[MUSIC PLAYING]
Good afternoon, everybody.
Welcome.
My name is Richard Snyder.
I'm a professor of
political science
here at Brown
University, where I also
served six years as the
director of the Center for Latin
American and Caribbean
studies until recently.
I'm currently on
sabbatical, which
is sometimes known as a working
vacation, definitely working.
So it's a pleasure to
welcome all of you here.
[SPEAKING SPANISH] I think
everyone is OK with English.
I know we have translation
for the live web webcast.
Before I introduce
our speaker, I just
wanted to make a couple
of opening remarks
to help situate this
event within the broader
context of this very
exciting Prov-Guate Summit.
For those of you who
don't know, there
is a summit that is linking
the city of Providence
with the city of
Guatemala that's going on.
We have a large
delegation from Guatemala.
I want to give a special
welcome to the delegates who
are here from Guatemala.
I suppose Congressman Diego
[INAUDIBLE] is with us.
I want to welcome him as well.
Ah.
Welcome.
Welcome back.
[APPLAUSE]
And I understand that our mayor,
who I also want to welcome,
Mayor Jorge Elorza,
and Mayor Arzu,
the mayor of Guatemala City,
signed a sister city agreement
yesterday which formalizes the
exciting cultural and economic
ties between our cities.
And you know, the
framework, it's really
an exciting transnational
partnership between Guatemala
City and Providence around
economic and cultural exchange.
But it's anchored not only in
common economic or material
interests, but also
in something deeper,
in the deep human bonds
and human connections that
link Rhode Island, Providence
and Guatemala and Guatemala
City.
According to the
last Census, 2010,
the city of Providence--
40% of the population
of the City of Providence
were Latino or Latina.
And a very important
share of that
consists of citizens
from Guatemala,
of immigrants or children of
immigrants from Guatemala.
So there's a deep foundation
for this Prov-Guate Summit
and the continuing flows and
ties that will come out of it.
OK.
Before I introduce the former
president of Guatemala to you,
let me just say
something quickly
about the format for the event.
The former president
is going to speak.
And then after that,
we'll have comments
from my colleague
Stephen Kinzer,
who will be the discussant.
he's an expert on Latin
America, US foreign policy
in the region, and
also Guatemala.
And he'll speak for
five minutes or so.
And then I will open it up
for question and answer,
and we can go until 1:30.
I should also note that
the President Arzu joins
a rather distinguished set of
former sitting heads-- sitting
and former heads of state from
Latin America who have visited
us here at Brown University
and the Watson Institute
recently, in some cases
with extended visits.
And let me just name
some of them for you,
the former President of Brazil
Fernando Henrique Cardoso;
former president of Chile,
and perhaps once again
future president of
Chile, Ricardo Lagos,
who's running again
for the presidency;
Cesar Gaviria and also Juan
Manuel Santos of Colombia;
Ernesto Zedillo and
Filipe Calderon of Mexico;
Evo Morales of Bolivia;
and former president Leonel
Fernandez of Dominican Republic.
They've all been here at Brown.
Most of them have spoken
at this very podium
on several occasions in fact.
So it's great to have you
join this distinguished set.
And like these other
leaders, Alvaro Arzu
has had a distinguished
career of public service.
He was elected mayor of
Guatemala City first in 1982.
But he was prevented
from taking office
because of a military coup
d'etat that same year.
He was elected a second time as
mayor of Guatemala City in 1986
and was able to take office
and serve his mandate.
He then served as Minister of
Foreign Affairs for Guatemala
in 1991, before becoming
elected as the 32nd president
of Guatemala in 1996,
serving a four-year term.
The most important
accomplishment
of his presidency and the
topic of his talk today
was the achievement of an
enduring peace agreement
with the guerrilla group, the
Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional
Guatemalteca, or the
URNG, the "urng,"
or the Guatemalan National
Revolutionary Unity in English.
And this peace agreement
ended Guatemala's
36-year-long civil war.
For those who don't
know, this was a war
that the numbers
killed during this war,
the estimates ranged
anywhere from a low
of 140,000 to 200,000.
And it took an
especially heavy toll
on the country's rural
and indigenous population.
Soon after he took
office as president
at the beginning of 1996, Arzu
took a daring and secret trip
to Mexico, where he had
an unprecedented meeting
with representatives
of the URNG,
the revolutionary
guerrilla organization.
And this secret meeting gave
an important and vital push
to the peace negotiations.
The peace agreement that was
signed by Arzu's government
at the end of
1996, 20 years ago,
included plans to
demobilize the guerrillas,
to reintegrate them back
into Guatemalan society,
to reduce the size
of the armed forces,
and to create a civilian force
to take over police duties.
