Friday, September 25, 1998

The World Affairs Council of San Diego
and the University of San Diego present:

"Globalization and Challenges to Human Security"

Dr. Oscar Arias

Former President of Costa Rica, 1987 Nobel Peace Prize Winner,
and Founder of the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress

Full Text of Dr. Oscar Arias's speech

"I would like to express my utmost gratitude to Provost Francis Lazarus for inviting me to speak today. It is indeed an honor to exchange ideas with such a distinguished audience of students, educators, and community members.

"We now find ourselves in a so-called era of "globalization." Despite the fact that this phenomenon is only vaguely understood by most of us, we have nevertheless passively placed our fate in globalization's whimsical hands. Certainly, globalization refers to many things: the rapid integration of our planet’s societies under a vast and sophisticated communications network; the weakening of the state, owing to the erosion of important elements of national sovereignty; the new financial dynamic that allows large corporations to expand to remote regions of the globe; the daily circulation of $1.5 trillion dollars by investors who are seeking frantically to maximize profit and minimize risk; and, above all, the growing advantages enjoyed by a privileged and well-educated class, in contrast to the suffering endured by masses of unqualified and miserable poor. Global inequality is expanding at an insidious rate. If staggering levels of poverty are ignored, future inhabitants of the earth may never know peace and democracy. "Just human development" will be a contradiction in terms.

"It goes without saying that, in the event of war, the global community expresses outrage and immediately works together to stop the flow of bloodshed. But there is a war going on right now that has gone unrecognized; yet it is as gruesome as any through the course of human history. Called poverty, disease, ignorance, and injustice, it is the equivalent of a full-scale siege upon the disadvantaged of our planet.

"Let us recall for only a moment the horror of Hiroshima: hundreds of thousands of lives, wiped indiscriminately off the face of the earth in one terrible instant. Yet we would need 236 such bombs to equal today’s annual infant mortality rate due to malnutrition.

"When we pray for world peace, do we think of all those killed by hunger or maimed by disease? To obtain peace, it is not enough that global fighting ceases. True peace begins the moment that an acceptable quality of life is attained by the world’s underprivileged.

"In our time, we have made unprecedented strides to foster human development. During the World Summit for Social Development in 1995, almost every nation on the planet made a commitment to eradicate severe poverty. Though such a goal may seem utopian, consider the progress we have made up to now. The United Nations Development Programme reports that, in the past 50 years, poverty has fallen more than in the previous 500. Since 1960, child death rates in developing countries have been more than halved. Malnutrition rates have been reduced by almost a third. And the proportion of children not attending primary school has decreased from more than half to less than a quarter.

"By the end of this century, approximately three to four billion people will have enjoyed considerable improvements in their standard of living, and about four to five billion will have access to basic education and health care. These advances underscore the fact that the eradication of poverty is not a wistful, naive hope; it is a veritable possibility.

"But this headway will only continue if we declare both local and international human development to be the main agenda of our political, social, and economic institutions. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said in 1937, "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." As we enter a new era, we must constantly remind ourselves that human security -- in contrast to the traditional concept of security linked to military capacity and economic power -- must be the ultimate goal of our development policies. In qualitative terms, human security represents the degree to which human beings are protected from ignorance, sickness, hunger, neglect, and persecution. It is the standard that dignifies human life. It is a child who is saved, a disease that is cured, an ethnic tension that is soothed, a dissident who speaks freely, a human spirit that has hope.

"My friends, I must ask you: Has every cancer project brought a cure? Has every space mission succeeded? Has every diplomatic initiative brought peace? No indeed -- yet we have not lost our resolve in any of these areas. Why should we show any less persistence in our fight to establish human security?

"Nevertheless, even as the emphasis on true human development gains acceptance, a rival global attitude counters us at every step along the path to progress. Whether consciously or not, many individuals allow their drive for macroeconomic success to trample over the most vulnerable of our society.

