 Good morning and welcome to CSIS. I'm Steve Johnson, the Director of the America's Program and it's my distinct pleasure to welcome you this morning to an extraordinary event. We have a singular personality with us today, a truly great American and I mean that not in the sense of North American or US citizen but in the sense of a hemispheric citizen in terms of the America's somebody who has fought for human rights and democracy and helped bring moderate democratic government, a government that is exemplary in many different ways to all of us throughout the globe. Ricardo Lagos, former president of Chile. I'm not going to go too much into detail into his history and the book that we have which is also for sale I might mention for $29 and for those of you who brought copies of your book you'll be able to have an opportunity to have President Lagos sign the book after our discussion this morning but I'm going to turn that over to Ambassador Craig Kelly who was actually serving in Chile at the time that to President Lagos was in office. Before I do that I would just have a couple of administrative requests from you if you could please turn your cell phones off or at least to stun mode so that we don't have any ringing throughout the presentation and also during the question and answer would ask you to if you have a question to please identify yourself who you what organization you represent and keep your questions or commentaries fairly brief so we can have a good wide-ranging dialogue with all of you here today and without any further remarks on my part I'd like to introduce Craig Kelly. Stephen thank you very much it's a great honor to be able to introduce President Lagos today just as it was a great honor to serve in Chile as U.S. Ambassador during part of his tenure. A quick glance at President Lagos's career is exhausting but I'm going to do so very very briefly knowing that my main duty is actually to leave the podium but President Lagos was it was a brilliant student in Chile then came to the United States got his PhD at Duke taught at the University of North Carolina I don't know how he resolves this at mad March Madness time but that's his problem then went back in various teaching and administrative capacities at the prestigious University of Chile when after the after Chile's September 11 September 11 1973 the coup in Chile he left the country was in Argentina was in the United States spent about four years outside of Chile but then went back and worked with various U.N. agencies but assumed leadership of the pro-democracy movement in Chile and became famous around the world for his courage and for his articulate expression of the need for return to mark to democracy in his country he became a president of action democratically he was imprisoned for a while and then became leader of the the note the so-called no campaign in the 1988 referendum and was did an interview on television in fact they should have brought my copy President Lagos was a famous interview on channel 13 in Chile of the various pro-democracy and pro-government forces and at one point during the interview he famously looked into the camera assuming that general Pinochet was watching pointed his finger at the camera and said I speak for 15 years of silence a very effective moment which galvanized the opposition campaign and we all know the result the no campaign one which led eventually to the restoration of democratic government in 1990 now if if he had simply stopped there in his political career and returned to academia he would already have gone down and as one of the most consequential figures in modern Chilean history but he did not stop there and he was minister of his minister of education under President Elwin the first government and after the after the Pinochet period first democratic government as minister of education he implemented a vision which which laid out that a good part of Chile's inequalities were related to inequalities in the educational system and so we undertook various incentives to improve schools something that was remained very dear to his heart throughout his career as president and even today in the next Chilean government of President Frey he served as minister of public works and implemented very innovative programs of private public partnerships involving concessions to build new roads new ports and so forth in Chile anyone who's had the pleasure of traveling on Chile's excellent highways or visited its very efficient ports has president Lagos to thank for this again these are projects which continued during his presidency and that presidency which ran from 2000 to 2006 was noted for president Lagos's ability to combine the issue his deep deep commitment to greater equality greater social inclusion in his country and including innovative programs in health and housing conditional cash transfer programs the famous Chile solely the program which involve conditional cash transfers and visits by social workers to the homes of the poor and so forth but combining all this with the economic efficiency for which Chile is famous free trade agreements with the European Union with the United States and opening up to the world the result we have today as a country which has free trade agreement something ambassador Carly Hills knows very well free trade agreements with more countries than anyone else in the world 56 other countries Chile has some kind of free trade agreement with and then in foreign policy bringing Chile to the world stage when I first arrived in Chile present Lagos hosted the APEC forum and and was very present on not only regionally but on the world stage something he has continued today as a global statesman with the UN as the leader of the so-called Club de Madrid the former presidents in reading this wonderful book and I encourage you to read it I just heard Ambassador Hills saying that she it was it was a great read it really is one it's hard to put down once you start I'm reminded in reading the book of a couple of really key tenants in present Lagos's career one is his ability to forge a synthesis of ideas that some people might consider incompatible you very hard to pigeonhole president Lagos for instance during the resistance during the anti-pinochet campaign he knew that apart from expressing moral fervor the the anti the pro-democracy anti-pinochet forces also had to show that they could run the country they were going to be asked at some point to take over the country and they had to prove that they were able to do that so you had to you had to express not just what you were against but what you were for likewise once in power dealing with the human rights legacy of the pinotchet period I always was marveled at how Chile managed to look openly at the past and the book describes the various reports the reddit report the Valic report and so forth about the abuses of the past without being held back without being without being paralyzed by the past and everyone knows what Chile has done to move forward in recent years and this owes a lot I believe to present Lagos's ability to see two ideas at once and put them together in a in an effective way similarly with the economy all the programs for social justice along with that the well-known economic reforms in 1990 when democratic government return that poverty rate in Chile was 44% today it's under 14% so again this synthesis of social justice economic efficiency has been something that has made Chile famous around the world also