The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : "Global world needs rule of law"

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Jan 30, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

"Global world needs rule of law"

The first Chilean head of state to visit India, President Ricardo Lagos, spoke to Siddharth Varadarajan of The Hindu about the anti-neoliberal mood in Latin America, the trial of the former dictator, Augusto Pinochet, and the nee d for a world that recognises cultural diversity and the rule of law. Excerpts:

Ricardo Lagos... speaking up for small nations. — AP

Question: Given the enormous distance that separates Latin America from South Asia, what is it that India and Chile can do for each other?

Ricardo Lagos: That reminds me of my visit to China when President Jiang Zemin told me, `You are from such a faraway country, I assume you have something very important to tell me!' But seriously, beyond the historical things and the multilateral issues, India is an emerging country, extremely important as an economic force. Chile is a small country with only 15 million people but our path of development has been to integrate with the world. Trade accounts for more than 65 per cent of our GDP, and if we add services, that's 80 per cent. In other words, India has a huge internal market but when you are a small country, you see the world. And we would like to be here.

On the other hand, the fact that you too are an open economy means the possibility of investment in and using Chile as a springboard to go to other countries. Quite a number of European firms are now going down to Chile, because they can go free of tariff to the U.S.; and on the other hand, some Americans are coming to Chile because they can go to Europe tariff free. So Chile is offering to India the market of the Europeans, Americans, Canadians and Mexicans, with whom we have free trade agreements and zero tariffs for most products.

At the same time, societies are more than economies. There are cultural issues, the design of public policies to help the poor, where we can learn from each other. I think it is time to say globalisation is not just about business but about some other things...

There has been in India recently a certain re-evaluation of the different dimensions of globalisation, a feeling that we tended to ignore Latin America, Africa. In the past year, we have seen the creation of a very promising new forum linking India, Brazil, and South Africa. Do you see that kind of initiative as something Chile could connect with?

I think India, Brazil, and South Africa are part of a broader coalition — the so-called G-20 and still counting — of countries that went together to present similar views in the Doha round of trade talks at Cancun. Now, there are the negotiations in Geneva and I think the time has come to present similar views. There are the questions of anti-dumping laws, agricultural subsidies, and intellectual property rights. It's there that we are going to be discussing these things... So that's an area where, if globalisation is going to be here as it is, you need some rules. Globalisation without rules means that the rules are going to be imposed upon us. I don't want that. And from that point of view, India, Brazil, and South Africa are the major countries providing some leadership in this question. We feel part of that group.

I was in Venezuela recently for a conference at which there were a lot of scholars and artistes from Latin America. I got a feeling of a new confidence in the region linked to the fact that after a long period, there are five or six progressive governments in the continent — Lagos in Chile, Nestor Kirchner in Argentina, Lula in Brazil, Chavez in Venezuela, and, of course, now Uruguay. What accounts for this turn to the Left? Is it because of Latin America's negative experience with neoliberalism?

There is a sense in the region that we tried to do everything. That during the 1990s, under the so-called Washington consensus, we were supposed to be open to trade, we were supposed to have an independent monetary policy, no fiscal deficit, privatise quite a number of firms. Now, most Latin American countries did all those things. Nevertheless, growth didn't arrive, and in those cases where you have growth, this didn't mean poverty was being reduced. The only exception, to some extent, has been Chile. And you know why? Because, in addition to the Washington Consensus, we had quite a number of very specific policies.

You mean social welfare programmes?

Yes, for the poor. In education, for example, we discriminate. Equal opportunity in education means you have to discriminate in favour of those schools that are far away, in rural areas, poorer people. There's no question. We have computers now in 90 per cent of our schools but, needless to say, for many kids the computer in the school is the only computer. Also, one of our programmes was to target women-headed households. Ninety-five per cent of them are poor so to target them is very easy. So, in a housing programme, for instance, the priority was these households. With our targeting, we have managed to reduce those in poverty, by our own definition, from 40 per cent of the population to 18 per cent.

So I have a feeling that what happened in the region is that there is a move away from neoliberal thinking that growth is enough. People discovered that growth is not enough. And that if you don't have these kind of very concrete — I am not talking about populist policies — straightforward public policies that are essential. This is not to say that in some cases, you couldn't have a privatisation or a build-operate-and-transfer scheme. We introduced, for instance, private money in our highways. Well, I can build a highway through a toll system but the money could be better used to build a school or help the fishermen, bringing water for the rural poor. Almost everyone in rural areas has drinkable water but let me tell you, this is only public money because the peasants cannot afford that part of the story.

Given the ideological affinity among several of the Governments in Latin America, is it possible to have a certain coordination of policies? Mr. Chavez and Mr. Kirchner are talking of building Petrosur to link South America's oil companies. How does Chile view these kind of pan-Continental institutions?

I think that geography will tell you need some kind of physical integration in terms of highways, roads, and telecommunications. Needless to say we have a tremendous reservoir of hydroelectric energy in the southern part of Chile. If some other country has gas or oil, and it is possible to have pipelines and trans-electric cables, that is possible. Already, we receive a little gas from Argentina and provide electricity.

