Ecuador, 2013

It is an honour, Mr. President, for me to address the

General Assembly. Things have changed since I was first

here, and not only because time has passed and we have

all become a little older — not that old age is a problem.

The problem is how we approach it and, indeed, how we

approach disability. That is why Ecuador believes that,

in the context of the 2015 and post-2015 development

agenda, we should include quantitative targets with

measurable goals for persons with disabilities, together

with international cooperation. Let us never again

adopt a development agenda that fails to take account

of persons with disabilities and their families. We must

take specific measures to incorporate disability at

the global, regional and national levels with a view to

achieving verifiable results.

As I was saying, things have changed since my first

visit to the General Assembly Hall. Many words have

reverberated within its walls, and ended up who knows

where. Much has been said, and perhaps even the

most patient among us is becoming a little exhausted.

Our address, which may contain many impromptu

comments, states things as we find them. I see, as others

perhaps have, that every day it is becoming increasingly

difficult to reach this colourful, cosmopolitan city. I do

not think that is what its inhabitants want, for with their

clamour they seem to be celebrating the diversity of the

world that is characteristic of New York. It is in fact the

bureaucrats that put obstacles in our way, drawing lines

that are frequently difficult to cross.

What shall we do in future years in the face of the

obstacles that sometimes isolate the United Nations

Headquarters? How can we, with the agreement of

all, ensure that the Charter of the United Nations is

respected? The host country, which is well aware how

diverse the Organization is, wants to be the sole arbiter

of who can come and who cannot, on the basis of its

own likes and dislikes.

That very powerful State has also taken it upon

itself to spy on us, on the pretext of safeguarding its own

security. It is true that human beings everywhere have

lived through times of fear and terror. There is good

reason to be vigilant. But the history of humankind,

and consequently of the Organization, is in part the

recording of an evolution in the rights of every one of

us. We have been building and reinforcing rights that

we consider to already have been established, such as

the privacy and inviolability of communications. It is

therefore regrettable that, at a time when technological

advances have enabled every man and every woman

to communicate with every other man and every other

woman throughout the world, an Administration has set

up a global surveillance system that knows no borders,

that does not differentiate between friends and enemies

and that fails to distinguish between criminals and law-

abiding citizens.

Let us be frank: it is not the existence of a system

that intrudes upon the private life of every person in

the world that surprises us. We all in fact suspected

that such a system existed. No, it is its sheer scope

that confounds us — a global espionage system

that knows no limits, without even respect for the

bounds of common decency, and without regard for

the sovereignty of States and the right to privacy and

freedom of expression of all citizens.

It cannot be denied that the bonds of trust between

States and Governments, which underpin negotiations,

among other things, and effective agreements to combat

international organized crime, including terrorism, have

been seriously compromised by the unrestrained actions

of the United States, which has taken it upon itself to spy

on our communications. Many of the countries affected

have requested, on behalf of their Governments and

citizens, that the United States Government account

for its universal espionage programmes, but have not to

date received a satisfactory response.

On numerous occasions, we have heard the

representatives of the United States Government

express to the United Nations their readiness to discuss

the issue. My delegation is willing to initiate such a

discussion forthwith, in a frank, clear and open fashion,

and believes that there is no better forum for doing

so than the Assembly and its Committees, without

excluding such other entities as the Human Rights

Council.

Because we believe that this is the forum in which

to defend the right of all peoples to be respected,

beginning with respect for their territorial integrity, we

are reitereating, for the umpteenth time, that the time

has come for the Israeli settlements to cease and for

Palestine to be respected and recognized within the

1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Along the same lines, we would like to make

a democratic appeal: 188 of the Organization’s 193

Member States have clearly stated that it is time to end

the unjust embargo that the United States has imposed

on Cuba. Cuba is part of the Bolivarian Alliance for

the Peoples of Our Americas. Cuba is a member State

of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean

States. Cuba is part of the international community,

and its people cannot continue to suffer the harmful

consequences of that embargo.

We also would like to reiterate our belief that

dialogue can resolve the Malvinas Islands conflict. The

United Kingdom must accede to what has been called

for at the United Nations so often, that is, to sit at the

negotiating table and leave the history of overseas

territories to the shameful past. The Malvinas lie

very close to Argentina, and quite far from the United

Kingdom.

Allow me briefly to mention that, in my country,

we have recognized the rights of nature. We have to

wager on different things. We must rein in the capacity

to devastate of those who want unlimited growth even

at the cost of ecological balances. Once disrupted,

nature itself will restore those balances and all of us

will be cast out, with not even a trace remaining of what

we arrogantly call civilization.

We have therefore decided to raise our voice

against the high-handedness of some multinational

firms — and in that regard have had the support of other

Governments — whose unbridled pursuit of unlimited

profit subjugates human beings for the sake of capital,

damages the environment and violates human rights, all

the while having us believe that it is possible to bring a

State and its people to its knees.

Ecuador has stood up to the defamatory campaign

of one such company. In 2011, Chevron was ordered

to pay $19 billion in response to the claim lodged by

30,000 inhabitants of my country who were affected by

the devastating pollution that firm left behind in the

Amazon. I should make it clear that it was not the State

of Ecuador that sued the corporation, it was our people.

We must also denounce the overwhelming statistics

showing how arbitration tribunals fail countries such

as mine, which, paradoxically, can serve to shed

light on the web of intersecting interests among

businesses, arbitrators and lawyers associated with

such tribunals. We in South America have undertaken

various initiatives, such as the establishment of a

dispute-settlement centre within the Union of South

American Nations. The centre will play a key role in

reconfiguring the balance between national public

interests and multinational private profits.

My country condemns the violence being

experienced in Syria, as well as serious violations of

international law and human rights, regardless of their

source. From the outset, Ecuador has argued that a

military solution is not a way out of the crisis in Syria.

We must always address armed conflicts head-on,

setting aside any manipulation in sole pursuit of outside

interests. We should allow comprehensive solutions

based on international law to bear fruit and flourish.

In that context, the situation in Syria, a millennial

nation facing a terrible period, deserves our sincere

and sustained attention, for hundreds of thousands of

human lives have been lost and thousands of others

constantly confront danger.

Ecuador welcomes as a positive step Syria’s recent

accession to the Convention on the Prohibition of the

Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of

Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. We look

forward to the final results of the investigations by the

United Nations on all claims of chemical weapons in

Syria, because only on the basis of those results can

the international community be confident of having a

sufficiently broad and much more credible overview.

As an executive member of the Organization for the

Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Ecuador joined the

consensus on the adoption of the decision on chemical

weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic. We did so because

we believed that decision reflected the endeavours of

the international community to preserve peace, defend

the lives of Syrian citizens and move towards a political

solution to the crisis.

We also note, and we consider it very important,

that the Security Council’s decision should not be

interpreted by any State as a justification for unilateral

action that violates international law, which prohibits

the use or the threat of the use of force and calls for

respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial

integrity of States. As a State party to the Chemical

Weapons Convention, we condemn the use of chemical

weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic by any party. We

also reiterate the obligation of States to refrain from

providing any type of military support to non-State

actors.

Those are some of the topics that cause us major

concern. There will be more, voiced by others, so

that we can ultimately approach the world with hope

and restore our human capacity to be able to continue

believing in what inspired the establishment of the

United Nations: dialogue for the sake of peace, as well

as democracy, justice, inclusion and equality and as an

antidote to war.