After serving as
president, he was
elected mayor of Guatemala
City again in 2003,
re-elected in 2007, and
reelected once again most
recently for a third
consecutive term in 2011.
So with that, please join me
in welcoming to the podium,
to Brown University
President Alvaro Arzu.
Welcome.
[APPLAUSE]
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
I want to tell you that
I have been invited
to speak about peace
at two universities,
in Austin, Texas, and Brown.
No universities in Guatemala
have I been invited to speak.
And I believe they will never
invite me to speak about peace,
because I imagine
that they would wait,
that I would do the strategic
analysis of what took
me to sign that peace treaty.
And that would be a lie.
The peace in Guatemala
was a miracle.
For those that don't
believe in miracles,
you have one right there,
and I'm the last tablet
in the merit of that peace.
So I would imagine
that since they
know that in universities
in Guatemala,
they don't invite me, because
effectively many people worked
for peace in Guatemala.
Many people were involved.
Many people suffered.
Many people died.
And through the course of
time, 36 years of conflict,
we never gained an
understanding of why
we were shooting one another,
for reasons and motives
that we never understood.
We spoke about conflicts, East
and West, between populations.
But the people in
Guatemala didn't even
know where the east
or the west was.
And regardless, there were
moments of very carnal moments
in the conflict.
That's how peace is.
And that's how internal
conflicts are, that when
they get involved--
[PHONE RINGING]
Oh.
It might be my wife.
It's my son.
When outside external
forces get involved,
internal conflicts are prolonged
independent of intentions,
colonizing, or powers.
When in governments
or local conflicts
external forces or
international forces--
Syria, the conflict through the
Arabics and all these things,
conflicts are prolonged.
Colombia is not an
exception to that.
And so in Guatemala, it
was prolonged as well,
to such degree that
there was a time when
the wall came down in
Berlin six years before,
it wasn't interesting.
The conflict in Guatemala
was no longer interesting
to the international arena,
because the internal conflicts
lost their sense.
It was the destruction
of the Soviet Union,
and so the reasons for
the conflicts changed.
There was no longer an
ideological or economical
aspect now.
It was different,
different, worse things,
but different things.
So the Guerrilleros
and the military
became isolated in a
war that no longer had
any international partnerships.
But the Guerrilleros,
the guerrillas,
and the military,
they didn't know
how to terminate the conflict.
They wanted to, but they
couldn't find a way to do that.
And then we appeared.
We appeared and we had a
variety of people and ideologies
involved in my team.
For example, my
private secretary
for the president, Gustavo
Porras, a partner of 11
years in college,
an intimate friend,
I spoke to him after winning
the first electoral round.
In Guatemala, there's
two electoral rounds.
I had won very
well the first one.
And so I said-- [SPANISH]
is what we call him,
he has a very big head ever
since he was in school--
we have to find a way to speak
to the heads of the guerrillas.
I knew he had been a
part of the guerrillas.
So more intellectually
he said, oh, no.
They say that they've
been lied to enough.
In the previous
negotiations they
were unable to accomplish
any negotiations.
And now they are in a plan
until death do them part,
just like they say in marriage.
So I insisted.
I said, look, try it.
Talk to them.
No.
One day between the first
and the second round--
I wasn't allowed to speak too
much because there was cameras
all over me, all of the media
from Guatemala with the hopes
that I would lose
the second round.
He told me, look,
they called me.
And they said they're
willing to speak to you.
And I thought it was going to
be in a mountain, in Quiche,
in San Marcos in Guatemala.
But it wasn't.
It was in El Salvador.
In El Salvador,
we couldn't really
go out like through
the front door,
through the airport because of
all the media looking for who
had won the electoral rounds.
We went out through
a farm, arrived
in a farm in El Salvador,
which is a neighbor's country.
We went in a wagon.
It was four of us.
There was no windows.
And we arrived to a
house-- I don't even
know where that was in the
community of [INAUDIBLE].
And the four commanders--
I didn't know them--
they were there.
And there was four of us.
The only one that
was armed was me.
We sat down and we
spoke for 7 and 1/2
hours with some extreme heat.
There was no air conditioning.
And after the 7 and 1/2 hours,
the general commander of them,
Ricardo Ramirez, the
commander in chief, asked me,
can I speak to you
in the next room?
And I said yes.
And we got up, he and
I. I took the lock off
of my gun just in case.
And he said, you see,
after this 7 and 1/2 hours,
I've realized one thing.
If you and I had
met in Guatemala,
we probably would
have shot each other.
But after these 7 and
1/2 hours of speaking,
I've realized that we
have more in common.
There is more that unites
us than what separates us,
so I am willing to sign
the peace treaty with you.
