Bolivia, 2012

The meetings we hold at the United Nations are

always very important events at which we debate

social, environmental, political and economic issues

throughout the world. I commend the President of the

General Assembly on having chosen as our central

theme the peaceful settlement of disputes throughout

the world.

I wish to take the great opportunity of my presence

here today at the United Nations to inform the

Assembly about a dispute between Chile and Bolivia.

In 1879, as the result of an unjust war — an unjust

invasion — masterminded by Chilean oligarchical

interests, with the participation of transnational

corporations with an eye on Bolivia’s natural resources,

we lost our corridor to the Pacific Ocean.

Bolivia was founded in 1825 and lost access to the

sea in 1879. In the early 1900s, a treaty was signed that

has not been complied with. It is for that reason that I

have come here to take advantage of the theme of our

debate, the peaceful settlement of disputes, to say that

major disputes among States have been resolved and

injustices rectified through the resolve and goodwill of

the relevant authorities.

Chile cannot disregard Bolivia’s rights or the

pronouncements of an entire continent, much less

prolong indefinitely our forcibly imposed landlocked

status. An unjust, imposed and non-implemented treaty

cannot be allowed to continue to harm a people that is

only calling for justice and for an end to its country’s

status as a landlocked country.

The intangibility of treaties means that they are

not dogma. Treaties, like all other creations of human beings, can be changed. I say that because when we state

that Chile must return our sea corridor, we are asked,

what treaty? I therefore wish to take this opportunity

to speak of a treaty signed in 1903 between the United

States and Panama on the Panama Canal.

In 1903, a treaty on the Panama Canal was signed

under which the United States was authorized to build the

Panama Canal and received sovereignty, in perpetuity,

over the territories on both sides of the Canal and the

area of the Canal. In other words, according to the

Treaty of 1903, that country would be the owner for all

eternity of the Panama Canal. However, a renegotiated

treaty was signed in 1977 that gradually transferred

sovereignty over the Canal zone from the United States

to Panama, and in 1999 Panama recovered control and

administration of the Canal through the Panama Canal

Authority.

How did the United States return the Panama Canal

to Panama when, through the first treaty, it had to be

the owner of the Canal in perpetuity? And how is it

possible for Chile not to return Bolivia’s sea corridor?

I wish also to take this opportunity to say that

today, in this millennium, is a time of integration and

of focus on the protection of humankind, not a time of

domestic or external colonialism. That is why I wish to

reaffirm once again that the Malvinas are for Argentina

and the sea is for Bolivia. These demands, conflicts and

disputes have to be resolved peacefully, and Bolivia is

a peace-loving country, in keeping with the State’s new

political Constitution.

Bolivia appeals once again to the Government of

Chile, here before the Assembly, to resolve definitively

the issue of our landlocked status through peaceful

settlement mechanisms. We call on the international

community to support us in that endeavour, so that this

conflict, which does great harm to the integration of the

American continent, may finally come to an end.

Among the Bolivian people, among children and

grandparents alike, there is a strong sense of the need

to recover our sea corridor. Bolivia was born with a sea,

and it is not possible that oligarchies and transnational

companies, in order to plunder our natural resources,

can be allowed also to wrest from us our territory. We

need the support of all those at the helm of the United

Nations to put an end to a historical injustice on the part

of international Powers. Yesterday I listened to the various statements on

issues related to democracy, human rights and peace,

and I feel that the statements we make here as Presidents

show that we agree in theory. All of us here are great

defenders of human rights who want peace and defend

democracy. But we are divided. The United Nations is

not united, and that makes a great difference. I listened

very carefully to the statement made by Secretary-

General Ban Ki-moon telling us that we have to change

the world. We very much agree that we have to change

the world. But how can we change the world if we do

not change the United Nations? How can the United

Nations be responsible for interventionism on many

continents?

I have listened to two or three addresses by several

countries, and I was very pleased. There seems to be a

rebellion on the part of States against powers, authority

and capitalism. I am very pleased, because when I came

here for the first time in 2006, only the countries of the

Bolivarian Alliance for the Countries of Our America,

with great ideological, political and programmatic

clarity, stated that everything was for the people. I

know some countries on other continents — very timid

and fearful countries — feel that today are losing their

fear of the Powers. I would like to say to them, to their

representatives and to their Presidents that we should

not be afraid. We should not be afraid of empires or

capitalism. Capitalism and imperialism are not the

solution to life or to humanity.