I remember President Lagos as someone who had an extraordinary ability to deal with people of all political persuasions I happened to be there when when President Bush came down for APEC it's no secret that that Chile in the United States had different views on the war in Iraq and yet the personal relationship between them was warm and this is described in the book and it's a fascinating part of the book President Lagos's relation with leaders of the other side of the political spectrum around the world in concluding I'd like to say that I think that our view of Chile today has a lot to do with this man because we today when we think of Chile we think of well the title of the book the southern tiger of the efficient model economy and so forth but for many people of my generation when you thought of Chile 30 40 years ago you thought of an autocrat named Pinochet and for a lot of people he appeared to sort of the quintessential Latin autocrat and there was an identification of some of Chile with this form of government when President Lagos was in the pro-democracy movement in the 80s he saw it as one of its fundamental tasks to show to people that this was an aberration in Chile in history that Chile had an honored history of Republican Democratic government and that this period was an aberration and that Chile had to return to those Democratic roots and I remember very fondly I had wonderful conversations with President Lagos when he was in La Moneda in the presidential palace but when he retired from presidency I was still ambassador and I remember some very wonderful conversations including a lunch at my residence in which he talked a lot about 19th century Chilean history and it dawned on me how that history must have inspired him during the resistance that that Chile had this this very honored past of participatory and representative government so the Mr. President it's Winston Churchill was was famous for once having said treat a history will treat me kindly because I intend to write it I would say that history will treat you kindly because you shaped it you shaped modern Chilean history and and it's an honor for all of us to be here with you to hear a little bit of your story and I just want to welcome you once again to Washington's and honor to be with you thank you sir well thank you Ambassador Kelly for your kind words whatever he says you have to the bye bye at least 50% because he's very close on your mind but I thank you also for the invitation to to be able to talk with you this morning about this a book publication probably I should start saying what the book is not about it's not a formally memoir a long-standing memoir full of food notes something like that a friend of mine told me I know what you're planning to do to write a book it's going to be about the three volume book full of food notes and I guess that one American student will read that book when he's writing a PhD dissertation comparing the taxation of Chile in the early 21st century visa visa Argentina and some other PhD student probably is going to do something similar in some other areas but no more than three or four American people will read your very interesting memoir so why don't you write something that people will read it not very long etc etc so I wrote this thinking in in the general public and assuming that they know very little about the faraway country called Chile number two I didn't know that was very difficult to do this because let me tell you the publishers if you don't know are really the one that put the title to the book I didn't like so much the title and then when I finished the whole thing they told me that one hundred thousand one hundred thousand words was the maximum and I have a one hundred and five thousand so they decided to cut it five thousand the reason they told me it's very simply because they are going to go to a bookstore and say oh what interesting is the book you know Chile I say Chile is far away but I'm going to take it and the next decision was always they say to me is to see how many pages oh 300 something oh no that's too much for Chile period well other thing in that what is it not about it's true that to some extent the title that you have about the past the present and the future what about the past I will say that because they got to the past I have a long-term problem with the past of Chile that when Chile celebrate the hundred years of independence in 1910 well Chile was at the peak of the development at that time and then 50 years later an important economist wrote Chile a case of a frustrated development and the issue is why Chile didn't make it at that time Chile has a per capita income very much like Sweden I don't need to tell what is the difference today so that was one thing and the second thing with regard to the past it's a very recent past that we have with about the 17 years of Pinochet dictatorship and let me tell you that since 1831 after a very short period of anarchy right after independence we have had in Chile the rule of law this is something that somebody told me yesterday during 117 days other than that always the rule of law was established in Chile the democratic institution fulfilled what they are supposed to do there was there was a long-standing democratic tradition even in the so-called civil war in Chile and therefore it was rather unusual to have that kind of thing in our country and therefore recover democracy was the most important thing and in the book what I tried to explain is it's so difficult how would you start trying to recover democracy when you have a very strong government and where the rule of law is not respected human right violations is everyday life etc etc and then the big issue was how you're going to be able to form a coalition of party that used to be adversaries in the democratic system and now they realize that to agree around some basic democratic and human rights institutions is essential and therefore no matter what your difference are going to be you have to be together if you want to fulfill the idea of defeating a dictatorship number two how are you going to do and here then we have again a lot of discussions in Chile today look back very easy but the discussion was among those things that look the only way to defeat a dictatorship that is based on the power of the army is to defeat by violent means and therefore how I'm going to get arms where and how I'm going to train people and we say look this is not the tradition of Chile if we're going to defeat the market is going to be through non-violent means and it was a very strong discussion at the time and I would say that the fact that there was an attempt against Pinochet right after I discovered a huge amount of ammunition and arms being taken by by Pinochet forces this is what produced I would say in practical terms the defeat of those that thought that was possible to to go through violent means the uprising or the struggle of the Chilean people and for me that was nonsense if people was going to be afraid later just to sign for the political party that was a party of the opposition according to the rules of the of Pinochet constitution if they were afraid to do that what about taking an arm to fight you know and what I tried to explain is is this discussion that we have first trying to make it there's so many different factions of the socialist party and why we became the so-called the Swiss because we were neutral with so many divisions and we were only six people or