Ecuador, 2007

Allow me to begin my statement by recalling the commitment to

fight poverty, in force since September 2000, when 189

countries signed the Millennium Declaration, which

included the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

On that agreement we undertook to meet by 2015 some

basic goals on the path of human development.

Today, from a Government that has declared in

Ecuador a citizens' revolution, one that is democratic,

ethical and nationalist, we wish to set out some critical

thoughts with regard to the very concept of the MDGs,

their limitations and the dangers that minimum

programmes of that nature entail, in particular with

regard to the profound social and economic inequalities

that exist on the planet.

The first limitation of the MDGs is that they

constitute a minimum as a poverty-reducing strategy.

Our goal is to go much further than such minimums by

going into greater depth on those objectives and

incorporating others. The fact that we subscribe

exclusively to a focus on minimum needs, such as that

presented in the MDGs, carries a high risk that in

seeking to satisfy our consciences we limit the

aspirations for social change.

I think it is fair to say that there are two

thresholds by which we can characterize the lives of

people. The first has to do with the indispensable

abilities of human beings to survive within a society

and without which life could not be called human. The

second refers to the capacities that allow each

individual to be fulfilled within that society. We are

speaking not only about subsistence, but of the right to

enjoy a life that is worthy of living.

Ecuador believes that to have the goal of living

on $1 plus 1 cent per day in order to supposedly

overcome extreme poverty or to avoid dying

prematurely, as one might deduce from the MDGs —

does not lead to a dignified life. The development of

public policies in a country that is attempting to bring

about radical change - as is the case in Ecuador -

cannot be satisfied with those minimum objectives.

Obviously, avoiding the premature death of girls and

boys or of pregnant women is an objective that nobody

would question. However, if we base ourselves only on

that, we run the risk of agreeing that human life is

simply a process of resistance, the aim of which is to

extend someone's existence by a few more hours.

What we propose therefore are common goals,

not only with regard to living minimums but with

regard to social maximums as well. For example, we

feel that it is possible to draw on diverse identities, to

build and restore public areas, to guarantee access to

justice and to have work which enables people to enjoy

the right to support themselves and to have time for

contemplation, artistic creation and recreation — goals

that are already contained in the national development

plan that is being implemented by the Government of

Ecuador.

Accordingly, we renounce the idea of a

historically inevitable present to which we must

surrender by simply looking for minimums that are

clearly basic. Furthermore, to be satisfied with the

minimum also means - and that is very serious -

legitimizing the reality that we experience because the

minimum will not alter the distance and power

relationships between individuals and between

societies. Hence, we also favour the recognition of

equal dignity for all human beings. Granting some

people certain minimums must be an initial and

temporary goal and must never be considered a modus

operandi of public policy. For that means that the

“beneficiary” is placed in a position of inferiority

compared to everyone else. In other words, it means

that their dignity is not recognized as equal with

everyone else's. In fact, it is no accident that

international bureaucracies such as the World Bank

always suggest producing poverty reports, but never

consider publishing inequality reports.

For this reason, perhaps the best way to reduce

poverty with dignity is to reduce social, economic,

territorial, environmental and cultural gaps. One of my

Government's main goals is thus to reduce inequality

in an endogenous development framework of economic

inclusion and socio-territorial cohesion, domestically

as well as within the global system. And along the

same lines, we in Ecuador are seeking to apply the rule

of human rights and universal values. On the other

hand, the long and sad neoliberal night proposed -

from an existential perspective with its consequent

absolutism of the market - social programmes that

ended up by breaking up society into as many parts as

there are social groups.

However, a national plan and a change in the

power relationships within a society do not mean that

all the fragments will come together. There is no claim

that, by some twist of fate, these will acquire meaning

and coherence and will assemble themselves like the

pieces of a puzzle - even if some of the pieces are

missing. It is indispensable to have a common plan that

must be constantly redesigned and whose goal must be

that we all want to be part of it.

That is why, in Ecuador, we are creating our

national development plan in a democratic fashion. We

know that without everyone's participation in society's

basic decisions, no country can legitimize its public

decision-making and make it more efficient. We must

change a political practice employed by the traditional

sectors, with their technocrats and elites, and return

speech and action to those who should be the owners,

protagonists and beneficiaries of public policy.

I would like furthermore to point out that the

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) offer a vision

of development that is linked to consumption and a

strategy linked to processes of economic liberalization.

Our view on development is very different from that.

We understand development to be the attainment of a

good standard of living for everyone, in peace and in

harmony with nature, and with the indefinite extension

of human cultures. In that respect, we are extremely

happy to see that the Assembly has broadly debated the

devastating and unjust effects of climate change.

Ecuador has submitted a specific and innovative

proposal to contribute to the reduction of carbon

dioxide emissions and to the preservation of

biodiversity: our Yasuni-ITT proposal. It involves a

commitment not to extract some 920 million barrels of

oil, thereby avoiding the emission of approximately

111 million tons of carbon that would come from the

burning of this fossil fuel. However, that will mean that

we will have to forgo significant investments of around

$720 million each year, a very significant amount for

the economy of Ecuador.

We are prepared to make this huge sacrifice, but

we also ask for shared responsibility on the part of the

international community, particularly on the part of

developed countries, the planet's main predators, and

for a minimum compensation for the environmental

benefits that we are generating. That would be an

extraordinary example of global collective action,

setting aside rhetoric in favour of concrete facts and

practical actions: not only would it reduce global

warming for the benefit of the whole planet, but it

would also bring about a new way of thinking about

economics in the twenty-first century, where the

generation of value is compensated, not just the

generation of goods.

Speaking of cultures, we were very happy to see

that the General Assembly recently adopted the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

(resolution 61/295), which was sponsored very actively

by Ecuador. The Declaration is an instrument that had

to wait more than 20 years to be adopted and that will

be the fundamental charter for the protection of human

rights of our indigenous peoples.

Finally, the good living that we are talking about

presupposes that genuine individual freedoms,

opportunities and potentials be enhanced. An immoral

paradox arises here: at the world level, we are

promoting the free movement of goods and capital,

looking for the highest profitability. But, on the other

hand, we are penalizing the free circulation of people

who are looking for decent jobs. That is quite simply

intolerable and absolutely unsustainable from an

ethical point of view.

For the Government of Ecuador, there are no

illegal human beings. There is no such thing, and the

United Nations must insist on this point. There is no

such person as an illegal human being. It is not

permissible to think in that way. We are working

actively to bring about changes in the shameful

international migration policies, particularly those of

the countries of the so-called first world, without

forgetting, of course, that our greatest responsibility is

to build a country that will guarantee decent life as a

way of preventing forced exodus because of poverty

and exclusion.

We must not be misled by those who proclaim the

end of ideologies and the end of history. Conservatives

want to make us believe that we live in the best of all

possible worlds and that we have to abandon any

attempt at change, any attempt to build our own

individual and collective identity, any attempt to build

our own history. In the face of such a miserly and self-

satisfied worldview, we say that it is possible to have

collective action that is both aware and democratic, in

order to direct our lives and organize world society in a

different way with a more human face. Our

understanding of development obliges us to recognize

one another, understand one another and appreciate one

another, so that we can move towards self-realization

and the building of a shared future. Ecuador invites the

Assembly to build this world, this dream.