> >from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >subject: Fidel Castro -Opening session Gp77 Sth Summit > >ADDRESS BY DR. FIDEL CASTRO RUZ, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE >AND THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA, AT THE OPENING >SESSION OF THE GROUP OF 77 SOUTH SUMMIT CONFERENCE > >Havana, April 12, 2000 >Excellencies, >Distinguished delegates and guests, > >Never before did mankind have such formidable scientific and >technologic potential, such extraordinary capacity to produce riches >and well-being but never before were disparity and inequity so >profound in the world. > > Technological wonders that have been shrinking the planet in terms >of communications and distances co-exist today with the increasingly >wider gap separating wealth and poverty, development and >underdevelopment. > > Globalization is an objective reality underlining the fact that we >are all passengers on the same vessel, that is, this planet where we >all live. But, passengers on this vessel are traveling in very >different conditions. > > Trifling minorities are traveling in luxurious cabins furnished >with Internet, cell phones and access to global communication >networks. They enjoy a nutritional, abundant and balanced diet as >well as clean water supplies. They have access to sophisticated >medical care and to culture. > > Overwhelming and hurting majorities are traveling in conditions >that resemble the terrible slave trade from Africa to America in our >colonial past. That is, 85% of the passengers on this ship are >crowded together in its dirty hold suffering hunger, diseases and >helplessness. > > Obviously, this vessel is carrying too much injustice to remain >afloat and it pursues such an irrational and senseless route that it >cannot call on a safe port. This vessel seems destined to clash with >an iceberg. If that happened, we would all sink with it. > > The Heads of State and Government meeting here, who represent >the overwhelming and hurting majorities, have not only the right but >the obligation to take the helm and correct that catastrophic route. >It is our duty to take our rightful place at the helm and facilitate >that all passengers can travel in conditions of solidarity, equity >and justice. > > For two decades, the Third World has been repeatedly listening to >only one simplistic discourse while one single policy has prevailed. > > We have been told that deregulated markets, maximum privatization >and the state=s withdrawal from the economic activity were the >infallible principles conducive to economic and social development. > > Along this line the developed countries, particularly the United >States of America, the big transnationals benefiting from such >policies and the International Monetary Fund have designed in the >last two decades the world economic order most hostile to our >countries= progress and the least sustainable in terms of the >preservation of society and the environment. > > Globalization has been held tight by the patterns of neoliberalism; >thus, it is not development that goes global but poverty; it is not >respect for the national sovereignty of our states but the violation >of that respect; it is not solidarity amongst our peoples but Asauve- >qui-peut@ in the unequal competition prevailing in the marketplace. > > Two decades of so-called neoliberal structural adjustment have left >behind economic failure and social disaster. It is the duty of >responsible politicians to face up to this predicament by taking the >indispensable decisions conducive to the Third World rescue from a >blind alley. > > Economic failure is evident. Under the neoliberal policies, the >world economy experienced a global growth between 1975 and 1998 which >hardly amounted to half of that attained between 1945 and 1975 with >Keynesian market deregulation policies and the states= active >participation in the economy. > > In Latin America, where neoliberalism has been applied with >absolute attachment to doctrine, economic growth in the neoliberal >stage has not been higher than that attained under the previous state >development policies. After World War II, Latin America had no debt >but today we owe almost one trillion dollars. This is the highest per >capita debt in the world. Also the income difference between the rich >and the poor in the region is the greatest worldwide. There are more >poor, unemployed and hungry people in Latin America now than at any >other hard time in its history. > > Under neoliberalism the world economy has not been growing faster in >real terms; however, there is more instability, speculation, external >debt and unequal exchange. Likewise, there is a greater tendency to >financial crises occurring more often while poverty, inequality and >the gap between the wealthy North and the dispossessed South >continues to widen. > > Crises, instability, turmoil and uncertainty have been the most >common words used in the last two years to describe the world >economic order. > > The deregulation that comes with neoliberalism and the >liberalization of the capital account have a deep negative impact on >a world economy where speculation blooms in hard currency and >derivative markets and mostly speculative daily transactions amount >to no less than 3 trillion US dollars. > > Our countries are urged to be more transparent with their >information and more effective with bank supervision but financial >institutions like the hedge funds fail to release information on >their activities, are absolutely unregulated and conduct operations >that exceed all the reserves kept in the banks of the South >countries. > > In an atmosphere of unrestrained speculation, the movements of >short-term capital make the South countries vulnerable to any >external contingency. > > The Third World is forced to immobilize financial resources and >grow indebted to keep hard currency reserves in the hope that they >can be used to resist the attack of speculators. Over 20% of the >capital revenues obtained in the last few