seven people more than that when we I recollect the numbers of people that we were talking of these issues is ridiculous really and this is something that I mentioned in the book and the other thing that I guess is important yesterday somebody told me and say you say very little about the US involvement in the coup and and I say look I think that that is rather well known but more important I would say the coup was the consequence that we were fighting among ourselves in Chile that there was some help from the outside there's no question is we are talking about the period of the Cold War that we are talking about when you are with me or against me therefore is black and white but let me clear it was our fault why we lost democracy and it was our will to recover democracy by democratic means and this is what we tried to do and the other thing that I guess is important but not as very well known that the change of the American policy vis-a-vis Chile took place during the Reagan administration and under Schultz as a secretary of state and this is rather unusual I could say but at some time American foreign policy understood that the future of Chile was in the hands of those that in the opposition were trying to fight by democratic means and nonviolent means and I remember that this I don't think is in the book I remember once talking with President Bush and he was rather surprised when somebody told him that I has been in prison for a short period of time and President Bush say and what you did well you know there was an attempt against Pinochet and they decided to put me on jail also you were involved in that no I was not involved in that attempt against Pinochet and then why they took you to prison well because that is a dictatorship about you know and then I told him but you see the first person that went to see me when I was in prison was somebody from the American embassy on behalf of the ambassador they did that yes I did that and I was didn't know I was told later that in a visit to the State Department President Bush mentioned this anecdote and say I want that you remind that whenever somebody is in prison then an American should go to see why is that because if he's fighting for democracy then you have to be at his side I say this because this is the way that well I then wish as you mentioned we have some not very well understanding with regard to Iraq but that's another story that is also mentioned in the book by the way of course I wrote I wrote the chapter about that the usual way for foreign policy and those that were editing the book in a way that was a little bit more interesting one of them is the best here with me this morning they say don't you think that is a rather boring title why don't you push better Bush Saddam and me and that's exactly the title of the chapter but even though the agreement was that no food notes are going to be on the book that chapter has a food note that is essential to understand what was really how important was a Chile said at that moment in the world stage because the food note explained very clear that only by coincidence Chile became involved in those issues and etc etc it's a funny story other than that I would say that with regard to the pressure of Chile it's true there was 20 years of government from socialist and Christian Democrats and some other political forces in Chile it's true we were together in the transition to say no to Pinochet which is quite easy you just have to say no it's a little bit more difficult when you realize that if you don't want to have in Chile political vacuum then you have to organize to run a government which is a little bit more difficult not to just say no and I think that what happened in those four years of Elwin's administration is that we realize that it's one thing to go from transition from dictatorship to democracy and it's another thing much more difficult trying to go from a very underdeveloped to a more developed country to a rather to a rather Bagua to a more modern to be able to keep because your market is very small opening trade with other parts of the world and you want to compete at the world stage that is difficult to tackle the issue of human right violations as you mentioned but we have to do it if we want to build with regard to the future as I used to saying and the rest of the Chilean people in not that not to the repeat repeat again those violations never deny that those violations occur in the past in other ways truth is becoming essential and important to seal precisely the guns of the past and therefore I think that the decision to open up the country through free trade for us was essential as part of our own development and at the same time the fact that if you have decided to go to competition in a globalized world then the big issue is going to be what are going to be the rules of the game and we know how important are the rules of the game but we're going to establish the rules of the game and this is the reason why when at the end vis-a-vis Iraq and I tried to explain that in the book they have to do with something very essential from the point of view of our point of view because we say look at that time we wear the Security Council and we say everything has to be taken within the Security Council and if you ask me to go to war in a coalition of the willing outside the Security Council I have to say no because I undermining the multilateral institutions that are the institutions that are supposed to establish the rules of the game and therefore from our point of view when you are in a small country well this question of how are you going to establish that rules and where is essential and to some extent if you see what's going on after 2008 or what is today in Europe well the discussion is about who is going to establish at the very end the rules of the game don't you think it's rather unusual that those agencies that are supposed to establish what is the risk of particular country will tell you to the Minister of Finance what they have to do don't you think that is the other way around that citizens select governments and the government are supposed to shape how a society is going to to work even though I understand it's very important in today's financial market I cannot believe that the financial market at the end dictate what are the rules of the game this is a very important issue in today's world and therefore I do believe that 80 because if you believe in free trade then well the World Trade Organization is the way to discuss the major issues when we were discussing the issues of empty dumping with United States well we agreed that given our discussions it was not going to be possible for us little country to ask United States why don't you change the rules of empty dumping because we don't think they are very fair for us and they say well I don't think that we are going to do that you know we didn't do that when we discussed with Mexico and Canada together we are not going to do it for Chile but then we agreed to say why don't we take that at the well state at the World Health Organization and in the doha development round we put the issue of empty dumping and we discussed at the multilateral level this is what I think should be normally the case in this case and in others and among others and therefore the big issue is with regard to the present I would say when we were able to have a transition to transitions and the second one means that we decided to keep our coalition together and