Roberto Zamora, Costa Rican Hero

Roberto Zamora on Disarmament for Peace
Submitted by Lisa on Thu, 12/11/2009 - 14:27


Mexico’s Historic Center was the venue for this year’s UN DPI/NGO Conference. For the second time in history, the conference took place out of New York (last year it took place in Paris), and on this occasion, extensively covered the issue of disarmament as a way to achieve peace and development. As a matter of fact, more than a way to peace, disarmament is a requirement in order to achieve it.

Nevertheless, I believe the conference made a stalwart choice to focus on an issue currently so important. Since the end of WWII, military expansionism unveiled itself as obsolete and unsuitable for the new world stage. Meanwhile, military growth skyrocketed with the upcoming of the “cold war” and the struggle for supreme and sovereign power, raising military expenditure to absurd figures: 1.3 trillion dollars for 2007. About twentyfold the amount needed to achieve the millennium development goals for 2006. Disarmament is indeed an important contribution to peace and development.

In my home country of Costa Rica, 1948 saw a domestic revolution. Following this an Assembly was called upon to create a new constitution. This modern constitution established in article 12 the abolishment of the army as a permanent institution in the country. The funds usually wasted in military expenditures were reallocated and reinvested in education and health care. As a result, the Human Development Index (HDI) in Costa Rica skyrocketed, and not because the country got wealthier, but because the money was invested in the human needs that are essential for development – those which lead to peace. The country is now well known around the world for its maintained healthy environment and peaceful way of life, as it continuously scores high ranking countries for HDI indexes, among rich and better organized societies.

Having said this, I believe it was an accurate choice to have a Costa Rican deliver the keynote speech at the closing ceremony of the conference. What was surprising was the decision of the committee to invite me as speaker, being the youngest of all guest speakers at the conference.

Not that I’m not aware of my accomplishments, just because I see nothing extraordinary about them. I was at the University of Costa Rica in my second year of Law when war broke out in Iraq. When Costa Rica announced their support for the “coalition of the willing” for the Iraq invasion, I sued. When I won, the support for the war was withdrawn. When President and Nobel Peace Laureate Arias allowed the manufacturing of nuclear fuel and reactors for war purposes, I sued again. When I won this case it spurred the Supreme Court into action, widening the prohibitions related to weapons derived from our national peace commitments and international obligations. I do see peace in a very special way, but I don’t think of that way as unique… any Costa Rican with a knowledge of history, love for their country and understanding of the privileges of our condition is capable of reaching the same conclusions given the time and conditions to reflect on the issue.

Reflecting on the conference, I must say that while it unveiled the evils of weapons, military and so on, it failed to adequately link military and armaments with the current environmental issue. In my particular case, I have to be honest and say that I’ve gone through a transformation process. Not being an environmentalist or ecologist myself, I came into peace affairs and the more I learned and understood about peace; the greater my attraction to nature; its importance in relation to keeping the peace and the need for peace for its protection.

There’s nothing as destructive to nature as armed conflict.

Costa Rica’s Supreme Court was aware of this, and when delivering on the nuclear reactors case, it ruled that weapons and substances with uncontrolled areas of damage are illegal in the country due to the possibility of environmental harm: a great achievement indeed.

The Conference gathered people from more than 60 countries and hundreds of NGOs. Its general outcome was positive and the events were filled with important facts and information. I had the honor of closing the event, for some reason people felt astonishment in hearing the “truth withheld among the words”, but I don’t see in them anything newsworthy. I do not intend to impose my opinions onto anybody, but to make evident the truth that weapons and militarism have no room in a developed world. I closed the conference with the following words:

“This year’s conference focused on world disarmament as a way to achieve peace and development. Coming from Costa Rica, I’m a witness that disarmament is one of the paths to peace and development.

We live in a time when resources are enough but distribution is deficient, wealth is wasted in weapons valued as much as some small countries debts, while human priorities, worthy of worldwide efforts, remain pending solution.

The world armament reality alarmingly highlights to us two sides of the situation. On one side, the situation of underdevelopment creates social and living conditions where peace is an unreachable dream due to situations of dreadful misery and want. On the other hand, world powers are aiming to secure a bigger share of the world’s wealth in order to secure the expense resulting from military protection of their power … ironically, in a world that has proven unable to keep up militaristic policies as cornerstones of international relations.

