Lagos

Ricardo Lagos’ election to the presidency of Chile earlier this year set a new landmark in the country’s long transition from dictatorship to democracy. He is the first Chilean Socialist president since Salvador Allende, who was elected in 1970 and overthrown in a 1973 coup staged by Gen. Augusto Pinochet, with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Throughout his political career, Lagos has been a Western European-style social democrat. He is praised as a man always willing to walk the extra mile to reach consensus. During his presidential campaign, however, his political moderation cost him the support of the communists.

Lagos rose to national prominence in 1988, when he led a campaign to defeat a referendum to keep Pinochet in power. During a memorable television appearance, Lagos pointed his finger at the camera and, as if talking directly to the dictator, he told Pinochet that the country had had enough of his repression, torture and executions. Later that night, according to reliable sources, Pinochet was “climbing the wall” after watching the broadcast.

Lagos’ act of defiance earned him the leadership of the Socialists, and in 1990, a coalition of the Socialist Party of Chile and the Christian Democratic Party won the presidency. Lagos served first as minister of education and then as public-works minister in two successive administrations. He holds a doctorate degree in economics from Duke University and a law degree from the University of Chile.

Though he has been in office less than a year, Lagos has led his country out of its first recession in almost 20 years. Chile’s gross domestic product is expected to grow by as much as 6% in 2001. Unemployment, however, continues to run at close to 9%.

A confirmed free-trader, Lagos is pushing for more free-trade zones in the Western Hemisphere, starting with strengthening Chile’s trade relations with Mercosur, the trade bloc that includes Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. After that, Lagos wants to revive President Bill Clinton’s idea, first broached in late 1994 at the Summit of the Americas in Miami, of a hemispheric free-trade zone that would include Chile, Mercosur and members of the North American Free Trade Agreement--Mexico, Canada and the United States. Because of its strong free-market economy and political stability, Chile is seen in the United States as the model for Latin American countries to emulate.

Lagos will be visiting California Nov. 28-29 to reaffirm his conviction that of all the countries in South America, Chile is the one most capable of creating its own Silicon Valley. To support his optimism, he cites Chile’s high levels of education and high-tech communications infrastructure. Internet use in Chile, as a percentage of the population, is the highest in South America.

Lagos, 62, is an agnostic in a Catholic country. He divorced his first wife, with whom he had two children, even though divorce is illegal in Chile. Since 1971, he’s been married to Luisa Duran de la Fuente. They have one daughter. He loves classical music and gardening.

He was interviewed at the presidential palace, La Moneda.

*

Question: How would you characterize the U.S.-Chile relationship?

Answer: It is now going through one of its best moments. In the political realm, we share the same values. We both believe in representative democracy as the best form of government and we both place a lot of emphasis on the respect for human rights. Regarding economics, we both support free trade. We await the arrival of the new administration in the U.S. to renew talks about Chile’s participation in NAFTA.

*

Q: Does Chile really want a free-trade agreement with the U.S.?

A: Yes. Chile has a very open economy. More than 50% of our products are imports. Very few countries have this level of openness. Our trade is very well-balanced. About one-third of it is with Europe, 25% to 20% with the U.S. and a similar percentage with Asia.

*

Q: But your main trading partner is the Mercosur trade bloc, isn’t it?

A: With Mercosur, we have a political agreement more than an economic alliance. You do your foreign policy from your own region.

*

Q: Do you think the influence of the United States over Latin American countries has diminished since the end of the Cold War?

A: Most evidently. One of the effects of the Cold War was that the whole world understood Latin America was under the U.S. sphere of influence. I realize what I am going to tell you sounds a bit paradoxical, but the end of the Cold War brings a higher degree of independence to Latin America . . . as long as the United States continues to be the undisputed economic, political and military power.

*

Q: Can you negotiate a free-trade agreement with the U.S. if the U.S. president lacks fast-track authority?

A: In Chile, I can negotiate any agreement, but our Congress decides whether to approve it or not as a package. I would expect the same from the U.S. I can’t negotiate one agreement with the executive, then negotiate the same thing with the Congress.

*

Q: Why does Chile want to get more involved in the Mercosur?

A: Because economic integration must be followed by a common political mission. I want to believe that someday there will be a free-trade hemispheric zone. Within it, Latin America could form an important bloc for negotiations with the U.S.

*

Q: How advanced are negotiations with the Mercosur?

A: Politically, things are going very well. We, the presidents of the countries in the region, have found common ground. But if we understand Mercosur just as an agreement to deal with tariffs and customs, then the agreement is not advancing at the right speed. As you know, Chile’s tariffs are very low, in comparison with those of other countries in the region.

