Address by Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, President of Argentina, at the Seventh Summit of the Americas, Panama City, Panama, April 12, 2015 (selections)
Edited and translated by Charles McKelvey
Editor´s note. Néstor Kirchner was named president of Argentina in the midst of a national economic and political crisis in 2002, and he quickly restored economic and political stability by abandoning neoliberal policies and establishing a government that was responsive to popular demands. Subsequent to his two terms as President of Argentina, he was named the first Permanent Secretary of the South American Union of Nations (UNASUR). Kirchner died in 2010 due to complications resulting from a heart condition.
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner succeeded her husband as president of Argentina, continuing and deepening the policies initiated during his administration. She is approaching the end of her second term.
This is my last Summit, as President of the Republic of Argentina, and I believe that it is also the last Summit of President Barack Obama. And indeed it is an historic Summit. It is an historic Summit because the Republic of Cuba is participating for the first time. . . . But please, we should not be confused. I know that President Barack Obama has just stated that he does not like history much, or that it does not seem important to him. I believe that history, I am enchanted by history, because it helps me to understand what is happening, what happened in the past and why it happened, and most importantly, to prevent what could happen. History teaches us. We do not remember history in order to flagellate ourselves, as an exercise in masochism, but simply to understand why things occurred.
So we have to be clear that Cuba is not here, and we do not find the two presidents here, because finally after much time they decided to extend to one another the hand of friendship. No, ladies and gentlemen. Cuba is here because it has struggled for more than sixty years with a dignity without precedent, with a people, 77% of whom were born under the blockade, as Raúl has indicated, that suffered and still suffer many shortages, and because that people was led and guided by leaders that did not betray the struggle, but were part of it. We ought to evaluate as absolutely positive, as we have previously expressed, the decision of President Barack Obama to initiate dialogue, and that under his presidency dialogue has been initiated. The truth is that we are very content to be present in this historic Summit of the America and for this historic fact of the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, for the true triumph of the Cuban Revolution is this that we are living here.
And we were very happy, as I have said, that I was going to participate in my last meeting as President in an historic event, when suddenly there was signed a decree declaring the sister Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to be a threat to the security of the United States of America. I confess, I confess to all my colleagues, that when I heard the news, I said, “No, it has to be a mistake; it must be that they are in disagreement with the policies, that they are condemning the policies.” But no, they brought me the order: a threat to the security of the United States. In truth, there did not emerge in me a raging, anti-imperialist response. My first reaction was to laugh, because it really is absolutely improbable, nearly bordering on the ridiculous, that not only Venezuela but any country on our continent, could be a threat to the greatest power of the world. Beyond any idea that one may have of the United States, we cannot ignore that it is the greatest military, economic, financial and scientific power, with a budget of 640 billion dollars, 640 billion dollars. I add in passing, they ought to make more effective use of the money to combat drug trafficking and illegal immigration. With such a budget, one does not understand why they cannot fight drug trafficking, and why there are 11 million undocumented persons. But I return to the theme. I asked Nicolás Maduro last night: “What is your military budget?” I believe that he told me two billion dollars, a little more. So how can it be conceived that the greatest power of the world can consider the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to be a threat? . . . . Really, if one would want to confront Venezuela, they ought to have found another form, because in reality, no one can believe this. . . . So I say that it is a shame that a shadow has been cast over this Summit by that decision. And we ask, jointed with other brother countries, that the decree be cast aside. But it is not a question of appealing to sovereignty or to tear-jerking discourses, but merely of appealing to common sense. As said General Perón, the leader and founder of my movement, one can turn anywhere, except the ridiculous. And in truth, it is absolutely ridiculous that we consider any of us to be a threat.