All the aforementioned is clearly a reflex of both our incapacity and reticence to deliver an end to a couple of old rusty problems. Specifically I am referring to the ‘rule of law’ and the proliferation of small weapons, and to the reduction of military expenditures through the production and commercialization of weapons in and from developing states. The role of neutral states must be highlighted however since those who have acquired a condition of neutrality cannot produce weapons for foreign country use.

Concerning the rule of law

The creation of the UN and the establishment of its Charter as a form of supreme international rule appeared to mark the definite start of a new era in international relations and international law, aimed at realizing, through peaceful means for dispute settlement, the so long desired international peace and stability.

The idea was to materialize all the achievements in International Law into reality with a framework that would allow the purposes of the Charter. Nevertheless, the ultimate goal would be truncated due to many reasons, two in particular. First, the immoral, unjust and arbitrary Veto Power belonging to the Permanent Members of the Security Council. As long as the Stalinist veto exists, the rule of law will never find ruling or create lawful conduct and international democracy will never be achieved. Second, State breaches of International Law. We have seen time and again, how States go their own way, openly disobeying International Resolutions and avoiding Jurisdiction of International Courts. Treaties and Resolutions are violated without any existing mechanism of enforcement that will revert the lack of will to honor acquired binds. Maybe it’s time to make use of articles 5 and 6 of the UN charter. It is compulsory to suspend or expel from the UN all those States who disrespect the Charters. It is inexorable to take the UN out of the US.

Initiatives towards stricter and stronger regimes concerning weapons control are worthy of support, yet, it has to be said that the effort would be fruitless if we keep holding our struggle without the creation of mechanisms to enforce the legal framework, both at a domestic and international levels.

Domestically, it’s important to support the initiative to establish peace enforcing constitutions as a way to prevent armed conflicts. For that to occur, there must be a judicial system that will grant respect for constitutional principles, just as happened in the case of Costa Rica where the Peace Constitution and the UN Charter were used before the Supreme Court to invalidate the support given by the Costa Rican government to the Coalition that invaded Iraq. Since 1948, Costa Rica abolished the army and bid on human development investment, raising into one of the poor countries with better HDI. Indeed, Costa Ricans are witness to disarmament’s contribution to peace and development.

At the international level, the Rule of Law must be re-established as a guiding principle of international obligations, forcing States to found through the UN, all the necessary mechanisms to give effectiveness to International obligations freely acquired. Those concerning weapons would require special obligation, aiding reforms to be designed in the pursuit of a real right to peace. This is longing to become a convention.

I don’t know how many treaties we need to simply disarm. The worst part of it is that we err by specifying… we go against biological, against chemical, against nuclear, against cluster… can’t we just go against weapons?! ALL weapons must be eliminated. Saying this, and without setting aside the human rights violations that President Arias commits to within Costa Rica, I believe it important to support initiatives favoring social investment over military expenditure, just as the model for the “Costa Rica Consensus” promotes. This initiative must be analyzed, completed and supported.

At this point, it is important to stress the absurdity of small armies. What do small countries, like Central Americans, gain by having armies? Who are they going to fight, if their offensive potential is ridiculous? Military coups are what small armies are for. The elected Honduras’ president is still in exile due to small armies

About small arms and the civil arms race

The second problem pending solution is that referred to the constant rise in civil arming. Some 1134 companies in 98 countries produce the weapons that kill our civilians, both in developed as well as in developing countries, both in conflict zones as in “peaceful” areas. Civilians own at least 380 million guns… legally. Worse that that, 80% of the weapons produced by these companies are bought every year by civilians – a situation that exposes a broad market that will keep growing unless we change. Unless we change, today’s kids, our children, will become tomorrow’s murderers.

WE must call upon our Governments to improve domestic civilian security, preventing people accessing weapons to “protect” themselves. Maybe, just maybe, if the States invested some of the money wasted on military and domestic security, people could use those resources for properly prioritized needs, in some places, essentials as basic as food and water.

Domestic civilian security is a DUTY of all governments towards their citizens. An effective state security policy would make possible the call to civilians to get rid of weapons. It is evident that to solve the problem the root causes must be addressed and here is where we can see the real dimension and effects of governments deficiencies in the fulfillment of their natural obligations in terms of health, education, wealth distribution, housing, water, environmental protection, and so on.

