Oscar Arias Sánchez
Costa Rica, 1987
"International Code of Conduct for Arms Transfers"
November 6, 1998

Oscar Arias Sánchez: Thank you. An honor it is to be in the presence of my fellow Nobel Peace Laureates and to be able to share ideas with such a distinguished audience of students, educators and activists. Truly, I thank Jeffrey Hopkins, Daniel Ehnbom, Michele Bohana, and Bryan Phillips for inviting me to speak today, and I extend my gratitude to all of those who have worked to organize this conference.

I have been asked to speak with you about the idea of an international code of conduct on arms transfers, but first, I must set this discussion within the larger context of the struggle for human security that we face at the present moment. I am sure that you have seen many times the images of the Berlin Wall coming down, watched commentators pronounce the end of the Cold War, and heard that a new era has begun. Indeed, few terms are as important today as "globalization." Though only a small number of individuals take time to closely examine this concept, many feel entitled to invoke it regularly. Not only does globalization portend to characterize our present age, but it also seems to carry the weight of destiny. Certainly, technological advances and the emergence of sophisticated markets have increased the affinity between different global societies, allowing for rapid transportation of people and information.

But globalization points to several other distinctive phenomena as well. Traditional understandings of economies, traditional understandings of economics are changing. For some, the new economic system means being able to make investments with a worldly perspective, minimizing labor costs and maximizing profits. For many others, it means facing the end of job security and at the same time witnessing the reappearance of sweatshops. Structures of governments also adapt to a new world order. Conventionally, states find themselves weakened in the face of trans-national agreements and fluid capital. The $1.5 trillion that race around the planet daily are largely unaccountable to any accepted form of public oversight.

This globalization is a Janus-faced beast, offering unimaginable prosperity to the most well-educated and well-born, while doling out only misery and despair to the world's poor. The system encourages insatiable consumption for some but denies many others the basic necessities of life. Who would not question the priorities of a system in which Americans spend $8 billion a year on cosmetics, two billion more than it would cost to provide basic education for everyone in the world, if these funds were re-directed. Europeans spend $11 billion a year purchasing ice cream, yet we know that only $9 billion a year would be adequate to assure water and sanitation for all people.

While in past years, the dissenting viewpoints on globalization had been muted, today things have changed. Undoubtedly, you are all aware that we are in the midst of a global financial crisis. Now, we can watch even the high priests of the unregulated market, powerless in preventing panic, coming down from their pulpits. Rather than sanctifying the capricious benevolence of the invisible hand, many are falling to their knees and hoping that total collapse will be averted. Jeffrey Sachs, the Harvard economist who supervised the program of "shock therapy" for Russia and much of Eastern Europe, now tells us that the "dream of quick economic liberalization lies in ruins."

But, what is not stressed in the talk of Wall Street analysts, who seem preoccupied with the profitability of their investment houses, is the true human dimension of this crisis. Imagine, if half of the people you know-people earning a modest, but adequate living-were suddenly thrown into desperate poverty. This is the situation that our brothers and sisters in Indonesia are now confronting, as 100 million people are made to feel the crushing blow of financial panic. The economies of Thailand and South Korea have shrunk by 45% in the past two years; indeed, the currency of South Korea lost half of its value in the past year, witnessing substantial declines in a matter of days. And as the shock waves from this devaluation extend through society, it is the most vulnerable and economically insecure populations who often bear the miserable brunt of the impact. These people do not need a market observer to tell them of the shortcomings of an economic system based on greed and speculation, rather than on human need.

Moreover, compassionate people can only shudder when they consider the combined horrors of military insecurity and human desperation in Russia. Every day we receive word that the safeguards protecting the country's 22,000 nuclear weapons are growing less secure. Even before the turmoil of the past few months, life expectancy for males declined from a pre-reform 65.6 years to 57 years today, a decline unheard of in times without war or massive natural disaster. And, as winter begins, there are indications that millions of people may die, lacking food to strengthen their bodies and fuel to warm their homes, unless the international community undertakes a massive humanitarian intervention, and not merely a bale-out for wealthy investors.