And he gave me his hand.
That's when peace was rendered.
And it was signed.
And in regards to this, to
say to you the most important
in an armed conflict,
the relationship,
the personal relationship,
I wouldn't say intimate,
because I didn't know him
and he didn't know me.
But through the conversation,
the 7 and 1/2 hour
conversation, where only he
and I spoke-- no one else
spoke-- there was
a relationship,
a human relationship,
a friendship.
Through that moment after
he stretches his hand,
he agreed to everything.
And I agreed to everything.
There were no more
deaths because
of the ideological conflicts of
the armed conflict of 36 years
through an extended hand,
There were causes.
There was some arises
during that time.
But that's how it happened.
I can come tell you that it was
the product of this strategic--
that we planned.
It wasn't.
It wasn't.
It was a miracle, and
that's how it was.
So the most interesting thing
is that we've written a lot.
We've spoken a lot.
I've been invited to
Washington, to the Council
of the Americas-- I
don't know what it is,
but that's where I'm
going-- to talk about peace.
I don't know if they're going
to be interested in my points
or if they want a
whole speech that's
more sophisticated to
talk about what happens
in Guatemala after
the peace treaty,
because many people have
spoken about the conflict,
the armed conflict.
And many statistics
have come forth
wondering if the peace
has worked or hasn't
worked in Guatemala.
President [INAUDIBLE], which
was actually against the peace
and against my
friend Santos, said
that the peace in
Guatemala was a bad peace.
I know bad wars, but I
don't know bad peace.
It wasn't perfect.
It wasn't perfect.
Yes, but even there was
still violence in Guatemala.
But it was a different
type of violence.
It was no longer ideological.
It wasn't the cause of
the conflict for 36 years.
It just wasn't that anymore.
It was like saying that the
secession war in the United
States didn't finish
because there's still
assaults in suburban New York.
What does one thing have
to do with the other?
It's the same
thing in Guatemala.
But the critics are pointing
at the very essence.
And in Colombia, where I was
just invited a couple of days
ago, we thought sincerely
that with President Santos,
everyone was going
to support the peace.
And it was a surprise.
It wasn't accepted.
The results, we thought
that maybe there
was too much consulting
of the people,
and then the factors of the
campaigns and the publicity
and the demagology
then gets involved,
so then it gets in
the way of the peace
treaties in the world.
That's the story, my friends.
I know that there's a lot
of questions and wonders.
Many of them I will
not be able to answer.
You are professionals
at a university.
You study the profound
history of Latin America.
I have a bachelor's
degree in my country.
And I actually
graduated from there
because my father donated
a school for 2,000 children
in my country.
That's how I got my
bachelor's degree.
And God has carried
me by my hand.
He's brought me to
different positions.
And if I've done it well
or I haven't done it well,
well, only history would
be able to qualify that.
I wouldn't be here
for that time.
So I appreciate your time.
I want to hear your questions.
And I want to try
and give you answers
to the wonders
and your questions
that you would have about
the peace in Guatemala.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
Thank you.
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
Thank you very much.
And now we're going to
do a brief presentation
by my colleague, Stephen
Kinzer, who is going to-- would
you like to accompany us?
Yes.
In the table?
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
I forgot to say that I am
a son of a North American.
I am the son of an immigrant.
My mother swam to Guatemala.
She didn't swim towards here.
She was born in Detroit.
And she went to Guatemala
when she was very young,
but I am the son of immigrants,
so be careful to not
speak badly about immigrants.
[APPLAUSE]
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
Very well.
OK.
OK.
So Stephen Kinzer
is-- it's going
to be difficult to
do it in Spanish,
because I have it
here in English.
If Stephen insists that
I do it in Spanish,
I will, but-- I know
several things about you.
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
Steve Kinzer has a
very long background
of work on Latin America.
During the 1970s, he covered
the region as a freelance writer
for magazines.
In the 1980s, he was a Latin
American correspondent-- Latin
America correspondent
for The Boston Globe
and also for The New
York Times, and covered
the wars and upheavals in
Nicaragua, in El Salvador,
and Guatemala.
He's also written two
books about Latin America,
including the
co-authored book Bitter
Fruit, The Untold Story of the
American Coup in Guatemala.
And that book tells the story
of the American-sponsored coup
against President Jacobo
Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954.
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
OK?
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
It is a special day for us.
What you say about the
bad peace in Guatemala,
one of our founders,
Benjamin Franklin,
said [SPEAKING SPANISH]
And for that, I appreciate it.
If you would have told
me, I would have gone
and said that in Columbia.
There's still time.
There's still time.
Your work in bringing about
this peace treaty in Guatemala
is something historical.
