Chile, 2009

For

the past four years, I have been proud to represent my

country in this Assembly, the world’s foremost

assembly, the forum in which the peoples have placed

so many hopes. Peace, human rights, international law,

development: these are some of the causes promoted

here, sometimes successfully and at other times with

difficulty, but always with progress. This has been

observed by the poorest in various regions; it has been

observed by children and women; it has been observed

by the persecuted, by those who suffer; it has been

observed by men and women all over the globe.

It is true that the efforts have not sufficed to

eradicate all the injustice or the abuses or the sorrows

of so many. But it is also true that we have made

considerable progress in six decades of international

collaboration. The rule of law and the institutional

framework have been strengthened, so that humanity

today has the technical, legal and economic means to

make much more progress in the struggle for a better

world.

We cannot let those hopes be dashed. But at times

this is what we seem to be doing. The world is

experiencing a serious economic crisis resulting from

the inability of countries and of the international

community to formulate clear and transparent rules on

financial matters.

We are on the brink of a serious environmental

crisis resulting from emissions of greenhouse gases and

from the way the world has chosen to produce and

obtain energy — as well as from the inability of

countries to agree on standards and policies to prevent

global warming.

Even more serious, in the twenty-first century we

see more than a billion people suffering from hunger:

one out of six people all over the world, 50 million of

them in Latin America. This is much more than a

statistic: it is a child, it is a mother dying in a poor

county despite the opulence in which the developed

countries are living.

Trillions of dollars have been spent in recent

months to rescue the financial system and revitalize the

economy. Yet the World Food Programme will see its

budget reduced by more than half this year. What a sad

paradox this is. Less than 0.1 per cent of the financial

rescue plans would end the food crisis affecting dozens

of countries. I should like today to raise my voice and

urge that this item be put on the agenda of this

Assembly, the forthcoming meetings of the Group of

20 and, in general, all international forums.

The economic collapse must not lead to a social

collapse. We must not let down our guard, for it is not

acceptable that, on the pretext of the economic crisis,

countries should be reducing contributions for the fight

against hunger, for the protection of the environment or

for the promotion of development.

And it is ethically untenable that, while this is

happening, the executives of the investment banks that

were at the centre of the current crisis, gambling

irresponsibly with financial assets, should today be

back to business as usual and awarding themselves

huge bonuses which simply reward excessive risk-

taking in their bets. They are even considering

establishing companies to place their bonuses in tax

havens.

The world simply cannot function in this way.

Resignation is not an option. It is possible to construct

fairer, realistic, sustainable and pragmatic models to

09-52179 36

ensure progressive advancement for all peoples. That

requires recognition that the economic crisis was not a

casual occurrence or, still less, a cyclical event in the

capitalist economy that will correct itself on its own,

solely through the workings of the invisible hand of the

market.

What happened here was much more than a

chance occurrence or a cycle. What happened here was

the crisis of a paradigm, the crisis of a certain kind of

globalization, the crisis of a conception of the State and

the public sector in which the State is seen as the

problem and not the solution. In this conception, it is

thought that the more the economy is deregulated, the

better it is. In this conception there are misgivings

about democratic discussion as to which goods should

be public and should therefore enjoy efficient

protection and government guarantees.

It is this extreme and dogmatic neo-liberalism

that has unfortunately erupted into crisis, unfortunately

leaving in its wake a trail of hunger, unemployment

and, above all, injustice.

And it is at times like this that action by the

public sector has proved to be essential. Thanks to

decisive action by States, it has been possible to avoid

a widespread and fatal economic collapse with

unexpected political consequences — which could

have been another Great Depression.

The whole dogma of laissez-faire was forgotten

when the time came for the State to save the

international financial machinery and implement

financial stimulus plans.

In some countries — including my own — State

action proved crucial in mitigating effects and

protecting the most vulnerable in crisis situations. In

my country, we were careful with commodity wealth

some years ago and saved resources for more difficult

times, resisting political pressure to spend that money

but confident that this was the responsible thing to do.

We were proved to be right, and this has allowed us to

offset the effects of the international crisis while

increasing social benefits for people, raising pensions,

protecting workers, building hospitals and investing

more than ever before in education and housing for

those most in need.

Countries such as Chile learned the lessons of

past crises and are facing this crisis with solid

macroeconomic foundations, with far better capitalized

banking systems and with stricter and more effective

regulations.

But this was not the case everywhere. It is worth

recalling that after the Asian crisis a decade ago, there

was much talk about financial system reforms, better

oversight mechanisms and early warning systems. But

none of this happened. Political laziness prevailed.