Thus, while the age of the Cold War has ended, it has not been followed by the promised era of peace and prosperity. For how can we say that there is peace when thousands are made to work under dehumanizing conditions? How can we say that there is peace when the United States builds more prisons and fewer schools? How can we say that there is peace when so many go hungry?

This historical moment requires that we think about peace in a new way. Traditionally, peace has been discussed with reference to the demands of national security. The United Nations Development Program, however, stresses the need for us, instead, to think of peace in terms of human security. This distinction bears frequent repetition. Human security goes beyond concern with weapons-it is a concern with human life and dignity. When we demand peace, it must be not only a peace which holds bombing and gunfire. It must also be a peace concerned with the welfare and health of all people. For truly, when poverty and inequality remain at such terrible levels, armed conflict will be inevitable.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt looked out on 40 million people, "ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-fed." Now, with our global vision, we must face over 30 times as many fellow citizens living in desperate circumstances. Each person must face the fact that of the 4.4 billion people living in the developing world, nearly three-fifths lack access to adequate sewers; a third have no access to clean water; a quarter live in woefully sub-standard housing; and a fifth have no access to modern health services of any kind. As a result, 40,000 children die each day from malnutrition and disease, and nearly one-third of the people in the least developed countries are not expected to survive to the age of 40. While the world, as a whole, consumes $24 trillion worth of goods and services each year, the planet holds 1.3 billion people who live on incomes of less than $1.00 a day.

In human history, our societies have always known poverty and suffering. But what makes the poverty of today so sinister is that this terrible suffering exists alongside tremendous wealth. Today, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the poorest 48 countries. In the United States, the richest 20% earn nine times more than the poorest 20%; this country has one of the worst distributions of wealth in a world full of stark inequalities. Indeed, my friends, our global society cannot sustain these inequalities. Decent people, concerned with peace and justice, cannot allow them to persist.

It is a great disappointment to me that we have so few leaders willing to stand up to the evils of poverty and inequality. Despite the huge potentials for moral progress in the current age, the ethics of greed and militarism remain. Beneath all the talk of presidential embarrassment and cover-up, lies an even deeper and more disgraceful scandal, one that few leaders have the courage to address. The true scandal is that rather than proudly pronouncing the end of world poverty, so many policy makers and business people are solidifying a global economic order based on cynicism and individual property. The true scandal is that rather than promoting the noble values of compassion and solidarity, leaders quietly allow the most wealthy to prosper at the expense of poor and working people throughout the world. The true scandal is that politicians tell the people what they want to hear instead of what they need to know.

Sadly, these same politicians underestimate the impact that suffering in the inner cities and tragic poverty in the wider world have on the democratic consciousness, disheartening all those who dream of a more just, human society. Thus, those here may have little trouble relating to the words of Robert Kennedy, a graduate of this great university, who told us:

While each of us may not be poor, poverty affects all of us... The facts of poverty and injustice penetrate to every corner, every suburb and every farm in this nation... Our ideal of America is a nation in which justice is done. And, therefore, the continued existence of injustice-of unnecessary and inexcusable poverty in this most favored of nations-this knowledge erodes our ideal of America, our basic sense of who and what we are. It is in the deepest sense of the word, demoralizing to all of us.

The lack of moral leadership will only be rectified if global citizens demand a new ethics for the new millennium. When Voltaire wrote Candide over 200 years ago, he was acutely aware of the moral obligations created by an integrating world. In this book, Candide meets a slave from the Americas who is missing both a hand and a leg. The slave's hand was cut off by dangerous machinery in a sugarcane mill; his leg was cut off by cruel masters to prevent him from escaping. As Candide looks on, the miserable slave tells him, "This is the true price of the sugar you eat in Europe." If ethics required global thinking in Voltaire's time, think of how relevant this powerful anecdote is in the age of globalization. As Americans today, you have only to look at the label on your clothes and wonder if foreign garment workers labored for a just wage to see that you already participate in the global system that brings great wealth to some and great misery to many others. The question is not whether you will be involved in the ethical challenges of globalization, but what your contribution will be. Will you, in your apathy, be complicit in the injustices I have described? Or will you, with your action and your example, bolster the ranks of those fighting for human security?