We, who know the profound
violence and terror
in Guatemala during that
entire terrible time,
are profoundly appreciative
of what you did.
There's definitely-- you
paved the way in the world,
more than Guatemala.
Miguel Angel said that
Guatemala was a small country,
but if he could iron it, then
it would be bigger than China.
And I believe that the example
of the peace in Guatemala
has been very positive
in Latin America,
even though not enough.
It wasn't enough
by the Colombians.
I want to take that opportunity
to ask the first question.
It's a privilege that
I get by sitting here.
You said that after the
signing of the peace treaty,
of that agreement, there
wasn't another death.
And you also said that the
period after the signature
was extremely important
in stabilizing the peace,
because the peace
didn't just signify
the signature of a peace
treaty in the mountains,
but something more
profound for the society.
During that time since
the signing of the treaty,
there were violent acts and
even some political violence
in Guatemala.
The line between crime
and political politics
is not always
clear, and so I want
to highlight in specific the
issue of a crime that happened
during your presidency.
The major promoters of
human rights in Guatemala
joined with the church to
create and inform in 1998 even,
stating that the
army of Guatemala
was responsible for
many of the deaths that
happened since the war started.
And two days after that
issue came about, [INAUDIBLE]
was killed.
And so that was a
crime that happened
like happens in
New York every day,
or was that a political crime?
Was there a force within
the Guatemalan society
that continues to push
antiquated projects
and hasn't accepted the
reality or the hope of peace?
Can I answer?
When I spoke about there
being no longer deaths,
I was talking about
causes, ideological causes,
since that handshake.
That's why I say that.
I want to say that Monsignor
Gerardi, who was assassinated
in his home in 1998, was the
only person who spoke well
about me and my government.
There was one other person.
They were the only two that
spoke well about my government.
And they defended me
from what I was hearing
in the conferences, the
Episcopalian conferences that
were going about in Guatemala.
There was absolutely no cause
for us to avenge his death.
After that, books were written
that were very interesting
about everyone, especially
Maite Rico and la Grange.
That was The Crime
of the Obispe.
I recommend that you
read it, because it was
very close to what happened.
But they took this murder,
this distasteful murder,
and it was obvious
people that felt
that they didn't have
protagonism in the peace
or in the future of Guatemala,
and that felt that they should
continue permanently
attacking the peace treaty,
but also the development,
the very minimal development
of Guatemala.
Now, what were the
causes of the crimes
that happened in Guatemala.
Just like in every other
country in Latin America,
those are just different.
There are others.
Like for us, in our
essence, there's
narco trafficking,
drug trafficking.
We have borders with
a lot of trafficking
of drugs that comes in
through South America
and eventually comes here
to the United States.
So mafias from drug
traffickers have
gone creating gangs and groups.
And that has created the
causes of these crimes.
They're not all so scandalous,
like the media in Guatemala
has presented.
And so we do have problems.
We've never wanted to hide in
Guatemala the fact that we have
serious problems around crime.
But to answer your
question, I am
convinced that the Monsignor
Gerardi's murder, sad murder--
he and one more person were
the only ones that spoke well
about my person and my
government-- did not
have any political causes.
With that then,
we can open it up.
One more important thing.
When I went to the Vatican to
return a visit from the Pope
John Paul II, after
greeting him and doing
the exchange of
gifts, we went down
with the Secretary of State
Monsignor [INAUDIBLE],
that at that time was the
one that managed the Vatican.
And we sat down, and
I said, Monsignor, I
brought the reports
on the investigation
of Monsignor Gerardi and I would
like to present them to you.
He said, no, no, no.
No.
I'm not interested
in seeing that.
Because we
immediately after that
went and investigated
the causes of his death
and were clear that
that had nothing
to do with the government or
the military in Guatemala.
I don't know if Mr.
Monsignor is still alive now.
We would have to find out.
But those were his words.
There was another person
present, a cardinal.
And three or four
people on our side
and on behalf of the ambassador
of the Vatican [INAUDIBLE]
of that time.
Put it in your
book, the next one.
So let's open up
to your questions.
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
It is not a question
about the war.
Guatemala.
Guatemala.
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
Now?
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
Now?
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
Now?
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
OK.
Guatemala is the only
country in Latin America
where the ideas of men are
higher now than in 1990.
And even though there's
a right of the community
in the Constitution,
So two questions.
One, why, in your opinion?
And the other is what
are the better solutions
to this problem in
Guatemala of hunger?
So there are
different statistics
that are managed about the
information and reports
from the United Nations,
for example, where
it shows that from '96 to 2000,
the development in Guatemala
increased.
But after 2000, it grew more.
Guatemala is a
country of contrasts.