We are living in times of the crisis of capitalism,

of a crisis in food. I remember when I was still a

trade union leader, we conducted campaigns to have

the external debt of underdeveloped countries — at

that time, they were called underdeveloped countries,

instead of developing countries — cancelled. Now I

realize that our debt as poor countries can be paid, but

the debts of capitalism are impossible to pay. That is

what the world we are living in today shows.

We speak here of democracy. We have to defend

democracy and, in order to do that, we have to

intervene in some countries. But if we really wanted to

be democratic, we would respect all of the resolutions

of the United Nations. Just to cite an example, does the

Government of the United States of America respect

United Nations resolutions on the economic embargo

against Cuba? It has never respected them. That is due

to pride on the part of the rulers, not of the American

people. The rulers are never going to respect those resolutions, but they speak of democracy and of

defending democracy.

In that connection, I must express our full backing for

the Cuban people. Their commander, former President

Fidel Castro, the most caring person in the world that

I have ever known — and I admire that revolutionary

people — is, despite the embargo, engaged in continuous

battle at the side of his people. It is not possible that in the

twenty-first century an economic embargo continues

against the Cuban people, a genocidal embargo that

has failed and which violates the rights of an entire

people. The embargo has been condemned by almost

all of humankind and the international community,

including the allies of the United States of America,

for its extraterritorial character and its imposition in

violation of humanitarian and international law. Bolivia

also denounces the unjust inclusion of Cuba on the list

unilaterally assembled by the United States in its report

entitled “State Sponsors of Terrorism”, the purpose of

which is to justify the embargo and continue imposing

new sanctions on the regime and the people of Cuba.

What authority does the Government of the United

States have to include a country in the list of terrorist

countries? Do not all the peoples of the world realize

that the number one terrorist country practicing State

terrorism is the Government of the United States?

There have been so many interventions, so many dead

and wounded, so much killing — under the pretext of

defending democracy.

Moments ago, a fellow president spoke about an

intervention in Libya to restore democracy, which is

a lie. They intervened in Libya not for its people but

to recover oil for the Powers. We have to be sincere

and straightforward with humankind, but where there

are presidents who stay in power without practicing

democracy but are in favour of capitalism and

imperialism, there is no intervention because they are

allies of the United States Government; they are allies

of the empire; they are allies of capitalism. Where there

are natural resources, like oil, in the hands of the people,

they have to intervene under any pretext — terrorism,

dictatorship or drug trafficking — all of it to recover or

to plunder the natural resources.

Furthermore, I would also like to launch an appeal

for the immediate release of five Cuban anti-terrorist

political prisoners in the United States. Their release

would show a political will to defend human rights.

The President of the United States could release them;

the power to do so is in his hands. I hope that justice will be done to our five Cuban brothers, who have been

imprisoned unjustly.

In truth, I do not understand it when the presidents

who speak in defence of human rights are never the

ones who respect human, either within or outside

their own countries. I do not understand how one can

speak of peace while there are economic inequalities

in the world. While there is an economic policy that

concentrates capital in the hands of a few and which

impoverishes many, there will never be justice, there

will never be peace or respect for human rights. Indeed,

the economic models that concentrate capital in a few

hands provoke injustice and create uprisings.

I feel that now is the best time — I am referring

to various meetings at the United Nations — to gain

better understanding of the situation of all the peoples

of the world. We had requested the revision of some

important international treaties concerning a very

important product for the indigenous peoples of the

Andean region, the coca leaf. Although the coca leaf has

medicinal and ritual properties, it has been penalized

under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

Therefore, Bolivia, which wishes to remain faithful to

its commitment to fight drug trafficking, has requested

adherence to the Single Convention with a reservation

that preserves the right to use coca leaf for cultural

purposes, especially medicinal purposes, within our

territory.

In some states of the United States, it is legal to

sell cocaine, but the United States does not allow us to

consume coca leaf — which is not cocaine. I welcome

the support for the proposal on the part of many

countries of the continent and the world — non-aligned

countries — recognizing, after thousands of years, the

consumption of coca leaf as legal. I respectfully request

that the Assembly, acting on behalf of the United

Nations, correct a historical prejudicial act.

