Bolivia, 2011

Being present at this forum is very important to express

what we think, what we feel and what we work on, but

it is also important to express major differences

between Presidents and between Governments, our

differences on policies, programmes, projects,

11 11-50847

principles and values with some countries in this

world.

This morning we heard the statements of some

Presidents, and I realized that there are enormous

differences between the so-called small countries,

developing countries, underdeveloped countries,

compared with some Powers. For example, in the

debate here at the United Nations there is a clear

difference between the culture of life and the culture of

death, between truth and falsehood and between peace

and war.

Of course, we all have the right to have our

differences. We have a right to deep differences about

life, but I believe that our Organization, the United

Nations, has a duty to make it possible to align the

constant work of Governments to guarantee peace and

the equality and dignity of all those living on plant

Earth.

When I say that there is a deep difference

between the culture of life and the culture of death, I

feel that it will be difficult for us to come to an

understanding with economic policies that concentrate

capital in the hands of a few. Data show that 1 per cent

of the world’s population holds 50 per cent of its

wealth. If there are such deep differences, how can we

resolve the problem of poverty? And if we cannot put

an end to poverty how can we guarantee lasting peace?

Furthermore, imperialism seeks to control the

sources of energy throughout the world, and to that end

it has instruments to impose, control and constantly

invade. And it is not just now; it has always been so. I

remember when I was a child seeing rebellions of

peoples against the capitalist system, against economic

models that involved the permanent pillaging of our

natural resources. Left-leaning union leaders and

political leaders were accused of being Communists in

order to arrest them. There was military intervention

against social forces. People were confined, exiled,

killed, persecuted and jailed, accused of being

socialists, Maoists, Leninists and Marxist-Leninists.

I feel that that has ended. We are no longer

accused of being Marxists or Leninists, but now drug-

trafficking and terrorism are given as excuses. In

countries with many natural resources, particularly

related to energy, we are threatened by foreign

intervention, when Presidents, Governments and

peoples are not pro-capitalist or pro-imperialist.

And then there is talk about a lasting peace. How

can there be a lasting peace where there are United

States military bases? How can there be lasting peace

when there are military interventions?

I believe that our United Nations is subordinate to

the Security Council. What is the use of the United

Nations if a group of countries decides on

interventions, on killings? It is a Security Council for

whom? It is a Security Council for Presidents,

Governments, peoples who are pro-imperialist or

pro-capitalist. But it is the Insecurity Council for

Presidents, peoples or Governments who seek

liberation — not only cultural liberation, but also

economic liberation: the recovery of their economic

resources. Those are the deep divisions between the

Presidents from the various continents who are taking

part in our debates.

If we want the Organization to have the authority

to see that its resolutions are respected, we should

think of founding afresh the United Nations. We cannot

continue on the current footing.

Why do I say that? Every year at the United

Nations, almost 100 per cent of the Member States —

the United States and Israel being the exceptions —

decide that the economic blockade of Cuba should be

ended. Who ensures that that decision is respected?

The Security Council will never ensure that such

United Nations resolutions are respected; the United

Nations cannot ensure respect for that decision of the

whole world to lift the blockade against Cuba.

I cannot understand how the resolutions of an

Organization of all the countries of the world are not

respected. What, then, is the United Nations? It is time

for an in-depth debate on founding afresh this great

Organization, the largest in the world. We should

debate its role so that the United Nations is recognized

and respected by the peoples of the world. That can

happen only with the re-establishment of the United

Nations as a body which fights for the equality of all

the inhabitants of planet Earth, for the dignity of all

those whom we represent at the United Nations.

I have heard a number of interventions about

Palestine. Of course, Palestine has our full support.

Bolivia not only supports recognition of Palestine at

the United Nations, but also wishes to welcome

Palestine to the United Nations. Here I have a profound

observation. When Israel bombs, attacks, kills and

takes Palestinian land, there is no Security Council for

11-50847 12

that; there is no international organization that can stop

those bombings and killings, the genocide in Palestine.

When there was a coup d’état in Honduras, where

were the military bases to defend a President elected by

the Honduran people? Where was the Security Council

or the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to

defend democracy in Honduras?

It is time for us to think deeply about this. When

there are anti-imperialist Presidents with anti-capitalist

Governments, the empire tries to create internal

conflicts with what appear to be major confrontations,

making it appear in the media that a certain President

should fall, or it tries to divide a country to justify

intervention.