We talk about 60% of poverty--
critical poverty, indigenous,
in Guatemala, which is false.
And I'll give you a
perfect simple example.
In Guatemala, there's
14 million inhabitants.
And there are 4.5
million vehicles.
And if you put three people
benefiting from each vehicle,
then there's at least 12 million
people that have no issues
and are not related
to indigenous.
Do they have challenges
paying for their vehicle
and paying for their rent?
I don't know that.
But saying that
three individuals
would benefit from each vehicle
is not a lot, or a little.
Like, the reports from
the United Nations
say and the technical
people from here and there,
has a growing population of
not even 2%, which is false.
Maybe 2% of the ones that
are born in the hospitals
or in clinics.
But they're not
considering those
who are born to midwives in
their homes or in the mountains
or down in the villages.
Those are different percentages.
So we have a [INAUDIBLE]
of population
that's growing in the higher
rates across the world,
so the percentages of the
states-- I'm not defending
my government,
but the succeeding
governments, the ones
that were adverse to me,
I am recognizing on
behalf of them there
is a great intention and great
plans for the government,
et cetera, et cetera, et
cetera, that shocks, that
impacts with the reality.
Guatemala has twice the
amount of mobile cellphones
than there are habitants.
So how do you have that?
How could 60% of the
inhabitants be hungry?
It doesn't make sense, simply.
I'm not submerging myself
in great statistics
of great economic
people, but go count.
Those are the
realities that exist.
There are double the
amount of cellphones
than there are of inhabitants.
Well, then maybe some have two.
OK.
But the people
out in the country
nowadays have one
hand cultivating
and the other one with a
cell phone in their hands.
Of course, I'm always
attacked for privatizing
the phone company and
the electric companies.
I don't know.
But when we started the energy,
electricity in Guatemala
were only covering 42%.
Now there's more
than 85% of coverage.
So is it difficult
for some people
to pay the electric
bill every month?
Yes, that's true.
But they at least
are able to use it.
And the energy, electric
energy, the most expensive one
is like-- there's
aspects, yes, that
could be evidential for
some and could be proven.
Just in the City of Guatemala,
there's 1.5 million vehicles.
I mean, don't even remind me.
Another question?
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
Yes.
Hi.
Thank you.
Can you explain the goal of
the treaty with Providence?
What are the goals?
Is it just ideological, or is
there more ideological goals?
It was more of a
familial meeting.
I had the pleasure to meet
the Mayor of Providence.
He signed an act this morning.
He invited several people
from the Guatemalan community.
And I found myself at home.
Really, I felt at home
and like I was in family.
And that's what I said.
I felt like there
was people there
that had my DNA, people that
express themselves like me,
that laugh like me,
that share like me.
You know, I didn't feel strange.
I had never been here before,
but this is a great city
to live.
Good job, Mayor.
It's a great place to live.
We went to New York, where we
were so scared because people
don't smile there.
Everyone's focused on
what they're doing, angry.
In Guatemala, there's poverty,
great poverty, but we laugh.
There's time for that.
And so the treaty is--
I was telling the Mayor,
a year ago I had
signed a treaty that
was similar to this one
with [INAUDIBLE], Russia.
Let me tell you.
My grandparents
came from Russia.
They came through this
island-- what's the name of it?
Ellis Island, yes.
They came through there.
We investigated.
And my great grandparents,
they came through there.
They were fleeing the
persecution in Russia.
But when you meet with the
constituents of a country,
you always feel good.
There isn't going to be
great economic exchanges.
We're going to
work on them, yes,
so that they could
be solidified.
But overall, we're going
to permit Guatemalans
that have come here to be
able to come visit us there,
and for the family members
there to come here to visit.
It's hard for someone like me
to come to the United States,
because I'm already
70 years old.
And so they don't really
see my fingerprints anymore.
So even though they're
nice and they're
receiving me, the authorities
at the airports of the United
States, they can't read them.
And so they take me to
a room, a small room,
with a lot of sentiment.
And there's all the
immigrants in there.
And they're like, Arzu,
they pulled you too?
Immigration pulled you too?
They pull out these
different teas and drinks
to make me feel comfortable.
But you feel like
an immigrant too.
And that's the
meeting that we had.
And I don't know if
Mayor Elorza would
like to make a comment as
well about the agreement
after the question or--
Yes.
Now.
Go ahead.
Very well.
My name is Leonel Pazos from
the newspaper of Guatemala.
Senor Alvaro, the
common Guatemalan
choose specific rejection
to the government
which has historical
since colonization.
So you say that the
media is always speaking
things that aren't real.
Another one of the things
that the community rejects
is the hierarchy that has to
do with the riches of Guatemala
that are all the way at the top.
