Bolivia, 1998

The election of the Foreign Minister of

Uruguay as President of this session of the General

Assembly is a source of great pride to Latin America. It is

also a fitting tribute to Mr. Opertti, whose diplomatic

experience and skills augur well for the success of this

fifty-third session.

Just when it seemed that we had secured stability,

signs of a severe crisis reappeared in the horizon. Indeed,

commodity prices have declined on average by 30 per cent,

reaching their lowest levels in the last three decades in real

terms. Consequently, exports from Latin America to

developed countries, consisting primarily of raw materials,

have begun to shrink, and trade balance deficits in the

region have increased proportionately.

There has been a decline in growth of output in Latin

America. Businesses are reducing production volume,

paying less tax and going further into debt with the banks.

There is a proportionate decline in domestic savings and

investment in infrastructure, in the training of human

resources and in the production of goods and services.

Visible unemployment is on the rise, and shadow economic

activities are gaining ground.

This brief account — no less grim for its brevity —

of the current situation points to a dangerous recession in

Asia and Latin America.

Of course, the fact that this turbulence began about a

year ago in Asia, halfway round the world, before reaching

the Andes, reveals the extent to which the world economic

system has become interdependent. Both the scale and the

consequences of this interdependence would have been

inconceivable until recently. The planet has indeed become

the global village which was to be the sign of the future, as

we had all heard.

But there is an ugly and unfair side to globalization

that I wish to stress. Countries — and when I use the

word, I do not just mean abstract entities, but actual

people with spiritual and material needs — are not paying

only for their own mistakes but also for the economic

policy errors and negligence of others.

Let me take my own country as an example. A small

country, with enormous structural limitations, it made a

gigantic effort, at enormous cost and at the price of

enormous sacrifices, to put its accounts and institutional

structure in order. Bolivia overcame hyper-inflation,

restored its macroeconomic balance and made progress in

first- and second-generation structural reforms. We

established a democratic system which, while not perfect,

is being studied in our region as a model of political

cooperation and social dialogue. We are prepared to

commit all our energies to casting off the historic chains

of corruption and poverty.

This entire effort, just now beginning to be

productive, may be thwarted by causes that are beyond

our control and for which we bear no responsibility. It is

true that our progress may not have been sufficiently

rapid and that our economic and social structures are still

weak, but the crisis we face today does not stem from

these deficiencies.

Bolivia and other countries will have to foot the bill

for the mistakes of others, for far distant trivialities. We

are suffering, the analysts tell us, from the contagion of

the Asian crisis, and we would do well to pray harder to

prevent anything happening in our own country or

anywhere in the broad region surrounding us.

My country did what it had to do and did it well. No

one wants to go back to the past. No right-thinking

Bolivian wants for a moment to return to the days of

authoritarianism, hyper-inflation or the bureaucratic state.

No, this is not what it is all about. But nor is it about

acting as if nothing had happened — as if all that was

necessary to overcome this crisis was to take a stronger

dose of the same medicine. That would be an

unforgivable mistake.

The current situation has revealed such shortcomings

in the international system, particularly with regard to

international financial flows, that it would not make sense

to keep things as they are. Next month there will be a

meeting of the Ministers of Finance of the Group of

Seven — the nexus of world economic power — to

decide our fate. I do not know if our voice will be heard,

16

but I do believe that this Assembly of the peoples of the

world is itself a message that can at least remind them of

a few things.

There is a need for prompt and concerted action on

the part of the advanced and developing countries to

diminish the volatility of financial markets and to provide

some discipline and procedures for incentives and penalties

aimed at remedying the major shortcomings in these

markets. There must be an increase in the availability of

public financial resources in the International Monetary

Fund and other institutions to compensate promptly and

efficiently for damage caused by unduly heightened risk in

any given country or by the wanton recklessness of

speculators on the world’s stock markets.

There must be a discussion very soon about the nature

and the new role of the International Monetary Fund and

the World Bank and of the necessary adjustments thereto,

because these bodies were created in a context quite

different from that of today and clearly have been

overwhelmed by the events of recent years, which could not

be prevented. Their structure, their resources, their

philosophy and their modus operandi were severely

criticized since the 1980s in Latin America and in the

Assembly, and today they have shown themselves to be

unable to contain the impact of the current crisis. We have

globalized the crises of poverty and unemployment. Let us

also globalize the commitment to solve them.

