Conversations with Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; Óscar Arias Sánchez

Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. Conversations with Nobel Peace Prize laureates is a presentation featuring leading Nobel Peace laureates. Together with Peace Jam, an international education program, these laureates work personally with you to pass on the spirit, skills, and wisdom they embody. U-N-M and K-N-M-E-T-V are proud to present Oscar Aria Sanchez as part of the U-N-M 21st Century speaker series.

Hello. Welcome to our Conversations with the Nobel Peace Prize laureates. I'm Susan McKinsey with the Advancement Office at the University of New Mexico and it is my distinct privilege to engage in these conversations. Our guest is his excellency Oscar Aria Sanchez, former president of Costa Rica, and the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. We welcome you, Dr. Adius. Thank you. Thank you. If you will, sir, let me briefly set the stage for our viewers. It is the mid-1980s, and much of Central America is engulfed in conflict, government armies, and civilian guerrilla groups, or waging war in El Salvador, in Guatemala, and in Nicaragua. The remaining countries, Honduras and Costa Rica are trying to remain neutral, but this is becoming problematic. Border tensions are escalating, and if you'll recall, the United States is backing the anti-government control rebels in Nicaragua while the Soviet Union and Cuba are backing the Marxist-Sendinista government there. There have been attempts

at peace several years earlier, leaders in Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and Panama had drafted a peace plan for Central America, but it failed. So, Oscar Aria becomes president of Costa Rica in 1986, following a decade and a half of work in the government. It is the following year, 1987, and president Aria is presenting a new peace plan. In brief, this plan calls for a national reconciliation committee to oversee amnesty for all guerrilla soldiers. It calls for a concurrent ceasefire and the release of political prisoners, and it calls for the right to freedom of expression and democratic elections. The five Central American presidents signed this accord in August of 1987, and for his efforts, Oscar Aria receives the Nobel Peace Prize. Dr. Audius, for this plan to work on its most basic level, one thing has

to happen. All of the warring factions, and we're talking the Marxists and the guerrillas and the rebels, the government military, the military governments, they all have to agree to one thing, and that is to play by democratic rules. How could you possibly have known that would happen? I was trying to persuade my colleagues at the time, the presidents of the Central American countries, trying to persuade them that we needed to agree on a peace plan that would imply a ceasefire, silence in the guns, and that we had to pay a price, and that price was democracy, democracy as a precondition for lasting peace. It was easy for many of them to agree on democratic terms. That's so easy for the Sandinistas, because

the Sandinistas, when they won the revolution at the end of the 1970s, 1979, the first time I met with President Daniel Ortega, he said to me, Nicaragua is not going to become a second Costa Rica, meaning a democracy, and I told President Ortega, well, but the world doesn't expect you to make of Nicaragua a second Cuba. In other words, at the very beginning of my government, this is May of 1986, he was not considering at all committing to democratic principles. This is why he accepted my business because he thought that the

other countries, the other governments would never agree on my terms because of U.S. government pressure on them. Washington didn't like my peace plan. President Reagan and Secretary of State Shultz and Philippe Habib is special on-boy, sent by Washington to Central America. All of them claimed that my peace plan had not deep. There were no sanctions if any government would not comply. So I kept insisting, well, we need to trust each other. I mean, what sort of sanctions can we apply? So at the end, as you pointed out, it was signed in August of 1987 against the will of the U.S. government

in Washington. And certainly against the will of the Soviet Union and the U.S. government. Actually, they were brought into the peace plan because another element of that plan was that all military aid from or to outside governments would end. Now, again, you were dealing with the warring factions. You're dealing also with United States, with the Soviet Union, with Cuba. How did you convince them to follow that particular stipulation in the plan? It was easier to persuade the U.S. Congress to stop sending arms and economic aid military aid to the countries. It was easier because you are a democracy. This country is a democracy. It was much more difficult to persuade Mr. Galbachev and Fidel Castro. For instance, I was able in September of 1987 to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress. At that time,

the Speaker of the House, Mr. Jim Wright, invited me. The White House claimed that I could not address a joint session of Congress because I was in Washington not an unofficial visit. So Senator Dole finally reached an agreement with Mr. Wright that I would address not a joint session of Congress, but a joint meeting of Congress. Anyway, I made my speech and the main topic was give visit chance. You know, we need to find a diplomatic solution at the negotiating table. It is not through military means that we can put an end to that conflict. It wasn't easy, but after my speech, the U.S. Congress cut all the military aid to the

