CDI: What's your own opinion, your personal view of the state of global security, going into the year 2000?

ARIAS: My main concern at the end of the 20^th century is that I don't think we can live a more peaceful 21^st century with the ethics of the 20^th century. With the values of the 20^th century. With so much greed, cynicism, and hypocrisy. Individualism, materialism. We need to build a more compassionate society. We need to build a 21^st century with different values, different ethics.

I am very much concerned by the lack of leadership, mainly in the industrialized world. Politicians telling people what people want to hear, not what people need to know. Politicians trying to please all the time. Not to lead, not to guide, not to educate the people. Not really trying to educate the people. And at the end, you know, to govern is to educate. Mainly in the United States, politicians, all they do is try to please the people. And that's not the best way for the US government to lead the world.

\We are not addressing the basic challenges that humanity is confronting. We are not dealing properly with so much poverty, inequality, disease, illiteracy, terrorism, environmental degradation, drugs. We are not addressing those challenges. You know, at the end of the 20^th century, we have reduced poverty. I believe liberal democracy has triumphed, in most parts of the world. In Africa, in Latin America, in Eastern Europe, in some Asian countries.

Communism is dead, but still that doesn't mean that democracy has triumphed everywhere. Because as we all know, democracy is not an end in itself. It is a means. And in many countries, and Latin America is a good example, democracy is not delivering the goods. Inequality keeps increasing. Poverty is not being alleviated in many countries, certainly not in Sub-Saharan Africa. In other countries, governments have betrayed their people by spending very scarce resources not on the most important priorities for the people, but in something so frivolous as arms. And a good example is Pakistan and India. Look at them. Two very poor countries, spending their scarce resources on nuclear research.

Anyway, my point is, how can we live the 21^st century in peace, in a world where out of 6 billion, 50% of them earn less than $3.00 per day. 1.3 billion people earn less than $1.00 per day. Almost 1 billion people are illiterate, 70% of them are women. 1.4 billion people have no access to potable water. 40,000 children die each day of malnutrition and disease. While at the same time we spend $800 billion on arms, in defense.

Who is the enemy now? That's what I keep asking my friends in the United States. Because it's quite sad for me to see the US government subsidizing arms exports. Arms exports to many countries in the developing world. And they know quite well that by spending on arms, we are perpetuating poverty. They know quite well that the children in the United States, in Latin America, in Africa, in Asia, everywhere, what they want and what they need are schools and health clinics, not tanks, fighter jets, armed helicopters, missiles.

As a Latin American, I felt very disappointed with President Clinton when he lifted the ban that had been imposed by President Carter 20 years ago, more than 20 years ago, in order not to sell high-tech weapons to Latin American countries. Simply because the US government wanted Lockheed to sell F-16s to Pinochet. And that really shocked me because I've been quite involved in trying to persuade Latin American countries to cut military spending. You might remember very well that my dream in 1986 and 1987 was to make Central America the first demilitarized zone in the world. That was the essence of the peace plan at that time. If we are able to negotiate a diplomatic solution, I told my colleagues at the time, then we should get rid of the armed forces in the whole region. Because what we need to build are welfare states, not garrison states. And that's why I felt quite hurt by the Clinton Administration trying to sell high-tech weapons again to Latin American countries.

You are aware that I've been working, through the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress, on an international code of conduct on arms transfers. I have the support now of 17 Nobel Peace laureates. And what we are trying to do is simply to persuade governments to support such a code. I want to be realistic, and I want to share with you the fact that I don't think this is an idea whose time has come. But perhaps with more time this needs to become a reality, because all we are asking is for the exporters of arms to consider certain criteria. We are asking governments and countries not to sell weapons to countries which are not democratic, to countries which violate human rights, to countries engaged in armed aggression against other countries, other peoples, their own people, to countries which support terrorism to countries which do not comply with the UN register of conventional arms.

I think that we cannot live a more peaceful 21^st century if we keep selling arms indiscriminately to any government. And I think it's time to put principles before profits. It's not a matter of jobs as some people say, it's a matter of profits. There are many states in the United States of America where many bases have been shut down, where many factories that used to manufacture arms have been shut down, and still unemployment is much less today than 5, 8, 10 years ago. So I know quite well that at the end it's a matter of profits and not necessarily jobs. And it's absurd.

You know that the five permanent members of the Security Council are responsible for almost 90% of the arms being sold today. So this is not an easy struggle, but I hope we can persuade as many governments as possible within the next couple of decades, because this needs to be done. Military spending needs to be cut in order to free resources for education and health care, and in order to build the necessary infrastructure of the countries of the developing world. I mean, how can we compete in a globalizing economy, condemning our children to be ignorant. Condemning our children to be illiterate, as is the case in many Latin American countries, Asian countries, and African countries.

CDI: What do you consider to be the most pressing security interviews in the 21^st century. We talked about proliferation. Would you consider that, weapons proliferation, to be the greatest security issue?

ARIAS: Well, not necessarily. You see, since the early 1990s, the Human Development Report published by the UNDP has been talking about human security, and that isthis is the concept of trying to emphasize precisely what I just said. You know, education, health care, thinking in terms not only of GNP per capita, you know, because you can find countries, some Arab countries with very high GNP per capita, but a lack of inequality (sic), a lack of illiteracy (sic), life expectancy being very low in many of these countries, while a poor country like Costa Rica, with 77 years of life expectancy, only 5% of illiteracy, spending about 6% of GDP on education, spending about 6% of GDP on health care, a much more egalitarian society vis-a-vis the rest of the Latin American countries, simply because we had the courage to get rid of our armed forces in 1948, more than 50 years ago, and to free resources for these priorities.