By virtue of the universal nature of this body, by

virtue of the terms of the Charter of San Francisco and

because it is here that the concerns and problems of the

States Members of this supreme world Organization should

be set forth, I must once again raise what is well known as

Bolivia’s maritime problem.

Almost 120 years ago, in a military confrontation not

of its own making, Bolivia lost a long strip of coastline on

the Pacific Ocean. Our country thus lost, temporarily, its

maritime status, its sovereign access to the sea — an

essential condition of its existence — as well as its

geopolitical role and status as a bridge between the great

basins of South America.

The economic damage wrought by this loss was

immense. I will not take time here today to mention the

value of the minerals and fishing resources of this territory,

as it is incalculable. Suffice it to recall that recent studies

have shown that the cost of the landlocked condition of my

country is estimated at $4 billion every 10 years, an amount

equal to that of our foreign debt.

However, perhaps the most serious consequence of

this ill-fated event was that my country was condemned

to be penned in behind the Andes, far removed from the

mainstream of the passage of goods, peoples and cultures,

which are the very lifelines of the development of

nations. Therefore, ever mindful of the magnitude of the

damage, my country never accepted this status of

isolation imposed upon us. We have unceasingly called

for this injustice to be redressed, but in doing so we have

abided by our tradition as peaceful people that rejects

conflicts. However, our voices never fell silent.

We sought bilateral negotiations with Chile and

brought our case to international forums.

On various occasions, the bilateral negotiations

concluded with agreements or concrete proposals for a

solution whose main objective was the return to Bolivia

of its sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, with a

coastline, a port of its own and an overland link. For

reasons that I shall not go into now, these dealings were

never concluded and were added to the long list of lost

opportunities on the record of relations between our

countries.

Bolivia’s cause has always been met with the

sympathy and understanding of the international

community. There have been numerous expressions of

such solidarity. I would just like to refer to two, one in

the framework of the Non-Aligned Movement and the

other in that of the Organization of American States

(OAS). I will state only the relevant portion of the

resolution adopted by the ninth General Assembly of the

Organization of American States, which was held in La

Paz in 1979. That resolution states, in its operative part

that,

“it is in the inherent interest of our hemisphere to

find an equitable solution whereby Bolivia can

obtain sovereign and effective access to the Pacific

Ocean”

as part of a proposal aimed at,

“securing, in a spirit of fraternity and integration of

the Americas, the objective referred to in the

previous paragraph and to consolidate a stable peace

which would stimulate economic and social progress

in the region of the Americas directly affected by

the consequences of Bolivia’s landlocked condition.”

17

In spite of everything, the problem still awaits a

solution. It is a kind of throwback to another time, another

logic, another way of seeing relations between neighbouring

nations. This has left an indelible mark on the memory of

my country. I must therefore state emphatically before the

Assembly that Bolivia will never back down from its

demand and that it will not be discouraged by how long its

efforts may take. Bolivia has the staying power and

limitless patience of an ancient people and knows that the

time is sure to come when this long-standing issue will be

definitively resolved. Our hope becomes conviction when

we see how other nations find ways of unravelling the

Gordian knot of conflicts at least as complex as our own.

The case made by President Hugo Banzer last year in

the Assembly is still valid. He recently put it again to the

twelfth presidential summit of the Rio Group in the

following terms:

“There is no subject which cannot be discussed, if it

is approached in good faith, without preconceptions or

prejudices. The subjects of peace, security and

democracy are not items reserved for diplomats and

specialists. All the institutions of society have an

opinion to voice and ideas to contribute. These are

voices which must be heard and heeded. I would

therefore like to propose that wherever there is open

conflict between our nations or where the embers of

ancient conflicts still smoulder, let us call upon our

citizens to help us find the path to solutions. Let us

throw open the windows of Latin American diplomacy

and let in the fresh air of new opinions and the sound

of new voices. Only recently I made the same point

by suggesting that Bolivians and Chileans meet

together and talk about the vast potential of our

relationship and find a way of removing the obstacles

which block its path. I am repeating this here today,

because I am convinced that we must find a way of

breaking with the status quo. We cannot bind

ourselves to the inheritance of other times and other

problems.”