The age of narrow-minded nationalism has ended. Today, we must accept the fact that the evils of environmental destruction and human deprivation, of disease and malnutrition, of conspicuous consumption and military build-up are global problems-problems which affect us all. Each of you must reconsider the privilege you enjoy as well-educated citizens in a wealthy country, and you must embrace the responsibility that comes with this privilege. The point is not to feel guilty about the gifts you have received, but to feel always committed to the struggle to guarantee that all people may live such dignified lives. Do not be overwhelmed by the problems we face. Instead, be determined to make your mark against poverty and inequality, for it is this determination that builds hope, and it is hope that allows people to join together in the movements that change the world.

Do not doubt that such movements have accomplished much. The United Nations Development Program reports that in the past 50 years, poverty has fallen more than in the previous 500. Infant mortality in the developing world is one-third what it was in 1960. And during this same period of time, life expectancy in the poorest countries has been extended more than fifteen years, owing largely to a revolution in women's health.

I share these facts with you not so that we may grow complacent and stop working, but to convey a sense of the momentous possibilities for progress. Did it not take a movement of scorned but persistent abolitionists to end the scourge of slavery? Let us similarly join together today to end the scourge of poverty. Did not relentless advocates for independence succeed in ending colonialism? Let us now join in solidarity with the oppressed people of the world so that all may know freedom and liberty.

The United States often stresses the rosy fictions of general prosperity, but too often fails to take responsibility for its role in sustaining injustice. In his recent address to the Russian people, President Clinton argued that the countries of the world should, I quote, "harness the genius of our citizens not for making weapons, but for building better communications, curing disease, combating hunger and exploring the heavens." Unfortunately, one can only wonder if these optimistic words do not themselves express a certain cynicism. President Clinton speaks to the benefits of disarmament while U.S. missiles fly over Sudan and while the U.S. government assures the Pentagon billions of dollars more than it asked for. Many people in the U.S. government, and even many people within the Clinton Administration, have spoken in theory to the benefits of demilitarization, but commit themselves in practice to the sale of deadly armaments.

Since the end of the Cold War, many industrialized nations have reduced their defense budgets. As a result, those countries' arms merchants have turned to new clients in the developing world, where the majority of today's conflicts take place. The United States stands out as an extreme case. Currently, the U.S. is responsible for 44% of all weapon sales in the world, and in the past four years, 85% of U.S. arms sales have gone to non-democratic governments in the developing world.

At the end of 1997, weapons manufactured in the United States were being used in 39 of the world's 42 ethnic and territorial conflicts. It is unconscionable for a country that believes in democracy and justice to continue allowing arms merchants to reap profits stained in blood. But, ironically, vast amounts of taxpayer money go to support this immoral trade. In 1995, the arms industry received $7.6 billion in federal subsidies-this amounts to a huge welfare payment to wealthy profiteers.

In order to understand the true human costs of militarism, as well as the true impact of unregulated arms sales in the world today, we must understand that war is not just an evil act of destruction-it is a missed opportunity for humanitarian investment. It is a crime against every child who calls out for food rather than for guns, and against every mother who demands simple vaccinations rather than million-dollar fighters. Without a doubt, military spending represents the single most significant perversion of global priorities known today, claiming $780 billion in 1997. If we channeled just 5% of that figure over the next ten years into anti-poverty programs, all of the world's population would enjoy basic social services. Another 5%, or $40 billion, over ten years would provide all people on this planet with an income above the poverty line for their country.