"Indeed, free market capitalism has had bittersweet results for the South While several economic gains have been made, many individuals have also fallen casualty to this system. For instance, Latin America has the worst distribution of wealth in the world. The income gap that exists between rich and poor is by far the widest and most profound on this planet. As Carlos Fuentes pointed out, twenty-four individuals in Mexico possess more wealth than twenty-four million of their fellow citizens. Furthermore, the richest 20% of Brazil's population earn thirty-two times more than the poorest 20%. Inequity, however, does not only affect the poor. Over the course of Latin America’s history, severe income disparity has provoked a bloody and long-lived cycle of insurrections which has claimed thousands of lives.

"The state of the impoverished in the developing world, despite our achievements over the past few decades, is grave indeed and warrants immediate action. Consider the following harrowing facts:

• 40,000 children die each day from malnutrition and disease.
• Water contaminated by sewage is estimated to kill two million children every year. Only 30 percent of the population in Delhi, India, have access to a sewage system. In Karachi, Pakistan, only 20 percent have such access.
• Some 840 million go hungry or face food insecurity.
• Nearly one third of the people in the least developed countries are not expected to survive to the age of 40.
• 1.3 billion people live on incomes of less than one dollar a day.
• 1.5 billion people lack access to health services.
• 1.3 billion people lack access to potable water.
• Nearly one billion people are illiterate.

"Many believe that globalization is the talisman which will break poverty’s curse upon humanity. It is true that it has helped reduce poverty in some of the largest and strongest economies -- China, India, and some of the Asian tigers. Yet this capricious process benefits only a precious few, while producing many losers among and within nations. In fact, a widening crevice between haves and have-nots can be found in both developing and developed nations. Several industrialized countries have seen unemployment soar to levels not recorded since the 1930s and income inequality reach figures comparable to nineteenth century levels.

"Yet the most alarming consequences have been observed in the developing world. Over 100 nations show sluggish economic growth, stagnation, or even decline. The ratio of global trade to GDP has been falling for 44 developing countries, which together comprise more than one billion people. The least developed countries, accounting for 10% of the world’s population, own only 0.3% of world trade -- half their share of two decades ago. The list goes on: average tariffs on industrial country imports from the least developed countries are 30% higher than the global average. Furthermore, developing nations lose about $60 billion dollars a year from agricultural subsidies and barriers to textile exports in industrial countries. If industrialized nations do not rise up in solidarity to assist their less fortunate peers, the South will be forever condemned to suffering and powerlessness.

"Where, then, does the mission begin to further human development and alleviate rampant global poverty? With ourselves. Each one of us must shoulder some responsibility for the deprived conditions found within a greater part of the world’s communities. We may not be the direct instigators of these situations, but -- as long as we permit social inequality to exist -- we are accomplices in the destruction. No longer can these issues afford to be discussed as mere academic topics in universities or as debates in the privacy of one’s home. This is a call to action.

"The university, moreover, has a special obligation in promoting human security. To quote Albert Camus: "In a world of victims and executioners it is the job of the thinking people . . . not to be on the side of the executioners." Indeed, institutions of higher learning must teach their students to view economic and political systems from the perspective of the victims. Universities must take sides, placing themselves always on the side of the oppressed. As many of you may know, the University of San Diego has recently taken a crucial step towards embracing this responsibility. It now plans to establish an Institute of Peace and Justice that may become a moral beacon for the community.

"Thinking about the obligations of an individual or an institution, you may very well demand: "What economic resources are available to furnish immediate global poverty relief?" In response, I will ask you to consider something almost too wonderful to seem possible. Imagine if just a portion of world military spending was redirected toward human development. In 1997, world military spending totaled $740 billion dollars. If we channeled just $40 billion dollars of that figure over the next ten years into anti-poverty programs, all of the world’s population would enjoy basic social services, such as education, health care and nutrition, clean water, and sanitation. Another $40 billion dollars over ten years would provide all people on this planet with an income above the poverty line for their country.

