Costa Rica, 2006

On

behalf of the people of Costa Rica, I convey my

greetings to the President of the General Assembly and

wish her every success. I also greet the Secretary-

General, Kofi Annan, Nobel Peace laureate and tireless

defender of dialogue and understanding among the

peoples of the Earth.

I come before the Assembly overwhelmed by the

same emotion and the same sense of urgency as I felt

when I did so for the first time, 20 years ago. Then, I

came burdened with the deepest distress of my people.

I came to remind the world that, in the “waist of

America”, five small nations were engaged in a

struggle between life and death, between freedom and

oppression, between war and peace. I came to ask the

international community not to let violence turn

Central America into a barren land where the seeds of

the most beautiful human dreams could not grow.

The world has changed since then. The finest

children of Central America no longer inherit war as

their birthright, and our countries have ceased to be

pawns in the immense global chess game of the cold

war.

For Central Americans, it is impossible to think

that the old days were better. I am convinced that

humanity has reasons to be optimistic and that, as

William Faulkner said, man will prevail. But I also

know that the progress made towards human freedom,

dignity and well-being are no more than small victories

in a long and epic battle. We have just set out on the

road towards the full realization of human beings, and

it is strewn with obstacles.

If we are to continue on the road towards human

emancipation from misery, if we are to transform

development and human rights into something more

than the utopian dream that they are today for hundreds

of millions of people throughout the world, we will

need more than good intentions. We will need courage

to call things what they are, to correct mistakes and to

make urgent decisions.

With optimism and vehemence, I propose to the

Assembly that we now take three courses of action that

could have powerful effects on the well-being of all

humanity.

First, we must denounce increases in military

spending, the arms race and the weapons trade as

offences to the human condition.

Secondly, we must make a reality, through free

trade, of the promise that the globalized economy holds

for humanity and in particular for the world’s poorest

peoples.

Thirdly, we must defend, with all our strength

and eloquence, international law and the United

Nations, proposing reforms that will enable us

successfully to adapt to the tremendous changes that

the world is undergoing.

For quite some time I have argued that the

struggle for human development is linked to the

struggle for disarmament and demilitarization. It is no

badge of honour for our species that global military

spending exceeded $1 trillion in 2005 — the same

level of spending, in real terms, as at the end of the

cold war. That represents eight times the annual

investment necessary to achieve, in the span of a

decade, all the Millennium Development Goals, in

every country.

21 06-52737

The investment that the most industrialized

nations make in their military — they are responsible

for 83 per cent of global military spending — is 10

times greater than the amount of resources that they

dedicate to official development assistance. The United

States, the richest country on the planet, spends, at the

very least, 25 times more on the military than it gives

in aid. Is this not a clear example of twisted priorities,

not to mention profoundly irrational?

Indeed, at the end of the day, rationality is what

counts. Since the tragic events of 11 September 2001,

global military spending has increased by a little more

than $200 billion. There is not a single indicator that

suggests that that colossal increase has made the world

more secure and human rights more widely enjoyed.

On the contrary, we feel increasingly vulnerable and

fragile.

Perhaps it is time to think of other ways to deploy

those resources. Perhaps it is time to realize that, with

a sum much smaller than that one, we could guarantee

access to potable water and primary education for

every person in the world. Perhaps there would be

enough left over, as Gabriel García Marquez once

suggested, “to perfume Niagara Falls with sandalwood

on an autumn day”. Perhaps it is time to understand

that this is what would probably make us happier and

certainly more secure.

Every weapon is a visible sign of the delay in

meeting the needs of the poor. I am not the only one to

have said so. The same thing was said, memorably, by

a man of arms, President Eisenhower, nearly half a

century ago:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched,

every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a

theft from those who hunger and are not fed,

those who are cold and are not clothed. This

world in arms is not spending money alone. It is

spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of

its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

While it is sad that the richest nations, through

military spending, are denying development

opportunities to the poorest, it is sadder still that the

poor are complicit in destroying their own future.

Indeed, it is tragic that the Governments of some of the

most underdeveloped countries continue to supply their

troops with tanks, warplanes and missiles, supposedly

to protect a population afflicted by hunger and

ignorance.

My region of the world has not escaped that

phenomenon. In 2005, the countries of Latin America

spent almost $24 billion on weapons and troops — an

amount that has risen 25 per cent in real terms over the

last decade and increased substantially in the past year.

Latin America has begun a new arms race, even though

it has never been more democratic and there have been

very few military conflicts between countries in the

past century.

In that respect, I believe Costa Ricans have

reason to be very proud. Since 1948, thanks to the

vision of our former President, José Figueres, a very

wise man, Costa Rica abolished its army and declared

peace on the world, and we bettered our life.

As I did 20 years ago in my first message to the

General Assembly, I can say today with satisfaction

that I come from a country without weapons, that our

children have never seen a tank, an attack helicopter, a

warship or a cannon. As I did 20 years ago, I can say

that in my country, fathers and grandfathers explain to

the young people the curious architecture of some of

our schools, which is due to the fact that, long ago,

those schools were military barracks. I can say that in

my homeland, none of our citizens, man or woman,

knows oppression, and that not a single Costa Rican

lives in exile. I can say today that mine is a nation of

liberty.