Unfortunately, half of the world's governments dedicate more resources to defense than to health programs. Such distortions in national budgets contribute to poverty and retard human development. War, and the preparation for war, is one of the greatest obstacles to human progress, fostering a vicious cycle of arms build-ups, violence, and poverty.

Examples abound throughout the world of instances where arms purchases have resulted in suffering and injustice. Perhaps one of the most relevant comes from South Asia, where an arms race rages between India and Pakistan, fueled by the dispute over the Kashmir Territory. India has spent more than $12 billion on arms purchases from 1988 to 1992 alone-more than either Saudi Arabia or Iraq during that same period. From 1978 to 1991, Pakistan increased its defense budget seven-fold, so that defense now accounts for nearly 40% of all government spending. More recently, these countries have raised the horrible specter of nuclear war with highly publicized atomic testing. We can only hope that courageous and dissenting voices in these countries will further propel Pakistan's and India's leaders toward endorsing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, an agreement that has yet to be ratified by the U.S. Congress.

From regional conflicts and terrorist strikes, we have learned that aggressively exporting deadly weaponry not only hurts the poor of the world, but also comes back to endanger even the citizens of developed countries. When will lawmakers learn that when we allow arms merchants to profit in death, no one is safe?

For over a year now, my friends, I have worked to advocate an International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers, a comprehensive, international effort to regulate and monitor weapons sales. This agreement demands that any decision to export arms should take into account several characteristics pertaining to the country of final destination. The recipient country must endorse democracy, defined in terms of free and fair elections, the rule of law, and civilian control over the military and security forces. Its government must not engage in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. The International Code of Conduct would not permit arms sales to any country engaged in armed aggression in violation of international law.

Many say that such a code is impractical-impractical because it puts concern for human life before a free market drive for profits; impractical because it listens to the poor who are crying out for schools and doctors, rather than the dictators who demand guns and fighters. Yes, in an age of cynicism and greed, all just ideas are considered impractical. You are discouraged if you say that we can live in peace. You are mocked for insisting that we can be more humane.

But I am proud to say that I am not alone in denouncing this cowardly status quo and in supporting an International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers. Indeed, today I am in good company to promote this ambitious agreement. For, Nobel Peace Laureates Elie Wiesel, Betty Williams, and the Dalai Lama stood with me in presenting the Code last year. So did Jos» Ramos-Horta, Amnesty International, the American Friends Service Committee, and the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Since then, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Rigoberta Menchô have joined this impractical group, as have Lech Walesa, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Mairead Maguire, Norman Borlaug, Joseph Rotblat, and Jody Williams. In all, seventeen winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, as well as former President Jimmy Carter, have endorsed the Code. But more importantly, thousands of individuals, groups, and community leaders have expressed their belief that a code of conduct is not only a morally sound idea, but also a politically necessary agreement. It is these people, and the force of their convictions, that turn possibility into progress and turn practical ideas into reality.

Though much work remains, the Code effort has made genuine progress. On May 25th of this year, European Union foreign ministers agreed to the terms of Europe's first Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, which now remains to be implemented on its strength and in various key areas. Across the Atlantic here in the United States, owing to back-room dealings, a U.S. Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers has failed to pass a joint House-Senate Conference Committee. Nevertheless, advocates have continued to fight for U.S. legislation that would generally limit the arms trade, even as they have forced the weapons industry to propose a deceptive and irresponsible version of the Code.

President Clinton has recently announced that fighting terrorism will be a key priority in U.S. foreign policy. If the President, and indeed all national leaders, is serious about stemming international terror, they must look first at their own policy of arms sales to undemocratic governments worldwide. Moreover, they must actively support the International Code of Conduct as a means of reducing the global availability of deadly weapons. In the federal government, some courageous representatives have stepped forward to champion the Code effort. Unfortunately, we cannot expect all national lawmakers, many of whom have received large campaign donations from arms merchants, to stand up to the weapons industry on their own. Congress as a whole will not respond to the moral demands of the Code unless those here today, and many, many others like you, generate the kind of popular pressure that forces immediate action.