Unfortunately, since there is an illegal market for

coca leaf, that is, a market for cocaine or drugs, a portion

of the harvest is diverted to the illegal market — but we

are fighting that. We in Bolivia say that there will be no

free cultivation of coca, but there cannot be zero coca

leaf.

I commend the United Nations for issuing a report a

few weeks ago affirming that, for the first time, Bolivia

had reduced the cultivation of coca by more than 12 per

cent. That is a Government achievement without any

dead or wounded; previously, that kind of reduction resulted in many dead and wounded. Now, while

maintaining respect for human rights and appealing

to the conscience of my coca-producing brothers and

sisters, we have had a net reduction.

Coca cultivation has increased in some countries,

which are subsequently decertified by the United States

of America. But the United States has also decertified

a country like Bolivia, even though it has reduced the

cultivation of coca by 12 per cent. Do we then have to

plant more coca for the Government of the United States

to certify us? One cannot understand it. Of course,

since we are an anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist

people and Government, we have been decertified. That

decertification is a political statement; it does not take

into account the efforts made by the Bolivian people

through its Government.

We are not interested in whether we are certified

or not. That is the least of it. What we are interested

in is the United Nations data. Honestly, the United

Nations works in a transparent manner to recognize

the work that our Government has done to reduce coca

cultivation.

I would also like to take this opportunity to talk

about the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Bolivia was previously a little-known country that had

been abandoned, living on foreign aid. We welcomed

foreign aid. I would just like to present what we have

achieved since we took charge in Bolivia, in the context

of the MDGs.

Bolivia was supposed to reduce extreme poverty

to 24.1 per cent by 2015. I would like to report that,

by 2011, we had reduced extreme poverty to 20 per

cent. We have a plan. By the time Bolivia celebrates its

bicentennial, we will have eradicated extreme poverty.

The numbers from international organizations confirm

that, last year, 10 per cent of the population went from

extreme poverty to the middle class. That is 1 million

Bolivians.

The second figure to note is that, according to the

MDG targets, 78.5 per cent of the population should

have access to safe drinking water by 2015. I would

like to say that, as a result of our programme, this year

we reached 78.5 per cent of the country, especially the

indigenous rural communities. We have a programme

called “My Water” to promote greater investments

in water. What I did personally was to bring together

all of the projects on safe drinking water or water for

irrigation from every municipality in the country. For

the second year in a row, we have invested $300,000 per municipality, and that has been rather helpful, in

addition to other programmes by the Ministry of the

Environment and Water, in particular in cities and in

rural areas. Those programmes for drinking water mean

that we have achieved our goal in 2012, not in 2015.

Hopefully, by 2015 we will have achieved 90 or 100 per

cent drinking water coverage. That is our programme.

Another of the Goals pertains to coverage in terms

of hospital births. The MDG target for 2015 is 70 per

cent. I am here to report that by 2009 we had achieved

70 per cent coverage, not to mention other programmes

such as the one that provides subsidies for pregnant

women and children under the age of two. We are

making good progress, although with slow steps.

Why has there been such rapid change? Social

programmes and structural changes have allowed us to

change Bolivia. One example is telecommunications.

Bolivia has 339 municipalities. In 2006, telephone

coverage or mobile phone coverage in rural areas existed

in only 90 municipalities. The day after tomorrow, I

am going to inaugurate mobile communication in the

last municipality, the furthest from the cities, in the

Bolivian Amazon. Now my brothers and sisters living

in rural areas have telephones or mobile phones in all

339 municipalities. Entel, our telephone service, had

been privatized. We took it back, nationalized it, and

began to invest in it in order to provide better service.

We have made progress for the following reason.

As President, I received a mandate from the Bolivian

people to recover or nationalize our natural resources.

The biggest company in Bolivia is Yacimientos

Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos (YPFB). For 20 years,

neoliberal Governments worked to privatize our natural

resources. They sold our natural resources, especially

oil, to transnational corporations. Bolivia received only

18 per cent of all the profits, while 82 per cent went

to transnational corporations. In addition, what did

the contracts signed by neoliberal Governments say?

Who was the owner? The oil transnational corporations

acquired the right of ownership at the mouth of the

well. The Governments would tell us that the oil and

gas continued to be ours as long as it was under the

ground. But once it came to the mouth of the well, it

belonged to the transnational corporations. We fought,

we mobilized, we raised awareness among the Bolivian

people as to the importance of retaking or nationalizing

that natural resource. On 1 May 2006, we nationalized

that industry without any misgivings. That act changed the national economy. In 2006,

our international reserves stood at $1.7 billion. Our

international reserves now stand at more than $13 billion.