never was a formal decision on that it just happened that we have to keep together the coalition in order to fulfill that how are we going to be able to go to a more developed country and I think that to some extent we succeed with regard to the future all of you are aware of what happened as we are in Chile in 2011 about their students demonstration but more than that I would say was not only a student was some sort of a malaise in Chilean society and how is that that this country that used to make things very well that somebody write a book up with the title the Southern Tiger now you have that kind of thing and it's my impression that this is the consequence of the success of our story because we were able to reduce poverty as you mentioned for 40% to 13% in 20 years but that means that that 27% of the population that leave poverty behind you now they consider themselves some sort of middle income classes and they have a different kind of demands from Chilean society if we are proud to have a seven out of ten student in the university system but at the same time most of that has to be paid not by government by state taxes but by private people and if you have an income of let's say two thousand dollars per month and you have to pay a tuition two three up to four hundred dollars per month and if you have to at the university well you have problems don't you think so and therefore what is going to be your demand don't you think that Chilean society has to make a bigger effort so that everybody can afford going to college and if you don't have some kind of a scholarship are going to be in order to make sure that opportunities in Chile are equal for everybody because once that your kid was able to go to the university finally first time in the in that family well that's a that's a different demand that when you are living under the poverty line number two because you have this emerging middle class well society will need to address these issues in a different way because also this emerging middle class now is much more informed much more in power there's something called internet and therefore that means something quite different in the way that you understand how you get informed now this is not only in Chile of course till what extent without internet it would be much more difficult to have the average spring the so-called average spring until what extent because of those Arab spring then there is going to be something that you can call democracy 2.0 because I would say that normally democracy up to now have been 1.0 in what sense that after Gutenberg discovered the the press 200 years later or 250 years later somebody decided why don't we build some news every day and that's the paper and the times in in England in the UK and if you're going to print news that has to do with public affairs then why don't we have instead of the king a democratic system all of us know what's going on in the country so we can say something about that and some French philosopher on the other across the channel you know decided that it's possible to have something like that like Montesquieu that goes on etc etc all you don't know the history and what was politics about to have a leader several leaders to talk about public affairs and people will listen people will listen and they vote now it's true during those days to vote you have to have some property and you have to be a male then things are touching a little then you have the radio but again now you can listen but you are not supposed to answer to the leader that was talking on the radio then you have the TV but you are not supposed to answer to the guy that was talking on TV the big change is that for the first time I like to say this to go back to Athens Square but in Athens not not the answer until today of course no no that the other you know rather that Athens you know well was no more than 150 males not slaves of course and they talk to each other in the square all of them were political leaders at once and all of them were able to talk to each other and to convince or not to convince and today with this new technological platform you are back in the square with the only difference that instead of 150 you have probably more than in this country more than 150 millions as citizens being able to talk to each other and you make a speech you write a book and as soon as you finish you will receive a 200,000 tweeters you know saying that you are such an stupid guy and then they give you the reason why you are that you know I mean it's a different way now how politicians in the 21st century are going to be able to understand that they produce they emit ideas and they receive ideas from everybody so I say this is democracy 2.0 and are you going to have institutions built around this idea that we still have no idea because by definition democracy is a system by which you elect those that are going to represent you in parliament and you elect those that things like you more conservatives on liberals more right-wing or left-wing whatever you want to call it because of the democratic platform you decided when are you going to protest and then in order to protest you go to the square in Cairo well you can understand even the system that the political system that they have but don't you think that is something different when one year later in Italy because the constitution of Italy established that there can be a plebiscite to abrogate a law established in parliament and the citizens then with a number of signatures can call for a plebiscite and they call it plebiscite the plebiscite was about four laws approved by parliament to protect the prime minister of that time against some judicial problems legal problems the plebiscite to be able to be imposed over the will of the parliament and to abrogate the law require a number of people going to vote that day well there was not a single political debate about the plebiscite in Italy you can imagine why but the fact is that because of the network they won the plebiscite and they abrogate four laws approved by parliament then you have a constitution that has an institution established in order that the citizen decided to organize etc etc big question how it's going to be our democracy and the theory of representation when you have this kind of thing I'm not saying that everything will go to plebiscite all 19 days in the same way that because Gutenberg the press etc etc now you have a democratic system how this democratic system is going to change if ever in the sense final point I think that in today's world this question is going to be essential in order that our government and our institutions are legitimate till what extent you are going to lose some legitimacy if you are unable to keep in track with these issues and in our case in Chile I think that what we are seeing now is a sense that to discuss about the future not only political parties can participate and political parties are not the only one that has enough legitimacy and therefore about our future I would say if we want not to repeat what's happened 100 years ago it's true now given the economic crisis we are performing rather well this year we are going to have a growth of about 5% I mean excuse me last year this year 2012 is going to be around 4% which is not bad and now we have about the 15 16 thousand dollars per capita income we are looking forward for when are we going to be in the threshold of the 20,000 and probably the big issue then is going to be more