Friends, you will remember that at the beginning of my remarks, I addressed the unique challenges to human security that our complex and changing world presents. Truly, no one can deny that a new era of globalization has begun. But I can say with equal certainty that this new era has not ended-its final force and significance have yet to be determined. Globalization, if skillfully managed, can be, indeed, a great opportunity. It can be a promising chance for progress in the developing world. But we must remember that unregulated markets are not divine or uncontrollable creatures; they are human creations, subject to moral oversight and intervention. Those working today can decide whether the age of globalization will be remembered as a time of profit and plunder, or as a time of diversity and enlightenment. All of you here will decide, with your activism or your complacency, whether the new world order will be governed by corporate ethics of selfishness or by an ethical charter of equality and human rights.

In conclusion, I want to stress that although the International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers would be a significant step in promoting global security and protecting human rights, it is not an end in itself. For, the struggle for human security will not end until the world undertakes a comprehensive and humanitarian demilitarization. It will not end until all people enjoy fundamental liberties. And it will not end until all public policy embodies a thoroughgoing affirmation of human dignity.

I am but one person in a larger movement. It is a movement of many people in many walks of life, all working to see that these just ends are realized. Together, we gather our courage and our determination; for when we do not lack these, we will embark on a great journey. Our path will be perilous, but our eminent destination will be a new, more humane planet Earth. Many of my fellow laureates, and many of the scholars and activists in this audience, have already helped to lead us on our odyssey. To all of the rest of you, I say that the moral journey to a better world is a trip worth taking, and I invite you to join us.

Thank you.

DISCUSSION AMONG THE PARTICIPANTS

Julian Bond: Thank you, Mr. President. Comment and criticism? Suggestion? Let me begin. Yesterday, Mr. President, you said you were a supporter of the market system. And, indeed the market system in the great struggle of the Cold War has triumphed. Yet, it is as unforgiving, quite often, as the corporate ethics you spoke about just a moment ago. How are we to balance the unforgiving nature of the market system with the very real demands of the poor?

Oscar Arias Sánchez: I believe, Professor Bond, that everybody agrees now that with globalization of the market system, of communications, of capital flows, etc., some people will become losers and some winners. Certainly, those who have no education or little education will be, certainly, losers. Those who have a good education will be the winners. So, it's very simple. How can we spend, like in many countries in Africa and the Middle East and in Asia, three times more of GDP on defense, on huge armies which are not needed, on forces which very often are used simply to oppress the people or other people-like Indonesia, or Turkey or Iraq-instead of educating our children?

To govern is to educate. A statesman is that person who tells people what people need to know. A politician is that person who tells people what people want to hear. We need to educate the leaders of today, so that they have the courage and determination to tell people what people need to know. And what the children in Latin America, in Asia, in Africa, want and need-because we might know what children want, but what is really important is what children need-and what they need is schools and health clinics, and not F-16s and tanks.

Betty Williams: Mr. President, congratulations for the work already achieved by yourself. I would like you, if you would, to tell the audience how you managed to disarm two countries.

Oscar Arias Sánchez: Well, I believe everybody would agree, that it's more important, much more important, to convince, to persuade, than to conquer. Well, that's the essence of leadership, after all. When Noriega was ousted in December of 1989, a new president was sworn in in the Panama Canal Zone. His name was Guillermo Endara, and because he became president as a result of an invasion, no Latin American country wanted to recognize the new government in Panama. So, I went to Panama City to meet President Endara and I told him, "Since I am your neighbor to the north, and since I will be leaving office very soon, I would like to recognize your government under one condition: if you get rid of the armed forces." That's called "Costa Rican imperialism"! And he said to me, "Well, let me think it over." So I raised some funds to initiate a campaign in Panama to persuade the people that it was a good idea, because, according to the Panamanian Constitution, in order to amend the Constitution, there was a need for a referendum. To make a long story short, I was able to persuade the members of Parliament, and the Constitution was amended. So, as a consequence of that, I tell my friends in Washington that the safest border in the world is that between Costa Rica and Panama.