years were immobilized as >reserves but they were not enough to resist such attacks as proven by >the recent financial crisis in Southeast Asia. > > Presently, 727 billion US dollars from the world Central Banks= >reserves are in the United States. This leads to the paradox that >with their reserves the poor countries are offering cheap long-term >financing to the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world >while such reserves could be better invested in economic and social >development. > > If Cuba has successfully carried out education, health care, >culture, science, sports and other programs, which nobody in the >world would question, despite four decades of economic blockade, and >revalued its currency seven times in the last five years in relation >to the US dollar, it has been thanks to its privileged position as a >non-member of the International Monetary Fund. > > A financial system that keeps forcibly immobilized such enormous >resources, badly needed by the countries to protect themselves from >the instability caused by that very system that makes the poor >finance the wealthy, should be removed. > > The International Monetary Fund is the emblematic organization of >the existing monetary system and the United States enjoys veto power >over its decisions. > > As far as the latest financial crisis is concerned, the IMF showed a >lack of foresight and a clumsy handling of the situation. It imposed >its conditioning clauses that paralyzed the governments social >development policies thus creating serious domestic hazards and >preventing access to the necessary resources when they were most >needed. > >It is high time for the Third World to strongly demand the removal of >an institution that neither provides stability to the world economy >nor works to deliver preventive funds to the debtors to avoid their >liquidity crises; it rather protects and rescues the creditors. > > Where is the rational and the ethic of an international monetary >order which allows a few technocrats, whose positions depend on the >American support, to design in Washington identical economic >adjustment programs for implementation in a wide variety of countries >to cope with specific Third World problems? > > Who takes responsibility when the adjustment programs bring about >social chaos, thus paralyzing and destabilizing nations with large >human and natural resources, as was the case in Indonesia and >Ecuador? > > It is of crucial importance for the Third World to work for the >removal of that sinister institution, and the philosophy it sustains, >to replace it with an international finances regulating body that >would operate on democratic bases and where no one has a veto right. >An institution that would not defend only the wealthy creditors and >impose interfering conditions, but would allow the regulation of >financial markets to arrest unrestrained speculation. > > A viable way to do this would be by establishing not a 0.1% tax >on speculative financial transactions as Mr.Tobin brilliantly >proposed, but rather a minimum 1% which would permit the creation of >a large indispensable fund C in the excess of one trillion dollars >every year C to promote a real, sustainable and comprehensible >development in the Third World. > > The underdeveloped nations external debt is amazing not only because >it is terribly high but also due to its outrageous mechanism of >subjugation and exploitation and the absurd formula offered by the >developed countries to cope with it. > > That debt already exceeds 2.5 trillion US dollars and in the present >decade it has been increasing more dangerously than in the 1970s. A >large part of that new debt can easily change hands in the secondary >markets; it is more dispersed now and more difficult to reschedule. > > Once again I should repeat what we have been saying since 1985: the >debt has already been paid if note is taken of the way it was >contracted, the swift and arbitrary increase of the interest rates on >the US dollar in the previous decade and the decrease of the basic >commodity prices, a fundamental source of revenue for developing >countries. The debt continues to feed on itself in a vicious circle >where money is borrowed to pay its interests. > > Today, it is clearer than ever that the debt is not an economic but >a political issue, therefore, it demands a political solution. It >is impossible to continue overlooking the fact that the solution to >this problem must basically come from those with resources and power, >that is, the wealthy countries. > > The so-called Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Debt Reduction >Initiative exhibits a long name but poor results. It can only be >described as a ridiculous attempt at alleviating 8.3% of the South >countries total debt; but almost four years after its implementation >only four countries among the poorest 33 have reached the complicated >process simply to condone the negligible figure of 2.7 billion US >dollars, which is 33% of what the United States spends on cosmetics >every year. > > Today, the external debt is one of the greatest obstacles to >development and a bomb ready to blow up the foundations of the world >economy at any time during an economic crisis. > > The resources needed for a solution that goes to the root of this >problem are not large when compared to the wealth and the expenses of >the creditor countries. Every year 800 billion US dollars are used to >finance weapons and troops, even after the cold war is over, while no >less than 400 billion go into narcotics and one additional billion >into commercial publicity which is as alienating as narcotics; this >is to mention just three examples. > > As we have said before, sincerely and realistically speaking the >Third World countries external debt is unpayable and uncollectable. > > In the hands of the rich countries, world trade is already an >instrument of domination, which under neoliberal globalization will >become an increasingly useful element to perpetuate and sharpen >inequalities