Venezuela, 2004

There

are moments we can describe as historical turning

points, when nations and peoples must decide which

side they are on. This is one of these moments, when

history will judge us and examine if we were

democratic leaders that represented the will of our

peoples.

It is clear that the peoples of the world are taking

a stand against neo-liberal economics and war. They

are fighting against those who would impose their will

by military force and economic violence. They are

resisting those who would undermine and even

overthrow the basic principles that founded this

Organization that brings us together today. Under such

conditions, Venezuela echoes the call of the

Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, that all the nations

that proclaim the rule of law in their territory respect it

abroad.

As you know, the majority of the peoples and

Governments of the world took a stand against the

illegal war in Iraq. In this context, Venezuela reaffirms

the words of President Rodríguez Zapatero that peace

is a task that demands more courage, more

determination and more heroism than war.

The principal question for us is now the

following: are we building a world of real democracy,

equality and justice or a world led by the tyranny of

economic and military power? The people of

Venezuela were faced with such a decision last month,

with a referendum on the presidency. In fact, in the last

six years, Venezuelans have participated in eight

democratic procedures, including referendums and

elections. The 1999 Bolivarian Constitution of

Venezuela allows for a mid-term referendum on a

recall of the popular vote. On 15 August of this year,

citizens of Venezuela clearly exercised their

constitutional right and, in an historic referendum

never before seen in the history of the world, ratified

the mandate of President Hugo Chávez Frías, thus

confirming the democratic process of structural

transformation led by our President.

Since the end of the last millennium, we have

witnessed tremendous dissent from citizens of the

world against neo-liberalism and war. In my country,

by the late eighties, a set of structural adjustments,

developed under the influence of the main centres of

neo-liberal capitalism, was met with a popular uprising

that paralysed the country, leaving an indelible mark on

our people’s minds. That resistance, popularly known

as “El Caracazo”, was perhaps the first protest against

neo-liberalism. The poor took control of the capital,

Caracas, as well as cities across the country to

demonstrate their discontent with increasing poverty

and the unjust distribution of the profits from our

nation’s oil wealth. The ruling Government of the day

responded by sending in armed forces to suppress the

protests, killing thousands of people. That was a

painfully tragic moment for the people of Venezuela.

Nevertheless, that event provoked the necessary

consciousness, igniting a political awakening among

the people that allowed them to unite their voices in the

fight against neo-liberalism.

Over the next decade, we witnessed protests

against the World Trade Organization and against neo-

44

liberalism in Chiapas, Davos, Seattle, Prague, Quebec

City and Genoa. Wherever the architects of neo-

liberalism gathered, they were met with massive

protests in the streets.

We also witnessed the desperate actions of the

brave South Korean farmer in Cancún, who gave his

life to call attention to the plight of his fellow farmers

on the brink of disaster throughout the world.

The war in Iraq only strengthened the global

protests. On 15 February 2003, an estimated 30 million

people around the world marched in protest and

disbelief, unwilling to stand idly by as once again the

world’s screams fell on deaf ears, as not-so-smart

bombs fell on little children without knowing why. If

we combine the protests against neo-liberal

globalization with the anti-war demonstrations, we will

find a global rebellion of revolutionary proportions has

started. What we need to decide now is whether we

will march in the streets alongside our people or hide

ourselves away in an ivory tower.

My fellow leaders, have we no eyes and ears?

Can we not see the suffering? Can we not hear the cries

of the poor, the disenfranchised, the disappeared and

the desolate? Can we afford to shirk that

responsibility?

According to the United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP), 44 per cent of Latin Americans

live below the poverty line. Although Latin America is

not the only region to face that reality, it is a

particularly conspicuous example because it represents

the laboratory of the neo-liberal project. Structural

adjustment, as prescribed by the Washington

Consensus, came early to Latin America, and its

application here became the model for the neo-

liberalization of the former communist-bloc countries

in the 1990s.

Besides being the initial site of neo-liberalism’s

devastating experiment, Latin America was also the

first to experience anti-neo-liberal explosion. Last

March, UNDP released a report entitled “Democracy in

Latin America”, which highlighted a startling

revelation: more than half of Latin Americans would

prefer dictatorship over democracy if an authoritarian

regime would solve their economic problems.