country. Eventually, I also spoke to Mr. Galbachev and Fidel Castro. I made Fidel Castro on different occasions. I really tried to persuade him to give visit chance again. He was quite sure that if elections were held in Nicaragua, the Sandinistas would win those elections. Certainly, he was quite wrong. I think you gave the argument that the Congress in the United States could hardly dispute, give peace a chance. It's not exactly something that they would dispute. So it was a very good argument. It was a year after you won the prize that you started the audience foundation for peace and human progress, and it is dedicated to building just in peaceful societies in Central America. How has the work of this

foundation been involved with some of what we have seen happening in Central America, specifically perhaps in the region around Haiti, Panama, where the military has been reduced and sometimes it's been nudged along by some outside intervention. Yes. You see, my view of World Affairs now tells me that since the end of the Cold War, industrialized nations, rich countries, rich governments, do not really care about countries in the development world. How can we help poor nations? There are many ways. Trade is one. Unfortunately, the U.S. government is not leading the world towards free trade.

We have witnessed the failure of the WTO conference in Seattle recently. And certainly, President Clinton is not really leading the rest of the world towards free trade because who knows, but it is my belief that the trade unions in this country are quite skeptical about free trade. They don't like free trade. They are supporting Vice President Gore, so that is why I imagine President Clinton is not becoming the leader for free trade in the whole world. Another way to support poor countries in the developing world is by foreign aid. But foreign aid is not enough. The world spends about $48 billion on foreign aid for more than four billion people. The U.S. spends less than 0.9% of GDP on foreign aid. Foreign

aid for this country is a thing of the past. And many Americans are not aware that you know European countries and mainly Scandinavian countries spend 10 times more on foreign aid than the United States government. For instance, in my part of the world, Central America all foreign aid, economic aid, official development assistance was cut because we were able to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict. So instead of being rewarded for making peace, we were punished. So foreign aid is not going to help us. And then you take foreign direct investment. Most of the foreign direct investment goes to industrialized countries, mainly to

the United States. You are the main recipient of foreign direct investment. And much less goes to the developing countries. Most of it goes to China, to Brazil, to Mexico, to Singapore, to South Korea, to Taiwan. Very few Latin American countries receive substantial amounts of foreign aid, certainly not Central American countries or Caribbean countries. You know, foreign aid doesn't go to the poorest countries in the world. It doesn't go to Nicaragua Honduras or Haiti or the whole of South Sahara and Africa. So my conviction is that we need to help ourselves. And this is what the Aerospace Foundation has been doing. We have been working trying to demilitarize governments, to cut military spending, persuaded governments that we need

to choose. Because the government is to choose. You are confronted every single day with different choices. You need to choose between schools and health clinics or tanks and fighter jets or armed helicopters. You need to choose between sophisticated weaponry or roads, electricity, portable water, housing, etc. The best way to perpetuate poverty in the developing world is by spending on defense. And since Costa Rica has had no armies since 1948, I've been trying to tell the world, well, this is not a utopia. This can't be done and needs to be done. All we need is the political will to do it. So I've been involved in Latin America. I was able to abolish the armed forces in Panama. I tell my friends in Washington that the safest border in the world is that between Panama and Costa Rica, to countries

without armed forces. And then before President Adistid, who at that time in 1995 was living in Washington, I visited him. And when the US government was planning to send him back to finish his turn, I told President Adistid, you need to go back and get rid of the armed forces because your armed forces are responsible for 26 coup d'etatis in dependence. And Haiti is the Buddhist country in this hemisphere. And certainly, what they need are schools and not sophisticated weaponry. And I've been also involved in sub-Saharan African countries. You know, this is a continent with an income per capita less than $400. It's about $1 a day. And according to UN figures, by the year 2050, the income per capita will be about the same. So this is almost a continent without any hope. I mean, and the best way to perpetuate

poverty in such a pro-continent is certainly by spending on the militaries that are building the basic infrastructure of the whole sub-Saharan African. It was five years ago. In fact, you were addressing the United Nations or speaking to United Nations about a year 2000 campaign to redirect world military spending. At that time, you said, developing countries are spending $221 billion on the military while their people live in poverty. Well, it's now the year 2000. Have you seen any progress? How do you convince the leaders? How do you bring any leverage to the conversation? I haven't been very successful to tell you the truth. Because there is a need for a different set of values. As learners, greed, profits, cynicism, hypocrisy, prevail, instead

of justice, compassion, solidarity, love. It's quite difficult. I've been telling my friends in Europe and in this country in Washington. It's time for you to put principles before profits. Because it is not because of jobs that you keep manufacturing guns. It is because of profits. Very few Americans know that arms exporters are highly subsidized. Very few people know that the U.S. is the main exporter of arms. Mainly to the developing world that more than 70% of your arms go to non-democratic countries and countries which violate human