And we have proven at the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress that this is not a utopia, to get rid of the armed forces completely. We were able to persuade the Panamanian government in 1984 to get rid of its military by amending its Constitution. And we were able to persuade President Aristide in 1995 to get rid of the armed forces in Haiti, the poorest country in this hemisphere. The Haitian armed forces as people are aware, were responsible for 26 coups d'etat in the past, since independence in 1803. And this is something that could be done, and needs to be done, and must be done in other parts of the world. In Asia, in Sub-Saharan Africa. Why not?

So if we want to talk about security for the future, we need to talk about educating our children, we need to talk about providing low-cost housing to our people, potable water, roads, electricity, education, health care, and not necessarily more tanks and more fighter jets and more missiles.

CDI: There's a basic and fundamental issue happening since the end of the Cold War. It's focusing on the UN and the United Nations' role as the security enforcer and mediator. It's been subjected to a great deal of criticism and a great deal of stress in terms of it's effectivity (sic). What do you see as the role of the UN, are there ways of strengthening the UN? Are there things that need to be done at that levelat the global levelthat are feasible in your opinion?

ARIAS: I would like to put all the blame in the US government, or in the Republicans in Congress, in the House and in the Senate. But certainly they don't have the vision. They should be thinking in terms of a new world order for the 21^st century, and they are not.

Because if there is no UN in 1999, we would have to invent one. And it is quite ironic and sad that mainly it was President Truman who really worked quite hard in order to create the UN system. And now it's the US Congress that want to undermine the UN system. And this is sad because quite recently we saw in Kosovo how NATO replaced the UN. But NATO is a military organization. It represents perhaps 15% of the world's population. It doesn't represent me, a Costa Rican. It doesn't represent any African. And most Asians are not represented there. It's an elite club of industrialized countries, and I don't like NATO to replace the UN. On the other hand, you know, if I look back at my own experience here in Central America, dealing with President Reagan at the time…
TAPE FREAKS OUT….

I don't like the impatience with, in trying to resolve conflicts and resorting to the use of military force so quickly. Like in Kosovo. I think there is a need to be more patient, to have more humility, more perseverance in trying to find diplomatic solutions to conflicts. And I know what I'm saying, because I experienced myself that impatience during the Reagan years, when I was President of Costa Rica in the mid-80s. How obsessed the Reagan Administration was with getting rid of the Sandinistas through military force, and not through a diplomatic solution. Not through free elections. As at then end, we were able to get rid of the Sandinistas when they lost the election in 1990. And this happens on many occasions, you know.

We need to understand that the best way, the civilized way to solve conflicts, is at the negotiating table. Look how patient Washington was with Netanyahu, dragging his feet in order not to comply with the Oslo accord. And how impatient Washington has been in other parts of the world, dealing with ruthless politicians and dictators like the Milosevics and Saddam Husseins of today.

But let me tell you once again, those are not the main, those ruthless dictators are not the main threat to world peace in the 21^st century. The world's population quadrupled in this century. It might triple in the next one. And let's remember the words of Mabul Ul-Hatt: "Poverty needs no passport to travel." Illegal migration might be a potential threat to world peace in the near future. It is already a fact that in fifty years' time, we will have about 10 billion people on this planet. And 85% of them will live in the developing world. Only 1960, the richest 20% of the world's population was only 30 times richer than the poorest 20%. In 1990 it was 60 times richer. In 1998 it was 74 times richer. If that gap keeps increasing because we don't educate our children in the developing world, because we spend our scarce resources on arms and keeping huge armed forces which are not needed, instead of training more teachers and nurses and doctors, I don't know in what sort of world will our children live.

So I think this is the great responsibility of today's leadership. To have the vision, to have the courage to do the right things, and that cannot be accomplished unless we do have a new ethics.

CDI: Let's talk about practical issues. How do you see going there? What are the means toward creating that new ethic?

ARIAS: I think it's individuals, and institutions, both. The family, the church, the school, NGOs, you know. In a democracy, governors as well as the governed are responsible. So the governed are responsible for the people they choose , for the people they elect. And they need to choose statesmen. People really prepared to tell the people what they need to know, not to please people. That is the greatest challenge for the United States.

Because as I tell my friends in Washington, the US is already the only economic superpower, the only military superpower, but the world expects much more from the United States government. To be also a moral superpower. And let me tell you, by spending $12 billion on foreign aid, that's not a moral superpower. $12 billion in foreaign aid, $700 million in Sub-Saharan Africa, on a continent of 700 million people, that is one dollar per person per year. But they spent almost $100 billion subsidizing farmers in many different ways.

Take the Pentagon budget: $285 billion. Why? Again, who is the enemy? Why does the US need to spend more than China, Russia, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, together? Why? Is it not better to prevent conflicts by investing in people? In educating our children? In the entire world, instead of chapter 7 of the UN charter, why don't we use chapter 6 in order to prevent those conflicts from emerging? So we need the leaders with that sort of vision, and with that sort of courage.