Former Costa Rican president Oscar Arias

By Oscar Arias Sanchez
SAN JOSÉ, Sep 20 2016 (IPS)

I have put a great deal of thought into whether or not to return to politics. Groups from different political parties, and without party affiliation, have expressed their concern over the current situation in the country and have offered me their support. And the opinion polls indicate that I would have a chance at a third presidential term.

The support of so many people fills me with gratitude. There is no greater reward for me than feeling the confidence and trust of the Costa Rican people, because it is based on deeds and actions, on knowing me for over 45 years, and knowing that, with all my defects, I always say what I think and do what I say.

The approval of my first two administrations is a reflection of what we managed to do together. In the 1980s, we brought peace to a region crushed by war, and we thus put Costa Rica on the world map.

Ten years ago, we inserted our small country in the international economy, and we put it on the map again when the United Nations approved the Arms Trade Treaty, Costa Rica’s biggest contribution to humanity in its entire history.

For many months I have weighed the contribution that I can still make, serving Costa Rica once again, against the need to give a boost to the emergence of a new generation of Costa Rican leaders. And I’m not thinking about the next four years. I’m thinking about the next 40. I have enough strength and enough ideas to serve them again. But I also know I’m not indispensable. No one is indispensable in a democracy.

This is something I have said many times: one of the main obligations of a political leader is to foster new leadership. The future of a country depends on the continuous emergence of new cadres willing to take up the baton. Only tyrants cling to power.

Democrats, of whom I am one, understand the importance of stepping aside. I believe the next generations must be given space, and this is the main reason for not running again for president.

The second reason arises from the political ungovernability in Costa Rica. The opposition doesn’t bother me; on the contrary, I have always believed that in a democracy if there is no opposition, it has to be created. I believe a good government requires someone on the other side of the sidewalk, reminding it of its commitments and holding it accountable.

Unfortunately, there is a segment of the opposition in our country which, instead of demanding that the government in office make good on its promises, uses any tool to keep it from doing so. Rather than allowing it to implement the government plan that voters supported at the polls, they spend four years carrying out a continuous election campaign, standing in the way of progress in the direction that the people said they wanted.

On May 8, 2006, when my second government took office, I made the following appeal to Costa Ricans, which continues to apply today:

“I hope that we learn that no party or social segment has a monopoly on honesty, patriotism, good intentions and love for Costa Rica. I hope that we can understand that the responsible use of political power is much more than pointing things out, complaining, and hindering, and consists above all of engaging in dialogue, working together and building.

“I hope we will be able to tell the difference between adversaries and enemies; understand that willingness to compromise is not a sign of weakness, just as intransigence is not a sign of strength. I hope we can do away with the pettiness of our political debate, raise up our heads, look forward and think big.”

The third and last reason that pushes me to make this decision is that I think there are many ways to work for the people of Costa Rica. They say that someone who is only good at being president is not even good at that. That is, if you can only exert influence from the presidential seat, it will not be a strong influence.

I don’t plan to retire. I will continue to express my opinions about the way things are going in the country, and I will continue to support the causes I believe in: I always defended what I consider is best for our people, and above all, for the less fortunate.

I will continue to tirelessly advocate the need for Costa Rica to approve educational reforms that make it possible to boost the quality of education in our primary and secondary schools and our universities, such as dual education, evaluation of teachers and ensuring that our young people receive the skills needed to compete in today’s world.

I will continue to insist on the need for Costa Rica to modernise its economy, invest in infrastructure, insert itself even more in the global markets, significantly bolster its competitiveness and rev up its engines of productivity, the best instrument to reduce inequalities. And I will continue defending democracy, peace and disarmament, because the small size of our country should never be the measure of its moral authority.

I have decided not to run for a third presidential term because I believe that the main problem we are facing is medium- to long-term. If we don’t manage to elevate the quality of politics and increase interest in public service, if we fail to get the most capable, educated and honest people to participate in political life, the sustainability itself of our democratic system is at stake.

To preserve this way of life that we have enjoyed for years, we have to encourage young people to lay their hands on the helm of history.

