|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 6 February 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Global world needs rule of law - Ricardo Lagos
Question: Given the enormous distance that separates Latin America from South Asia, what is it that India and Chile can do for each other? Answer: 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... Q: 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 and 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? A: 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. Q: 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? A: 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. Q: 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 kinds of pan-Continental institutions? A: I think that geography will tell you that 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. Q: How is 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... A: You see, everybody assumed we were going to say yes because we were in the middle of trade negotiations with the U.S. Q: Exactly, so did Chile incur a penalty for its opposition to the war? A: 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. Q: 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? A: 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. Q: 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? A: 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. Q: So Chile does not want to become a full member of Mercosur? A: 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. Q: 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? A: 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. Q: But how far down should legal accountability be fixed, given that there are a large number of people who received an amnesty earlier? A: 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. Q: 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. A: 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. - The Hindu |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, who was on an official visit to India
recently talks to Siddarth Varadarajah of the Hindu about the anti-neoliberal
mood in Latin America, the trial of former dicatator Augusto Pinochet and
the need for a world that recognises cultural diversity and the rule of
law. Excerpts of the interview.
