Oscar Arias Sanchez, the former president of Costa Rica who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his role in settling long-term conflict among the nations of Central America, visited Yale University on March 24 and 25 as a guest of the Chubb Fellowship of Timothy Dwight College. During his stay on campus, Arias met with Yale students and presented a talk on "Peace in the Age of Globalization: Confronting Poverty, Inequality and Militarism" before a packed Luce Hall auditorium. Arias also took time during his visit to talk about world events with Gus Ranis, the Frank Altschul Professor of International Economics and director of the Yale Center for International and Area Studies. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation. RANIS: I understand you are very much opposed to the kind of action that NATO has taken in Kosovo, and I can understand your point that we didn't exercise as much patience as we might have, tried other devices to push another, more agreeable position. But, on the other hand, Milosevic was committing genocide in Kosovo. There are people who say, "If we continue to have a boycott or use economic tools to try to bring him to heel, a) it would take a long time; and b) it may not work. In the meantime, he goes around killing the Albanian population of Kosovo. In the final analysis, how do you feel about this conflict between the need to try to avoid military means, and yet not to permit Milosevic to continue doing what he's doing? ARIAS: In the case of Bosnia-Hersegovinia five years ago, it was necessary military intervention in order to pacify that country. This is what the NATO countries had in mind when they decided to use military force. But my main concern is: NATO is an elite group. It's just like you are here -- Yale is an elite university. By using NATO to solve conflicts anywhere in the world, we are undermining, weakening, putting aside the U.N. system. Even though the U.N. has many drawbacks, we cannot complain that it is not an official body, because, indeed, it represents 185 countries, and its Security Council is made up of 15 governments. Instead of undermining the U.N., perhaps what we could be thinking of how to change the charter so that we could adapt the U.N. system to the reality of a new millennium, the beginning of the 21st century. The industrialized countries have not intervened in other genocides that have taken place in the last two decades. Cambodia is a good example. Rwanda. All the massacres in sub-Saharan Africa. Of course, for the Europeans, Kosovo and Serbia are very close to their hearts, because they are your own neighbors. But I find, then, a double standard. If the genocide takes place in sub-Saharan Africa, in an Asian country, in a Latin American country, then you don't care. My feeling is that we should be putting more emphasis and spending more time and more effort in trying to find diplomatic solutions to all the conflicts that emerge, and even more so in trying to prevent conflicts from emerging. RANIS: Some people say, Mr. President, that there was another holocaust, genocide, in Europe which was permitted to go on without intervention -- I'm talking about Nazi Germany -- and that maybe there's a guilt feeling about not acting in the Thirties, which has prompted, in part, the intervention in the Nineties. ARIAS: That is a concern that I share. But I strongly believe that "Right Is Might," while I believe the United States government believes just the opposite, that "Might Is Right." And I don't see using force unilaterally, violating international law, violating the U.N. charter so frequently. If the industrialized countries and the members of NATO do not like the U.N., and don't want to rely on the U.N. and don't like to work at the level of the Security Council, perhaps we should try to build a new world organization or try to modernize the one we built in 1945. On the other hand, nobody talks here about the cost of the military intervention. I don't see the American taxpayer being too concerned about the cost. What is the money being taken from? Are these economic resources that would have been spent on enhancing education in this country, on eliminating poverty, on improving your welfare or social security? If I were a U.S. citizen, I would be asking my President, "Is there a better use for the money we are spending on the use of military force?" Only three years ago, when Mahbub ul Haq [who spearheaded the creation of the U.N.'s first Human Development Report -- ed.] was alive, I told him, "I've been reading a lot about the cost of this Somalia intervention ... at that time it was about $3 billion ... How come the industrialized countries have never asked themselves what would have happened in Somalia if they had invested those $3 billion in trying to improve social conditions in that country? Perhaps most of these problems could have been avoided, don't you think?" RANIS: You mentioned before that if we don't want to use this U.N., we should change it. There was some hope at the time of the 50th anniversary that there might be some reforms to the U.N., which didn't happen. In which direction would you move to try to revitalize the U.N.? Would you take away the veto or find some other weighted voting system? ARIAS: I don't think it is realistic to believe that the five permanent members are going to