This is a country of young people. It’s the new generations that have to fight for, and exercise, power. If they don’t like the direction the country is moving in, they should change it. You can do a lot of good outside of politics, but a country where everyone is outside politics is a country adrift.

Arnold Toynbee, the great British historian, said “The greatest punishment for those who are not interested in politics, is that they are governed by people who are.”

Young people must occupy their rightful place in decision-making. They should take the helm of this ship we call fatherland; it will go in the direction of their commitment, or their indifference. I hope the Costa Rica of the future will not be the fruit of their omission, but of the most determined transformative action!

My profound gratitude to everyone who has supported me. Thank you so much for your affection and your trust. Thanks so much for the people of Costa Rica, who continue to move me, to inspire me, and to give me reasons to believe that politics is an instrument for doing good, for achieving peace, for doing justice; that politics is the workshop of dreams where perhaps they can become more realistic, more precise, more concrete, but also the place where dreams can come true.

The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS-Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

By Oscar Arias Sanchez
SAN JOSE, Aug 23 2015 (IPS)

Twenty-eight years ago this month, an indigenous woman stood in the plaza in Guatemala City, watching as the presidents of Central America walked out into the street after signing the Peace Accords that would end the civil wars in our region. When I reached her, she took both my hands in hers and said, “Thank you, Mr. President, for my child who is in the mountains fighting, and for the child I carry in my womb.”

Oscar Arias

I don’t need to tell you that I have wondered about that woman’s children ever since. I never met them, but those children of conflict are never far from my thoughts. Those children, and others like them, were the audience of the peace treaty I had drafted. They were its true authors, its reason for being. Theirs were the human lives behind every letter we put onto the page, every word we negotiated.

For the presidents who signed the treaty, achieving peace was the most important challenge of our lives. For those children, it was life or death.

But our victory for peace in 1987 did not fully safeguard those children, or millions more like them, because the weapons that had poured into our region during our conflicts did not disappear when the white flag was raised.

For years after arms suppliers channelled weapons to armies or paramilitary forces during the 1980s, those weapons were found in the hands of the gangs that roamed the countryside of Nicaragua, or of teenage boys on the streets of San Salvador and Tegucigalpa. Other weapons were shipped to guerrilla or paramilitary groups, as well as drug cartels in Colombia, ready to destroy yet more lives.“Throughout modern history, we have, in effect, told the children of the world that while we will regulate the international trade in food and textiles and any other product under the sun, we are not interested in regulating the international trade in deadly weapons”

We had walked into a new era of peace, but the weapons of the past were shackles at our feet.

As I watched this happen in my region, I also learned that the international trade in arms, free from any regulations whatsoever, was feeding unnecessary violence like this all over the world.

Throughout modern history, we have, in effect, told the children of the world that while we will regulate the international trade in food and textiles and any other product under the sun, we are not interested in regulating the international trade in deadly weapons, even when those weapons are being sold to dictators or other violators of human rights, or placed directly into the hands of child soldiers.

So, in 1997, I began my call for a treaty to regulate the trade of arms. I was quickly joined by fellow Nobel Peace laureates, and then by friends and allies all over the world. On Christmas Eve 2014, the International Arms Trade Treaty finally took effect. And now, in Cancún, Mexico, between Aug. 24 and 27, the first-ever Conference of Parties to the Treaty is being held so that its implementation can move forward.

I never thought I would see this day; I am delighted that I have. I am also filled with new determination to make sure that the treaty lives up to its potential.

For the treaty is a powerful tool, but it will only protect our children if we give it teeth. It will only protect our children if we implement it fully. It will only protect our children if we ensure that consensus is not used as an excuse for inaction.

I urge the 72 nations that have ratified the treaty to define an alternative to consensus so that one party cannot paralyse implementation. The perfect is the enemy of the good – and in this case, with human lives depending on our swift resolution of pending issues, inaction would be anything but perfect. It would be a travesty.

We must also continue to raise our voices in the face of tremendous opposition from groups that continue to oppose the treaty, arguing that it infringes upon national sovereignty. Quite the opposite is true: no sane definition of national sovereignty includes the right to sell arms for the violation of human rights in other countries. A nation willing to carry out such an act is not defending itself, but rather infringing upon the sovereignty of other nations that only want to live in peace.