Finally it is necessary to strengthen and augment the requirements and controls for the possession of guns and ammunition. It’s completely unacceptable that in the dawn of the 21st century, it was possible in countries like Uganda, to trade AK-47 machine guns for the price of a whole chicken. Recalling our point concerning mechanisms for law enforcement, it is important to call upon the states to join the Arms Trade Treaty process, but at the same time, call upon the governments to impose production quotas, raise costs and taxes, and make guns difficult to access for civilians. It also has to be called upon the UN to enforce weapons embargoes, since its breach feeds illicit trafficking, weapons always ending up in the wrong hands.

The problem is not the amount of weapons nor the money wasted on them. The problem is guns themselves.

The problem is not what the law says; the problem is what is done with the law. The five permanent members of the Security Council are the biggest weapons producers…. How can it be that Permanent Members are the countries that produce the guns that destroy international peace and security? What authority do they have to decide on peace and international stability if they ground their international policy on the constant threat of the use of force by the establishment of military bases all over the world and by possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction? Ecuador, Venezuela and Colombia are at the edge of a war due to the US bases in Colombia. What do the US need military bases on the continent for?

Maybe we should look back at the Security Council and revise it’s written role as well as its practical role.

About gun production in developing countries (BTW, aren’t all the countries… developing?)

Finally and to bring my words to an end, I believe it superbly important to call attention to a new threat that might scramble our efforts for military reduction and weapons eradication.

The weapons industry is a highly lucrative activity. Like many other industries, the guns industry is facing the challenge of an economical crisis, thus, they are looking for a mechanism to produce their product cheaper.

Growing and constant bellicose clashes that we see year after year, which are denounced and exposed by NGOs and their work, have the atrocity of world in which we live in exposed to the global society. This has created consciousness for the urgent need to abolish war and weapons now.

Civil society actions have forced governments to look back at resource allocation, calling of the ridiculously minute sums granted to human rights when compared to the exorbitant abundance placed in military and violence.

Evidently, before reducing the amount of force bought every year, states and governments will be looking forward to buying the same amount of weapons for cheaper. The same force for less money. This is the dangerous situation that we must stop before it begins.

Just as many companies moved their plants to developing countries, in order to produce cheaper weaponry by paying unjust wages. The weapons industry is already looking for places to produce high tech weapons at reduced costs. Alarming but true is the case for Costa Rica. Costa Rica was the only Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) signing country that included in its lists weapons and war machinery. If chipset giant INTEL and other high tech companies have moved their operations to this country, due to its peace and human resource… why wouldn’t these war industries also move to Costa Rica? Raytheon Company has already bought five hectares in the country. Unluckily for them, President Arias’ authorization to these companies was declared unconstitutional. I’m sure he’ll try again.

We must prevent small countries under heavy economic pressure and wants from falling victim to this vicious cycle and becoming producers and suppliers of weapons for those countries with economic power. We must avoid and prevent the establishment and creation of military sweat-shops. For this it is fundamental to start a process for the creation of international instruments that will prohibit states in the production of weapons or machinery that they cannot have for their own military. We must avoid armament to become a development model for developing countries.

As fundamental as it is to attack current problems it is equally important to prevent future situations that will threaten or destroy peace.

I would like bring this speech to close by congratulating and thanking both organizers and all the participant for making a conference on the truth behind the issues possible. The importance of this could not be emphasized enough. Debates, ideas and contacts made here are essential for the creation of actions and proposals that will bring us closer to the peaceful world that we imagine. Thank you very much.”

Of course, the Conference covered a broader array of topics that were not mentioned in the speech, like toys, television, victim relief, amnesties, and so on. All of the issues touched at this conference are fundamental and urgent.

We need to start thinking.

We need to realize the truths and act upon them, since one of those truths is, as things are and seem to be, our own extinction. I don’t’ think we can have a closer connection between offensive power and nature. Unfortunately they relate in a reversely proportionate relationship.

The bigger the offensive power we have, the bigger the threat to the environment. The bigger the power we use, the bigger the harm we do to nature and in it, ourselves.