These kinds of things are essential. But it is also necessary to have some kind of coordination in terms of our own economic policies. Because what is the purpose of integration and reducing barriers if you are going to devalue your currency by 50 per cent! So I think we need physical integration like energy, transportation etc., and integration of macroeconomic policies.

How are Chile's relations with the U.S.? As a member of the U.N. Security Council in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Chile surprised many by refusing to go along with America's plans to get the U.N. to sanction the war...

You see, everybody assumed we were going to say yes because we were in the middle of trade negotiations with the U.S.

Exactly, so did Chile incur a penalty for its opposition to the war?

I would say no, but our opposition to the war has to do with something much more essential. It is not only a question of ethics, but in this kind of world that is global, you are going to need some kind of rule of law. It is impossible not to have that. And the only way is by the United Nations and the multilateral institutions.

This is the reason that nine months after the non-resolution on Iraq, when there was a resolution on Haiti, 72 hours after the resolution asking for troops, we sent troops there. So, without the Security Council, we say no, and within a unanimous vote of the council, we say yes. This is the only way for small countries if we are going to be living in a more civilised world.

The U.N.'s high level panel has made recommendations about reform, including the Security Council. There's been some disappointment largely because they have felt the veto system cannot be changed. India feels the expansion of permanent membership should come with veto power but Latin American countries have tended to favour doing away with vetoes altogether. How does Chile view the question of reform?

The time has come to update the U.N. Charter. It represents the world as it was in 1945. I think it is necessary to have more permanent members. There are two proposals and we will be with whichever receives more backing.

I think it's improbable that countries with a veto will not veto the proposal to abrogate the veto! In that case, why not have a system of contra veto? One country says `I veto', and two others say, `I veto your veto'. That could be a practical solution, but we are open to any suggestions. What I wouldn't like is that because of the question of the veto, we don't introduce reforms that are essential, not just in the U.N. but also in economic institutions like the World Bank and IMF.

There's a perception that Chile prefers to remain aloof from regional integration in South America and reach its own understanding with the U.S. on trade. In the context of the ongoing debate, don't you think it prudent to postpone discussion on the Washington-proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) till such a time you have greater coherence of policies among South American countries first?

Every country has different realities. As I said, 65 per cent of our GDP is represented by exports and imports. Do you know how much it is in Brazil? 22-23 per cent. Argentina has something similar. Because these countries are so huge, the internal market is very important for development. The way you address the issue of trade is different when you have such a huge market.

So Chile does not want to become a full member of Mercosur?

I'm in favour of Latin American integration. And I think this is essential. But how are we going to integrate if you have 14 per cent tariff and I have 6 per cent? Should I increase my tariff? That's impossible. Should they reduce? In the long term, they are planning that. So the question of integration has to do with what is the reality in the different countries. Why don't we have integration in the political arena? The Ministers of Health and Education meet twice a year among Mercosur countries. I say if a customs union is essential to be a member of Mercosur, then I cannot be a member. I'm only an associate member. But if there are many other things and not only a customs union, I will be a full member. So it is not that Chile would like to go alone.

The decision to start negotiations with the EU was taken together by Chile and Mercosur. The idea was to start at the same time and have parallel negotiations, but in the end it was extremely difficult for the Mercosur countries to agree among themselves. So we have ended up doing the negotiation with Europe alone while the others are still discussing. Now, there has been a decision to have discussions on a trade agreement between Mercosur and India. Chile also now has an agreement. I hope in this case we will be together.

Turning to a domestic issue, how important for Chile is it that Pinochet be prosecuted for the human rights violations and other crimes committed during his dictatorship? Are you confident the process can be followed through without negative consequences from the military?

There will be no negative consequences no matter what happens on this issue. The question of the armed forces is settled in Chile. There is a tribunal and there are several prosecutions. Our democratic institutions are now very strong.

But how far down should legal accountability be fixed, given that there are a large number of people who received an amnesty earlier?

Your question is quite relevant because quite a few members of the military are saying, `Look, I was obeying orders, so my accountability is not as big as you think it is'. This question has not been settled. Today, more than 60 former officers are in prison and the number being prosecuted is much larger.

I happened to be in the memorial cemetery in Santiago in 1995 when the body of one of the hundreds of young men who had disappeared during the Pinochet years was being buried. It was a very moving ceremony but at the time, none of his relatives or friends really believed there would be justice. Chile does seem to have come a long way in the past 10 years.

I would say there are very few countries that have been able to see what happened in the past... In November 2004, a presidential report was issued — the result of a high-level committee's investigation into what happened with the political prisoners, the torture. It's had a tremendous impact on public opinion, first because the report was released, and second that the Chilean Government will be paying pension for life for all the 28,000 people who were recognised as political prisoners in that report. This tells us about the strength of political institutions in the new Chile.

Is there any possibility that the drive to have full accountability for 1973 might at some stage lead to a request from Chile for the right to interview or interrogate officials from the U.S. who have information on the coup, torture techniques, disappearances. One sometimes hears calls for Henry Kissinger's prosecution.

Well there has been some talk of that but all this is up to the tribunal. If they, if someone being prosecuted says `I received orders or training or whatever it is, then it would be up to the tribunal to make a decision to ask for some foreign people to appear.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

"Global world needs rule of law"

Commerce & crisis hit Wayanad students