Private interests prevailed over the public good. That is

why today reform cannot wait, either domestically,

with better regulations in the capital market, or abroad.

We hope that General Assembly resolutions and

the forthcoming meeting of the Group of 20 will make

progress in this direction because — I insist —

resignation is not an option. We know that at this stage

neither rhetoric nor populism can be of help. There

must be no flights of fancy, and we must remain open

to the opportunities that well conducted globalization

can provide.

We must find effective mechanisms to safeguard

the public interest in the world of national and

international finance. We must find solutions to unlock

a world trade agreement that will thwart protectionist

designs. And we must return multilateral dialogue to

the centre of international policy, abandoning

unilateralism.

While unbridled globalization in the financial

sphere provoked the crisis we are experiencing,

unilateral action and disdain for institutions resulted in

conflicts that must not be repeated. Military or

economic might cannot be the norm in international

relations. Institutions and the rule of law must prevail,

since this is the only way to ensure peace and

development.

Thus, Chile strongly supports the reform and

strengthening of the United Nations. We support the

Organization’s recent efforts in the areas of human

rights, development and climate change. We favour

reform and enlargement of the Security Council. We

welcome the important work being done by the

Peacebuilding Commission to provide support from the

outset to countries emerging from conflict — support

that is comprehensive, not only military.

That is the logic that should prevail in all spheres.

We want the United Nations to spearhead a new global

social covenant, we want the Millennium Development

Goals to be attained by 2015 and we want to see

37 09-52179

forceful and decisive involvement to mitigate climate

change.

We have spoken about climate change at special

meetings during this session. Today I wish simply to

sound the alarm. Unless we coordinate efforts at the

highest level, the forthcoming Copenhagen Conference

will not attain its goal. We risk failure on what is the

most urgent cause to be taken up by the world at this

time when the scientific forecasts made by the

Intergovernmental Panel in 2007 already seem to fall

short of the mark.

Climate change is not a theory; it is a tangible

reality that we are witnessing in unusual storms, floods

and droughts. My country, which is so close to

Antarctica, is watching in amazement as melting of the

glaciers and ice platforms on that continent accelerates

at an inexorable pace.

The industrialized countries must adopt

quantifiable goals for more ambitious emission

reductions than those that now exist. If they assume

their historical responsibility with deeds, and not only

words, and if they undertake to provide the necessary

technological and financial support, then the

developing world will be able to make an even greater

effort to meet this challenge.

We thus have the possibility to correct the course

of our future. Let us not use the economic crisis as an

excuse for not reaching an agreement that all our

citizens are demanding. Let us today ensure the future

of our descendants. We have a huge responsibility. For

this reason, let us lay the foundations this year, in

Copenhagen, for a new economy that will allow the

twenty-first century to be an era of progress.

If there is one lesson that we can learn from the

economic crisis and from the environmental crisis, it is

that the quality of policy matters. Neither the world nor

countries are governed on automatic pilot, trailing

behind the market, trailing behind globalization,

trailing behind social changes. The policy of quality

has a positive impact on the well-being of individuals.

The rule of law, civil liberties and respect for

human rights are all prerequisites for a democracy of

quality. There is no longer any justification for

violating the principle of liberty and democracy in the

name of justice or equality. Procedural democracy is

part of the ethical and political common property of the

international community in the twenty-first century.

And little by little, we have started to reinforce this

principle at the level of nations.

My region, Latin America, has been able

gradually to build a single vision, which has enabled it,

for example, to come rapidly to the aid of any

threatened democracy, as was the case in Bolivia one

year ago, or to strongly condemn democratic setbacks,

such as occurred in Honduras a few months ago. For

this reason, today, with President Zelaya — who has

peacefully returned to Honduras — I wish to reiterate

our appeal for immediate acceptance of the San José

agreement promoted by the Organization of American

States. Honduras deserves free and democratic

elections, with the constitutional President leading this

process.

It is thus clear that policy is now more important

than ever. Let us make an effort to restore it to its

rightful place, but, of course, with the quality that

citizens deserve.

What has happened with the crisis, with the

environment, with hunger, with conflicts, is the result

of a lack of adequate leadership and political dialogue.

It is for us, leaders of our countries, to change this

situation. It is within our power, first, not to resign

ourselves to the market or to force and, secondly, to

avoid demagogy by trying to construct a fairer order

for our peoples through serious and responsible public

policies, in an environment of full democracy and

respect for human rights.

This can be the basis for a global social covenant,

which the world is insistently demanding at this

difficult time. We must not fail the world.