In Haiti, just before President Aristide was sent back by the Clinton Administration to Haiti, to Port-au-Prince, I again met with President Aristide in Washington, and I told him, "You should go back and finish your term. But, it is even more important for you to go back and get rid of the armed forces."

Haiti, as you all know, is the poorest country in this hemisphere. It is a country which became independent in 1803, before any other Latin American country, and the armed forces have been responsible for twenty six coups d'etat since then. The armed forces are corrupt, like in many Latin American countries or Asia or Africa, and they were the main source of instability for that nation. So, again, I raised some funding with some Nordic countries-enlightened Nordic countries-they provided the funding, so we initiated a campaign in Haiti, and again we were able to convince the legislators that they should amend the constitution.

So what I want to say is that Costa Rica's case is not a unique case. It can be replicated in other parts of the world. Only recently, I held a conference-the Arias Foundation held a conference-in Arusha in Tanzania, with the defense ministers of sub-Saharan Africa, and I am in the process now of persuading the government of Sierra Leone to get rid of the armed forces. The president of Sierra Leone will be visiting Costa Rica and Panama next February or March, in order to share with us our own experience. What we, in the developing world, need are welfare estates, not garrison estates. And to govern is to choose, as we all know. We need to choose between the education of our children or pleasing the military people.

Harn Yawnghwe: If I may ask a somewhat controversial question. You mentioned that three of the richest people in the world have more wealth than the poorest forty-eight nations, and I think it is also true of corporations. Many corporations are bigger than many nations. Do you think we are wasting our time working the governments? We work with the United Nations, we work with governments trying to control things, but the actual power base has shifted to the corporations, and in the name of free trade and globalization, there are almost no restrictions on corporations. How can we deal with that? That will be, I guess, the problem of the future.

Oscar Arias Sánchez: Yes. I agree with you. We all know that, as I pointed out, capital flows amount to $1.5 trillion a day. And if you look at the-let's take foreign direct investment from corporations. It amounts to more than $300 billion a year. Two-thirds of those investments go to the industrialized nations. One-third goes to developing nations. Of this one-third that goes to developing nations, about 85% goes to twelve countries, China being the most important one. So, the most poor countries get very little. As a matter of fact, sub-Saharan Africa gets no more than 2% of foreign direct investment. A country like Nicaragua, a country like Honduras, a country like Haiti, gets peanuts. A country like Bangladesh gets just a few million dollars. So, we are competing with Russia, we are competing with Eastern Europe, we are competing with Southeast Asia, we are competing with China in order to attract foreign direct investment, corporations to invest in our countries. And in order to be able to compete, we need to provide them with some basic infrastructure. How can we build that infrastructure if we are spending 3, 4, and 5% of GDP on arms?

It's as simple as that. Demilitarization is not an end in itself. In our discussions of yesterday, the word "poverty" was not mentioned. I have mentioned poverty and inequality about ten times today. My main concern, because this is a real danger for peace, is poverty. Poverty needs no passport to travel, and I don't want this great nation to keep building walls to prevent the poor Latin Americans from entering this country. I have seen the nine-foot high wall in San Diego. It's humiliating for you, as well as for Latin Americans who would like to come here.

