In the name of progress and development
Exeter College, Oxford, 24/10/2007

Good evening, it is a pleasure and indeed an honour to be with you tonight. I would like to thank Frances Cairncross for giving me the opportunity to speak at to you about an issue that has defined my life; social and economic justice.

Before addressing the subject of my speech, I would like to tell you a little about myself, which may explain to you why I have committed my life to defend human rights, social and economic justice and the protection of the environment.

My early years

I was born in Nicaragua. My childhood and adolescence were spent under the brutal and repressive dictatorship of the Somoza regime.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, Nicaragua suffered invasions and protracted occupations by US forces. In 1932, the US government helped General Anastasio Somoza seize power. His military regime guaranteed an open door policy towards US corporations.

The Somoza dynasty ruled Nicaragua for nearly fifty years. The regime was ousted on 19 July of 1979. While in government, they allowed the rape and pillage of the country’s natural resources by US corporations. Under the Somoza dynasty, Nicaragua suffered what John F. Kennedy defined as the “harshest common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war”. During that period, the country had one of the highest rates of infant mortality in the Americas. I first learned the meaning of social and economic injustice in Nicaragua.

My parents divorced when I was ten, an event that changed my life. After my mother became single, she was often discriminated because of her gender and status. And I learnt first-hand how difficult life could be for a divorced woman supporting three young children in the Nicaragua of the sixties. Witnessing her predicament taught me the meaning of discrimination.

I was determined to seek an education that would save me from a similar fate, and promised myself then never to be treated as a second-class citizen because of my gender. I promised myself never to feel powerless in the face of injustice. I left my country armed with a scholarship from the French government to study political science in Paris.

My marriage

In 1971, I entered my well known marriage – a marriage that was to change my life radically. In fact, I could have spoken to you at length about my marriage in the context of justice and revenge. I somehow felt that there were more important issues to address.

Exploitation of the Global South

Developing nations have always been exploited – first, at the hands of colonial powers, and, most recently, at the hand of multinational corporations.

The Global North continues to rape and pillage the Global South. It does so “in the name of progress and development”. Their mantra is maximum production; minimum cost; open markets. Exploitation is no longer carried out by colonial adventurers aiming to discover new horizons, spices, tobacco or slaves. This time, it is been carried out by men in suits representing multinational oil, mining or logging corporations from the US, Europe and now Asia.

I have chosen “In The Name Of Progress And Development” as the title for this speech because this is the phrase so often used to justify the exploitation of people in the developing world, the raping and pillaging of their natural resources and the environmental degradation carried out by ruthless and unaccountable multinational corporations.

International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO)

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), along with the World Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), have been directing the global economy along a path of greater inequality and environmental destruction. The IMF’s and World Bank’s “structural adjustment policies” (SAPs) ensure debt repayment by requiring developing countries to cut spending on education and health, eliminate basic food and transportation subsidies, devalue national currencies to make exports cheaper, privatize national assets, and freeze wages. These policies have contributed to the increase of poverty, the reduction of many countries’ ability to develop strong domestic economies, and they have given multinational corporations licence to exploit workers and pollute the environment.

During the 1980’s, the IMF took on an expanded role, lending money to “bail out” countries suffering financial crises. This gave the IMF leverage to begin designing economic policies for over 60 nations. Countries have to follow these policies to get the IMF’s “seal of approval”, entitling them to loans, international assistance – even debt relief. Thus, the IMF has enormous influence not only in structuring the global economy, but also in real-life issues such as poverty, environmental sustainability and development. The IMF is one of the most powerful institutions on Earth – yet few know what it is.

Governments in the developing world were told that in order to catch up with the modern world they had to accept the unjust New-Liberal economic model of Structural Adjustment Policies imposed by the IMF and the World Bank. They were told that this was the only path that could bring progress, economic development, employment and currency to pay their foreign debts. Those governments were forced to pursue progress and economic development through unsustainable practices.