distribution of income rather than fighting poverty and this make a tremendous change and therefore the the question for Chile I would say how are we going to be able to organize our society in the stage where we are now which is different on the state that we were in 1990 and sometimes the major difficult for political leaders is to be able to agree in some idea of how the country is going to be organized we agree to have a very open country from the point of view of trade we agree at the end that it was necessary to look to the past in order not to repeat the mistakes in the future we agree to have some sort of political arrangement but now I think that those agreements has to be overcome by different challenges and the big issue is in order to have a bright future better we address these real issues fortunately for us are not only real issues for Chile I think that the question of distribution is becoming a question not only in under developed but also in the developed world to have in this country a movement that is called the 99% it sounds incredible for me I think that is so sophisticated to understand what that means 99% you know in this room everybody understand that but it's it's unusual I guess that something has to do with the technological platform and this is where I think that some of our best idea has to be more in short I tried to to write a book thinking in in these issues until what extent I wouldn't attempt to say what we did was something very new very novel not at all simply that sometimes is necessary a little bit of common sense in politics and I think that we try to employ our common sense in politics to have a broad coalition to perform some things and to understand that that was essential from the point of view of the country and let me tell you I wonder if I can say this here sometimes I perceive that this society that I get to know 50 years ago when I came to study today is a much more polarized society and I don't think that that's a good idea in terms of a political scenario and probably some kind of understanding what are the bridges between different political groups in a society and to build bridges at the end it's probably another aspect of a good political leader and when you try to build bridges then I guess the country may be better thank you now we'll move to a the conversation phase mr. thank you very much for those remarks and listen to you I'm reminded again of how you're able to pull things together there was a phrase that president logos used to use when he was president of Chile when he referred to the need to open up the windows toward the past but continue moving forward he used to say no I'm a nana senior there was no tomorrow without yesterday and you have to do both and Chile has done both if anyone would like to ask a question make a comment please identify yourself and please sir and microphone is coming thank you I'm Tom Rekford with the World Affairs Council mr. president you've talked a bit about Chilean relations with the United States I wonder given your knowledge of the sweep of history how would you characterize Chilean relations with Argentina over the years well thank you thank you for that question because let me put this way our relation with Argentina at the beginning extremely good we were together to fight for independence and the in the early 19th century then there was a time when most Latin American countries were in the process of trying to make sure what is my identity as a country what are my boundaries what is the piece of land that I own and then that was the people when we were discussing about frontiers and limits and so on and so forth and I think that in the 20th century we were solved most of our problems and because of that then we were able to fit together what about the future and I would say that in order to a more globalized world are we going to be able to work with Argentina together are we going to be able to have some sort of integration economic physical integration and we have had some advantages important advances like a different attempts to have a better integration like a gas loop that we were built and I will say that in the case of today we have a good relation with Argentina even though they had some problems but at the same time I think that the big issue is that Argentina is a much richer country that Chile in terms of natural resources and and natural endowments they have three meters of a very nice land they can produce two or three crops of wheat every year we only have one because we only have less than one meter of very good soil so those difference will exist nevertheless I think that Argentina like many other countries in Latin America is becoming also a middle income country in terms of per capita income and of course Argentina and Uruguay had a very strong middle class in all of the 20th century and therefore in that sense they are much more mature countries than we now I think those things are beginning a little bit more even and I think that in the case of Argentina and Chile or to some extent Brazil needless to say Uruguay of course Colombia emerging very rapidly all that those are countries in South America that now benefit from what's going on in China and some other demands of our natural resources and number two that means that we are going to have similar problems with this emerging new demands of the middle classes and how we're going to be able to be dealing with that other than that I would say well Argentina now has always had a I would say a rather different political system from Chile ours is a much more ideologically oriented in Argentina the fact of peronism produce a tremendous change in the political landscape that still remains many years after Perón died and it's a fact a very important political fact and therefore we have to understand that our friends at the other side of the mountain has that kind of political system and we have to see how are we going to be able to understand to each other and to respect to each other so I would say that now our relations are good relations no matter that we understand that to have good relation doesn't mean that our government has to have similar ideologies and this I think is very important yeah I see a number of hands that mark I think yours is the first go ahead microphone here please mark Schneider international crisis group thank you very much mr. president you spoke eloquently about the importance of rules of the game being established and being followed particularly in terms of protecting small countries if one looks at the rules of the game in the Americas in terms of the democratic system a decade ago the American Democratic Charter was adopted and since then we've seen several countries where key elements like the independence of the judiciary have come under attack if one looks at how do you encourage respect for that those rules of the game you see any way in which in Latin America the Latin American countries can come together to press for respect for and adherence to the American Democratic Charter obviously Venezuela there are several countries where those issues are of great concern I guess that the answer maybe probably is necessary that is to explain to some other acting presidents that there is life after being president probably they don't know do you know this is something that was taught to me by former president Betancourt that once told me you know I have a good news for you I was candidate for president I had a good news