Also, in concluding, Mr. President, indeed I like history. I see in the guidelines of the Summit agenda where it is said that those who believe that the United States can interfere with impunity are living in the past, and President Obama also has said it. Certainly, we remember the interventions, and President Castro, for example, mentioned the overthrowing of democratic governments, perhaps the most emblematic being those of Salvador Allende and Jacobo Arbenz. Invasions and the promotion of coups d’état through the local armed forces of each country is part of history. But it is also true that there have emerged new and more subtle forms of intervention and influence in our governments through what is known as “soft coups,” in which are utilized multinational mass means of communication, false denunciations, and the capricious associating of states with other states in order to convey conspiracy and who knows what other things. They are more subtle and sophisticated, but they nonetheless are interventions, and they always originate in new organizations that are considered NGOs. I read the other day in a very interesting article in a Mexican newspaper that NGOs always struggle for liberty, human rights and all the laudable things in which we all believe; that it is never known from where they are financed; that they always are disposed to make the most obscure denunciations, which they are never able to prove; and that they clearly intend the destabilization of the governments of the region, above all those governments, curiously, that have done more for equality, education, and social inclusion. I believe in the words of those who say that they want a more just world, where the young go to school, where everyone has rights protected, where they can study, where there is health. But then I ask, Why do they combat and brand as populist precisely those governments in Latin America that have attained the greatest gains with respect to human rights, equality, inclusion, education and health? Why were they supporting and now support governments with neoliberal policies that excluded citizens? Or why do they combat those governments that, beyond having differences that logically exist, are able to demonstrate that in this decade have included more of their citizens and have freed them from hunger, misery and poverty.
. . . . . .
So history is important for understanding why some countries have emerged in a particular manner. Someone asked, I think it was Correa, what has been the difference? If we were all born at nearly the same time with the right of independence, why do some continue being emergent countries, while others, like the United States, have had the luck of being a great power, the greatest in the world? Well, one must study history and see what US leaders did. Its leaders were not like the elites that governed our countries and that looked to Europe or to the North in order to see what mandate they gave to them. To the contrary, they were true patriots, like Lincoln, Jefferson, and Franklin. So history is important, because history explains to us why some are one thing, and others are another. Because everything is related.
. . . . . .
We do not fear history, nor do we fear ideologies. On the contrary, look at what has happened since the end of ideology was decreed. The fundamentalists appeared, forming the true problem today with respect to peace and security in the world, much more problematic than ideas. Because ideas can be combatted with another idea, but when someone say that he kills you in the name of God, it is much more difficult to combat.
. . . . . .
Therefore, we do not renounce ideologies. It was ideologies that generated the civilization of the twentieth century and that established the solid foundation for the scientific advances that is going to characterize the twenty-first century. So we learn from history, we defend our ideas, and most importantly, we understand that we face a different world with new challenges, requiring a new theoretical perspective in order to understand it. If we do not understand it, we will find it difficult to confront the true problems and true dangers.
Editor´s note. Néstor Kirchner was named president of Argentina in the midst of a national economic and political crisis in 2002, and he quickly restored economic and political stability by abandoning neoliberal policies and establishing a government that was responsive to popular demands. Subsequent to his two terms as President of Argentina, he was named the first Permanent Secretary of the South American Union of Nations (UNASUR). Kirchner died in 2010 due to complications resulting from a heart condition.
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner succeeded her husband as president of Argentina, continuing and deepening the policies initiated during his administration. She is approaching the end of her second term.
This is my last Summit, as President of the Republic of Argentina, and I believe that it is also the last Summit of President Barack Obama. And indeed it is an historic Summit. It is an historic Summit because the Republic of Cuba is participating for the first time. . . . But please, we should not be confused. I know that President Barack Obama has just stated that he does not like history much, or that it does not seem important to him. I believe that history, I am enchanted by history, because it helps me to understand what is happening, what happened in the past and why it happened, and most importantly, to prevent what could happen. History teaches us. We do not remember history in order to flagellate ourselves, as an exercise in masochism, but simply to understand why things occurred.
So we have to be clear that Cuba is not here, and we do not find the two presidents here, because finally after much time they decided to extend to one another the hand of friendship. No, ladies and gentlemen. Cuba is here because it has struggled for more than sixty years with a dignity without precedent, with a people, 77% of whom were born under the blockade, as Raúl has indicated, that suffered and still suffer many shortages, and because that people was led and guided by leaders that did not betray the struggle, but were part of it. We ought to evaluate as absolutely positive, as we have previously expressed, the decision of President Barack Obama to initiate dialogue, and that under his presidency dialogue has been initiated. The truth is that we are very content to be present in this historic Summit of the America and for this historic fact of the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, for the true triumph of the Cuban Revolution is this that we are living here.
