Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. President and members of the United Nations:
The addresses delivered here since yesterday, have focused mainly on three key issues: the global financial crisis, its impact, evolution and exit strategies; climate change; and a very important and fundamental one which is world peace preservation and international security.
I believe that emerging countries, and especially Argentina, have a say in these three issues and can take a stance on them, in light of our valuable experiences. As regards the global crisis, the impact of which has been suffered by emerging countries, but which actually originated in developed nations, we can say that indeed developing countries have buttressed the growth of the economy over the last decade and have sustained the growth of economic activities and, therefore, the instruments to overcome what has been perhaps the worst financial crisis since 1930. In this regard, Argentina has been a sort of ‘guinea pig‘ for the policies of the 90s, when it was shown to the world as a ‘straight-A student‘, while it reached unbearable indebtedness levels; it did not produce goods and services, the job creation rate dropped dramatically and, in 2001, it eventually plunged into a very similar financial crisis to the one that shook the world in the third quarter of 2008.
They let go of Argentina‘s hand in 2001 and yet, on the basis of a policy developed since 2003 onwards, we have been able to overcome that crisis, which looks pretty much like the one that the world experienced in 2008. We have actually done so thanks to our own efforts and essentially by means of an economic and political project that was not fashioned after the requirements of multilateral lending institutions, but rather after our own beliefs and, fundamentally, our own interests.
Over these eight years and in the year of our Bicentennial - in 2010 my country celebrates the 200th anniversary of its liberation - we have achieved the greatest economic growth in our history, and we have also managed to reduce debt to an unprecedented level. Since the sovereign default in the year 2001, which was also the largest in our history, Argentina has renegotiated 93% of its debt with the holders of Argentine bonds and has, at the same time, experienced record growth even in the last year. After the countercyclical measures that we adopted in 2009 and late 2008, we have achieved 9% growth in our economic activities in the last 12 months and have brought down the unemployment rate to 7.9%. We have also managed to further reduce our rates of poverty and abject poverty to unparalleled levels in our country. This was essentially due to a countercyclical management of the economy and the understanding that instruments such as the Central Bank, reserves, foreign trade, production, job creation, generation of a better quality of life, along with a large expansion of fiscal spending, were the factors that prevented the crisis from hitting developing countries as hard as it would have in other times.
In this regard, I would like to say that we have also promoted the intelligent and rational use of reserves - something that is under debate today in all multilateral organizations, in the world of economics and also in the G20 -, because we preferred to use reserves from our trade surplus - that is, genuine dollars - to pay off our debts, instead of resorting to the capital market which would have led to two-digit interest rates on debt, while we were only being paid an annual 0.5% interest on our reserves. It was truly inconsistent and irrational for the country to become indebted at two-digit rates, while it had plentiful reserves accruing only a 0.5% interest.
In this regard, I would like to say that our experience in Argentina and that of other emerging countries that are buttressing economic growth, dictates that the G-20 should conduct - and we are going to advance this proposal in the G-77 too - a thorough reform of multilateral lending institutions, which have failed in their fundamental mission to maintain a stable worldwide economy that creates well-being and jobs for the people‘s of the world. In this regard, we believe that there is a pressing need for global legislation to be passed on vulture funds which flow from one place to another in highly speculative transactions and hit all economies without mercy; moreover, there is also the need to qualify, assess and legislate on risk rating agencies that, for instance, assigned soaring risk ratings to Argentina‘s debts - even though Argentina had rigorously serviced its debt since the first 2005 renegotiation without resorting to the capital market -, while giving better ratings to countries that eventually showed they did not have the ability to pay off their debts because of structural problems in their economies, such as fiscal deficits, trade deficits, drain of reserves, which is exactly the opposite of what happened in Argentina.
That is why we believe in the need for an international overhaul of multilateral funds and, especially, a different theoretical framework from what has applied so far in our world, the Washington Consensus, which has been stifled by failure, and has still not been replaced by a new theoretical framework, assigning different roles to central banks and to States as a means of promoting fiscal measures and countercyclical measures to ensure job stability, and not only currency stability.
We also honestly believe that currency should not be looked after from a monetary perspective exclusively. Instead, we think the value of each country‘s currency is directly related to the possibilities for growth and wealth creation of each of the economies and also to the equitable distribution of such wealth, so that societies, once they have achieved a sense of cohesion, are able to support not only an economic but also an essentially political paradigm.
Furthermore, and very importantly, climate change is another key issue that was referred to in the addresses delivered by those who have stood on this rostrum -and by the way, the Cancun meeting will soon be taking place. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that we have not been able to reach an agreement as of yet, because we are still awaiting a fair and equitable solution as to who should foot most of the bill for environmental pollution and to what extent. It is not fair for developing countries, which have hardly been able to improve poverty and bridge social gaps through their economic growth, to bear the brunt of the environmental liabilities that have historically been created by developed nations, which have polluted the world for decades and which, as such, should assume that responsibility as well. The fact of fixing viable targets and objectives that are consistent with the need for the economy to keep growing, forces us to seriously reconsider our goals in terms of global warming.
As for the last two issues, namely, the achievement of peace and international security, we sincerely believe that the resumption of conversations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority is very good news, but we hope that we can accomplish something that I think we have all been looking forward to for a long time now, which is to see the State of Palestine seated as a full member at the next session of this General Assembly. We believe that this would make an enormous contribution to the preservation of international peace and security.
