When I first took the floor from this rostrum in 2003, I stressed the need for urgent and relentless action to fight the scourge of hunger and poverty in the world.Ignore the talking heads and go read this speech. It's the sort that you should expect from a regional and a global leader.
This is what we are doing in Brazil.
We have combined economic stability with social inclusion policies.
The standard of living of Brazilians has improved. Employment and income have grown.
The purchasing power of the minimum wage has increased.
Our resources are scarce, but even so we have achieved surprising results.
The 'Family Stipend', at the core of our 'Zero Hunger' program, assures a basic income to over 11 million Brazilian families.
Well-fed people can enhance their dignity, their health and their learning capacity.
Putting resources into social programs is not expenditure.
It is investment.
If with so little we have done so much in Brazil, imagine what could have been done on a global scale, if the fight against hunger and poverty were a real priority for the international community.
Where there is hunger there is no hope. There is only desolation and pain.
Hunger nurtures violence and fanaticism.
A world where people starve will never be safe.
The sheer size of the task will not daunt us, especially if we are not alone.
All here know that some 840 million human beings – nearly one out of seven in the planet – do not have enough to eat.
50 billion additional dollars each year are needed to reach the Millennium Development Goals on time.
The international community can afford it.
On the positive side, just think, for instance, of the hundreds of billions of dollars invested to move forward the full integration of Eastern European countries into the European Union.
On the other hand, think of the cost of wars and other conflicts. All here know that that the second Gulf War may also have cost hundreds of billions of dollars to date.
With much less we could change the sad reality of a large share of the world's population.
We could alleviate the plight of these people and lift them out of destitution. We could save millions of lives.
Even strong as they are today, rich countries should have no illusion: nobody is safe in a world of injustices.
War will never bring security.
War can only generate monsters: bitterness, intolerance, fundamentalism, and the damaging denial of current hegemonies.
The poor must be given reasons to live, not to kill or die.
Peoples' greatness lies not in bellicosity, but in humanism.
And there is no true humanism without respect for the other.
There are, actually, those different from us, but not less dignified for this reason, not less precious, not entitled to a lesser right to happiness, creatures as we are from the same creator.
There will only be security in a world where all have the right to economic and social development.
The true path to peace is shared development.
If we do not want war to go global, justice must go global.
This is why, with the serene conviction of a man who has dedicated his life to fight peacefully for the rights of the working people, I say to you: the search for a new world order, fairer and more democratic, it is not only in poor countries' or in emerging nations' interest.
It is also or even more in rich countries' interest, as long as they have eyes to watch and ears to hear, as long as they do not make the mistake of ignoring the hideous cry of the excluded.
We have seen some progress in the last few years. At the Meeting of World Leaders in 2004, we launched the 'Action against Hunger and Poverty'.
Together, we were able to achieve a strong international engagement around this issue.
Our collective efforts have begun to bear fruit.
We are putting into practice innovative mechanisms such as a 'solidarity levy on international air tickets.
Hunger and disease walk hand-in-hand.
We have therefore undertaken, together with other Governments, the creation of an International Drug Purchase Facility to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
This initiative will provide new sources of funds and facilitate access to medicine at lower costs. We cannot shirk from our duties.
I salute the leaders of vision engaged in this war. The war against the debasement of human beings and hopelessness.
This is the only war in which final victory will mean a triumph for all of humanity.
Contra-Cronkite
2 hours ago
14 comments:
It's a great speech, but the bolsa familiar was implemented by Cardoso IIRC.
I'm still very disappointed in Lula. He should have done much better in his first term.
As for the lack of attention it's getting, consider the general attitude of US media towards Latin America.
Make that the Bolsa Escola, not Bolsa Familiar
You may be disappointed, but I'd be pretty happy with a president who continued the successful policies of his predecessor. Considering the alternatives...
I know the lack of attention is due to the US media. Doesn't make me any happier that they ignore the best speeches and cover the comic relief.
Thanks for the post. For a leftist Lula's not so bad. The problem is he still doesn't understand the problem. In large part, people are poor and starving in places like Africa, Latin American and the Middle east because people like Mugabe, Chavez and Ahmanajihad use the threat of poverty and starvation to secure their power.