I feel compelled to speak about the unjust and short-sighted New-Liberal economic policies imposed on the developing world, because I have witnessed first-hand the appalling results of these policies in Africa and Latin America, including in my native Nicaragua, which is today the second poorest country in the southern hemisphere. George Orwell once said, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth is revolutionary.”

Despite the clear and urgent alarms sounded by our most respected scientists, the developed world continues to feed its out-of-control oil addiction. We are locked into an inefficient, pollution-based economy, which is undermining public health and the environment, aggravating inequality and turning us into oil predators.

Rather than face the pressing challenges of the 21st century, some world leaders continue to systematically eliminate vital environmental protection laws and regulations. In the U.S., for example, the Environmental Protection Agency has been gutted. And, as you know, the Bush administration refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, whilst doubling the military budget with a focus on oil and natural gas production. Representatives of the military-petroleum complex have been defining Washington’s economic policies. Their undeniable aim is to dominate the world’s energy resources; oil and natural gas.

For many years, Americans were concerned about the role the energy companies lobby had on their government. Since President Bush has been in power, they have become the government.

As consumers of oil, we must realise that oil consumption is effectively destroying environment and communities, especially in places inhabited by indigenous populations and marginalised groups who have little or no economic and political power to defend themselves.

Governments are hostage to oil money. Now more than ever, it is important to call for the separation of oil and state. Politicians must be accountable to voters, not to oil companies. Oil companies must become accountable too, for crimes committed throughout the world against innocent peoples. We must put an end to their impunity.

Both governments and corporations need to commit to cleaner and renewable energy, sustainable development and a more equitable economy.

Eduardo Galeano once wrote:

One of the great hidden strengths and energy sources in Latin America is the people, who have expressed themselves through the revival of indigenous movements and the tremendous force of the values they stand for. These values are about harmony with nature and sharing lives in communities not focused on greed. They are values drawn from the past but which speak for the future and are relevant for all of us today. They are widely shared because they are values everyone needs to grasp in a world where compassion and solidarity have been seriously wounded in recent years and in some cases destroyed.

Today in London you pay over a pound per litre for gas. You probably think this is a high price to pay. But I would like you to think about the real price – a price measured not in pounds, but in human suffering. Every gallon of gas has a price beyond what you pay at the pump, a price paid in misery and environmental devastation.

Texaco in the Ecuadorian Amazon

Chevron, previously known as Texaco, claims for itself an ethos of responsible corporate citizenship, known as the “ChevronTexaco Way”. The company has pledged “to conduct business in a socially responsible and ethical manner ... support universal human rights ... protect the environment ... and respect indigenous cultures”. However, ChevronTexaco’s drilling practices in the Ecuadorian Amazon have fallen far short of these pledges.

In Ecuador, Texaco was responsible for the worst oil-related disaster in the history of Latin America, far surpassing the Exxon Valdez spill in scale. While the dramatic Exxon Valdez spill occurred overnight, the environmental disaster in the Ecuadorian Amazon happened slowly – over the course of thirty-four years, during which Texaco poisoned the residents of the Ecuadorian Amazon by dumping highly toxic waste and crude oil residue into the natural water system. Although Texaco left Ecuador in 1991, the contamination in the ecosystem at that time still exists, and its effects are ongoing.

None of my past experiences as a human rights advocate prepared me for the suffering I witnessed in the provinces of Orellana and Sucumbíos in the Ecuadorian Amazon. During my visits I met many residents afflicted with cancers, including leukaemia, women experiencing unusual spontaneous abortions, and children suffering from skin diseases as a consequence of direct exposure from bathing in toxic waters.

What Texaco did in Ecuador is not just an environmental catastrophe and a human tragedy, but also a major potential corporate governance issue for the company. There are many serious questions that Chevron needs to answer. Has its management adequately disclosed to shareholders the potential legal liability that it faces? Three years ago, I spoke at the shareholders’ meeting, and I asked members of the Board if management had given them sufficient information for them and the shareholders to accurately assess the seriousness of the liability they are facing as required by law? Three years ago, the legal case brought by 30,000 affected residents reached the trial phase in Ecuador, with the likelihood of a favourable judgement enforceable in a U.S. Court.