as well as a theater for strong disputes among developed >countries for control over the present and future markets. > > The neoliberal discourse recommends commercial liberalization as the >best and only formula for efficiency and development. Accordingly, >all nations should remove protection instruments from their domestic >markets while the difference in development between countries, no >matter how big, would not justify separation from the only way >offered without any possible alternative. After hard negotiations in >the WTO, the poorest countries have been conceded a narrow time >difference for full access to that nefarious system. > > While neoliberalism keeps repeating its discourse on the >opportunities created by trade openings, the underdeveloped countries >participation in the world exports was lower in 1998 than in 1953, >that is, forty-five years ago. With an area of 3.2 million square >miles, a population of 168 million and 51.1 billion US dollars in >exports during 1998, Brazil is exporting less than The Netherlands >with an area of 12,978 square miles, a population of 15.7 million and >exports for 198.7 billion that same year. > > Trade liberalization has essentially consisted in the unilateral >removal of protection instruments by the South. Meanwhile, the >developed nations have failed to do the same to allow the Third World >exports to enter their markets. > > The wealthy nations have fostered liberalization in strategic >sectors associated to advanced technology where they enjoy enormous >advantages that the deregulated markets tend to augment. These are >the classic cases of services, information technology, biotechnology >and telecommunications. > > On the other hand, agriculture and textiles, two particularly >significant sectors for our countries, have not even been able to >remove the restrictions agreed upon during the Uruguay Round because >they are not of interest to developed countries. > > In the OECD, the club of the wealthiest, the average tariff applied >to manufactured exports from underdeveloped countries is four times >higher than that applied to the club member countries. A real wall of >non-tariff barriers is thus raised that leaves out the South >countries. > > Meanwhile, in international trade a hypocritical ultra-liberal >discourse has gained ground that matches the selective protectionism >imposed by the North countries. > > The basic commodities are still the weakest link in world trade. In >the case of 67 South countries such commodities account for no less >than 50% of their export revenues. > > The neoliberal wave has wiped out the defense schemes contained in >the terms of reference for basic commodities. The supreme dictum of >the marketplace could not tolerate any distortion, therefore, the >Basic Commodities Agreements and other defense formulas designed to >face unequal exchange were abandoned. It is for this reason that >today the purchasing power of such commodities as sugar, cocoa, >coffee and others is 20% of what it used to be in 1960; consequently, >they do not even cover the production costs. > > A special and differentiated treatment to poor countries has been >considered not as an elementary act of justice and a necessity that >cannot be ignored but as a temporary act of charity. Actually, such >differential treatment would not only recognize the enormous >differences in development that prevent the use of the same yardstick >for the rich and the poor but also a historically colonial past that >demands compensation. > > The failed Seattle meeting showed the tedium caused by and the >opposition to neoliberal policies in growing sectors of the public >opinion, in both South and North countries. > > The United States of America presented the Round of Trade >Negotiations that should begin in Seattle as a higher step in trade >liberalization regardless, or perhaps forgetful, of its own >aggressive and discriminatory Foreign Trade Act still in force. That >Act includes provisions like the ASuper-301@, a real display of >discrimination and threats to apply sanctions to other countries for >reasons that go from the assumed opposition of barriers to American >products to the arbitrary, deliberate and often cynical qualification >that that government decides to give others on the subject of human >rights. > > In Seattle there was a revolt against neoliberalism. Its most >recent precedent had been the refusal to accept the imposition of a >Multilateral Agreement on Investments. This shows that the aggressive >market fundamentalism, which has caused great damages to our >countries, has found a strong and deserved world rejection. > >In addition to the above mentioned economic calamities, on occasions >the high oil prices significantly contribute to the worsening of >conditions in the South countries which are net importers of that >vital resource. The Third World produces about 80% of the oil traded >worldwide, and 80% of that amount is exported to the developed >countries. > > The wealthy nations can afford to pay any price for the energy they >waste to sustain luxurious consumption levels and destroy the >environment. The United States= consumption is 8.1 tons oil >equivalent per capita while the Third World consumes an average of >0.8 tons, and the poorest among them only 0.3. > > When the prices mount abruptly from 12 to 30 US dollars a barrel, or >more, it has a devastating effect on the Third World nations. This is >in addition to the external debt, the low prices of their basic >commodities, the financial crises and the unequal terms of >reference=s negative impact weighing heavily on them. Now, we >perceive a similarly devastating situation emerging anew among sister >South nations. > > Petroleum is a universally needed vital commodity, which actually >escapes the market laws. One way or another, the big transnationals >or the Third World oil exporting countries that associated themselves >to defend their interests were always able to determine its price. > > The low prices mostly benefit the rich