And then there's
the bottom half.
You have the luck
of being qualified
in both of those groups,
being the president
and at one point
being completely
rejected, or criticized
if that's a better term,
but then also being considered
as the class of the riches that
keep Guatemala from prospering.
So what in reality is the
hierarchy in Guatemala
have to do with Guatemala
staying in that position
or in that condition?
I think there's a lot of
fantasy in that topic.
You're right, in the
sense that sometimes it's
interpreted as the politicians
are against the media.
No.
We're against the
lies of the media.
Rejecting the government class
is not exclusive to Guatemala.
I wouldn't say that there's
a country in the world where
the population doesn't have
some sort of resentment
towards the governing class.
But I'll tell you
my story, because I
was sitting with some great
ex-presidents in Guatemala
recently-- in Colombia
recently, Leonel Fernandez, no.
I'm sorry.
Felipe Gonzalez from
Spain, [INAUDIBLE]--
who is it in Chile?-- Lagos,
oh, you know, personalities.
And I'm from the
second division,
but they asked me to
sit there as well.
And they began to tell their
encouragement and suffering
in participating in the
politics in their countries.
They had been threatened.
There had been attempted
murders against them.
They had been born in an
environment of poverty
and they had managed to
emerge, which was true,
great personalities.
So when it was my
turn to speak, I
told them that I
wasn't born in poverty.
I was born in a gold crib.
My parents had me
like this in cotton
my whole life, me
and my siblings.
Yes, it's true.
And I could say with all honesty
that I never suffered hunger.
But it doesn't
mean that I haven't
been worried about those
that do suffer from hunger.
I've been in politics
for 50 years.
I even beat Fidel Castro,
who is a good friend of mine.
Yes.
Just because I haven't
suffered hunger
doesn't mean that
we are people that
don't worry about people that
do or have suffered hunger.
I could go watch my
father's businesses,
but I liked politics.
My mom said [SPANISH].
You're a politician.
And after that, when I was done,
my government as president,
I told my wife
that's right here,
I said, well, I
close my curriculum.
You are now going to be able
to have me 24/7 at home.
Three days after, she asked
me to go back to politics.
And I've been elected
four times as a mayor.
One more time, well,
that doesn't matter.
So the point is that marking
or remarking the distinctions
don't always bring
home the point.
Sometimes it's the very people
at the bottom of the structure
of the country's economy.
And Guatemala isn't
an exception to that.
And it's anachronical
to express that.
So now if we speak about
the nobilities of Guatemala,
there is a new emerging
class of people
that are investing in Guatemala.
And so one of the objectives
of my visit to Washington,
to this Council of
the Americas, is just
to speak about the
years after the peace.
We've written a lot.
We've understood a lot.
We've researched a lot the
cause for the armed conflict.
No one can lift up a flag of
exclusivity of truth, not even
me.
No one.
And I saw it very up close.
None of us, no way.
Even as a politician, I've
never been threatened.
No one has shot at me.
No one has attempted
to murder me
in 50 years, 50 years of
political life in Guatemala,
where you would
think that I should
walk around with a
bulletproof vest, but no.
I have a little Mini Cooper that
I drive around in by myself.
I don't know how
many ex-presidents
of Guatemala or in the
United States do that,
but that's just the way it is.
It's different as
to what is being
transmitted through these
main forms of communication.
Nowadays through a
button, communication
flies through the world.
That's the problem
or the benefit.
There is news
that's traveling all
through the world
that is not adapting
to the reality of the country.
There's an exaggeration to it
because the avenue is really
trying to sell their
story, which is logical.
And right now, it's not the
stronger over the weaker,
but it is the quickest
over the slowest.
That is the way
communication is moving,
which is making my
country-- just like maybe
in other countries
in Latin America,
where young people
are no longer feeling
connected to their countries,
their cities, or their states.
And they're adapting themselves
to this type of communication
that's come through these
forms of media, so like Google,
for example.
And then they aspire to
achieve it in other countries
where it's quicker, stronger,
and more productive.
That's a quick panoramic
picture, not in bad faith.
Everything has the highs and
the low and contradictions.
That's the way I see it.
That's the way I understand it.
I do not pretend to
have an exclusive truth
in these very difficult
truths that are to analyze.
One of the two
stories-- I'm sorry.
I can't hear him.
[SPEAKING SPANISH]
We also work with children.
All of those children is
a candidate to the crime.
I remember when you were
trying to resolve the peace
and they were saying,
Guatemala-- someone
from the United
Nations said Guatemala
shouldn't sign this treaty.
And I'm not saying
I'm for or against,
I'm just narrating
what happened.