A second report, released this past August by the

private firm Latinobarómetro, came to a similarly

depressing conclusion — but with one notable

exception: between 1996 and 2004 support for

democracy actually grew in Venezuela, much more so

than in any other country in the region. In Venezuela

support for democracy has undoubtedly increased.

Could it be that there is a direct correlation between

those findings and the fact that Venezuela is actively

pursuing a viable alternative to market democracy?

The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Amartya

Sen, affirms that democracy is the best remedy for

hunger. Indeed, in Venezuela, under the leadership of

President Hugo Chávez Frías, we achieved that goal by

giving power to the poor. To reduce poverty, it is

necessary to increase democracy. There is no other

way. Democracy is also the only way to defeat

terrorism. No matter if poverty and hunger create the

conditions for its existence, there are no “good” and

“bad” terrorists. There is only one terrorism —

reprehensible, detestable and cowardly. But, once

again, only through greater democracy can we defeat it.

What the UNDP report reveals is that Latin

Americans have lost faith in a model of democracy

whose scope is limited to political representation. It is

a model that has entirely ignored the economic, social

and participatory facets of democracy and which has

consequently completely failed to reflect the popular

will. As Simon Bolívar, our visionary liberator,

advocated two centuries ago, the best form of

government is one that provides the highest degree of

happiness, stability and social security for its people.

A few days ago, President Lula of Brazil chaired

a hugely successful meeting of world leaders on the

theme “Action Against Hunger and Poverty”. That

wonderful initiative, co-sponsored by Presidents

Chirac, Lagos Escobar and Rodríguez Zapatero,

expressed our common vision to fight against poverty

and social injustice to guarantee security and

sustainable development in both the North and the

South. Our absolute support for that initiative is

expressed in the document on the subject of ending

poverty and giving power to the poor which we

distributed to Members at the beginning of the General

Assembly session.

To that end we recognize the need to go beyond

the traditional official development assistance

framework. Venezuela’s contribution to the fight

against hunger represents a genuine attempt to place

the tools of development in the hands of those who

need it most. In shifting from food aid to food

45

sovereignty, we are not limiting ourselves to helping to

feed the poor; rather, we are committed to helping the

poor to feed themselves.

For that reason food sovereignty in Venezuela

puts a clear emphasis on assisting small producers

from community-run cooperatives. A far-reaching land

reform has already transferred over 2 million hectares

of land to small producers. We have also made a firm

commitment to create a world seed bank in our country

to protect our heritage of seeds from the violent

encroachments of transgenic and genetically modified

crops.

In addition, we have recently created a Ministry

of Food and Nutrition to guarantee our people their

fundamental rights in that area.

Venezuela ardently supports the initiatives under

way to reform the United Nations. As supporters of

multilateralism and participatory democracy, we claim

a greater participation of the countries of the South at

the United Nations, and particularly in a more

democratic Security Council, one in which there is no

right of veto. In that regard, we support the candidacy

of Brazil as a permanent member of an expanded

Council.

Venezuela aspires to join the Economic and

Social Council for the period 2005-2007. Our presence

in the Economic and Social Council will help the

peoples of the South to promote at the global level the

ideas and social justice we are trying to enact

domestically. To achieve that objective and to attain the

Millennium Development Goals, we believe that the

countries possessing the resources must make a

financial effort commensurate with the challenge.

Venezuela has invested $2 billion in social

programmes this year, and we recently helped establish

a fund of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting

Countries (OPEC) to combat desertification and

drought, which greatly threaten our African brothers.

That assistance from OPEC members reflects our

solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Africa.

Venezuela has already had the opportunity to assist

several African countries through its policy of

cooperation.

The United Nations was born in a world that was

traumatized by the atrocities of Second World War, yet

had the hope of creating a world of greater dignity for

human beings.

Fifty-five years later, when we observe that the

will of the General Assembly is often not respected, it

appears that we have lost our course. Thus, we run the

risk of submerging the world in a war of a thousand

years. It is time to put an end to the hypocrisy that

permits a situation in which some resolutions are

followed while others go unheeded.

Let us have the courage to recover the original

goals of the Assembly. If we are courageous, we will

recognize not only that another world is possible but

that this other world is crucial for humanity.