José Ramos-Horta: Beyond the question of morality and ethics in weapons transactions, weapons sales to developing countries, Western countries usually argue that weapons provisions to some of their client states in developing countries have to do with strategic and security interests, that they enhance the security interests of the United States and stability in a given region. And so, regardless of whether they like a regime or not, beyond human rights considerations, they say that we have issues at stake-such as security and stability-that can be enhanced through our military-security relationship with certain countries, certain regimes, as much as we might not like the way they behave. That's the kind of discourse. But what always amazes me is that, even the security and the strategic argument often falls flat, as we saw in at least two cases in 1982. In the Falklands War in Malvinas, what was interesting was that the weapons provided by the NATO countries to Argentina-by the British in the past to Argentina, and by the French-ended up colliding with each other in the Atlantic. The famous French Etendard planes, carrying Exocet missiles, sunk British-supplied aircraft and ships that were used by the British in the Falklands war. So we saw that weapons in the hands of the dictatorship in the end turned onto at least one of the NATO allies in the Falklands war.

In another instance, the most dramatic one, which threw into question the wisdom or the intelligence of those people, seemingly the most intelligent people, in Washington, Paris, London-and I say the most intelligent because, allegedly, you have to be really very, very smart to enter the foreign service of these countries. And they are the ones who formulate policies and strategic considerations. Look at the case of the Gulf War. The war between Iran and Iraq, we all remember in the Â80s, following the collapse of the Shah, Iraq unleashed a war, one of the most vicious wars since World War I, on Iran. At the time Iran was going through an Islamic revolution. And, you might like it or not, but Iranians have some serious and genuine grievances toward the United States. There is no doubt about that if we look into the history of Iran. And, the post-Shah Iran was seen as the center of exporting of Islamic fundamentalism. So, Iran was seen as the threat to Western interests. As a result, Saddam Hussein was seen as the ally, the moderating influence in the Gulf region that would stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. So all the Western countries supported Saddam Hussein, including transferring technologies for biological weapons. Even when Iranian Kurdish children and women were slaughtered, were killed by gas used for the first time after World War I-we saw thousands of them killed-the West still turned a blind eye. Even when the Iraqi air force by mistake fired on a U.S. warship, killing forty marines, they still found excuses for Saddam Hussein. Then when the two countries, after ten years of war, exhausted, signed a treaty, ended the war, Saddam Hussein turned its guns on Kuwait. The same guns that were provided by the West, and Russia, and so on. It was only then that Saddam Hussein became the evil. I am saying it only, not as criticism of those very intelligent people in Washington, heads of state and foreign office, only as a commoner with a necessary low IQ-I have to concede that I have a low IQ. I fail to understand those brilliant and strategic considerations that resulted in these fiascoes. And my question to Oscar Arias is, as a former head of state, when heads of states, policy makers, foreign ministers look into a given region of the world, look into the map, and then issue a statement about strategic and security considerations, what does it really mean? Because I am totally at loss when they said it was in their strategic interests to support Saddam Hussein. Is it really? How do they come to this conclusion?

Oscar Arias Sánchez: I don't know, Jos». I don't know. I wonder myself. But again, it is ironic that U.S. weapons have killed American soldiers in Iraq, in Panama, in Somalia-you remember, in Somalia-and in many other parts of the world. As long as you keep sending arms to non-democratic countries-and I mentioned the figure that 85% of the weapons you sell to governments in the developing world go to dictatorships or authoritarian regimes, non-democratic governments-that's the boomerang effect. And then, in the end, it's a moral issue. It was Gandhi who mentioned the seven social sins. Two of them were commerce without morality, politics without principles. Politics should always go hand-in-hand with morality and with responsibility. It is irresponsible to keep sending arms to dictators. But the U.S. has always considered that there are good and bad dictators. This was acceptable in the Cold War period. Somoza was a good dictator. Trujillo was a good dictator. Ferdinand Marcos was a good dictator. The Shah of Iran was a good dictator. And the bad dictators were Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro for sure. All of them are murderers. All of them are murderers. There is a need for the State Department to learn that all dictators are bad, and for the United States government to put morality and principles before profits.

