Thank you very much, Hugo Pimienta, for your kind words. And thank you very much for this opportunity to speak this afternoon before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council and the Pacific Council for International Policy, those two very important bodies in the area of international relations. Thank you very much for being able to speak to this very distinguished audience.

This is the first time that I am speaking in the United States after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Let me tell you, the Chilean people have a profound feeling of solidarity towards the American people. We share your pain and your grief. We fully support the strikes against terrorist targets, not against the country, not against the culture, not against a religion, but against an enemy of them all. Because the aim of terrorists is not only to kill thousands of innocent people, barbarous as it is, they also aim at the fabric of social life, at the bonds that tie us in mutual trust, the bonds that give us freedom, freedom to think, to choose, and to pursue happiness, as is stated in your Constitution. We cannot change what happened, but our conscience moves us to a defense of life. That is the real issue. We have obligations towards the innocent, the dead, towards the living, towards our children and their children. We are called to respond, and respond we must. We must uproot the networks where terrorism grows. 

We must also realize how wide and deep is the response that terrorism has elicited. How strong we�ve become in the middle of this process! It�s a moment of reflection, says Dr. [Abraham] Lowenthal, and it is. The full modern potential of world diplomacy must be deployed in defense of life, not only in our countries, but also around the world. We need more trade, not less. We need better globalization, not to go backward towards isolation. It�s true, we need much stricter security rules but also more equitable rules, of the world economy. We need to be more careful, but more compassionate. We must strike, not deal with terrorists, but to broaden our understanding of the world outside our borders. Our acute sense of injustice inflicted on the American people must awaken our sense of injustice everywhere, not only in America. 

I would like to share with you this afternoon that I think there are three major areas where this new world that is emerging after September 11th is becoming more important than before September 11th. The first [area] is a new diplomacy. The second has to do with trade, and the third has to do with globalization. Why am I talking about the new diplomacy? Because during these days we have learned that different countries, different governments, different cultures, different political systems, different economic systems have come together to say no to terrorism. When, after the Second World War, the United Nations emerged, the United Nations was perceived as an institution where governments and countries will try to pursue peace [for] mankind. 

What we have today is a different kind of enemy --it�s not a country, it�s not a particular society, it�s not a religion. It has an unknown face. Nevertheless, it was possible for the U.S. government, under the leadership of President Bush, to be able to convey a tremendous diplomacy effort all around the globe. To say to any of us two months ago, that it was possible to have in the same coalition, the U.S., Latin America, the countries of Europe, Russia, China, all Asian countries-- it was something impossible to think about. [But] it was possible. In the past, we used to have more equilibrium among different nations. The world was a world of equilibrium. We�ve had equilibrium during the last three hundred years in Europe, equilibrium between France and Germany, France and England, the Napoleonic Wars. Somebody said that when those equilibriums were lost, then you have a war, the first one or the second one. Somebody said that probably the last stage of that equilibrium among nations was the so-called world war. Now, it�s not the question of equilibrium. Now is the question of how you are going to deploy diplomacy in this new and different world.

Diplomacy in the past world of equilibrium was something that we knew how to do. The United Nations was an answer to that, and good for that. The question is, what kind of diplomacy are we going to deploy now? If it is possible to have some permanent development, deployment of this diplomacy that we have seen today, if it is possible to have this broad coalition of mankind to be very specific, not to form a coalition again whenever we have a menace like we have today, but to have something more permanent. It seems to me that what happened during the last month is amazing from the point of view of this first change.  What kind of effort is going to be made in the near future to keep this broad coalition against terrorism?

Second lesson. This morning and this afternoon several people have asked me if I think that, given that the agenda now is about these issues of terrorism, probably the issues have changed, and [that] free trade with Chile is going to be last on the items of the agenda or probably simply forgotten. Let me tell you that my view is exactly the opposite. I think that now we need more trade, not less trade, and this is the reason why my country is in negotiations with the U.S. on a free trade agreement. But at the same time, we are negotiating with Europe, and we hope to end our negotiations with Europe early next year. We are also pushing very hard the chances of the next round at the World Trade Organization in Qatar in November. 

Why is this? Because we do believe that a small country like Chile, with the very open economy that we have, it�s going to be essential for us to be part of this international effort in favor of free trade. In the case of Chile, as you know, we have a very balanced trade in regional terms. About 25 percent of our trade is with Europe, with the U.S., with Asia and with Latin America.  Therefore, it is essential for us, since our economy is very open, to pursue this agreement of free trade. More than 50 percent of our gross domestic product is represented by exports plus imports. It is from this point of view that our exports are extremely important from our point of view and from our right to grow. Therefore, we were rather confident that, given the balanced trade that we have -- normally when you have the U.S. economy going down, the Europeans were going up or the Japanese and we have a balance. Not anymore these days, unfortunately. 