denounce the veto power. But I think we could use, as you pointed out, a weighted voting system. I also think the Secretary General should have more power, and should be able to do his job with more independence from the Security Council. I also ... I don't know, this might sound very silly ... but I would love to see an Economic Security Council. RANIS: Mahbub ul Haq was very much for that ... ARIAS: Because I don't think the G-7 [the Group of Seven, a loose organization of national economic and monetary authorities which includes the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Germany and Italy -- ed.] should be the ones to tell the rest of the world what to do. But, you see, I come from a small country. I am certainly too biased, because we haven't had armed forces for 51 years. And I have proven to the world that Costa Rica's example is not unique, because we were able to get rid of the armed forces in Panama as well as in Haiti. I am fighting a trend. The countries which produce arms want to sell their arms. As I pointed out last night, the U.S. is responsible for 43 percent of the arms being sold to the developing world, and 85 percent of those arms go to undemocratic countries. As an economist, I am sure you would agree with me that the worst investment we can think of is investing in arms. I am sure you would also agree with me that the children of the world in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America would say, "What I want and what I need are health clinics and schools, and not tanks, missiles, armed helicopters or fighter jets." They want to see more nurses, more doctors, more teachers and less soldiers and generals. And I feel kind of lonely working against the trend that is prevailing. I visited in Slovenia about three years ago. At that time the President of Slovenia said, "Eventually, we're going to follow Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in joining NATO because we need to choose between joining NATO and being out of NATO, and we don't feel comfortable if we are left out of NATO." So I said to him, "Have you ever thought of a third alternative? Why don't you disarm unilaterally? Look at your neighbors: Italy, Austria, Hungary and Croatia. Why don't you try to agree with them on a pact of nonaggression, and disarm unilaterally, that's what Costa Rica did. And we have proven that, perhaps, to be defenseless is our main defense." Why don't we try to use multilateral agreements more and more? Let's use diplomacy, instead of arms, to defend our sovereignty and our territory and our borders. I keep telling my friends in Washington that the safest border in the world today is that between Costa Rica and Panama, two countries without armed forces. You don't see a soldier. You don't even see a policeman on our borders. And the money that goes to keeping huge armies can be used to build roads, houses, and bring potable water to communities, electricity to schools and clinics, et cetera. RANIS: The whole question of the NATO expansion is very controversial, at least here at Yale. Many professors, including myself, are not at all clear who the enemy is, and whom we are defending these countries against. Obviously, we claim that it is not directed against Russia, but it's increasingly clear to me that Russia is becoming isolated. We have paid, in my opinion at least, much too little attention to the dangers that come from isolating Russia increasingly. ARIAS: I entirely agree. It is not only the isolation of Russia. It is also the humiliation of Russia. We need to think in terms of the Russian people. After having been for half a century a superpower, at least militarily, now in a way they have become a third-world country. All we might be doing is opening the ground, opening some space for a nationalistic leader to emerge. RANIS: It's a third-world country with a lot of very dangerous toys. ARIAS: Yes. If a nationalistic leader were to emerge and eventually become an authoritarian leader, then the end result to all this might be a new arms race between Russia and the West. I've been telling my friends in Washington for more than 10 years that the G-7 should have invited Russia to join it a long time ago. ...I would also like to see China join the G-7 as the G-9, because it is going to become, if it is not already now, a world economic power. And it is much better to have China there ... RANIS: Inside the tent ... ARIAS: Inside the tent, yes, rather than outside. RANIS: I think everybody has the feeling, around here anyway, that given what's happening-- with Russia having been disregarded on Kosovo, our paying very little attention to their economic needs in spite of their serious problems -- that Russia's patience is going to run out, and we will be very sorry that we missed the opportunity to make them a partner. They still have a lot of potential, which is not being exercised. Of course, we all know that they have a large number of missiles. The main thing we're doing for them right now is to help them ensure that the missiles are being cared for. .. That's the only thing we're really concentrating on now in terms of aid to Russia. Abandoning them completely because they haven't used the IMF money very well, I think is another very serious mistake. ARIAS: Yes, when [U.S. statesman] George Kennan designed the U.S. policy vis a vis the Soviet