An outside oil remediation expert who has worked for many large oil companies assessed the damage caused by Texaco operations in Ecuador at approximately $6bn. That figure does not include compensation to individuals for health impacts and economic damage.

In 1971, Texaco made the fateful decision to discharge the highly toxic wastewater by-product of oil extraction directly into rivers, streams, lagoons, and swamps. In addition, the company carved 627 unlined toxic waste pits. Leeching from these pits contaminated the entire groundwater and ecosystem in an area three times the size of Manhattan.

Since there is no running water in the region, 30,000 people, including thousands of children, are forced to drink poisoned water from streams and rivers where Texaco discharged its toxic wastewater.

Chevron is evading its moral and ethical responsibility by claiming that the $40 million settlement reached with the Ecuadorian government absolves the company from any liability. But the release received from the Ecuadorian government does not insulate the company from lawsuits brought by private citizens. Given that Texaco failed to adequately clean up the waste pits, legal scholars in Ecuador have indicated it might not even insulate the company from a future lawsuit brought by the Ecuadorian government.

Chevron claims that there is no scientific evidence linking the company’s drilling practices with the high incidence of cancer and other health problems found in communities near its oil production zones. Three scientific studies published in prestigious international journals, including one that was done under the auspices of the London School of Tropical Medicine, document a growing health crisis, including eight types of cancer and numerous spontaneous abortions. Chevron continues to deny the company’s moral and ethical responsibility to remediate the massive contamination Texaco left behind.

We all want to invest in a profitable corporation. However, innocent human life and the environment should not be sacrificed in the name of profit. There can be no doubt that the contamination left behind in the Ecuadorian Amazon contributed, and continues to contribute, to the deaths of innocent people.

I would like to quote Al Gore, speaking after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans:

Winston Churchill sounded warnings of what was at stake when the storm was gathering on Europe: “The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.” ... Ladies and gentlemen, the warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences.

There is another side to this moral challenge. Where there is vision, the people prosper and flourish, and the natural world recovers, and our communities recover. The good news is we know what to do. The good news is, we have everything we need now to respond to the challenge of global warming. We have all the technologies we need, more are being developed, and as they become available and become more affordable when produced in scale, they will make it easier to respond. But we should not wait, we cannot wait, we must not wait. We have every thing we need - save perhaps political will. And in our democracy, political will is a renewable resource.

I would urge you to make global warming your priority. I would urge you to focus on a unified theme. I would urge you to work with other groups in ways that have not been done in the past, even though there have been important efforts on your part and the part of others. I would urge you to make this a moral moment. To make this a moral cause.

The World Future Council

I am the chair of the World Future Council; our aim is to develop a long-term strategy to tackle climate change. The World Future Council is a new voice in the global political arena, one that draws on our shared human values to champion the rights of future generations and works to ensure that humanity acts now for a sustainable future.

Facing global challenges

Despite having the means to tackle many of the problems we currently face, the existing global system of governance has so far seemed incapable of addressing them, often failing to adopt available solutions. The World Future Council will identify and promote successful policies, using existing networks to connect with parliamentarians and civil society organizations worldwide, arguing not for an ideology, or a nation, or a religion, or a political party, but for one thing only: our common future.

Tackling climate change

There is now little doubt that climate change has become a reality. Glaciers are melting all over the world. Weather patterns are becoming more erratic. The IPPC forecasts increases of global mean temperatures of up to 5.8 degrees this century and sea level rises of up to one meter. Half the world's people live within 50 km of seashores and their lives will be severely affected by flooding. Up to a million species of plants and animals could be lost due to climate change. Are viable transitional scenarios available to deal with climate change? Can the widely acclaimed “Contraction and Convergence” scenario be implemented through international agreement? Can emissions trading be made to work? What might be its limits? Could biological and technical carbon sequestration be part of a transitional strategy over the coming decades? Is adaptation to, rather than prevention of, climate change a realistic scenario?

Please visit the website of the World Future Council at www.worldfuturecouncil.org.

Please consider the issues I have spoken about today.

Thank you for listening.