for you there is life after being president and then he had the only problem that first you have to be president well but other than that I could say that I can understand why presidents say need more power to do one two three four you know okay but the question is that we understand also how political intuition should work and it seems to me that it may be necessary to have a stronger institutions in the hemisphere if now you have the so-called Selig this community of Latin American and Caribbean states well I think that it would be so important to discuss those issues very openly in the Selig of course to discuss those are in the organization of American state but if you say no this is something that we discuss among ourselves okay let's discuss among ourselves now let me tell you whenever I say about Latin American states I try to explain this once to Prime Minister Cretan and we of course we talk with Cretan in English and Cretan then turn very rapidly to Spanish go to French and say she's a president je parle français je suis latino-ci so they're going to have a Latin American country Canada would like to be there as a French speaking country but other than that inviting to Canada I say that it's important how are we going to be able to address those issues because I've become more and more common you know particularly the question about the judiciary and the other question to be interesting very much is the question of the press you know and how the professional press is going to be fulfilled and here go in both ways you know because in some cases the press only represent those that can afford to have a general and that's another side of the equation but anyhow that's a little bit more difficult to to address thank you president Lagos Johanna Mendelssohn from CSIS I was very taken by your words about democracy 2.0 and some of the implications of social media and you mentioned the Arab Spring Chile might have a lot to teach Egyptians particularly in a military transition and I was wondering if you personally had had any contact with the new government in Egypt or whether colleagues of yours had been trying to discuss comparative lessons of military transitions which are taking place in another part of the world but there are many similarities to the kinds of issues that you face in Chile thank you well let me tell you personally unfortunately I was invited by United Nations to be part of a mission and because of the agenda I couldn't make it I know that some friend of mine that has played an important role in in Chile's concertation of the political democratic parties has been involved in Egypt and has been in with talk with most of the leaders of the new the new leaders of Egypt now let me tell you that it's true what you mentioned how are you going to be dealing with the issue particularly with the military and the importance of military in those countries I can understand how Prime Minister Erdogan in Turkey is becoming such a figure to imitate and the way that he has been able to address the issue of the military establishment Kemal Atatouk the founder of the military etc etc and let me tell you also that I think that we have been able in Chile at this during my time you know I was lucky enough before amending Pinochet's constitution that didn't allow the president to dismiss commander-in-chief and some other high-end generals I was able to do that because they realize that in the modern world militaries has to be subordinated to those that are entitled of the political will of the people and therefore that's part of an institution now how are you going to be able to explain them that now is a different game and to be respected at the world stage you need to walk with democratic credentials and among other things that means how are you going to be able to address the issue with the military and the question is that if you participate in politics you are welcome to the club but please leave the uniform in the barrack because if you are going to have the monopoly of the power then you cannot participate about who is going to be the power because that's precisely the reason why you have an army and when you have an army all of us agree that they will have the monopoly of the power but when and how you use that power can never those two decisions can be made by those that has the power somebody else made the decision when and how and when and how belong to those that are elected by the people now I know it's difficult to explain this decision I know that every country is different whenever my Spanish French used to give me lessons I say yes I understand thank you for the lesson but let me remind you that you wait till Franco die to make the transition and we did transition with Franco alive so it's a different music that kind of thing is different and the fact you know that what's going on now is going to be so important that the new political leaders emerging from this election in Cairo which was extremely important you know that they were able to have an election within less than a year and they finished who are elected now you know who are in parliament well as important as what the military going to say what the leaders of this new emerging political leaders are going to be able to understand also that in the same way that you have to make a clear distinction you have the power well the when and how belong to the civilians in the similar way if you have a direct line with God whoever is the name of God well you are a very powerful person because you have a line with somebody that is above all of us which is religion but if religion is going to be the leading force I think that is important to make a distinction that the power here in this world belong to the citizens and that leaves the matters of God and religion for those that really are in that area but I don't think that is fair to use religion to say I'm right and you are wrong I have this direct line you know because again this is very much the power of the military so I would say in the same way that you try to teach the military now it's going to be a different game I would say how can you tell them that was of religion well words of religion was part of European history and you need about the seven or eight years at the Treaty of Westphalia to make sure that the words of religion are going to be appropriate you know and and therefore I would say that here you have two major powers daughter has the power of the military those that have the power of religion how those two powers are going to work together in order to be a democratic system and you are not going to make some manners of what you can do with the use of power as a military or using religion can't you make something like that you know and to make in order to have a democratic system and it's different of what we have because we have not the problems of religion was very clear a distinction this is religion but the the distinction between the state and religion in Chile was before Pinochet was established in the Constitution of 1925 yeah I'm Vanessa from American University I was I just wanted to go back for a moment to what you said about how despite outside political forces in each country each society has its own power to for democracy or to you know put up with a dictatorship so I just want to go back to that since so many not Latin American countries are still have still very fragile democracies and sometimes seem to hope for somebody to come and rescue them or blame somebody