No government program will help those people. In fact, the only thing that might bring them relief is the military intervention he derides.
No government program will help these people? Two already have: the Bolsa Escola and Bolsa Familiar.
The Bolsa Escola was started by President Cardoso, who, while slightly to the right of Lula, would no doubt be considered a left-liberal in the US. It has helped to reduce Brazil’s illiteracy rate by keeping young children, whose family situation might force them to go to work, in school.
The history of land distribution in Brazil to the present continues to reflect the Portuguese colonial heritage more than a 21st Century nation. The World Bank has been a strong proponent of land reform in Brazil.
In the state of Paraná, numerous government programs have helped the poor, including one in which favela residents can exchange a bag of garbage for a bag of groceries. It helps keep the favela clean, cuts down on epidemics like leptospirosis and keeps people fed.
Beware of the danger of speaking absolutes.
Boz,
What has disappointed me is the amount of time, energy and political capitl that was expended protecting the PT. So much more could have bee done.
Beware of Absolutes?
Sorry Randy, beware of not reading the post you are responding to:
"In large part, people are poor and starving in places like Africa, Latin American and the Middle east"
This is more true in places like africa and the middle east than latin-america, but it is still true... in large part.
These people will not be helped by gov't programs because it is their own gov't that wants them poor and hungry.
So as for Lula giving the "make gov't programs not war" speech, he is saying it for effect, because the reality is that many of the world's poor and hungry will need their own tyrannical leaders deposed before they get any relief.
Gabriel,
Now that you have clarified what you originally said, it does make some more sense.
Originally, though you were speaking in general terms. In any event tyrannical leaders can be deposed without military means. Look what happened in Eastern Europe.
Government programs implemented after changes in leadership will msot surely help these people.
Hi James,
This is your old great aunt Gayle. Thanks for posting this. I would certainly have missed it otherwise. Keep up the good work. Maybe I'll see you the next type we're in Pennsylvania.
Thanks Aunt Gayle.
Gabriel, I don't know that I could prove that tyranical governments actively try to keep their populations poor and hungry, but you are correct that they are rarely pro-active about fixing the problems.
If you haven't, I recommend reading Amartya Sen's studies on the link between hunger and democracy. In short, Sen argues that mass famine has never occured under a democratic government because governments that are accountable to the people will act to prevent major starvation.
Nice speech; sorry I didn't comment on this yesterday. Don't follow Brazilian politics closely although I'm aware of Lula's background/history. He comes across to me as someone who's matured/mellowed out (read: dropped a lot of the rabble-rousing, union leader approach) and grown into the role of a true national leader who tries to head up the country as a whole.
...This, in contrast to people like Chavez, AMLO, and Morales, who seem intent on setting their countrymen at each others' throats.. Wish there were more Lula's around in LA, I tell you....T
...Oh, and I forgot our own guy, Dubya; he's done a fabulous job of lining blue and red states against each other, while implementing econ/tax policies that smack of class warfare, as far as I'm concerned... T
Boz, thx. I just googled Amartya Sen.
As far as Tyrannies using poverty and food as weapons against the populace, off the top of my head I can think of a couple from the 20th century where this has been explicitly done:
- Stalin and the ukraine famine.
- Mugabe taking over farms (means of food production) and destroying homes
In my opinion there are many more instances where this has been done less overtly.
Historically Tyrants have always used food as a means of control.
Look at the Irish Famine. One of it's main causes was the breaking up farms into tiny little plots that were impossible to farm with any success. The british did this to ensure no irishmen would have a large estate (wealth.)
I understand that in some cases it is hard to prove that the poverty and hunger weren't just unintended consequences (except in the Ukraine where that was Stalin's explicit goal.)
On the other hand, the tyrants would have to be pretty stupid not to see that poverty and hunger would be the consequences of their actions, whether intended or not.
So Tyrants are either devious, stupid, or both. I'd say they are devious because nobody that takes over a country is stupid. Of course, that's all just my opinion.
Hello,
Thanks for the speech. It wasn't publicized here in Brazil, as the media here can't say good things about Lula without looking schizofrenic. I posted a report on how bloggers are dealing with the next scandal -- maybe a good read for those who got interested in Lula by reading this speech.
Greetings
Thanks Jose.
Post a Comment