When there was a coup d’état in Honduras and

there were killings in Palestine, where was NATO?

Where was the Security Council? They were nowhere

to be found.

For those and many other reasons, it is important

to think again about re-establishing the United Nations.

How can we Presidents and Governments face

our responsibility of freeing our countries? Let me

speak of some important aspects of my experience as

President.

First, our natural resources can never be

privatized. They can never be handed over to

transnational companies, whether they be minerals, oil

or other natural resources. Before I became President,

hydrocarbons were in the hands of transnational

companies. What did the contracts say? They declared

that the owner assumed the right of ownership at the

mouth of the well. Governments told us that as long as

the resource — gas, oil — was underground it

belonged to all Bolivians, but the minute it came out of

the ground it belonged instead to the transnational

companies. In the contracts they concocted the idea

that the contract holder acquired ownership at the

mouth of the well; as soon as the oil and gas came out

of the ground they no longer belonged to Bolivians.

That was a constant pillaging of our natural resources.

On 1 May 2006, we nationalized and recovered

our natural resources through a supreme decree. From

then on our national economy began to change. From

then on Bolivia stopped being a beggar State. Before

2006 — I say this very sincerely — Bolivia was a

small country sometimes considered an

underdeveloped or developing country; it does not

matter what term is used.

We have just 10 million inhabitants. Investment

in Bolivia in 2005 was only $600 million, and more

than 50 per cent of it was credits or international

cooperation. Less than 50 per cent consisted of our

own resources. How much investment has there been

this year? The answer is $3.6 billion, with 20 per cent

or 30 per cent of that being through international

cooperation or credits, while almost 80 per cent is our

own resources, thanks to our recovery of hydrocarbons,

gas. How our economy has changed!

From 1948 until 2005 Bolivia never had a fiscal

surplus; it was in deficit. In our first year in charge —

2006 — we achieved a fiscal surplus. We also created

bonds for children and the elderly. We started to

democratize our economy, apart from increasing

investment. For the 180 years after Bolivia was

founded in 1825, what international reserves did we

have until 2005? The answer is $1.7 billion. Over

180 years, Governments of all kinds — liberal, military

dictatorships, neo-liberal — were able to save for

Bolivia only $1.7 billion. In less than six years we have

saved over $10 billion; Bolivia now has $11.7 billion

in international reserves.

In 2005, we were the next to last country in terms

of international reserves. Now we have improved,

thanks to the recovery and nationalization of

hydrocarbons. Recovering natural resources, having

them in the hands of the State, is very important for

improving the economy; we cannot privatize natural

resources and hand them over to the transnationals.

We can have partners. That is fine. But

companies cannot be the owners of our natural

resources. The State, the people, must be the owner. I

mention this experience because thanks to our

decision, responding to the call of the Bolivian people,

we started to change the national economy.

I have a second point. Basic public services can

never be provided by private businesses. I am speaking

of water, energy, electricity and the telephone service.

This morning, someone said that the prices of

agricultural products are rising by 25 per cent or 30 per

cent — even 50 per cent in some cases — and have

been doing so for four or five years. Prices are going

up because we do not yet control agricultural

production. Since the State has controlled basic

services in Bolivia, electricity, telephone and drinking

13 11-50847

water tariffs have not risen, because they are basic.

Public utilities must be the responsibility of the State,

and not of the private sector.

How can we allow water, the stuff of life, to be in

private hands? I welcome the support we have received

from the General Assembly for water to be a human

right and express thanks on behalf of the people and

Government of Bolivia. It is our responsibility to

implement throughout the world the concept of water

as a human right, thus supporting the least privileged

when it comes to water.

My third point concerns the constant struggle of

peoples for dignity and sovereignty. In Bolivia I too

have to put up with a United States military base. And

what do the uniformed United States outsiders do?

They command the national police and the armed

forces, because of political decisions of former

Presidents, those who preceded me in the Palacio

Quemada, as it is known in some sectors of society.

The Chimore airport could not be used without the

permission of the United States embassy. That woke us

up to the importance of defending the dignity and

sovereignty of our peoples.

What I have described gave rise to a great

movement, not only social and cultural, but also

electoral. It led to a political liberation movement, a

movement to return dignity to all Bolivians, and to my

attaining the presidency.