And what they were saying
was that they could not
sign for the type of-- what
would happen after the peace
treaty.
There were all these
crime groups that
were ready to attack children.
It was thousands of people
in the mountains, thousands
that had not been educated.
But we also had thousands
that had been educated
and didn't have any work.
And so what were
these children going
to do that were coming
from the mountain
if they didn't have an
opportunity to find work?
They would do what they
knew to do, of course, kill.
At that time there wasn't
a frame to hold them.
Like Commandante
[INAUDIBLE] and all of them,
they were coming to the city.
So the question is, all
of those peace treaties
were constructed on this
environment for those children
that were in the mountains
fighting without any education.
Was there a way for them to
reintegrate into civil life?
And that is my question.
And so here's my answer.
The peace to the left
was signed by itself.
And to the right, it should
have never been signed.
What did we do?
That's what we did.
We said, push aside please.
Let's sign the peace.
Up until today it's like that.
If any merit I have
had, it's that I
have been able to
unify the discourse
between the left and the right.
It's a merit no one
else has achieved
to connect the discourse
between the left and the right.
But against the peace,
then they agreed.
It was incredible.
And many people that had to flee
during the armed conflict, that
lived in precarious situations
in other countries, Mexico
and other countries,
with the peace treaty
were able to return
to Guatemala to do
great editorials in the media
and to criticize the peace.
And now there are
great personalities
of the public
information in Guatemala
and others that were
aspiring to-- farmers
that were aspiring to get
ahead had to pay at that time
to get to their farms.
They still speak
bad about the peace.
The peace has been more
notorious outside of Guatemala
than it has been in Guatemala.
In Guatemala when we
said we signed the peace,
some said, we were at war?
There was no conscience of
what it meant economically
and the relationships with
the international community.
They had no conscience.
The people were already
submerged in their own lives,
and they were comfortable
in it, of course.
We brought more than
100,000 refugees
that were living in Mexico.
They had already gotten
used to living there.
They know more the
national anthem of Mexico
than they did of Guatemala.
But we brought them.
We gave them land.
We gave them
laboral instruments.
We provided them an alternative.
And the United Nations
was right beside us.
The great moderator in the
peace treaty agreements
was this representative,
[INAUDIBLE],
who was so great that eventually
he went to live in Guatemala.
It was a Frenchman,
a genial man.
He was a moderator on behalf
of the United Nations.
He brought balance to the
negotiations of the agreements.
But it was that just
60% of the agreements
were done or completed.
That was the great criticism.
But you can't measure
percentage-wise agreements,
because some are more
important than others.
And so you cannot say that only
60% of those agreements have
been completed or complied with,
because what agreement is more
important, or which one takes up
a priority than the agreements?
The 12% of the taxes?
So which one, which agreement
was signed with a handshake
could be superior to that one?
There isn't any.
So we're talking
about a lot of things,
but you have to see it
inside its real perspective.
Guatemala passed
a great problem.
I would talk to
President Clinton
when he came to
Guatemala, but I believe
that my bad English didn't
allow him to understand it.
I told him, I said,
you know, President,
why did the United States go
to plant coffee in Vietnam?
Yes.
They planted the equivalent of
the harvest in Latin America
and they got rid of the
agriculture of the Latin
America.
You're talking about
the people that
came down off the
mountain looking for work.
It's the same thing.
It's true.
In Vietnam, 50,000 soldiers,
we've never killed one.
Why wouldn't you plant
something different
when that was enough for people
to come down to the villages
to plant, to clean
and harvest coffee?
And then they could go back.
For six months they
would work their harvest.
They were no longer for two.
Now they were for 12.
Why would you take that
possibility for them?
Guatemala was able
to defend itself,
and so was Colombia, because
they had higher coffee.
But the rest of
the countries, they
suffered greatly because
the product of coffee
had decreased in its investment.
And so the coffee needed to
be mixed with its higher ones.
And you had to pull
out the specific coffee
in our countries,
instead of 15 [SPANISH],
it lowered itself to 20.
And so it was cheaper
for the agriculturalists
to throw out the harvest
than it was to keep it.
And the indigenous
people from the mountains
lost six months of their income.
It's those little things
that have to be analyzed,
but many economic
reports do not highlight.
Let's go to the Mayor of
Providence, Jorge Elorza,
to continue with
the first question.
What does the agreement with
Guatemala and Providence mean?
Well, for me and for you,
for us in Providence,
it's been a great pleasure
to meet you and your staff
and to take the steps to
bring this treaty to our city.
During my campaign, I read this
book about the power of mayors.
And they asked
this ex-mayor, what
is the thing you regret the
most of not being able to do?