outside also and would you mind if I bring the recorder no it's okay so you assume that the answer is going to be extremely important I'm afraid that you will be disappointed well first of all let me tell you probably this is the first time in the region where we have a all of our governments are elected number two is true that in the first decade of this century quite a number I mean 21st I mean quite a number of countries change government but when they change governments in all those changes were according to the rules of the game either the vice president or the president would be caught or whatever even in the case of Argentina talking about Argentina I remember in one week they have a three three presidents or something like that but all of them according to them which is not bad you know to to have the country after saying this the questions about democracy is how efficient is going to be democracy has to deliver democracy cannot be only a bureaucratic institution by which every four or five years you go to the polls and you make the boat and you forget about and the question is that if the president is talking because the president always is the major communicator in any country in Latin America or in the US the question is the president is talking every day about how good the country is because we have a growth rate of five twice six or seven eight percent if people don't realize that that figure that means nothing for the majority of the people unless they perceive that the five percent is expressed because now they have a better school a better primary health care center a better highway a better housing allowance or whatever I mean that something is improving around him and this is the major problem with regard to democracy are we going to learn how to deliver now in defense of Latin America I think that now Latin American countries has an important number of people well prepared that know how to run at least from the economic point of view more to the right more to the left whatever but that's it and it's my impression that in the same way that now we have elected government now increasingly they know how to run the economy and we don't have the problem that we used to have in the past probably because in the past we have so many crisis we got the PhD in crisis and for the first time we can say look this huge crisis that now we have in the world we are innocent we have nothing to do with that and which is good you know but then the second point is are we going to learn how to deliver and probably that's the major issue because if you want to strengthen democracy it's not a question to teach in that in the school which is good to teach that in the schools but much more important is that you perceive that this is a good system to deliver what are the needs of the citizens those that demand you know and this is something that sometimes you don't understand very well because there are some areas where the market is not going to fulfill or to deliver if you want to have drinkable water in rural areas in the city is very easy you just go through because you have the cannon in front of you with fresh water in rural areas it's quite expensive in Chile one to up to three thousand dollars to have drinkable water in the rural area per family so unless you put the money for that they will not have drinkable water and if you think that drinkable water is something that has to be fulfilled for everybody it's a citizen right or you will say it's a basic need or you will say it's a public good well you can provide the public good through the private system but the question is are you going to be able to deliver that or it's just a promise or something that is written in some paper in the law and this is the point and therefore in some cases if you want to deliver well it's going to be necessary to do some other things other than the market somebody can say look democracy at the very end is a system by which you establish what are going to be the public goods that the citizens consider that are public goods to see the point I need that to say that those public goods change I don't I'm not sure if I give the example there in the book that I was in the process of cutting the ribbon of a new medical hospital that we deliver and after the ceremony approach me somebody that was in the audience and say Mr. President I didn't want to interrupt you but let me tell you what kind of hospital is this here I know that we don't have a scanner and here you're talking us about it's new hospital and the hospital has no scanner at all well the advantage when you are president that you look down something to help you know and the minister say Mr. President the fact that we didn't have a scanner in the hospital because in the next town 50 kilometers on here they are scanner I give it a number of people then is much cost-benefit analysis to send them 50 kilometers to the scanner in that other hospital and I said well you see this no sir I'm so sorry I wanted to have here in my town in my hospital a scanner for them a scanner was a public good you see what I mean he thought that because Chile was growing why don't we have a scanner everywhere why don't you have an x-ray everywhere today but totally 50 years ago I don't know how many x-ray was something unusual you see and and this is this is the case well how do you define the public good and I think it's important and this has to do with how to strengthen democracy okay we were running out of time that they're either either two very quick ones because I've seen two hands here but please make them okay okay okay okay please you had your hand up ma'am Constable from the Washington Post Ricardo's pleasure to see you I'm not sure if I'm the only other person in the room who was there during the plebiscite in 1988 but it was certainly one of the most important experiences of my life I want I'd ask you to reflect a little bit you have a unique perspective both as an international economist and as a moderate socialist leader in Chile for many many years two questions one do you now think that it was necessary for the kinds of very harsh economic medicine that was delivered by Pinochet was it necessary to have that kind of harsh medicine delivered by a dictator in order for Chile to emerge as what it is today or was there any other way it could have happened and number two more broadly have your own views as an economist evolved based on your own experiences as the leader of the country I'd be very interested to see your own evolution of thinking thank you okay yeah we can combine them that might be a good idea because we are getting short on time we have the books to take my name's Judd Kessler I former Foreign Service officer who lived in Chile for five years during the early 70s one of the remarkable things about Chile's transition has to do with the economic thinking because when I lived in Chile the students had pictures of Che Guevara and the Marxist left was was very much in vogue and some of the parties within your own coalition certainly held those views that parts of the Socialist Party of Moscow Marxist Moscow line Communist Party and you know you're kind of either with us or against this we say you can't have a capitalist system or a free-market system and that kind of socialism so how did you work that out could you talk about that within the coalition related so we can perhaps fold it why do we fold it in that yes that way we'll save some time it's a president from the