should

seek participatory, creative and markedly personal machinery that would become

the main thrust of the work of the social summit we should now convene.

The fifth, and last, development I wish to bring to the attention of the

Assembly relates to a right which is already recognized under Article 19 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of our Organization, which states

that everyone has the right to

"seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and

regardless of frontiers." (resolution 217 (III). Article 19)

Representatives will surely agree that in recent decades technology has

turned information, too, into a phenomenon of equally global proportions. At

the same time, the universal revolution of democracy has instilled an

unprecedented awareness among citizens of their right to inform and be

informed. That growing awareness is in turn linked to the observable fact

that the gap now separating the well-informed citizen from the poorly informed

citizen seems quantitatively and qualitatively greater, or at least equal to,

that other gap separating extremes of wealth and poverty.

All of this leads us, in modern terms, to the perception that information

has become the Gordian knot or, if you wish, the crossroads of human rights.

Indeed, although it may appear an arbitrary simplification, the

better-informed citizen eats more and better than the citizen who is not

well-informed and has greater opportunities, among other things, to obtain

access to better health and education. The problem becomes all the more acute

when, as mentioned earlier, information today has become a phenomenon that is

increasingly dependent on advanced technology and, consequently, the exercise

of the right conferred by the aforementioned Article 19 of the Declaration

really depends on each citizen's greater or lesser opportunity to have access

to technology on an equal footing.

I believe that a matter of such great importance requires special

treatment and attention on the part of our Organization. With that in mind,

it seems most appropriate to suggest that serious and urgent consideration be

given to the inclusion as a central focus of the World Conference on Human

Rights in 1993 the topic of citizens' information. I say "citizens'"

information because I am not referring to that other matter, relating more to

information among nations, which came to be known as the "new international

information order". Rather, I am referring to the citizens' right to

information and to the urgent need to guarantee, in principle and in reality,

equality for mankind with regard to information.

I wish to share with the Assembly my impression that, if we keep up with

history in moving along this road, we will be arming mankind against what

might be the most serious threat to democracy: the new authoritarianism, or,

if you prefer, the great dictatorship of the twenty-first century - the

perverse, systematic, sophisticated, invisible and elusive subjugation of the

citizens to the distorted and monopolistic control of information technology.

Allow me now to devote a few moments of my statement to recent

developments in my country. The curtain has just fallen on a period which is

now gone, perhaps never to return. In my country, the signs of new times are

much more visible than in other regions. Members here have themselves often

expressed that judgment and often urged and encouraged the efforts of my

people, who may now take pride in achievements that have impressed sceptics

and enlightened those whose minds were weighed down by the weary logic of the

past.

Bolivia is a nation at peace, and, collectively and individually, it is

perhaps one of the safest on the continent. It has consolidated its

democratic system and is making concordance the basic instrument of its

political endeavours.

On 9 July, all my country's political parties Government and

opposition, right and left made a solemn commitment to carry forward in the

coming months the basic tasks of modernizing the State and society through

judicial, electoral and educational reforms, reforms in the administrative and

political machinery and, finally, reforms in the Constitution itself.

How encouraging it is to have left behind the Bolivia of factionalism,

one of the nightmares of the twentieth century, and to be entering the

twenty-first century free of those shackles.

We have built, first, financial stability and, then, growth. To do this,

it was necessary to face squarely the need to carry out the in-depth reform

and modernization of the economic system. That reform stands on four

foundations: stimulating competitiveness in the economy and freeing it from

tariff barriers, subsidies and State protection; expanding the scope for

private initiative in order to achieve the broadest citizen participation in

economic growth; stimulating investment, generating employment and extending

the benefits of development to the majority of Bolivians; and transforming the

State into an efficient manager respectful of solidarity, and into the main

party responsible for infrastructure and human development.

In this way, and based on the wisdom and capabilities of its people,

Bolivia has achieved the lowest rates of inflation in South America in the

last three years. At the same time, its growth rate was one of the highest in

the region, and per capita income has grown systematically during my

Administration.

All of this has brought us to a time of happiness and harmony. For the

first time in my country's contemporary history, there are more Bolivians

coming back than leaving, and more money flowing in than flowing out of

Bolivia. Never before has so much been invested in health, education and

basic sanitation, simply because we have never had as much access as we have

today to concessional resources, which are coming to Bolivia thanks to the

international community's confidence in the responsible way in which my

country is being governed. We are building an optimistic Bolivia, a Bolivia

with a future and with international stature.