"Combating the cynicism that seems to permeate our societies will itself be a major task in our struggle, for this fear and pessimism is the greatest ally of the few wealthy individuals who gain immense fortunes in the arms trade. 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," end of quote. Unfortunately, one can only wonder if these optimistic words are not themselves cynical and hypocritical. 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 45 percent of all weapons deliveries in the world. And, in the past four years, 85 percent of U.S. arms sales have gone to non-democratic governments in the developing world. During Clinton’s first term in office, his administration gave $35.9 billion to the militaries of non-democratic governments for arms and training -- an average of $9 billion per year. This figure represents 82 percent of the $44 billion in total U.S. military support for developing nations.

"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 buildups, violence, and poverty.

"In Sub-Saharan Africa, military expenditures totaled nearly $8 billion in 1995. This figure is simply appalling, considering that this region’s population -- which doubles about every twenty years -- has the highest proportion of poor in the world. Sub-Saharan Africa falls well behind other developing countries on both the Human Poverty Index and the Human Development Index. Nine of the 10 countries with the lowest Human Poverty Index are in Sub-Saharan Africa; that is to say that more than 50% of the residents of those countries have incomes that fall below the poverty line. Moreover, the last twelve places on the Human Development Index are occupied by nations in Sub-Saharan Africa.

"President Clinton’s recent visit to Africa may have sent an encouraging message to the struggling nations of that continent. Nevertheless, their severe concerns require profound action -- mere words and well-meaning gestures will not suffice. Although aid is desperately needed, Washington’s assistance to Africa has dropped to a 10-year low. Aid from France, Japan, and Germany far exceeds that of the United States, and assistance from many other European nations -- such as little Denmark -- is approaching U.S. levels. The United States must re-examine a foreign policy which provides Africa’s 700 million people with only $700 million dollars in economic aid, while it channels $3 billion dollars of economic and military aid into tiny Israel.

"The industrialized world must take two immediate actions on Africa’s behalf. First, it must desist from selling arms to African governments -- which only serves to rub salt on their wounds. Second, given that the total value of Sub-Saharan Africa’s debt is equivalent to just one percent of the OECD countries’ collective GDP, lender nations and Bretton Woods Institutions must stop demanding compensation from this region. Paying this relatively insignificant sum will only further deprive African populations of their most basic necessities.

"In South Asia, an arms race rages between India and Pakistan, fueled by a dispute over the Kashmir territory. India spent more than $12 billion dollars on arms purchases from 1988 to 1992 alone -- more than either Saudi Arabia or Iraq during the 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. These two nations, which rank alarmingly low on the Human Development Index, spend exorbitant amounts on this unforgivable arms race, leaving their people in their own desperate race against time to merely survive.

"In the last few years, two Latin American nations have taken historic steps toward ending once and for all the vicious cycle of poverty and militarism. Following the restoration of democracy to Panama in 1989, I helped persuade this country to abolish its national army, as Costa Rica itself did in 1949. As a result, Costa Rica and Panama now enjoy the safest border in the world. More recently, I have helped promote promising legislation [in] Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere; if this country approves the elimination of its military, it could dedicate more resources to crucial development needs. Progress in these two nations have shown the world that Costa Rica is not a unique case. The abolition of national armed forces is truly a viable option for many countries.

"Commitments made toward demilitarization in the developing world must be supported by responsible leadership in the international community. Yet in several industrialized countries that manufacture weapons, armament production is viewed as a vital source of employment and income. Nevertheless, world leaders must accept the fact that we cannot let the free market rule the international arms trade. We must not enrich ourselves through the commerce of death. Rather, we must realize that the arms trade is most often a friend of dictators and an enemy of the people. The time has come to choose human lives over arms. Indeed, we must settle for nothing less than a comprehensive, international effort to regulate and monitor arms transfers.