*

Q: Is it true that Chile supports the idea of including Mexico in a larger version of the Mercosur?

A: I think Mexico can play an important role precisely because Mexico is already in NAFTA.

*

Q: Aren’t these economic groups often formed not to promote free trade but to increase protectionism?

A: Yes. But we should not forget that there is another debate on the hemispheric free trade zone underway. Every country in the hemisphere must understand that to make this hemispheric agreement happen, every nation must prepare itself for that moment. We should all understand that the free-trade hemispheric zone would be one of the big blocs that will be in play in the 21st century.

*

Q: You and Vicente Fox, Mexico’s next president, have a very good relationship. How did that happen?

A: In 1997, when he was governor of Guanajuato and I was secretary of public works, he came to Chile. We agreed that the spirit of competition and the free market drives life in the global village. At the same time, we live in a world that needs public policies to restore some kind of equilibrium for people in desperate need. The free-market economy doesn’t protect them.

*

Q: Could you elaborate?

A: I may want to have a free-market economy but I don’t want a free-market society. Why? Because that would reproduce the inequalities created by the free-market economy. I want to live in a society that provides free quality education to everyone from elementary school to college. I want a health-care system in which those who can pay will pay, but those who cannot pay can be guaranteed a minimum of health care. Some people believe that by leaving the market free, its benefits will trickle down to the poor. I don’t believe the trickling down happens.

*

Q: Are you concerned about the current political instability in Peru?

A: My biggest concern is how to strengthen democracy in the region. It isn’t good for Latin America to be perceived as an unstable region, because that hurts us all. That is why I hope the Peruvians can solve their problems. I hope they hold clean and transparent elections. As somebody once said, you may have a good house, but if the neighborhood is no good . . .

*

Q: Some say Chile has an illegal immigration problem, with Peruvian laborers, in particular. How do you regard them?

A: They come here looking for a job because the economic situation in their country, and in many other countries, is not good. I would like to find a way to resolve this situation within a labor framework. They suffer discrimination and often are cheated of many of the benefits they are entitled to as workers. . . . That is terrible. We recently passed a law to allow them to regularize their status, but we won’t solve the problem as long as the different economic situations between both countries persist. You know that in California.

*

Q: In the U.S., the illegal entry of workers takes precedence over their labor rights.

A: That would be a problem. When you abuse the rights of a few workers who can’t fight for themselves for fear of their immigration status, you hurt all workers.

*

Q: Are you concerned that U.S. assistance to the Colombian military might lead to an arms race in the region?

A: I don’t believe it will make us increase our military budgets. My concern is that if the Colombian issue is addressed only in military terms, the problem will not be solved. My other concern is that we will reach a point at which the countries in the region are forced to intervene in the conflict in Colombia. Yet, I can understand why the Colombian military is asking for arms to fight a group financed by drug traffickers who have large economic resources. We should also watch that the weapons the Colombian government receives are adequate for an internal, not external, war. With that kind of weaponry, they can’t tilt the balance of power in the region.

*

Q: Should criticism of human rights violations be construed as a form of interventionism?

A: When human rights were violated in Chile, we learned that whenever the rights of human beings are violated, another human being should raise his voice to denounce it. On human rights issues, there can be no borders.

*

Q: Do you believe current U.S. policy toward Cuba makes sense?

A: There is no justification for the embargo.

*

Q: We just heard that retired Gen. Manuel Contreras, Augusto Pinochet’s intelligence chief, was on the CIA payroll. Does that make him a traitor?

A: To work for another country’s secret service makes one a traitor.

*

Q: Have you demanded an explanation from the U.S.?

A: Yes, the Chilean foreign ministry sent a diplomatic note outlining the implications of that report and saying they were unacceptable. We also expressed our hope that such incidents never take place again.

*

Q: Some Chileans have told me they believe the U.S. should apologize to Chile for its participation in the 1973 coup against this country’s legitimate president. Do you agree?

A: I believe so. I think it does a country good to look back and reflect on its actions. Of course, the U.S. can look back and argue that the coup was a byproduct of the Cold War. However, I do believe that an honest explanation honors those who offer it.

*

Q: An apology or an explanation?

A: Well, that will be up to whoever does it. But his words must be clear and sincere.

*

Q: What would be the best way for Chile to put the Pinochet affair to rest?

A: We have come a long way. Just a year ago, no one would have thought that Chile’s judicial system was independent enough to lift Sen. Pinochet’s immunity. I believe the affair should end with a judicial decision . . . and that includes the possibility of medical exams for anyone over 70 years of age.

*

Q: In 1973, there was a trucker’s strike just before the coup. Recently, one just ended. Do you believe there is any danger that the military in Chile may attempt a coup?

A: None whatsoever.