rights. I've been working with some other Nobel Peace Lawyers on an international code of conduct on arms transfers. But this is a tough job persuading the industrialized nations that they should restrain arms, exports. I haven't been very successful. The Europeans have advanced much more on this initiative than the Americans. But let me tell you, the high-permanent members of the Security Council, the United States, China, France, Britain and Russia are responsible for more than 90% of the arms being sold today. So the countries or governments responsible for keeping peace in the world are the ones fueling the conflicts

all over the world. And certainly for many poor countries like Sub-Saharan, Sub-Saharan, African nations, this is the best way to perpetuate poverty in those countries, keeping huge armed forces which are not needed. So what I'm trying to do now is to identify countries where there are no border disputes, any conflicts, etc. in order to persuade them that they could get rid of the armed forces completely. And the clear piece to the world, this is what we did Costa Rica in 1948. Let me read something from a book. It's called The Words of Peace. It's the wisdom of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates. My country is a country of teachers. It is therefore a country of peace. We discuss our successes and failures in complete freedom. Because our country is a country of teachers, we close the army camps, and our children go about with books under

their arms, not with rifles on their shoulders. He said that in 1987. Has there been pressure brought to bear on Costa Rica? Because of the stance you took 50 years ago in eliminating the military. Let me tell you, I remember Jean Capatric telling me that Costa Rica was not a viable country because we had no armed forces. There are many people still who are quite skeptical about countries getting rid of the armed forces completely, unilaterally. Certainly, your history is a history of too many wars. And your heroes are military people. But that is not the case of Costa Rica. I mean, our heroes are our poets, our statesmen

that are just very few, but there are some. Our writers, our, you know, whoever, but not certainly military people. And what we did can be done. All we need is political will, ambition and courage. I mean, instead of sending, instead of exporting weapons, why can't we persuade book governments to cut military spending? You know, we need to rely more and more on diplomacy, you know, trying to solve conflicts at the negotiating table. But my own experience is that I was stolen many occasions by Washington. Your peace plan doesn't work. There is no political will among the actors to comply with the

peace plan. And I kept telling my friends in Washington, allow me to persevere. Let's be humble. Let's be patient. The future, the destiny of 30 million people are in our hands, allow us to handle this business by ourselves. Give us some time and support us, instead of, you know, undermining our efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution to the conflict. And this is what needs to be done in so many other parts of the world, not only the Middle East, but certainly the Balkans and all the conflicts that have emerged in the last 34 years, need to be sold, you know, at the negotiating table. We just have a couple of minutes, but would your peace plan, the audience plan from

networks so well in Central America, could it possibly work in places like the Balkans? Well, not necessarily because the characteristics of that conflict are quite different. But my complaint to the use of military force is that we don't try hard enough diplomatic solutions. You know, in the Middle East, you have sent Denis Ross to persuade the Israeli government and the Palestinians and Mr. Adapat, you know, to agree on a peace plan. He's been dealing with that issue for many, many, many years, and the Norwegians also for many, many, many years. In the Balkans, Mr. Holbrook, after Ramboje met Milosevic for a

few hours, not days or weeks or months or years, and because he was ruthless about, because he is a ruthless politician who doesn't care about anything, so he said no, and then you use military force. My point is, we need more patience, you know, to solve conflicts. You need to be more humble. You cannot tell the other party. It's my way or no way. That's plain arrogance, you know. The essence of negotiations is to compromise. So my point here is, well, we need a different value system, you know, with the values of the 20th century, I don't think we'll be able to enjoy peace in the 21st century.

Very, very quickly, sir. Some of the other laureates have said that at times anger is what motivates them and what keeps them going. What emotion keeps you going in your quest? The need for more justice, for better quality of life for most people, it is not easy to foresee a more peaceful 21st century, if 200 persons earn more money than 50 countries in the world. It is not easy to foresee a more peaceful 21st century if three individuals earn more money than the Buddhist 45 countries in the world. You know, the gap between the rich and the poor keeps increasing every single day. We are not educated in our children,

and what I want to tell you now and tell the American audience is that the children of the world, not only U.S. children, but the children in Africa, Latin America, Asia, you know, the poor continents of the world where they want are schools and have clinics not sophisticated weaponry. So at the end, it's just a matter of values and of priorities. Unless we educate our children, they will be condemned forever to be poor. So we need more justice otherwise, and we need to redefine our priorities otherwise, you know, nothing is going to change and the world will be, and this is going to be a world with 1.3 billion people earning less than a dollar a day, and that certainly is not fair, and that is

a threat to world peace. The world is a better place, though, for you being in it, sir, and we thank you. We thank you for joining us so much. And we thank you for joining us in this conversation with our Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oscar Adia Sanchez. I'm Susan McKinsey. Good day.