And the ex-mayor said, what
I regret the most is not
being able to strengthen
or done alliances
with outside countries,
external foreign countries.
And I started to
think about what
we have here in Providence.
We have several immigrants
that have these relationships.
And one day I started to think
that my own neighbor, was
is a Guatemalan, he fixes cars.
That's what he does.
He fixes cars.
And then he fills a
bus, a school bus.
He fills it with things and
he drives it from Providence
to Guatemala.
He's a businessman.
But I would imagine
that from that work
he doesn't get--
he doesn't benefit
as much as he could to stay.
So if the relationships
already exist and there are so
many immigrants that are
businessmen like this one,
then there must be a way to do
an agreement between countries
and cities to help
our inhabitants here
and to help those in Guatemala.
And what we have
grown to realize
is that we appreciate
the priority
that you have given to all
of the societies, the lower
class, the higher
class, everyone,
just like I have
here in Providence.
And I want to assure you that
the progression of our city
is for everyone, all
of its residents.
And that's where this idea
of this exchange came from.
I'm happy that you were
willing to participate
in this exchange.
And when I went to
Guatemala, I was
full of the humility,
Guatemalan humility, thinking
what could we learn?
And like I told you yesterday,
we learned several things.
And we've implemented
those things here.
So for me, that's what
the symbolizing, this
sisterhood between cities.
We understand each other,
not just in our language.
We understand the culture.
But we also have the same
goals for our cities.
And with that, you
can always work.
So that's what it
symbolizes for me.
And it's been very
interesting, this discourse,
because here in
the United States,
we say that there are
three political parties,
the Republicans, the
Democrats, and the mayors.
And for the mayors, there
really isn't much interest
in the debates, in the
ideological debates.
For us, it's the practical.
And every day you have
to promote a new project.
And that's what I would like
to learn from Guatemala.
So I would like to ask
you with your experience
as a mayor in the day-to-day
management of the city, what
are the projects that
you have implemented
or are implementing
that give you
the most hope for the
future of your city
and the future of the country?
There's a book that says that
mayors should manage the world.
I don't know who wrote
it, but there's a book.
It's been read a lot.
He wrote it, didn't he?
Yes.
It's very demanding.
The Guatemala City has
1.5 million inhabitants.
And at this moment,
the City of Guatemala,
product of the immigration of
people from the mountains down
to the city, has the country's
largest indigenous population.
It's not [INAUDIBLE]
or [INAUDIBLE] anymore.
No.
Now Guatemala City has the
largest indigenous population
in the country.
And this obligates us to focus
on humanity, even if it's just
menial, essential,
basic needs that we
must focus on providing.
They're never going to
pay a tax in Guatemala,
but we must lend
them basic services
to be able to survive that.
You don't have that here,
the mayor of Providence.
But we don't have it there.
That is why I ask
or wonder what is
the reason for that migration?
Many of them are looking to
jump over the mural, which
is low right now,
before Trump gets in.
But we hope-- maybe
I shouldn't say that.
But many people want to go.
Many people want to come here
to this country with degrees
from universities.
Mr. Mayor, in first
place, let me tell you,
Providence is a city to live.
It's a beautiful city.
With my wife, we loved it.
The good news is that we
would like to come live here.
And the bad news is that we
come with 14 grandsons and 7
children.
In our city, we have something
that no other city has,
23 degrees of temperature
throughout the year.
23 degrees all year.
It's incredible.
That is just a gift from God.
That is why my
wife finds it weird
for me to watch the Weather
Channel in Guatemala.
And that's because
no one misses it.
It's because there's beautiful
women that are on there,
but they say the same thing.
Yesterday we had 23 degrees.
Today we had 23 degrees.
And tomorrow we will
have 23 degrees.
You guys, you don't have that.
And so we can't share that.
We can't share that.
But in general, it
is the familiarity
that we have signed as a
covenant of relationship.
[INAUDIBLE]
Strange people, even though
I have Russian ancestors.
We're estranged.
But since meeting this mayor
of Providence, since he
came to Guatemala, I liked him.
I grew to like him.
He's a simple man.
He's a good man.
And so those are the
elements, the human elements
for which we used to sign
the peace in Guatemala.
So I would like to close
with a small commentary.
We've spoken a lot about the
relationships between cities
and states, humans and humans.
Humbly, I would like
to add relationships
between cities and universities,
and universities and states.
And it is uniting all these
energies to achieve a lot.
We are going to close this.
And I would like to thank the
mayor and ex-presidents Arzu
and Stephen Kinzer and the mayor
of Providence, Jorge Elorza,
for being here with us during
this very positive encounter.
That was very fruitful.
Thank you very much, and
we close the session.
[APPLAUSE]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