This is a path that neither my country nor I are

willing to abandon. Not only that: It is a path that we

wish all humanity to follow. Today I would like to

propose an idea. I propose that we all give life to the

Costa Rican consensus, through which we create

mechanisms to forgive debt and provide international

financial support to developing nations that invest

more and more in education, health and housing, and

less and less in soldiers and weapons. It is time that the

international financial community reward not only

those whose spending is orderly, as it has done to date,

but also those whose spending is ethical.

I propose to the Assembly as well that we

approve, as soon as possible, an arms trade treaty

prohibiting countries from transferring weapons to

States, groups or individuals if there is reason to

believe that such arms will be used to violate human

rights or international law, or if there are clear

indications that they will be used to hinder the process

of sustainable development.

06-52737 22

I hope that the United Nations, at this session of

the General Assembly, will approve the formation of a

governmental group of experts that will draft the text

of a binding treaty on the subject of international arms

transfers.

It is time to close the door on the arms trade and

on the endless trail of death it leaves in its wake. It is

time also to open the door to other forms of

commerce — the legitimate and licit trade of goods

and services — on which the prosperity of the peoples

of the world depends.

I know that in the Assembly there exists a wide

range of opinions about the best way to promote global

trade so as to provide genuine opportunities for all

countries. In a globalized world, the challenge facing

developing nations is simple: if we cannot export more

goods and services, we will end up exporting more

people.

The strongest argument in favour of opening up

economies is, quite simply, that it helps to reduce

poverty. I sometimes marvel that some continue to

insist that globalization is a negative force that is

increasing global poverty. On the contrary: according

to the World Bank, the number of people living in

poverty has fallen by almost 200 million over the past

two decades, largely owing to the advances of India

and China — two countries that have embraced

globalization and have opened up their markets with

particular enthusiasm.

Trade liberalization can thus be defended on the

basis of the benefits that it brings for the poorest

people. If we truly want to meet the ethical challenge

of reducing global poverty, wisdom and caution must

prevail so that the Doha round can be successful. But I

want to stress that the defence of free trade must be

honest and consistent. We should seek commercial

exchanges that are equally free for all countries. The

practice among developed nations of pressing for the

elimination of commercial barriers only in the sectors

in which they have a clear comparative advantage is

ethically indefensible. Furthermore, developing

countries need and demand free trade in agriculture.

Until we make progress on this issue, we will have to

continue paraphrasing George Orwell’s famous words,

and say that in free trade everyone is equal, but some

are more equal than others.

Developing countries need development

assistance and solidarity from industrialized countries,

but what we need from them above all is consistency.

If they extol the virtues of a free market, then let that

market actually be free. If in their countries they

promote admirable forms of social justice through the

welfare state, then let them put that principle into

practice on an international scale. If their credo of

democracy prevails within their borders, then let them

support a more just balance of power within all

international organizations.

The third major challenge to which I want to refer

today is the strengthening of global governance and the

reform of its institutions. This task begins with the

defence of multilateralism and the strict adherence of

all countries to international law and the fundamental

principles of the Charter, the most elemental safeguard

against anarchy in the world. Costa Rica, since it lacks

an army, is perhaps the country most in need of an

effective international system to guarantee its security.

It is essential that the most powerful nations on

Earth understand that the survival of international law

and of the United Nations is fundamental for their own

security; that the mere existence of this forum is one of

the great achievements of our species; and that the

United Nations represents the triumph of hope over

fear, of tolerance over fanaticism and of reason over

force.

As I stand here today, I would so much like to

hear once more the powerful voice of John F. Kennedy,

telling the world, as he did in 1961,

“To that world assembly of sovereign

States, the United Nations, our last best hope in

an age where the instruments of war have far

outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our

pledge of support — to prevent it from becoming

merely a forum for invective, to strengthen its

shield of the new and the weak, and to enlarge the

area in which its writ may run.”

This is the globalization that can transform the

lives of all human beings for the better — a

globalization in which all countries are, as we are here,

equal in rights; a globalization in which each people

can make its voice heard and hear the voices of others

and in which the exercise of the tolerance that we

practise every day in this Hall is the norm, not the

exception.

The great British writer Aldous Huxley once

wondered whether this world was not another planet’s

23 06-52737

hell. I do not think it is. It is just a marvellous and

complex place, inhabited by a species that is barely in

its infancy and that, like an infant, has scarcely begun

to understand its immense power to create and to

destroy.

For good or for ill, our species writes its history

in draft form, never cleanly, always debating with

itself — like each one of us — in a perpetual conflict

between the good and bad angels of our nature. In this

conflict, the victories of the human spirit, as certain as

they may seem, are always incomplete, gradual and

tentative, and setbacks are always possible. The Earth

is not hell. It is a place where there is no perfection —

and never will be; just goodness and greatness

punctuated by misfortunes, errors and suffering.

The indisputable achievements of the past 20

years tell us that, in spite of our sorrows, human beings

continue the march of progress. But now is the time to

correct costly mistakes, to right our course and to

abandon the destructive behaviour that will make our

march of progress infinitely more difficult and tortuous

than it should be.

If today we do not confront the rise in military

spending and the arms trade; if we do not encourage

the poorest countries to invest their scarce resources in

life and not in death; if we do not conquer the fear and

hypocrisy that impede truly free trade throughout the

world; and if we do not strengthen the institutions and

the international norms that can protect us against

global anarchy, we will be condemned to walk on the

edge of a precipice and to engage in futile actions,

having to start all over again, like Sisyphus, after every

achievement.

I believe that we must supplement optimism with

courage and the will to change. I believe that it is time

for humanity to build the brightest future that we could

possibly dream of.