It could not be clearer that now is the time for

economic integration and a political solution for access to

the ocean, not for confrontations. The nature of the global

system requires the formation of large-scale spaces in

which ideas and goods can move freely, where common

institutions can be built and where new cultures can be

nurtured, the fruit of the mingling of diverse peoples. If this

is true anywhere, it is true in Latin America.

In order to clear the path along these major

highways, we must remove the obstacles that are blocking

or hindering the march towards integration. In the case of

relations between Bolivia and Chile, this means resolving

the age-old disputes which led to the breaking off of

diplomatic relations at the end of the 1970s. The

liberalization of trade, agreements on economic

complementarity and arrangements for free transit are all

essential parts of this picture, but not the whole picture.

For this to happen, what is needed is vision and

courage on both sides. If we want to find new, different

solutions in keeping with the times, we can no longer

remain mired in the juridical, diplomatic and military

logic of the past. If we want to find answers, we may

have to move outside those circles that have traditionally

handled these matters up to now. This is the sense of the

proposal of President Banzer: to bring businessmen,

workers, churches, professionals and the peoples of

Bolivia and Chile into the dialogue.

Of course, the international community has a crucial

role to play in the search for agreement. The counsel,

guidance and help of friendly countries within the

framework of the subregional integration processes in

which they are engaged may just be the missing factor

needed to get dialogue going, to bring diplomats to the

negotiating table, to make leaders shoulder their historical

responsibilities and to reach a solution bringing our

peoples together. My country is convinced that the

underlying problems must be dealt with because we know

that integration will be consolidated only when economic

agreements guarantee that it will be sustained by the

political will and confidence of our nations.

There are many initiatives that should not be left

only on paper. Last June, during the special session

devoted to the drug problem, important proposals were

made. Bolivia put forth the idea of creating a body,

similar to a consultative group, made up of countries that

would help finance the high cost of the fight against drug-

trafficking. We would like to know what steps have been

taken to implement this, as well as the other initiatives

that were proposed in that highly important specialized

forum.

The phenomenon of corruption, which is no stranger

to most countries represented here, is a disease that

spreads and damages our institutional structures, saps the

legitimacy of democracy, distorts the economy, creates

bad habits in public administration and erodes morality.

18

In compliance with a presidential order, last 21

September we had the honour of celebrating at a solemn

ceremony the signing of an accord among the principal

institutions of the State representing the three branches of

power, whereby the National Integrity Plan came into

effect. This Plan establishes a comprehensive strategy to

combat corruption. The judicial basis for the Plan is taken

from the Inter-American Convention against Corruption,

which was signed by the member States of the OAS in

1996 and which Bolivia was the first nation to ratify as the

law of the land.

After careful thought, we have made this policy one

of the highest priorities of the Government of Bolivia. We

have begun to put into effect the first concrete measures to

combat this evil and to make this proposal State policy. We

now invite the international community to follow our

endeavour closely and to support our initiative.

Bolivia vigorously adheres to all the statements that

have repudiated terrorism, a despicable practice that has no

justification whatsoever. It will support any initiative or

action that may be put forth to fight it.

In another area, we wish to underline the Secretary-

General’s task in the process of the reform of the United

Nations. We believe that there has been progress in the

efforts to reduce bureaucracy, rationalize expenses and

avoid duplication in the work of the United Nations. We

also believe that it would be healthy to enhance the

Economic and Social Council in order to turn it into an

economic, social, scientific and technological council. It

would also be worthwhile to create a council for

humanitarian affairs responsible for social problems of our

time, such as poverty, unemployment, discrimination and all

forms of exclusion.

We meet every year to express our concerns and

thoughts, to share experiences and reaffirm our faith in the

purposes and principles of the San Francisco Charter. Each

year, we would like to see positive advances in the solution

of problems, in joint responses to crises, in the spread of

peace on the world map. Thus, the United Nations will

continue to grow even stronger. Bolivia wishes, as always,

to contribute to the achievement of those goals.