Dr. Rigoberta Menchô Tum: Bueno. I have a doubt when you state that the "educated people" will come out ahead. What is your concept of education and to whom are you referring? But I also want to comment that when we talk about global economies, political globalization, we talk about material globalization, but we don't talk about the globalization of problems. For me today, I no longer can see the borders between what once was called the "third world" and what once was called the "first world." I have seen street children in Los Angeles; I have seen poor people in Europe; I can't find at the end of this millennium the difference between the first world, the second world, and the third world. But there are other more serious problems; the privatization of the state resources benefits people who have already been rich, and it lowers the ability of the government to defend national sovereignty or the belief and practice of the people. This is a very political concept, but I am sure that the phantom of privatization is a very deep threat against the beginning democracies because for me there is no democracy that has been built in any Latin American country. It is still a goal to build democracies. It is not something we have reached. We have to have a global view of the problems that the world has now. My question is: you said that some people would win and some people would lose, and to me the ones who would lose are the millions and millions of people who have always lost.

Oscar Arias Sánchez: I just mentioned in my remarks this morning that there are 1.3 billion people who earn less than $1.00 a day. Those are the poor people of the developing world. The difference, Rigoberta, between the poor people of the developing world and the poor people of the industrialized nations is that the definition of a poor person in the industrialized world is a person earning less than $8,000-$10,000 per year, instead of $1.00 a day in the developing world. The population in this century has quadrupled. It is a fact that by the year 2050 there will be 9 billion people on this planet. Ninety percent of them will be living in the developing world. Sub-Saharan Africa will have a population of 2 billion people. In sub-Saharan African countries the population doubles every 20 years. And sub-Saharan Africa is spending on defense, on the military, five times more now, in 1998, than 30 years ago. Isn't that immoral, for the leaders of that continent to prefer to make armed forces a priority over housing, health, education, basic nutrition for their children? Isn't it immoral for the industrialized nations to keep sending arms to sub-Saharan Africa, to profit by the sale of weapons instead of helping them? President Clinton just discovered that there is a lot of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa when he visited that continent. There are 700 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, and U.S. aid to that country is $700 million. One dollar per person per year, while you provide Israel, a tiny country of 5-6 million people, $3 billion in foreign aid, both economic and military ODA.

How can we deal with populations that double, with countries that double their populations every 20 years? The only way is to cut military spending in order to educate our children. Knowledge is power. Knowledge is wealth. This is obvious for all of you who are well educated. Every day, every twenty-four hours, 400,000 children are born, 90 % of them in the developing world. For a high percentage of these children, their destiny is ignorance. Fifty percent of them, in many Latin American countries-Guatemala is one of them-are born from single mothers. What is their destiny? Not to go to school, but to work, at the age of 12, 13, 14 years of age. I want to tell you that even in my own country, which sometimes is represented as some sort of "Switzerland of Central America"-I would prefer to be the "Denmark" of Central America, and not necessarily the "Switzerland" of Central America. But anyway, even in my own country, which does very well in the human development index, 40% of our children from 13 to 16 years of age do not attend high school. In Guatemala, perhaps it's 80%, as well as in Peru, as well as in Nicaragua, as well as in Honduras, as well as in Haiti. In sub-Saharan Africa, in many countries, only 5% of the children between 13 and 16 years of age attend high school. So, again, to govern is to choose. If you are uneducated, you will certainly be a loser in a globalized economy, in a globalized world.

Since I have been told by Professor Bond that there will be no more questions because there is no more time, let me finish by quoting Aristotle. It is nice always to quote the Greeks. He said, "It is not enough to win a war; it is more important to organize the peace. If you do not organize the peace, then you lose the fruits of victory." Let me add one more quote. This one is from Albert Einstein. I keep telling my friends that the U.S. is the only super-power in the world: the only economic super-power, the only military super-power. But the world expects more leadership from you-moral leadership. The world expects the U.S. to become also a moral super-power. And the quote is from Albert Einstein: "Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to our lives."

Thank you.

Julian Bond: Thank you a great deal, Mr. President. You have given us a real definition of what leadership is.