In 2005, YPFB had $300 million in revenue. This year,

it has $3.5 billion. In 2005, total public investments

amounted to $600 million. Out of that $600 million,

70 per cent came from aid and loans and only 30 per

cent came from the national treasury. This year State

investments will amount to approximately $6 billion,

with an additional $6 billion in private investments.

How did that change come about in such a short period

of time?

Of course, Bolivia is a small country. But we

have managed to change our national economy. That

is why I say to countries whose natural resources,

including oil and gas, are still in private hands that my

recommendation is for them to nationalize and recover

their natural resources. Natural resources cannot

belong to transnational corporations; they belong to the

peoples of the world, under State administration.

I would also like to say that there have been

social changes. Through a constituent assembly, we

have guaranteed basic services as a human right.

Consequently, they cannot be in private hands.

It is a task for the State. Water, electricity and

communications — we have nationalized them and

turned them into human rights. It is very important that

those basic services be human rights. While we still

have some problems in Bolivia with electricity, we will

continue to work to ensure that that basic service is a

human right as well.

I am here to share our brief experience with

Governments, presidents, ambassadors and prime

ministers. Where there is the will to change, there will

be change. It depends to a large extent on willingness,

constant efforts to educate our people and transparent

work. Of course, we still have so many demands to

meet — sometimes, too, exaggerated demands from a

particular social sector or region — but regardless of

our interests or claims, our homeland and humankind

as a whole come first.

Dealing as we are with the problems we have in

Bolivia and the world with climate issues, I would like

to take this opportunity to convey an invitation to an

international meeting on 21 December to greet a new

era, an invitation to the celebration of the end of the

cycle of non-time and the beginning of a new cycle of

equilibrium and harmony for Mother Earth. It would take too long here to go into the knowledge of our

indigenous brothers in Mexico, Guatemala, Bolivia and

Ecuador, but basically we are issuing this invitation to a

virtual — and actual — debate on the following topics.

First, the global crisis of sapitalism; second, the

crisis of civilization — world Government, capitalism,

socialism, community and the culture of life; third,

the crisis of climate — human beings’ relationship to

nature; fourth, the energy of community and change;

fifth, awareness of Mother Earth; sixth, recovering

ancestral practices and customs and the natural cosmic

calendar; seventh, living the right way as a solution to

the global crisis — because once again we affirm that

we cannot live better by plundering natural resources,

and that is a profound debate that we should have with

the whole world; eighth, food sovereignty and security

through food sovereignty; ninth, integration — through

brotherhood, community, economy, complementarity,

the right to communication, and community learning

for life; the new human being with an integrated

identity; complementarity; self-knowledge, awakening

and, of course, health, which is so important.

I would like to say that according to the Mayan

calendar, 21 December marks the end of the non-time

and the beginning of time. It is the end of the

macha — the darkness — and the beginning of the

pacha — communitarianism; it is the end of selfishness

and the beginning of brotherhood; it is the end of

individualism and the beginning of collectivism. As

scientists know very well, 21 December this year

marks the end of the era of anthropocentrism and the

beginning of biocentrism. It is the end of hatred and

the beginning of love, the end of lies and the beginning

of truth, the end of sadness and the beginning of joy, it

is the end of division and the beginning of unity. This

is a theme to be developed, and that is why we invite

all those here, those who are betting on humankind, to

share their experiences for the good of humankind.

As always, I would like to thank the President for

these debates at the United Nations. We are always

thinking about new generations and about the good

of humankind, although sometimes sectoral interests

intrude — but as representatives who come here from

time to time, we have an obligation to think about how

to shoulder our responsibilities, and that means, as

someone said just now, bringing an end to the powers

that be. This is not a time when we can continue to praise

those powers; we are living in a time when peoples must

be freed and where we must constantly seek economic and social equality for all human beings, a time to bring

dignity to every citizen.

I would like to commend those statements that

questioned interventionism, military bases and troops.

There will be social peace only when we change such

political and economic policies and put an end to

military bases and interventionism. My respect goes to

those who resist military intervention by the Powers,

which is not a solution. That is something we have

learned, and that is why we hope that these debates will

serve to help us think about life and humanity.