And we are saying this as a country that has authority and historical experience on this issue, having been the target and the victim of international terrorist organizations. You know that my country suffered two terrible terrorist attacks: the bombing of the Embassy of Israel in 1992 and the attack on the Jewish Community Centre -AMIA- in 1994.
In 2007, at the General Assembly meeting, the former president of Argentina, Néstor Kirchner urged the Islamic Republic of Iran to extradite the Iranian officials and citizens who had been accused by Argentine courts of having participated in the perpetration of such a horrendous crime. I reiterated the request as President of our country in 2008 and 2009 but, admittedly, without much success. Since my country is a leader in respect for human rights and the prosecution of those committing crimes against humanity, and since we have a system that guarantees due process and defense in trial, under which nobody can be convicted in absentia, we have continued to insist on extradition. There may be citizens in my country who believe our Judiciary has not been sufficiently fair and has not enforced the rules, but there are international conventions that allow us to resort to international courts and bodies such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Despite having warranted that all these principles would be respected in our country -Argentina- we have not yet achieved any results.
On this occasion I will not -for the fourth time- voice a claim that will remain unheard, but instead I wish to offer to the Islamic Republic of Iran -should they not trust Argentine justice because of their prejudice towards it, believing there will not be enough neutrality to try the case- to reach an agreement with Argentina on a third country where due process guarantees are also in force and where there may be UN delegates as international observers, so this terrible attack that was the bombing of AMIA is taken to court. It goes without saying that we do not consider the above an attack against a community or a religious faith but an attack on all Argentines.
This President rules a country where as Head of Government I am able to celebrate the Jewish New Year, as I did recently together with the Jewish community, as well as the end of Ramadhan at the Islamic Centre. We are a country built by immigrants, which has helped guarantee plurality and diversity for people from around the world.
That is why we are now proposing this option that is not a legal construction based on caprice or fantasy since there is a precedent of a trial in a third neutral country in the Lockerbie case. This would be a possibility which would help to provide guarantees to those that fear unfair prosecution. Argentina is not seeking culprits; Argentina is demanding justice and, ultimately, the punishment of those who have committed such a big crime.
That is why I make this specific offer to the Islamic Republic of Iran before the UN General Assembly in order to put an end to excuses based on an alleged lack of neutrality and to put an end to the alibi that is imposed on us by claiming that an impartial trial is not guaranteed. I believe this is a more than eloquent gesture that has international precedents and that will pave the way for our conflicts and disagreements to be left behind and which should be instrumental in putting us on a path leading to a resolution of the issue within the framework of justice and legality, as true members of the international community of nations.
Finally, and also in the field of security, we must once again at this Assembly assert our sovereign rights over the Malvinas Islands. This is not merely a demand we have consistently made throughout our history, but a most current one. The United Kingdom systematically refuses to comply with the Resolutions of the UN -a body that brings us all together- which call upon the UK to negotiate sovereignty matters with Argentina. Furthermore, the UK has taken a unilateral decision to extract hydrocarbons with all this entails along two fronts: on the one hand, the depredation of natural resources that do not belong to it. It is unthinkable to sustain a territorial sovereignty claim, either on a historical or legal basis, over a territory that lies 14 thousand kilometers away, with inhabitants that have been transplanted to a continental shelf which -no doubt- geographically, geologically and historically belongs to Argentina.
There is also the risk of an ecological catastrophe like the unprecedented environmental accident suffered by British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico, in front of the US coast. The fact that neither our country nor any other country is able to control what the UK is doing on the Malvinas Islands not only fills us with a sense of urgency in order to protect our country‘s resources but also to preserve the area from a potential catastrophe resulting from such lack of control.
You may wonder what this has to do with security, but it certainly does have a lot to do, because one of the core problems we have nowadays in this globalized world is the restructuring of the UN Security Council in line with current times
The UK, like other countries, has a permanent seat on the Security Council, and uses and abuses its position. UN resolutions seem to only be applicable to countries that do not have enough power or the right to be seated permanently on the Security Council, which must be restructured since it has so far been unable to keep international peace and security.
This reorganization not only relates to the permanent nature of some members but to a world scenario that has changed since the San Francisco Charter was signed and this Security Council was created; a Council with permanent members that had the possibility of bringing about a nuclear Holocaust just by pushing a red button. The reason for setting up a Security Council was to strike a balance in a bipolar world and avoid a nuclear Holocaust. That world no longer exists and those who were irreconcilable enemies are now partners, allies, friends, whichever word you like best. Those who can indeed cause conflicts, tragedies and international terrorist acts, are not and will never be a part of the Council so this body has lost its raison d‘être because it is not in a position to rise to the challenges of the current world scenario. Many times the use and abuse of the dominant position of certain Security Council members has triggered disputes that the Council and even the UN as a whole, are then unable to resolve.
That is why I believe that the Malvinas case is iconic as to what certain members can do since no one enforces the Security Council resolutions vis-à-vis its permanent members and important NATO allies.
In a double standard world where only the developing or weaker countries must fulfill resolutions and the others can systematically violate the international legal order, there will be no possibilities of building peace and preserving security when the above are the situations which broaden gaps and bring about the insurmountable differences we experience day after day.
That is why I believe it is important to note that the notions of security and peace cannot merely be linked to military affairs but must also be connected to the essential values of politics, equity, freedom and one of the things humanity has so much fought for, and that is, equality.
Good morning and thank you.