While Bolivia is a country which reaches the Atlantic through the major

watercourses of the Amazon and the Rio de la Plata, it is by history,

geography and culture a country of the Pacific Ocean. There is no better

place than this forum of peace for me to reiterate that an unjust war deprived

us of the status of a maritime nation, in which our life as a republic began,

and thereby turned Bolivia into a country without a seacoast. The Bolivian

people will never give up its aspiration to the sea and to a sovereign and

useful presence on the Pacific coast. It matters not how much effort and

sacrifice may be required in pursuit of that objective.

To this end, we have laid out a strategy of peace and integration, a

gradual and pragmatic strategy by which an appropriate solution to Bolivia's

landlocked situation can be found that could be generally and mutually

beneficial to the countries of the region. Proof of the soundness and impact

of that strategy is the outcome of the Mariscal de Santa Cruz agreements

signed with Peru on 24 January in the southern city of Ilo. Although not

encompassing the sovereignty to which we aspired, and although not in the

location which historically is rightfully ours, agreement has been reached on

a commercial and industrial duty-free zone and on administration of the port

by Bolivian and Peruvian entrepreneurs. Moreover, a tourism area of

5 kilometres of beach has been granted, and it has already been named

"Boliviamar".

Three years ago I described to the Assembly Bolivia's national strategy

to fight the production of, trafficking in and illicit consumption of

narcotics, a strategy which my Government was then beginning to implement,

asking the international community for its understanding and support. In 1989

there were reasons to fear that drug trafficking might irremediably corrode

the political and institutional system of Bolivia, that it might come to

dominate the economy as a whole and might lead, sooner or later, to escalating

violence. Although at that time there were doubts as to Bolivia's ability to

carry out the plan, today I can say categorically that cocaine traffic has

ceased to be a strategic risk for Bolivia.

Bolivia is proof that the struggle against drug trafficking not only is

possible but can also be successful. Against the temptation to yield to

discouragement and pessimism, Bolivia stands out as a symbol, as a banner of

hope and optimism. We have systematically reduced the areas devoted to coca

growing; we have reduced the production of paste and cocaine hydrochloride; we

have taken firm action in the selection of specialized personnel, following

criteria of efficiency and honesty; and we have broken up the main networks of

drug trafficking in Bolivia by means of a decree-law known as the "Repentance

Decree", as a result of which the leaders of these organizations are now in my

country's jails.

All this was possible because we managed to avoid the imposition from

outside of concepts and plans ill-suited to our national reality. On the

contrary, we forged ahead with a peaceful struggle, ruling out the

militarization of the struggle and spared the country from the confrontation

and violence which had occurred elsewhere. In the light of this unquestionably

positive picture, Bolivia asks the international community to redouble its

efforts to reduce consumption, to control chemical precursors and to increase

quantitatively and qualitatively the resources allocated to improved

functioning of alternative development mechanisms, Bolivia's substantive

contribution to the body of knowledge on this topic.

Above all, we ask most earnestly that the coca leaf not be confused with

cocaine: the coca leaf is a good thing and is an expression of an age-old

cultural tradition originating in the Andes; cocaine, by contrast, is foreign,

alien, and came from outside.

From this rostrum, I pay a tribute to all the Bolivians who made possible

the enormous advances we have achieved in this fight against one of the

cruelest and most pernicious forms of corruption in contemporary society. I

wish to express my special thanks to the self-sacrificing workers and farmers

of my country.

Tomorrow, at the offices of the Interamerican Development Bank in

Washington, intergovernmental meetings will begin with a view to defining the

composition of the governing board of the Development Fund for Indigenous

Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, created on the initiative of the

Ibero-American countries meeting at the Guadalajara and Madrid summits.

Bolivia, a country of original indigenous stock, like so many others of

our continent, asks the international community to support this programme,

which is vital for the lives of many men and women, especially as we prepare

to celebrate 1993 as the International Year for the World's Indigenous People

with the theme of "Indigenous people a new partnership".

This is the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly. But for the

peoples of the Americas, and in particular the Ibero-American peoples, this

session marks the quincentennial of 1492. It is therefore a psychological

reality for us that one chapter of history is drawing to a close and another

is opening, one in which mankind will continue its tireless search,

discovering and building new worlds.

That is why Bolivia, a peaceful country of the South, which is

experiencing the profound challenges of development, is also concerned about

the fate of the industrialized North, where, following the natural euphoria

after the end of the cold war and the victory of democracy, there have been

worrying signs of uncertainty, lack of confidence and pessimism. I say I am

concerned about the North because, in contrast with the past, we are now all

living in one global political ecosystem, where threats, risks, victories and

failures have repercussions for us all.

For its part, Bolivia is prepared, together with other countries, to run

the shared risk of building a new and better world. In that endeavour, there

is only one requirement: that no one ignore anyone else.