And we were very happy, as I have said, that I was going to participate in my last meeting as President in an historic event, when suddenly there was signed a decree declaring the sister Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to be a threat to the security of the United States of America. I confess, I confess to all my colleagues, that when I heard the news, I said, “No, it has to be a mistake; it must be that they are in disagreement with the policies, that they are condemning the policies.” But no, they brought me the order: a threat to the security of the United States. In truth, there did not emerge in me a raging, anti-imperialist response. My first reaction was to laugh, because it really is absolutely improbable, nearly bordering on the ridiculous, that not only Venezuela but any country on our continent, could be a threat to the greatest power of the world. Beyond any idea that one may have of the United States, we cannot ignore that it is the greatest military, economic, financial and scientific power, with a budget of 640 billion dollars, 640 billion dollars. I add in passing, they ought to make more effective use of the money to combat drug trafficking and illegal immigration. With such a budget, one does not understand why they cannot fight drug trafficking, and why there are 11 million undocumented persons. But I return to the theme. I asked Nicolás Maduro last night: “What is your military budget?” I believe that he told me two billion dollars, a little more. So how can it be conceived that the greatest power of the world can consider the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to be a threat? . . . . Really, if one would want to confront Venezuela, they ought to have found another form, because in reality, no one can believe this. . . . So I say that it is a shame that a shadow has been cast over this Summit by that decision. And we ask, jointed with other brother countries, that the decree be cast aside. But it is not a question of appealing to sovereignty or to tear-jerking discourses, but merely of appealing to common sense. As said General Perón, the leader and founder of my movement, one can turn anywhere, except the ridiculous. And in truth, it is absolutely ridiculous that we consider any of us to be a threat.
Also, in concluding, Mr. President, indeed I like history. I see in the guidelines of the Summit agenda where it is said that those who believe that the United States can interfere with impunity are living in the past, and President Obama also has said it. Certainly, we remember the interventions, and President Castro, for example, mentioned the overthrowing of democratic governments, perhaps the most emblematic being those of Salvador Allende and Jacobo Arbenz. Invasions and the promotion of coups d’état through the local armed forces of each country is part of history. But it is also true that there have emerged new and more subtle forms of intervention and influence in our governments through what is known as “soft coups,” in which are utilized multinational mass means of communication, false denunciations, and the capricious associating of states with other states in order to convey conspiracy and who knows what other things. They are more subtle and sophisticated, but they nonetheless are interventions, and they always originate in new organizations that are considered NGOs. I read the other day in a very interesting article in a Mexican newspaper that NGOs always struggle for liberty, human rights and all the laudable things in which we all believe; that it is never known from where they are financed; that they always are disposed to make the most obscure denunciations, which they are never able to prove; and that they clearly intend the destabilization of the governments of the region, above all those governments, curiously, that have done more for equality, education, and social inclusion. I believe in the words of those who say that they want a more just world, where the young go to school, where everyone has rights protected, where they can study, where there is health. But then I ask, Why do they combat and brand as populist precisely those governments in Latin America that have attained the greatest gains with respect to human rights, equality, inclusion, education and health? Why were they supporting and now support governments with neoliberal policies that excluded citizens? Or why do they combat those governments that, beyond having differences that logically exist, are able to demonstrate that in this decade have included more of their citizens and have freed them from hunger, misery and poverty.
. . . . . .
So history is important for understanding why some countries have emerged in a particular manner. Someone asked, I think it was Correa, what has been the difference? If we were all born at nearly the same time with the right of independence, why do some continue being emergent countries, while others, like the United States, have had the luck of being a great power, the greatest in the world? Well, one must study history and see what US leaders did. Its leaders were not like the elites that governed our countries and that looked to Europe or to the North in order to see what mandate they gave to them. To the contrary, they were true patriots, like Lincoln, Jefferson, and Franklin. So history is important, because history explains to us why some are one thing, and others are another. Because everything is related.
. . . . . .
We do not fear history, nor do we fear ideologies. On the contrary, look at what has happened since the end of ideology was decreed. The fundamentalists appeared, forming the true problem today with respect to peace and security in the world, much more problematic than ideas. Because ideas can be combatted with another idea, but when someone say that he kills you in the name of God, it is much more difficult to combat.
. . . . . .
Therefore, we do not renounce ideologies. It was ideologies that generated the civilization of the twentieth century and that established the solid foundation for the scientific advances that is going to characterize the twenty-first century. So we learn from history, we defend our ideas, and most importantly, we understand that we face a different world with new challenges, requiring a new theoretical perspective in order to understand it. If we do not understand it, we will find it difficult to confront the true problems and true dangers.