Interamerican Defense College before the first world of Iraq you have the courage to say no to that war we are living a crisis in the Middle East and Chile depends in a hundred percent of the oil imported from other countries if you have to advise to the current the current government of Chile what would be your position in that we forgot to the position of Chile about the possibility of military crisis do you mean with regard to Iran is that what you're referring to okay oh okay that's a lot in one with a little bit of time left but your powers of synthesis will really be tested now thank you well first of all I don't think that in order to implement economically forms even though they are to be very strong you need to have a dictatorship because it seems to me that in the democratic system you can explain to the people what you have to do when president fray decided to close the coal mines in Chile was a tremendous effect in those coal mines towns in Chile cities that you know but it was possible for the president to go there and explain why they wanted and it was necessary from the economy and this was a question of culture for those people and it's very difficult to do but it's possible to explain and even today those towns normally keep voting for concertation which is not very popular they keep voting so I think it's possible doesn't justify the thing with the question of evolution of the thinking I think that those questions were related first I think that democracy sometimes is like environment you are not going on in your city when this sky is beautiful and blue how happy I am because I'm living here in a very clean city to take it for granted the problem is the air is not clean anymore then you start complaining and then you discover how important was the past when your city was so clean you know for me democracy was for granted I never thought that I was going to be and to see a dictatorship in Chile never and it seems to me that the first important aspect was and that something that has to be still waiting for some historian to write how much change Chilean culture because of the exile what that means to send to exile 20 30 40,000 people but those 20 30 40,000 people are leaders in their own communities and that's a tremendous change we were in the middle of Pinochet dictatorship 80 23 and I was invited to a very poor neighborhood in Chile to have a meeting with some socialist people I left with that very smaller modest house in the middle of a winter time a chimney rainy day I tried to avoid going because was raining so much and they say oh sir we are trying to prepare something for you after your talk and I left the modest house of about 12 people no more than that and I left to the house to my surprise was a very modest extremely modest house but you have tears a cuckoo watch cuckoo cuckoo well then I learned that what they had prepared for me was a raclette house that you have a raclette here this is Switzerland quite sophisticated the son and daughter were exiled in Switzerland and the owners of that house very modest people has been in Switzerland they never thought that the context is what's going on abroad is the number two reason not only to see democracy working or not working if you are going to be in the East European countries that many of them went to there they didn't like it that you have to ask permission to leave the country to somebody that is your boss number three with regard to economic thinking the fact that probably you went very far away with the question of socialization many things I remember quite well early in the 1980s a discussion about what role should have the banking should the banking be still property of the state or should the banking go to the private sector and I remember when among 10 people the decision was a to 2 to go for the private sector we assume that our 10 people were making huge definitions in our group of course you know it's very funny to be in those cases and none of us at that time thought that some of us is going to be in a position of power tomorrow but then the question was and as another story when you decided to open up the country because before that when you have a close country you have a monopoly beer was a monopoly only one company cement only one company still only one company so you were against monopolies and one way went to socialize everything but when you open and you discovered that then you can drink imported beer and the imported beer probably was cheaper than the other one my goodness what about then free trade it's not so much after all in the Chile of the 70 how many people can afford to have a drink of whiskey other than those that have some facilities to import you remember that I didn't thought that was possible to to have whiskey in a normal way and when you discovered that now whiskey probably cheaper than Pisco well my goodness in what we are living now you see so that that is the other way of changing the world the world you know and needed to say then after the very involved but then I used to say there are two things and two walls that came down the Berlin wall and the other world is what is treating 2008 because what happened with lemon brothers is something to think about but that we say with regard to the evolution of thinking and with regard to the question of Iran to conclude I think that it's extremely difficult to to have some advice if it's possible to say that when you have no all the elements let me tell you that with regard to Iraq at least I remember once talking with Shirak and Shirak telling to me look Mr. President I can tell you 100% that there is no atomic weapons in Iraq and my intelligent people say that they have not found weapons of mass destruction but I cannot tell you 100% that there are no weapons of mass destruction well what are the real point with regard to this issue unless you are in power it's going to be very difficult on the outside to say look I think that a preventive responsibility to protect means that some kind of prevention has to be made before or this is going to be extremely dangerous and therefore their responsibility to protect shouldn't go so far I guess I guess that you have to be very careful what that means and if you're going to be able to do that and all of us know that in the past it has been done that thing and some facilities were destroyed and the people in Iran decided not to tell anybody that they had been wounded in such a way but in this case I think that I've been told that probably the kind of economic sanctions being applied today by United States and Europe are so strong that if you can put similar pressure on Japan and China then they will go to the negotiation table the question is are you going to be able to put that pressure in those other two or are you in a position to say look if you if you don't do that then I will have to take some other means and you are going to be responsible I mean there are many ways of how would you want to handle that very hot potatoes but I think that the war in Iraq probably will be of some important lesson for that you know President Lagos Ambassador Kelly thank you very very much now you've got a chance to get your books signed and to buy a book if you haven't previously done so and I invite you to go over to the table one thing I should tell you is that both cash and credit card are accepted President Lagos will sign with a pen for those who pay in cash and use a rubber stamp for those who pay with credit card