We must also avoid using the danger and terrorism in the world today as an excuse for lack of regulation. Cicero’s famous phrase “silent enimleges inter armas” – among arms, laws are silent – has often been used to support the mind-set that the law does not apply during times of war.

But it is at times of war that the law must speak most bravely. When weapons are circulating freely into the worst possible hands, the law must speak. When the lives of the innocent are placed in danger by an absence of regulation, the law must speak.

And we must speak, today – in favour of this crucial treaty, and its swift and effective implementation. If we do, then when today’s children of conflict look to us for guidance and leadership, we will no longer look away in shame. We will be able to tell them, at long last, that we are standing watch for them. We are on guard. Someone is finally ready to take action. (END/COLUMNIST SERVICE)

Edited by Phil Harris   

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

On September 12 the government of Costa Rica commemorated the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Esquipulas II Accord, which restored peace to Central America after a period of conflict that lasted 30 years. The agreement was signed by all countries of Central America.

Oscar Arias Sanchez

The fact that humans enjoy the prodigious faculty of memory is far more than a poetic caprice of history. It is a sign of evolution and perhaps the most important feature of the species that left the darkness of the cave to set about building the marvel of civilisation. We do not remember merely to swell the shelves of archives or populate the stories of grandparents, but rather to make possible a better life. In other words, the meaning of memory lies in its relation to the present and gives us an advantage with respect to earlier times.

The anniversary of the accord may pass unnoticed by millions of Central American youth, but more than an oversight, this is a privilege. It is a privilege to not know the shaking of the earth caused by passing tanks, or the smell of blood in the air, or the taste of gunpowder, the colour of death, the cries heard through neighbours’ walls. Thus the significance of this date may be best understood in terms of what is absent: soldiers who no longer have to die, families who no longer have to flee their homes.

For those who know only the Central America of today, it would be difficult to believe the stories told by millions of refugees who flooded across the borders in the 1980s. Or towns annihilated by the hands of brothers with arms from either the United States or the Soviet Union. Or secret training camps where boys who barely understood the reasons for war graduated, stoked with hatred and violence. The conflict grew into a battle for military pre-eminence between two superpowers whose ambitions exhausted efforts to bring about peace by the Contadora Group (Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela) and the Support Group (Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Uruguay). The failure of these initiatives opened the way for Costa Rica’s proposal of what was called the Peace Plan.

It was in this whirlwind of angst that Costa Rica went to the polls in February 1986. The war in Central America was the central issue of the electoral campaign as it was increasingly clear that our country could not remain on the sidelines of the conflict for very long. The choice was stark: Costa Rica would either have to take up arms or dedicate itself entirely to bringing about peace.

Again and again I argued that peace in the region was essential to the country’s development. No initiative inside Costa Rica could counterbalance the chaos in which we found ourselves submerged. Foreign policy is not a decoration a country can choose to festoon itself with; rather, diplomacy is essential to a nation’s efforts to build a better future for its people. Costa Ricans understood this fact, which generated the mandate I received in winning the election.

My intention was to propose a peace plan that would restart dialogue and advance a solution to the conflict in the region. The document contained 10 priority actions, including the following: at the start of negotiations all belligerent parties would have to suspend all military operations. The prevailing approach to conflict resolution then and still today holds that negotiations are complete once a ceasefire is achieved. The Peace Plan, in sharp contrast, made a ceasefire one of the necessary conditions for holding talks of pressure in an environment that was truly amenable to the creation of lasting peace.

While the ceasefire thus served as the opening for peace, its underlying focus was the democratisation of the region. This was the distinctive feature of the accord and ultimately its decisive component. The U.S. government looked favourably on the formation of a democratic regime as the essential condition of peace but insisted that the only end to the conflict would come from an armed confrontation between the Nicaraguan Contras and the Sandinista government.

The Soviet government and the Cuban regime, in contrast, rejected from the beginning the Costa Rican proposal of including the establishment of democracy in the agreement. Thus there was no common ground: neither then U.S. president Ronald Reagan nor Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev trusted the diplomatic approach. For them, peace could emerge only from a prolonged battle.