When I became President, I closed the military

base. How is it possible in this new millennium, in the

twenty-first century, for there still to be foreign

military bases all around the world? How is it possible

for there still to be interventions decided upon by the

Security Council? That situation is a threat to

humanity, an attack on the dignity of all the countries

of the world. That is why we must develop proposals

for the United Nations that will make it possible not

only to free all the people living on this planet, but to

restore dignity to them.

My fourth point concerns international financial

institutions. I remember that when I was a union leader

Governments could never obtain the resources for

investment. We were told that Bolivia did not have the

capacity to borrow. Bolivia did not have easy access to

international loans. But what did the International

Monetary Fund do? It made loans conditional. It told

Governments that if they privatized refineries and

telecommunications they would give credits of

$30 million to $40 million.

A usurious bank, conditional credits and credits

requiring security are no solution. No credits were

given to States, or to the productive sector. They were

all for services and trade. Above all, they went to the

transnationals.

When I became President, one of the

transnational oil companies told me that the

Government would have to guarantee a credit of

$100 million to build a pipeline. I wondered about the

purpose. Finally, the oil company, Transredes, was

conspiring politically, and we therefore decided to

nationalize its properties — oil and gas pipelines. We

expelled it. Then we began to invest through the State

company, Yacimientos, without borrowing a single

dollar, and the Carrasco Cochabamba pipeline is now

under construction. But if the transnational had

continued to be responsible, we would certainly have

had to guarantee a loan for it.

As the Assembly is aware, I come from the

indigenous peasant movement. When our families talk

about a company, they think of it as something that has

a lot of money and is made up of millionaires. So I

could not understand how a company could ask the

Government to lend it money for an investment.

The international financial institutions deal

through companies, but who has to pay? It is the

peoples, the States. So we must create other financial

institutions. Fortunately, we are making good progress

in South America. The Bank of the South will be

completely different from the usurious banks that

feather their own nests and make money through

speculation. That must end. Regional integration will

free us from the domination of those banks.

It is important for us to go further in that

integration. In Bolivia we have barriers to overcome,

and other countries of the Union of South American

Nations (UNASUR) also have problems. For example,

we have a historic demand upon Chile for a sovereign

corridor to the Pacific. We decided to have recourse to

international tribunals to ask for that access.

Resolution 37/10 of 15 November 1982 establishes in

its annex, the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful

Settlement of International Disputes, that recourse to

an international tribunal to settle disputes between

States should not be considered an unfriendly act.

11-50847 14

Bolivia has right and reason on its side in going

to an international tribunal, because our landlocked

state results from an unjust war, an invasion. For

Bolivia, calling for a solution in the international

sphere means for Bolivia redressing a historic injustice.

Bolivia is a friendly, peaceful State which gives

priority to dialogue with its neighbours. We therefore

keep open channels for bilateral negotiation with Chile,

without, however, renouncing the right to go to an

international court. There is regional involvement as

well, since this is not just a bilateral problem, but is a

regional problem as well.

Peoples are not responsible for the landlocked

state of Bolivia. Those responsible are, as always, the

oligarchies, the transnationals, which wish to protect

their access to natural resources. The 1904 Treaty did

not lead to either peace or friendship, because for more

than a century Bolivia had no access to a sovereign

port of its own. I take this opportunity to call on the

United Nations, other international organizations and

especially the region to support us, so that we can

return with sovereignty to the Pacific Ocean.

In addition, there is another movement of

countries taking place, that of the countries of Latin

America with the Caribbean. I would say that it is a

new Organization of American States, without the

United States, in order to free us of certain impositions,

with the benefit of our experience in UNASUR. I say

that because we no longer find ourselves obliged, when

there are conflicts between countries and within

democracies, to have somebody coming from outside

and above to re-establish order. Presidents and

Governments meet to resolve internal problems. This is

a great liberation for us.

I also take this opportunity to touch on a central

topic: the fight against drug trafficking. United States

imperialism is using the war on drugs for political

ends. The United States Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) in Bolivia was not fighting drug

trafficking; it was controlling it for political purposes.

The DEA would implicate union leaders or anti-imperialist

political leaders.