countries that waste large >amounts of fuel, restrain the search for and the exploitation of new >deposits as well as the development of technologies that reduce >consumption and protect the environment; and they affect the Third >World exporters. On the other hand, high prices benefit the exporters >and can be easily handled by the rich but they are harmful and >destructive to the economies of a large part of our world. > > This is a good example to show that a differential treatment to >countries in different stages of development should be an >indispensable principle of justice in world trade. It is absolutely >unfair that a poor Third World country like Mozambique with 84 US >dollars per capita GDP needs to pay for such a vital commodity the >same price as Switzerland with 43,400 US dollars per capita. This is >a 516 times higher per capita GDP than that of Mozambique! > > The San Jos� Pact, concerted 20 years ago by Venezuela and Mexico >with a group of small oil importing countries in the region, set a >good precedent of what can and should be done bearing in mind the >particular conditions of every Third World nation in similar >circumstances, although avoiding this time any conditions associated >to the differential treatment they might receive. > > Some countries are not in a position to pay more than 10 US dollars >a barrel, others no more than 15, and none more than 20. > > However, the rich countries= world, prone as it is to big spending >and consumerism, can pay over 30 US dollars a barrel taking hardly >any damage. As they consume 80% of the Third World countries= >exports, this can easily compensate a price lower than 20 US dollars >for the rest of the nations. > > This could be a concrete and effective way to turn South-South >cooperation into a powerful instrument of Third World development. To >do otherwise would invite self-destruction. > > In a global world where knowledge is the key to development, >the technological gap between the North and the South tends to widen >with the increasing privatization of scientific research and its >results. > > The developed countries with 15% of the world=s population >presently concentrate 88% of Internet users. Just in the United >States there are more computers than in the rest of the world put >together. These countries control 97% of the patents the world over >and receive over 90% of the international licenses= rights while for >many South countries the exercise of the right to intellectual >property is non-existent. > > In private research, the lucrative element takes precedence over >necessity; the intellectual property rights leave knowledge out of >reach for underdeveloped countries and the legislation on patents >does not recognize know-how transfer or the traditional property >systems, which are so important in the South. > > Private research focuses on the needs of the wealthy consumers. > > Vaccines have become the most efficient technology to keep health >care expenses low since they can prevent diseases with one dosage. >However, as they yield low profits they are put aside in favor of >medications that require repeated dosages and yield higher benefits. > > The new medications, the best seeds and, in general, the best >technologies have become commodities whose prices only the rich >countries can afford. > > The murky social results of this neoliberal race to catastrophe are >in sight. In over one hundred countries the per capita income is >lower than fifteen years ago. At the moment, 1.6 billion people are >faring worse than at the beginning of the 1980s. > > Over 820 million people are undernourished and 790 of them live in >the Third World. It is estimated that 507 million people living in >the South today will not live to see their 40th birthday. > > In the Third World countries represented here, two out of every >five children suffer from growth retardation and one out of every >three is underweight; 30,000 who could be saved are dying every day; >2 million girls are forced into prostitution; 130 million children do >not have access to elementary education and 250 million minors under >15 are bound to work for a living. > > The world economic order works for 20% of the population but it >leaves out, demeans and degrades the remaining 80%. > > We cannot simply accept to enter the next century as the backward, >poor and exploited rearguard; the victim of racism and xenophobia >prevented from accessing to knowledge and suffering the alienation of >our cultures due to the foreign consumer-oriented message globalized >by the media. > >As for the Group of 77, this is not the time for begging from the >developed countries or for submission, defeatism or internecine >divisions. This is the time to rescue back our fighting spirit, our >unity and cohesion in defending our demands. > > Fifty years ago we were promised that one day there would no longer >be a gap between developed and underdeveloped countries. We were >promised bread and justice; but today we have less and less bread and >more injustice. > > The world can be globalized under the rule of neoliberalism but it >is impossible to rule over billions of people who are hungry for >bread and justice. > > The pictures of mothers and children under the scourge of draughts >and other catastrophes in whole regions of Africa remind us of the >concentration camps in nazi Germany; they bring back to us memories >of stacks of corpses or of moribund men, women and children. > > Another Nuremberg is required to put to trial the economic order >imposed on us, the same that is killing of hunger and preventable or >curable diseases more men, women and children every three years than >all those killed by World War II in six years. > > We should discuss here what is to be done about that. > > In Cuba we usually say: AHomeland or Death! @ At this Summit of the >Third World countries we would have to say: @We either unite and >establish close cooperation, or we die!@ > > Thank you, very much. " JC > > __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