How could we approve a plan that the most powerful nations in the world objected to? All five Central American presidents shared a profound sense of historic responsibility and the ability to recognise that the process they advanced was not a power grab but an act of the most elemental humanity. The destiny of millions of people depended on our willingness to engage in dialogue, our will to act, and our belief in a future of peace for Central America.

The agreement we reached in Esquipulas, Guatemala, on August 7, 1987, was but one step forward in a fight to have the will of Central Americans respected. The implementation of the Peace Plan was threatened relentlessly by hawks who wanted the process to fail. But we had already laid the cornerstone, and won the backing of the international community. Brick by brick, we were building a peace that still needs both architects and masons.

In these days, Central America is both celebrating a memory and fanning the embers of a dream that we are still building as a species. This goal, formulated by the Greeks, was recalled by Robert Kennedy the day of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.: “Let’s dedicate ourselves to what the ancient Greeks wrote so many years ago, to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. ”
(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

* Oscar Arias Sanchez, ex-president of Costa Rica (1986-1990/2006-2010), won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987.

The globalised world offers challenges as well as opportunities. This is not a criticism of globalisation; it simply means that while we take advantage of the opportunities it offers we must be sure to address the challenges it presents.

One of the most difficult challenges of this period is responding to the international economic crisis while keeping alive our aspirations for development. It is well established that a year of insufficient investment in education, sports, or scientific research means lost decades for entire generations. The errors of the present weigh heavily on the future.

The rich countries, like those in Europe, and the United States, are debating whether to increase or decrease public spending to revive their economies. In contrast to the situation just five years ago, these countries have entered an economic recession, meaning that in the best of cases they have experienced a slowing of growth, while in the worst cases they stopped growing altogether.

We could debate until the end of time which economic theory is best suited to spur recovery. However, for a committed social democrat the decision is not hard: the economy must be on the side of those who have the least.

Those who preach austerity to reduce fiscal deficits when this means a sudden and indiscriminate reduction in public services are simply wrong. Proponents of austerity are recommending it for countries with dizzying levels of public debt, like Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Japan (whose debt is about 240 percent of its gross domestic product). Costa Rica, particularly during my two terms as president, never had such levels of debt.

At the beginning of my second term (2006-2010) we cut the deficit by about 15 percent such that when the lean times struck with the international financial crisis of 2008, we could spend and borrow again, prudently and responsibly.

To address the crisis we launched the “Escudo Plan”, thanks to which, in sharp contrast to what happened in the industrialised countries, not a single bank failed, companies did not go bankrupt, houses were not foreclosed upon, and unemployment did not rise.

Historical evidence demonstrates that the best way to reduce fiscal imbalance is a combination of a gradual reduction in the deficit with rapid economic growth, which generates increased government revenue. This is precisely what the governments of Europe did in the period after World War II to combat high deficits. It is what Bill Clinton did as president of the United States. It is what the Swedes did to bring about their much applauded deficit reduction between 1994 and 1998. This is why it is simply irresponsible and unjust to ask certain European countries in recession to cut spending in the name of austerity.

This approach of slowly reducing public spending while stimulating economic growth is what Barack Obama is defending against Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It is the policy that Francois Hollande defended in the face of Sarkozy and that allowed him to win the presidency of France. It is also the policy my government followed during the financial crisis four years ago.

In the U.S. this policy is labelled “Democrat”; in France it is called “socialist”, and only a handful of confused people in Costa Rica call it “neoliberal”. When my government decided with the consent of my entire cabinet to dedicate 51 percent of the 2010 budget to social investment, it was not only a well thought out decision; it was also the right one.

Can a government that in a full-blown economic crisis spends over half of its budget on social programmes be called “neoliberal”? Evidently not.

We spent more than half of the budget on social programmes. Our administration dedicated more resources than any other in Costa Rican history to the well-being of the poor and vulnerable. No Costa Rican will ever forget that we created the Avancemos Programme, which quadrupled pensions from the Social Security Fund, or that we spent 7.2 percent of our resources on public education.