Many politicians have been saved from that dirty

work of the empire in attempting to implicate us in

drug trafficking, which still goes on. Last week some

parts of the United States media said that my aircraft

had been detained in the United States with traces of

cocaine. How false! They are trying to confuse the

people, trying to conduct a dirty campaign against my

Government and against the State of Bolivia.

What does the United States do? It decertifies

Bolivia and Venezuela. What moral authority does it

have to certify or decertify nations of Latin America,

when the United States is the world’s leading drug

consumer, when the United States is one of the world’s

producers of marijuana — in some years the biggest?

What authority does it have to certify or decertify any

country? This is another way of trying to scare

countries or punish them.

However, Bolivia, very responsibly, continues to

fight drug trafficking. A report by the State Department

recognizes that there has been a net reduction in coca

cultivation, with improved interdiction. Where is the

market? The market is what drives drug trafficking,

and the market is here. Who is decertifying the United

States because it has not cut down the market? This

morning President Calderón of Mexico said that the

drug market continues to grow. Why is no

responsibility taken for eliminating the market? As

long as there is a market coca leaves and other

products will be turned into drugs.

A great responsibility must be borne. Here I make

an appeal. Let us fight with shared responsibility. Why

do we not put an end to banking confidentiality? The

biggest drug traffickers put their millions of dollars not

in briefcases or backpacks but in the banks. Why is

there fear of banking secrecy? In Bolivia we are not

afraid. Banking confidentiality must be ended if we

want to fight drug trafficking head on.

One of the crises on the margin of the crisis of

capitalism is the food crisis. New international

financial structures give opportunities to people with

low incomes by providing microcredits to small

producers. We have some experience in Bolivia, where

credits at zero interest have been given to producers of

rice, wheat, corn and soy at zero interest. Food

producers can even pay their debts with their products.

Soft credits are given to encourage food production.

Yet the international banks never take the small

producer into account; they never pay any heed to

cooperatives, to associations, which can very well

contribute if given the chance.

There are new ways to encourage production

through fair trade. We have to put an end to the

so-called competitive market. In a competition who

15 11-50847

wins? It is the most powerful, those with the greatest

advantages. Transnational companies are always the

winners. The losers are the small producers, families

wanting to rise through their own efforts. Therefore,

we are trying in the region to implement policies of

complementarity and solidarity, and not of competition.

With naked competition we shall never be able to solve

the problem of poverty.

Finally on this matter, the crisis of capitalism has

no exit. When I was a young boy much mention was

made of the foreign debt of poor countries. It was said

that it could never be paid. Now the situation is quite

the opposite: the debts of the poor countries can easily

be settled, but the crisis of capitalism is a bottomless

hole. The crisis of capitalism is not just because of

circumstances; it is structural.

What do capitalist or imperialist countries do?

They seek any pretext to invade a country and make off

with its natural resources. This morning the President

of the United States said that Iraq was already free and

would govern itself. The Iraqis will be able to govern

themselves, of course, but in whose hands is the oil

now?

The fall of autocracy in Libya was hailed, and

now there is democracy, but in whose hands is Libyan

oil? The world and the Libyans have come to realize

that reason for the invasion and the bombings was not

to bring about the fall of Al-Qadhafi by rebels but a

desire for Libyan oil. Next year we can review the

situation and see which countries have their hands on

Libyan oil.

There is a desire to overcome the crisis of

capitalism by making off with our oil, gas and other

natural resources. But we also have the great

responsibility of defending the rights of Mother Earth.

I continue to be convinced that the best way to defend

human rights is to defend the rights of Mother Earth.

Here we have the great responsibility of looking

after the rights of Mother Earth. Only 60 years ago the

Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights; it was only 60 years ago that the United

Nations realized that the human being also has rights.

After political rights, economic rights, the rights of

indigenous peoples, now we have the enormous

responsibility of defending the rights of Mother Earth.

We are also convinced that infinite growth on a

finite planet is unsustainable and impossible. The limit

to growth is the regenerative capacity of the planet’s

ecosystems. We therefore call for a new 10 commandments

concerning social demands, financial systems, natural

resources, basic services, production, and dignity and

sovereignty. On that basis we should begin to re-

establish the United Nations so that it can be the

highest instance to settle issues of peace, poverty,

dignity and sovereignty.

I hope that my experience as President of Bolivia

will be useful to all those present. At the same time, I

come to learn from many of them so that I may

continue working for the equality and dignity of the

Bolivian people.