Union, he was right. ... The Soviet Union was not able to compete with the U.S. in the military arms race, and it collapsed. So we should have expected that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we could change our policy. That's why I don't understand why President Clinton is increasing the Pentagon budget by $110 billion for the next six years. Why do you need a defense budget of $300 billion? Who is the enemy? I have heard some Americans say that the enemy is uncertainty. I find that quite stupid, to tell you the truth. I think that the enemy is illiteracy, poverty, inequality. Gus Speth [Dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and former U.N. official -- ed.] said the other day that the richest 20 percent of the world's population is now 135 times richer than the poorest 20 percent. ... I might be wrong, Professor Ranis, but I think such an inequality is not sustainable. ... According to U.N.D.P. figures, the income per capita of sub-Saharan Africa in the year 2050 is going to be $400, just like it is today. So what is going to happen with the poor people of Africa, the poor people of Asia, the poor people of Latin America? ... I remember [former U.S. Secretary of State] John Foster Dulles saying more than 50 years ago, that the U.S. had no friends in Latin America, only "interests." I don't think that was true, because the U.S. has a lot of friends in Latin America, as well as interests. But I can tell you that the most important interests for the U.S. should be to have more prosperous neighbors to the south. Certainly, by lifting the ban in order to be able to sell high-tech weapons to Latin America again, ... all it means is the perfect path to poverty in our countries. I have been personally trying to persuade all the Latin America governments to introduce a moratorium by which for many years they commit themselves not to buy high-tech weapons because this would imply the beginning of a new arms race in Latin America. ... The five Central American countries agreed on this initiative in the meeting in the Eighties to cut military spending. No other region of the world has cut military spending more drastically in the past three years than the five Central American countries. Now, here is Washington trying to reverse that tendency by allowing Chile to so-call "modernize" its armed forces, initiating in this way a new arms race. .... Leaders in the industrialized nations have not learned that human security is more important than military security, and they have not learned that uncertainty in the future is not the main enemy for world peace -- but hunger, inequality, environmental degradation. How can we live in peace with 1.1 billion illiterate people, with 1.3 billion people living on less than $1 a day, with 2 billion people living on less than $2 a day, with more than 1.1 billion people with no access to potable water? ... I think we need some different values. We need to look at increasing solidarity, replacing selfishness with solidarity, more compassion. It's not charity we need -- it's social justice. RANIS: Do you see anywhere in the world where this leadership might come from, to take us in the direction you are suggesting? ARIAS: To be honest, I don't feel very optimistic about the political class, the political elite, political leadership. I think what we know today as political leadership is the denial of leadership. They don't lead, they are led by public opinions. They have become prisoners of Mr. Gallup and Mr. Harris. They look at the results of opinion polls in order to please. And to be a leader is to lead, not to be led. RANIS: This is one of the more pernicious effects of globalization. Everybody now is looking at polls throughout the world. ARIAS: Polls are fine if you consider them in order to define your policy, but not to be guided by them. To govern is to choose and to govern is also to educate. I used to say it 40 years ago: The typical political leader is the one who tells people what they want to hear, but the real statesman is that person who tells people what they need to know. RANIS: Thank you, Mr. President, and I hope we will see you again at Yale. T H I SW E E K ' SS T O R I E S '339 Yale homebuyers -- and counting! A house becomes a home on Bristol Street 'Private Censorship and Perfect Choice' Special events pay tribute to Native American culture A Conversation With a Peace Maker Improving health of minorities is top priority, Satcher says The Surgeon General speaks out on some tough issues Yale Opera to present Verdi's adaptation of Shakespearean comedy Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke to talk at Divinity School Graphic! British Prints Now' celebrates state of the art . . . 'Film Fest New Haven to pay tribute to Yale animator Renowned artists to take part in panel and symposium at Yale Art Gallery Scholars will share perspectives on issues in South Asia in series of events Museum hosts recreation of 'Dances for a Building' Visiting philosopher to present talk Venclova is honored by the Lithuanian government Bulletin Home|Visiting on Campus|Calendar of Events| Bulletin Board Classified Ads|Search Archives|Production Schedule|Bulletin Staff Public Affairs Home|News Releases|E-Mail Us|Yale Home Page

 Oscar Arias Sanchez (left) chats with YCIAS director Gus Ranis during the Nobel laureate's visit to campus.