Despite the high cost of getting things done in this country, from my first day in office we had a precise idea of where we were going and set a clear course for the country. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

* Oscar Arias Sanchez, former president of Costa Rica (1986-1990/2006-2010), received the Nobel Peace prize in 1987

Latin American democracy has had to struggle against every kind of ideological experiment and event, some more lethal than others to the ideals of democracy, justice, freedom, and economic growth. Today many countries have forgotten how crucial it is to preserve the rule of law and especially the security of people and their possessions, without which there is neither competitiveness, democracy, nor peace. Until a few years ago it was believed that economic and social development were possible in an environment with weak institutions. However, the overwhelming weight of reality quickly proved this to be a fiction. Today it is universally understood that development is impossible without adequate institutional participation, which begins with the simple practice of democracy. This means a democratically-elected representative and participatory government furnished with adequate checks and balances and in which the branches are independent. This design was magisterially justified by Montesquieu, though certain politicians in the region prefer to ignore it. One of the central political fallacies of Latin America is that every area can generate its own particular form of democracy and civil liberties. All too often, this notion is merely camouflage for oppression or authoritarian rule.

The basic rules of democracy are universal, and the rigour of a country\’s adherence to them is what determines whether it is more or less democratic.

However, certain Latin American governments have fallen into the trap of believing that being democratically-elected gives an official the mandate to modify the rules of democracy to advance a given political project. If a government restricts individual liberties, limits the freedom of expression, and scales back the freedom of commerce without justification, it is subverting the very bases of democracy that brought it to power.

The dilemma here, to which no solution has been found, is how to fight against democracies whose leaders behave in an authoritarian manner and yet are not dictators.

Because in truth, there is but a single dictatorship in all Latin America, and that is in Cuba. The other regimes, whether we like it or not, are democracies in varying degrees of deterioration or fitness. To try to overthrow these governments, or remove them in another manner, through violence or in violation of the constitution or the law, is to fall into the same mode of autocratic behaviour that we are trying to end. The people themselves must learn to see through the illusions of demagogy and populism, because the problem is not false messiahs but rather the populations that welcome them with palm leaves and adulation.

One of the most eloquent cases of scorn for the rule of law and the erosion of democratic institutions is Nicaragua. With the reelection of Daniel Ortega as president in 2006, we began to see the disappearance of checks on government power and the undermining of individual liberties. This decline was most visible in the fraud that tainted the 2008 municipal elections and in the recent presidential elections.

It is not enough for Latin America to get rid of leaders with authoritarian tendencies when they will only be replaced by new stars of the political stage. Despite the fact that our peoples valiantly defeated the dictatorships that drenched the second half of the 20th century in blood, there is still much work to do if democracy is to establish itself permanently in the region. To paraphrase Octavio Paz: in our region, democracy does not need to sprout wings; it needs to send down roots.

The only way to take away the power of those who have concentrated it after winning popular support is to weaken that support through a process of civic education, opportunity, and ideas. Unfortunately we are failing at all three and continuing to postpone the major political, educational, and tax reforms that we have promised to carry out. Neither Spanish colonialism nor a lack of natural resources nor US hegemony nor any other theory generated by Latin America\’s eternal victimisation complex can explain the fact that we cannot overcome our shortfall in innovation, make the rich pay their taxes, produce graduates in engineering and the hard sciences, promote competence, build the infrastructure that we have failed to build for the last 200 years, or provide business and investment with juridical security.

What right does Latin America have to complain about the inequality that separates its peoples when almost half of its revenue comes from indirect taxes and when the tax burden of some countries of the region is barely 11 percent of the Gross Domestic Product? What right does it have to complain about the lack of quality jobs when the average student spends just eight years in school? How can it complain about inequality or poverty when military spending has risen an average of 8.5 percent yearly since 2003 reaching an astounding total of 70 billion dollars in 2010? Our leaders would do well to follow the example of President Obama, whose reaction to his country\’s economic crisis was to slash 487 billion dollars from the military budget over a decade. I realise, of course, that much remains to be done to liquidate US debt with peace and international security when the country remains the world\’s largest exporter of weapons. The time has come for Washington to put principles above the profits of certain US corporations.