Nevertheless, reaching a free trade agreement between our countries, the U.S. and Chile, has been a long-term process.  After all, as you know, it started with the former President Bush early in the �90s. We think that now is the time to conclude this long-term agreement. During the last eleven months, bilateral negotiation teams have been meeting to exchange information, breach differences, and to have some comprehensive agreement that will go beyond the traditional area of change. We want more than that. We want an agreement that is able to include the forces of the new economy, free trade in services, mutually beneficial investment policies, e-commerce, and effective institutions and transferring regulations in order to be able to solve potential disputes. We are convinced that we are close to an agreement, and we hope to do that. We think it is possible for us to pursue this during the next two or three months, because there has been an agreement with President Bush to make all our efforts in order to be able to conclude this agreement by the end of this year. And I think that it�s going to be possible for us to end this agreement rather soon. 

Nowadays, the U.S. Congress is discussing the economic policies needed to keep the U.S. economy moving at the right pace.  But at the same time, the internal and global aspects of the economy are two sides of the same coin. People in Latin America await your decision on this piece of integration between our economies. Because negotiations are underway I think that the United States now has a unique opportunity to give greater momentum to the original trade agenda. I think that this is the best answer precisely because we are living in the moment where we are living, even with this menace of terrorism.

It�s very hard to conceive a better time and a better moment to go into this particular area.  We are extremely confident on what we can be able to arrange in the near future in this particular area. In other words, I think that change today is more important than before September 11th, and I think it�s going to be necessary. I�m sure that with President Bush, who is also going to be attending the meeting in Shanghai of APEC, the area of how we�re going to be able to push further a free trade agreement at the world level is going to be an important item on the agenda. In other words, I think that it is possible then to have this agreement concluded very soon. 

At the same time, I think that the third area that is going to be important is the area of globalization.  The world is becoming more and more global. There is no way of going back. Therefore, it seems to me that there�s going to be essential to define some rules also in this particular area. To some extent, the world that we know today is the world that was formed according to the institutions created after the Second World War --the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Bretton Woods Agreement-- all of that represents what we thought was possible to do fifty years ago. Today, in this global world, things are a little bit different. Therefore, I think that the time has come to rethink what kind of institutions we are going to have during the next fifty years in this new global world with a new economy, with new areas of financial capital flow going from one country to the next one. I think that it is essential that the gain in the area of financial capital systems [that] some changes have to be done. It�s true. We are proud, as Chileans, because of the fact that last week we were able to sell, on October 11th, after one month after September 11th, $650 million dollars to international investors in Chilean bonds --when we were in the very eye of the storm, when nobody wanted to go to Wall Street� at the end more than 1.2 billion U.S. dollars were offered to buy 650. This was a tremendous success for my country. But I will say it was a tremendous success to demonstrate that it is possible to have some emerging market economies being able to go back to the financial system. I think that what we did is important in terms, not only of my country, but also in terms of the way that the world is coming to perceive what we have here. 

Globalization, I think, and whether we�re going to be able to tackle it, is going to be essential. If we�re going to have a global world, what kind of labor are we going to have in that global world?  What kind of environment? What kind of rules? I know that this is a very important issue in the U.S., but let me tell you that we�re going to have our own rules in labor, legislation and the environment. The question is, where and who is going to establish the rules for this kind of trade in a global world. Therefore, I think that the time has come to address this issue in a very serious way. I know that this is a problem in the U.S. Congress, but are we going to obey and to apply according to the rules that are defined in the U.S. Congress, or are we going to define, all of us together, what kind of rules we are going to have?

I have [used] this example on some other occasions: far away in Chile, we have a native forest, a native forest that grows in cold weather. The kind of trees that we have there are 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, up to 4,000 years old. There are trees 4,000 years old.  Similar trees to those we have in Chile used to be in Europe. Those trees were finished during the times of the Roman Empire.  If you want to have similar trees, you have to go to Chile.  We want to preserve those trees. It�s important for us.  We have to deal with the environment. I wouldn�t like to say to my European friends, �but you want to put your measures, that you didn�t have 2,000 years ago, in the years of the Roman Empire, upon myself?� I�m going to preserve, I�m committed to that, to that kind of forest. To learn how to use it. I mean, it�s possible to have sustainable development, it is possible to have growth, and at the same time it�s possible to have respect for the environment. That�s obvious. But the rules to do that? Who�s going to make those decisions? And when I say if you�re going to be living in a more global world, some kind of global rules are going to be necessary. I think that all those countries that live in the rule of law would like also to think it is possible then to have some rule of law in this global world where we are planning to be living in. 

In short, in this challenging age, we think there is compelling need for a new global partnership. All throughout history, the strongest alliances have been forged with more than commercial interest. The strong alliances have been forged when there are missions, cultures, common values that they share. I think that we are living in one of those times. The values and institutions that we cherish to protect our societies -- freedom, justice, equal treatment under the law, tolerance, opportunity, democracy -- all those values are values that are shared by the U.S., by Chile, by most countries in the world. To some extent this is what we learned in the 20th century that came to an end. Because those values are the values that we would like to apply everywhere; those are the values that are behind this new diplomacy that is emerging. Those are the values that have to be applied under the convention� that we would like to have, and those are the values that we would like to have in a global world. 

I do believe sincerely that a new partnership in this new era is essential to the values that we are able to have in common.  After all, big countries or small countries, when we share similar views, then we can walk together. We would like to be able to do that here in the United States, first with the free trade agreement, second with some common views on how we�re going to be able to shape this new world that after September 11th is a duty for all of us.

Thank you very much.