"Toward this end, I convened a meeting on May 29th, 1997 with seven other Nobel Peace laureates -- Elie Wiesel, the Dalai Lama, José Ramos-Horta, Betty Williams, and the directors of American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International, and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War -- to publicly unveil an International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers. This Code is also fully endorsed by eight more Nobel Peace laureates: Archbishop Desmond Tutu., Lech Walesa, Rigoberta Menchu, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Mairead Maguire, Norman Borlaug, Joseph Rotblat, and this year’s winner, Jody Williams. Furthermore, former President Jimmy Carter has expressed his strong support for the Code of Conduct.

"This International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers would prevent undemocratic governments from building sophisticated arsenals. Governments which systematically abuse internationally recognized human rights through practices such as torture or arbitrary executions would not receive military training. Countries who commit genocide would not be able to buy munitions. Governments engaged in armed aggression against other countries or peoples could not buy missiles. States that support terrorism would be prevented from acquiring weapons. In addition, all nations would be required to report their arms purchases to the United Nations. This Code of Conduct would undeniably promote global security and protect human rights.

"Current initiatives to restrict arms sales represent a first step toward our mission for peace. In fact, 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 and strengthened in various key areas. Across the Atlantic, owing to back-room dealings, a U.S. Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers failed to pass a joint House-Senate Conference Committee. Nevertheless, its strong showing -- which forced the opposition to resort to underhanded tactics -- was indicative of the Code’s moral sway and great promise.

"Some might question the Code’s relationship to the free-market concept of supply and demand. If a country’s leaders want arms, some might ask, who are we to say that they shouldn't have them? That question merits two responses. First, as I stated above, since the end of the Cold War arms manufacturers have been aggressively promoting sales to the developing world, in order to compensate for the drastic reduction in arms purchases by most industrialized countries.

"Furthermore, when we assert that a nation desires arms, to whom exactly are we referring? Is the single mother in Indonesia or the street orphan in Egypt pressuring government leaders to buy tanks and missiles? Or is it a dictator -- who sees arms purchases as the only way to maintain power? The poor of the world are crying out for schools and doctors, not guns and generals.

"Another argument posited to justify the sale of arms is that, if one country does not sell arms to a nation that wishes to buy them, someone else will. That is precisely why all arms-selling nations must agree to certain common restrictions.

"We can no longer say business is business and turn a blind eye to the poverty and oppression caused by arms transfers. Just like slavery and the drug trade, the arms trade reaps profits tainted with blood.

"Friends:

"Throughout the millennia, prophets, saints, and sages have implored us to take our responsibilities seriously. In our century, for example, Mahatma Gandhi preached on the seven social sins:

• Politics without principles.
• Commerce without morality.
• Wealth without work.
• Education without character.
• Science without humanity.
• Pleasure without conscience, and
• Worship without sacrifice.

"Two hundred years ago, British politician Edmund Burke spoke of a sacred charge that the representative owes to his constituency:

'It is the representative’s duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to his constituents; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.'

"These ideas were voiced in 1774, yet they continue to be exemplary today. Without a doubt, we have the knowledge and the resources to continue to make great progress on the road to human development and true peace. We now only need individuals with mature judgment to take the lead in advocating for the poor of our global society.

"In the dense rain forests of Central America, Mother Nature frequently provides us with an enlightening lesson: when a storm topples a tree, its roots pull up the roots of the surrounding trees, causing them to fall as well. In much the same way, today’s world is a compact forest of cultures, states, and nations, whose roots form an interlacing, inextricable network. The survival of each tree depends on the well being of all of the others. A nation traumatized by war, by oppression, or by poverty is like a tree on the verge of falling. It is an omen of danger for the entire forest.

"Truly, there is no time to delay, for there is danger all around us. We must use our wisdom to form an alliance of global citizens to fight for equality and justice. Our sword will be our determination; our shield, our solidarity. Let us win this struggle against poverty, the arms trade, and human avarice; for, if we are not their victors, we will certainly be their victims."