These observations about Latin America do no more than point out the amnesia of a region that is driving the return of an arms race, spurred in many cases by battles against phantoms and other illusions. This is why in my last government I proposed to the international community and the industrialised countries especially to advance a Costa Rica Consensus, creating mechanisms to forgive debt and provide international financial support for developing countries that make steadily greater investments in education, health, and environmental protection while spending less and less on soldiers and weapons. The time has come for the international financial community to reward not only those who spend carefully but also those who spend ethically. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Oscar Arias Sanchez, ex-president of Costa Rica (1986-1990/2006-2010), won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987.

By Oscar Arias Sanchez
Dec 12 2011 (IPS)

SAN JOSE, Dec (IPS) After the announcement that the government of Haiti had decided to reconstitute its army, I asked President Michel Martelly to reconsider his decision, pointing out a lesson written clearly into human history: in Latin America, the majority of armies have been enemies of progress, of peace, and of freedom.

In most of the world, and especially Latin America, it was the military that trampled the human rights of our brothers and sisters. It was a general’s voice that ordered the arrest of students and artists, which resulted in a bloodbath. It was the hand of a soldier that shot innocent people in the back. In the best possible scenario, Latin American armies have meant prohibitive expenditures for our economies. In the worst scenario, they have been a permanent source of instability for our democracies.

The Defense and National Security bill advances a range of objectives, one of which is the presumed necessity of restoring Haitian dignity and sovereignty by restoring the army. But Haiti does not need this. It can assure itself internal security with a well-equipped and professional police force that will guarantee that the law is obeyed. A military that could never rival those of its neighbours would contribute nothing to Haiti’s national security.

Haiti, Guatemala, and Nicaragua are at the very bottom of the United Nations human development index for Latin America. It is no coincidence that these countries share other features: they have, or had, powerful armies while cutting social spending, particularly on education and health care. The 95 million dollars it would take to fund the Defence and National Security bill should instead be invested in education and health care for Haiti’s children, in strengthening its democratic institutions to guarantee a minimum of political stability, and in finally regaining the confidence of Haitians and the international community, whose support is indispensable now and for the near future.

Like Haiti, Costa Rica is a small country. Its tropical climate exposes it to hurricanes and storms and other natural disasters. And yet my country ranks 69th in the world in the human development index and a child born today there has an average life expectancy of 79.1 years. In contrast, Haiti is number 145 on the index and its life expectancy is 17.4 years lower than that of Costa Rica.

The difference between the countries’ populations lies in education: the years of school completed, the range of subjects taught, and access to information technologies and communications. The population of an educated society has far more and better opportunities for employment.

There was a period in which my country was flanked to the north and the south by dictatorships. The sound of machine guns could be heard close to our borders. Instead of arming itself, Costa Rica fought for peace in Central America. What we needed was not an army. To the contrary, it was our status as a demilitarised nation that allowed us to be seen as allies by all sides in the conflict.

In 1994, after an intense debate among the various political groups in Panama, in which the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress and I actively participated, the Panamanian congress approved a constitutional amendment abolishing the armed forces. Since then Costa Rica and Panama have shared the most peaceful border in the world. And it is not by chance that they are also the most successful economies in Central America, because the money that would have gone to our armies is now spent on the education of our children and health care for our citizens.

In 1995, Haiti decided to demobilise its army and so end a long cycle of coups d’etat. It was a decision that the world applauded. Once again, the Arias Foundation and I played a part in supporting this wise choice. For Haiti, its entry into the select group of Latin American countries without armed forces, along with Costa Rica and Panama, meant that a window of hope was opened -a window that should never be closed.

Since that time I have called on the developed world not to abandon Haiti, to forgive its foreign debt, to lend it a hand, to give it abundant and timely aid, and to ensure that indifference would never be an option. But Haiti has its own responsibilities, and one is to take wise political decisions. To reinstall the army would be an error, and that is why I cannot keep silent.

Haiti will regain its dignity when all of its children and young people view the future with hope and when the winds of the Caribbean bring good fortune for all. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Oscar Arias Sanchez is ex-president of Costa Rica (1986-1990/2006-2010) and 1987 Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

Excerpt: