Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and thank you very much for your kind welcoming.
I am especially grateful to the counsel for the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings
and the foundation Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings for inviting me to deliver this lecture
because, according their whereases, they are considering me, not only
for my literary work, but also for my ideas and political views.
Believe me when I tell you that his is something new.
In the world in which I move most frequently, Latin America, United States and Europe,
when individuals or institutions pay tribute to my novels
or literary essays, they typically add an immediate "although, we disagree with him."
"Although, we do not always concur with him."
or "This does not mean that we accept his (my) criticisms or opinions regarding political issues."
After having grown accustomed to this bifurcation of myself, I am happy to feel reintegrated again
thanks to this prestigious institution, which, rather than subject me to that schizophrenic process,
views me as a unified being, the man who writes, thinks and participates in public debate.
I would like to believe that both activities form part of a single, inseparable reality.
But now, to be honest with you, and to try to respond to generosity of this invitation,
I feel I should explain my political position in some detail.
This is not an easy task.
I fear it is not enough to claim that I am, perhaps it would be wiser to say,
believe I am, a liberal.
The term itself raises the first complication.
As you will know, "liberal" has different and frequently antagonistic meanings
depending on who says it and where they say it.
For example, my late beloved grandmother, Carmen, used to say that the man
was a liberal when referring to a gentleman of dissolute habits.
Someone who, not only did not go to mass, but also spoke ill of the priests.
(laughter)
For her, the prototypic incarnation of a liberal was a legendary ancestor of mine
who, one fine day in my native city of Arequipa in Peru, told his wife that he was going
to the main square to buy and newspaper and never returned.
(laughter)
The family heard nothing of him until 30 years later, when the fugitive gentleman died in Paris.
"So why did that liberal uncle fleet to Paris, Grandma?"
"Why else, son? To corrupt himself, of course."
(laughter)
This story may be the remote origin of my liberalism and my passion for French culture.
(laughter)
In the United States and in Anglo-Saxon world, in general,
the term "liberal" has left its connotations and is sometimes associated with
being a socialist and a radical.
On the other hand, in Latin America and Spain, where the world was going in the 19th century,
to describe the rebels who fought against the Napoleonic occupation,
they call me a liberal, or worse yet, a neo-liberal to exorcise or discredit me.
Because the political perversion of our semantics has transformed the original meaning of the term,
"a lover of liberty, a person who rises up against oppression,"
to signify conservative of all reactionary that is something which, when it comes
from the mouth of a progressive, means to be an accomplice to all the exploitation
and injustices befalling the world's poor.
Liberalism in Latin America was a progressive,
intellectual and political philosophy that, in the 19th century, opposed militarism and dictators,
wanted the separation of church and the state,
and the establishment of democratic and civilian culture.
In most countries liberals were persecuted, exiled, sent to prisons or killed by the brutal regimes
that, with few exceptions, Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay
and no more, prospered all over the continent.
But in the fifteenth century revolution, no democracy was the aspiration
of the political avantgarde elites.
And this aspiration was shared by a great number of young people who wanted to emulate
the Varela example of Fidel Castro and the Barbudos in Sierra Maestra.
Marx, Fidel and Che Guevara became the icons of the left and the extreme left.
In this context liberals were considered conservatives, defenders of the status quo
and disfigured and caricaturized so much that the real political goals and authentic ideas
only permeated as small circles and were out of touch with large sections of society.
The confusion about liberalism was so extended
that Latin American liberals were obliged to dedicate much of their time to defend themselves
against the distortions and ridiculous accusations they received from the left and from the right.
Only in the last decades of the 20th century, things have started to change in Latin America
and liberalism came to be recognised as something deeply different from the Marxist left
and the extreme right.
And it is important to mention that this was possible, at least in the cultural sphere,
because of the courageous endeavour of the great Mexican poet and essayist Octavio Paz and the magazines that he published.
First, "Plural" and then "Vuelta."
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union,
and the conversion of China to a capitalist, though authoritarian country,
political ideas also evolved in Latin America
and the culture of freedom made important gains all over the continent.
That said, it's still difficult for many people to agree
on the authentic meaning of the word "liberal."
To complicate matters further, even liberals themselves cannot seem to fully agree
on what "liberals" means and what it means to be a liberal.
Everyone who has had the opportunity to attend a conference or congress of liberals
knows that these gatherings are often very entertaining because discrepancies prevail
over agreements and because, as often happened with the Trotskyists, when they existed,
every liberal is in and of himself, potentially both a heretic and a sectarian.
Because liberalism is not an ideology, that is a dogmatic lay religion,
but rather an open, evolving doctrine that yields to reality instead of trying to force reality to do the yielding.
There are diverse tendencies and profound discrepancies among liberals.
With regard to religion and social issues, liberals like me, who are agnostics as well as
supporters of the separation between church and state
and defenders of the decriminalisation of abortion, gay marriage and drugs are sometimes
harshly criticised by other liberals who have opposite views on these issues.
These differences of opinion are healthy and useful because they do not violate
the basic precepts of liberalism, which are political democracy, the market economy
and the defence of individual interests over those of the states.
For example, there are liberals who believe that economics is the field through which
all problems are resolved and that the free market is the panacea for everything from poverty
to unemployment, discrimination and social exclusion.
These liberals, through living algorithms,
have sometimes generated more damage to the cause of freedom than did the Marxists,
the first champions of the absurd thesis that the economy is the driving force
of the history of nations and the basis of civilization.
It simply is not true.
Ideas and culture are what differentiate civilization from barbarism, not the economy.
The economy by itself, without the support of ideas, values and culture, may produce optimal results on paper,
but it does not give purpose to the lives of people, it does not offer individuals
reasons to resist adversity and stand united with compassion or allow them to live
in an environment permeated by humanity.
It is culture, a body of shared ideas, values, beliefs and customs
among which religion may be included, of course, that gives warmth and life to democracy
and allows the market economy, with its competitive, cold mathematics of reward and success
and punishing failure to avoid degenerating into a Darwinian battle in which, as Isaiah Berlin put it,
"Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs."
The free market is the best mechanism in existence for producing riches and, if well complemented
with other institutions and uses of democratic culture, can launch the material progress of a nation
to the spectacular heights with which we are familiar.
But it is also a relentless instrument which, without the spiritual or intellectual component
that culture represents, can reduce life to a ferocious, selfish struggle in which only the fittest survive.
Thus, the liberal I aspire to be considers freedom a core value.
Thanks to this freedom, humanity has been able to journey from the primitive cave
to the stars and the information revolution.
To progress from various forms of collectivist and despotic association
to human rights and representative democracy.
The foundations of liberty are private property and the rule of law.
This system guarantees the fewest possible forms of injustice,
produces the greatest material and cultural progress, most effectively, esteems values
and provide the greatest respect for human rights.
According to this concept of liberalism, freedom is a single, unified concept.
Political and economic liberties are as inseparable as the two sides of a medal.
Because freedom has not been understood as such in Latin Americ,
the region has had many failed attempts at democratic rule.
This was either because the democracy that began emerging after the dictatorships were toppled,
respected political freedom but rejected economic liberty,
which inevitably produced more poverty, inefficiency and corruption.
Or because they left to authoritarian governments convinced that only a firm hand
and a repressive regime could guarantee the function of the free market.
This is a dangerous fallacy and was demonstrated in countries like Peru
during the dictatorship of Alberto Fujimori and in Chile under General Augusto Pinochet.
True progress has never stemmed from these types of regimes.
This explains why all these, so-called, free market Latin American dictatorships have failed.
No free economy can function without an independent, efficient justice system
and no reforms are successful if they are implemented without control and the criticism
of public opinion that only democracy permits.
Those who believe that General Pinochet was the exception to the rule,
because his regime enjoyed economic success, have subsequently discovered with the revelations
about the murder and torture of thousands of citizens,
secret accounts and millions of dollars stashed abroad
that the Chilean dictator, like all of his Latin American counterparts, was not only a murderer, but also a thief.
Political democracy, freedom of the press and the free market are foundations of a liberal position.
But, thus formulated, these three expressions have an abstract, algebraic quality that
dehumanises and removes them from the experience of the common people.
Liberalism is much, much more than that.
Basically, it is tolerance and respect for others
and especially for those who think differently from ourselves, who practise other customs
and worship another god or who are not believers.
By agreeing to live with those who are different,
human beings took the most extraordinary step on the road to civilization.
It was an attitude or willingness that preceded democracy and made it possible.
Contributing more than any scientific discovery or philosophical system to counter violence
and calm the instinct to control and kill in human relations.
It is also what awakened that natural lack of trust in power, in all powers,
which is something of a second nature to us liberals.
We cannot do without power, except, of course, in the lovely utopias of the anarchists.
But it can be held in cheque and counterbalanced so that it does not become excessive.
It is possible to take away its unauthorised functions that quell the individual, that being,
who we liberals believe is the touchstone of society and whose rights must respect and guarantee.
Violating these rights inevitably unleashes a series of escalating abuses,
which, like concentric waves, sweep away the very idea of social justice.
Defending the individual is the natural consequence
of believing in freedom as an individual and social value par excellence because weeding a society,
freedom is measured by the level of autonomy citizens enjoy to organise their lives and work toward
their goals without unjust interference.
That is to strive for "negative freedom", as Isaiah Berlin called it in his celebrated essay.
Collectivism was inevitable during the dawn of history
when the individual was simply part of the tribe and depended on the entire society for survival,
but began to decline as material and intellectual progress,
enabled man to dominate nature, overcome the fear of thunder, the beast, the unknown and the other,
he who had a different colour of skin, another language and other customs.
But collectivism has survived throughout history in those doctrines and ideologies that planes
the supreme value of an individual and his belonging to a specific group, a race, social class, religion, or nation.
All of these collectivist doctrines, Nazism, Fascism, Religious Fanaticism
and Communism and Nationalism are the natural enemies of freedom and the bitter adversaries of liberals.
In the every age, that atavistic effect, collectivism has reared its ugly head
to threaten civilization and throw us back to the age of barbarism.
Yesterday, it was called Fascism and Communism.
Today, it is known as Nationalism and Religious Fundamentalism.
A great liberal thinker, Ludwig von Mises, was always opposed to the existence of liberal parties
because he felt that these political groups, by attempting to monopolise liberalism,
ended up denaturalizing it, pigeonholing it, forcing it into the narrow moulds of party power struggles.
Instead, he believed that the liberal philosophy should be a general culture, shared with all
the political currents and movements coexisting in an open society, supportive of democracy,
a school of thought to nourish social Christians, radicals, social democrats, conservatives and
democratic socialists alike.
There is a lot of truth to this theory.
Thus, in recent past, we have seen cases of conservative governments,
such as that of Ronald Regan, Margaret Thatcher and José María Aznar, which promoted deeply liberal reforms.
At the same time, we have seen nominally socialist leaders such as Tony Blair in United Kingdom,
Ricardo Lagos in Chile and in our days José Mujica in Uruguay
implement economic and social policies that can only be classified as liberals.
Although, the term liberal continues to be a dirty word,
that every politically correct Latin American has the obligation to detest,
essentially, liberal ideas and attitudes have begun to contaminate both the right and the left
on the continent of the lost illusions for some time now.
This explains why, in recent years, Latin American democracies have not collapsed
or been replaced by military dictatorships, despite the economic crisis, corruption
and failure of so many governments to realise their potential.
Of course, they are still there.
Cuba has those authoritarian forces, Fidel Castro and his brother Raul,
who, after 54 years of enslaving their country, are the leaders of the longest dictatorship
in Latin American history.
And the ill-fated Venezuela now suffers at the hand of President Nicolás Maduro, the appointed heir
of Commandant Hugo Chavez, a Statist and Marxist politician that soon will transform Venezuela into a second Cuba.
But they are two exceptions in a continent which, and this should be stressed, has never had
so many civilian governments born after, relatively, three elections.
And there are interesting and encouraging cases such as those of Brazil, where first Lula da Silva
and then Dilma Rousseff, before becoming presidents,
disposed of populist doctrine and economic nationalism
and the traditional hostility of the left towards the market.
But who, after taking power, practised fiscal discipline and promoted
foreign investments, private investments and globalisation.
Although, both governments have been deeply infected by corruption,
as has always happened with populist regimes, and have failed to continue with reform.
Populism, more than revolution, is today, the major obstacle for progress in Latin America.
There are many ways to define Populism.
But probably the more accurate is the kind of demagogic social and economic policies that sacrifice
the future of a country in favour of a transient present.
With fiery rhetoric infused with bravado, Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner,
has followed the example of her husband, the late president Nestor Kirchner
with nationalisations, interventionism, controls, persecution of the independent press.
Policies that have taken to the brink of disintegration a country at is potentially
one of the more prosperous of Latin America and of the world.
Other sad examples of Populism are the Bolivia of Evo Morales, the Ecuador of Rafael Correa,
and the Nicaragua of Sandinista Commander Daniel Ortega, who in various ways,
still implement the state control centralist recipe that had caused so much devastation across our continent.
But they are the exception, not the rule.
As was the case until quite recently in Latin America where not only dictators are vanishing
but also the economic policies that kept our countries in underdevelopment and poverty.
Even the left has been reluctant to renege on the privatisation of pensions,
which has occurred in 11 Latin American countries to date.
Whereas the backward left in the United States opposes the privatisation of social security.
These are positive signs of a certain modernization of the left which, without recognising it, is admitting
that the road to economic progress and social justice passes through democracy and the market,
which we liberals have long preached into the voids.
If, in fact, the Latin American left has accepted liberal politics,
albeit cloaked in a rhetoric that denies it, all the better.
It is a step forward suggesting that Latin America may finally escape from underdevelopment and dictatorships.
It is an advance, as is the emergence of a civilised right
that no longer believes that the solution to problems is to knock on the door of the military headquarters,
but rather to accept the vote and democratic institutions and to make them work.
Another positive sign in today's Latin American scenario filled with uncertainty,
is that the old anti-American sentiment pervading the continent has diminished notably.
The truth is that today anti-Americanism is stronger
in certain European countries like France and Spain than in Mexico or Peru.
Certainly, the war in Iraq, for example, mobilised vast sectors across the European political spectrum,
whose only common denominators seem to be not a love for peace,
but is resentment and hatred of the United States.
In Latin America, this mobilisation was marginally and practically confined to the hardline sectors of the far left.
Although, in recent days, the support of United States
of the Israel invasion of Gaza and the massacre of the civilian population that has taken place
has reawakened the anti-American feelings in certain sectors that seemed banished.
There are two reasons for the change in attitude toward the United States,
one pragmatic and the other one principle.
Latin Americans who have retained their common sense understand that, for geographic, economic and
political reasons, fluid, robust trade relations with United States are indispensable for our development.
In addition, U.S. foreign policy, rather than back dictatorships as it did in the past,
now consistently support democracies and reject authoritarian tendencies.
This has contributed to significantly reducing the distrust and hostility of Latin American democratic quarters
toward the powerful neighbour to the north.
This rapprochement and collaboration are crucial for Latin America to quickly
advance in its fight to eliminate poverty and underdevelopment.
In recent years, the liberal who speaks before you today has frequently been entangled in controversy
because he defended that real image of the United States,
which passions and political prejudice have occasionally deformed to the point of caricature.
The problem, those of us who tried to combat this stereotype face,
is that no country produces as much anti-U.S. artistic and intellectual material as the United States itself.
The native country, let us not forget of Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, and Noam Chomsky
to the extent that one must wonder if anti-Americanism is not one of those clever sport products manufactured by the CIA
to enable imperialists to ideologically manipulate the third-world masses.
Previously, anti-Americanism was especially popular in Latin America, but now, it's of course
in some European countries, especially those clinging to a past that was and that resist
accepting globalisation and the interdependence of nations in a world in which borders,
once solid and inexpungable have become porous and increasingly faint.
Of course, I certainly do not like everything that occurs in the United States.
For example, I lament the fact that many states still apply the horror that is the death penalty
as well as several other things such as the fact that repression takes priority over persuasion
in the war on drugs despite the lessons of prohibition.
But after computing these additions and subtractions,
I believe that the United States has the most open, functional democracy in the world
and the one with the greatest capacity for self-criticism, which enables it to renew
and update itself more quickly in response to the challenges and needs of change in historical circumstances.
It is a democracy which I admire for what Professor Samuel Huntington feared,
that formidable mixture of races, cultures, traditions and customs which have succeeded
in coexisting without killing each other thanks to that equality before the law
and the flexibility of the system that makes room
for diversity at its core within the common denominator of respect for the law and for the others.
In my opinion, the presence in the United States of some 50 million people of Latin American heritage
does not threaten the social cohesion or integrity of the country.
To the contrary, it bolsters the nation by contributing a cultural and vital
current of great energy in which the family is sacred.
With its desire for progress, capacity for work and aspiration for success,
this Latin American influence would greatly benefit the open society
without denouncing its origins, these communities integrating with loyalty and affection
into its new country and forging strong ties between the two Americas.
This is something to which I can attest almost first-hand.
When my parents were no longer young, they became two of those millions
of Latin Americans who immigrated to the United States in search of opportunities their countries did not offer.
They lived in Los Angeles for almost 25 years earning a living with their hands.
Something they never had to do in Peru.
My mother was employed for many years as a factory worker in a garment factory
full of Mexicans and Central Americans with whom she made many excellent friends.
When my father died, I thought my mother would return to Peru as he had requested.
But she decided to stay there living alone and even requesting and obtaining U.S. citizenship,
something my father never wanted to do.
Later, when the pains of old age forced her to return to her native land,
she always recalled the United States, her second country, with pride and gratitude.
For her there was never anything incompatible about considering herself both Peruvian and American.
There was no hint of conflicting loyalties.
And I think that the case of my mother is not exceptional.
That millions of Latin Americans feel as she did and will be building bridges between
the two cultures of the continent that, five centuries ago, was integrated to the western culture.
Perhaps this memory is something more than a filial evocation.
Perhaps we can see a glimpse of the future in this example.
We dream, as novelists tend to do a world stripped of fanatics, terrorists and dictators.
A world of different races, creeds and traditions
coexisting in peace thanks to the culture of freedom, in which borders have been breaches
that men and women can cross in pursuit of their goals with no other obstacle than their supreme free will.
Then, it will not be necessary to talk about freedom because it will be the air that we breathe
and because we will all truly be free.
Ludwig von Mises's ideal of a universal culture infused with respect for the law and human rights
will have become a reality.
Thank you very much.
(applause)
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I think we'll have some time for question from the floor.
First, I'd like to thank you on behalf of all of us and we knew that it would be a success.
Now you proved it.
And after that, I want to thank two people that are connected partly to Lindau
and partly to Peru because they helped, different to the laureates in economics,
that know the meetings in Lindau three years ahead, the dates of the meetings.
You made it possible by changing your agenda to come with very short notice and that's due to Mr. Ferber
who was born in the district of Lindau and his wife is from Peru.
And so thank you, now we can acclaim you.
(applause)
Because behind every great gentleman and man there's a strong wife and a strong lady.
And so thank you that you followed our tries and attempts to convince both of you.
(Mr. Llosa laughing)
(applause)
Now you kindly agreed to be open for a few questions and there two microphones at the right and the left side
so whoever likes to start, now you have the chance for a few question and then you will be
ready to sign the books and I know that there are many waiting for that and here are the pens
that should not destroy the table.
Well, there's our first question.
Sir?
Thank you for a very inspiring lecture.
You said a very strong thing, which is that Nationalism and Religious Fanaticism
are the modern equivalents of Fascism and Communism.
How worried are you about the revival of Nationalism here in Europe?
I am very worried.
I think Nationalism is a kind of collectivism that has been very destructive in the history of mankind.
Let us remember the two wold wars were born out of Nationalism.
Nationalism produced these catastrophic wars in which
millions and millions of people were sacrificed to the fanaticism of stupid leaders
who thought that to belong to a nation was a kind of value which justified conquests, destruction, genocide.
We thought we had learned out of these catastrophes but, unfortunately as Karl Popper once said,
"Civilization is a very thin surface which can be broken at any moment,"
and unfortunately this is happening in our days.
What is incredible, and this is happening in Europe,
the continent that suffered more than any other with these consequences of Nationalism that were the two world wars.
It's still a minor phenomenon in Europe, but it is still there.
We are living in Europe, an extraordinary, positive experience, which is the construction of the European Union.
The European Union is a kind of pragmatic utopia that has been effectively working.
It has been assuring a peace in Europe for more than half a century,
something that never, never in the past Europe experienced.
So, already it's still producing these kind of very positive results:
coexistence and diversity, which is the democratic ideal and the real basis for civilization.
So I think we must mobilise ourselves, not accept these pessimistic ideas
that Europe is a failure, that Europe has failed.
This is not true.
We are experiencing very very serious challenges to the construction of Europe.
The creation of this new entity has produced the natural reactions of fanatics, sectarians
but we must oppose with a clear conscience of what is on the stage.
On one hand, this regression to the past, a past that has been marred by catastrophes as the two world wars.
And on the other hand, a new kind of humanity in which
tolerance will be a kind of value that guarantees this coexistence and diversity.
I think it's a very, very difficult moment but I think it's very important not to surrender to pessimism,
not to believe that we have failed in the construction of civilization, this is not true.
I admire enormously Karl Popper, I think he was one of the great modern thinkers
and probably the most important thinker for the culture of liberty.
The last time that he went to Madrid, he was asked in a public meeting,
"What do you think of today?
Our world is a catastrophe.
Everything that you look, there are wars, fanaticism, crimes."
And he answered something, I think, deeply moving.
He said, "It is true.
There are horrendous things around us, but we must remember that never in history,
never, we had so many instruments, scientific, cultural, artistic, ideals, values as in our days
to defeat all the demons that have produced all the catastrophes of the past. We can defeat illness.
We can defeat poverty."
Now we have the instruments to defeat illness, to defeat poverty, to defeat discrimination, racism.
We know what means racism, what can produce racism.
So we know we have all these instruments.
It depends entirely on us to produce this reform, these transitions, to a better future for humankind.
I think these ideas of Karl Popper should be present when we are tempted to be pessimists.
Yes, things are going badly.
But, if we look at the past, things have never been so good as they are today.
So this should give us the enthusiasm to face the challenge and to defeat the adversaries of civilization.
(applause)
Hi, thank you.
I come from Mexico and you are quite remembered there
for describing a government that's the perfect dictatorship when it was supposed to be a democracy.
Do you have any thoughts about Mexican government nowadays?
Sorry, will you repeat the last phrase?
Higher please.
Do you have thoughts about Mexican government nowadays?
The party that was, when you said that about the perfect dictatorship, is back now.
Well, yes.
I thought that the 70 and some more years of control of power in Mexico by the PRI
represented a kind of perfect dictatorship.
Fortunately, it was not so perfect because at the last this dictatorship fell apart.
Now the PRI is again back at power, but through free elections.
Elections were free and the Mexicans decided to give a new chance to the PRI.
I wouldn't have voted for the PRI, certainly, but the Mexicans have voted in free elections
so we must respect, if we live in democracy, we must accept the decisions of the Mexican electorate.
Let's say, a very important thing: this PRI, I think, is different of the past one.
This PRI now, is respecting formal democracy.
There are other political parties which are strong and which are acting as a real opposition,
not as fake opposition as it used to be during the perfect dictatorship.
There is free press, which is new in Mexico.
There wasn't free press, it was manipulated by power.
But not anymore, now there is real free press.
So, the PRI that is governing Mexico now has much better credentials than in the past.
And I must say that the economic reforms that this government is doing with the support
of some of the opposition parties - privatisation, for example, of some nationalised industrie,
the liberalisation of enterprises that were state monopolies -
are good policies that are producing, I would say, democratic consequences.
So I wouldn't say that the new PRI represents exactly what the ancient PRI was.
Now, I think we can accept the idea that Mexico has changed.
That there is a new Mexico, much more democratic than in the past.
Far away from perfect democracy, as I think all democratic countries are.
But I think there is, in Mexico, great, great improvement
for what it used to be their politics until, let's say, 20 years ago.
Would you agree for three more questions and I think we'd take them and then you can answer.
So there's one question here, one question here, and one question up there.
So, he was waiting for the longest time.
If you'll start?
You mention, Sir, that Venezuela
is on the way to becoming a second Cuba, something that saddens me as a Venezuelan, but to which I agree.
And I wonder, what has to happen or what one can do for that prediction not to come to reality?
Maybe it was a bit pessimistic to say it is moving towards Cuba.
I was, a few months ago, in Venezuela and I was impressed with the mobilisation
against the government, particularly of young people.
It's very interesting how the universities,
which used to be citadels of the left and the extreme left in the past, are now at the front of the resistance
to the Maduro government and to the pushing of Venezuela towards the Cuban model.
The opposition is very courageous in spite of the very hard repression that they are facing.
They are there manifesting in the streets.
Although the repression of the press is enormous, there are still some papers that survive in spite of this.
Some radio stations that express the manifestos and the criticism of the opposition.
So, I don't think it will be easy for the Maduro government to establish a kind of total dictatorship in Venezuela.
What is a shame in Latin America is the democratic governments, instead of supporting the Venezuelan opposition
who is fighting to recover the democracy that Venezuela is losing systematically, are maintain a neutral position
or, in worst, are supporting Maduro government, which I think has lost the support of the majority of the Venezuelan population.
The Venezuelans who are in the opposition, fighting for democracy, fighting for freedom feel alone, abandoned,
treasoned by the democratic governments of Latin America and I think their feelings are absolutely right.
But it's very interesting how, alike what happened in the 60s with Cuba, now, there is a democratic left
that is still very reluctant to support the kind of reforms that the Maduro government is doing
and are economically destroying, practically, Venezuela, potentially, as you know, a very, very rich country.
So maybe it was a bit pessimistic to say that Venezuela is moving in a fatal way towards the Cuban model.
No, I think there are Venezuelans that are resisting, I think there are, every day, more Venezuelans
fighting for democracy and the final result of this battle is still, fortunately, still uncertain.
Question over here.
First of all, I would like to thank you very much for your inspiring talk,
but more than that, for all the wonderful and awesome novels and essays you have given us during the last century.
Sorry.
(applause)
Sorry, I can't hear. What did he say?
I say I want to thank you very much
for the wonderful novels and essays you have given us in the course of the last century
and in the half century since 1962 or 1964.
Thank you very much.
(applause)
In this relation, I would like to ask
a question referring to the possible strength of power of novelists and writers and artists
to participate or to be part of shaping a better world.
And we, right now here in Germany, in France, but also in the U.S. witness
the rediscovery and revival of an Austrian author who long was thought to be forgotten.
This is Stefan Zweig.
Stefan Zweig is, again, very popular and he had written this wonderful book "The World of Yesterday"
"Le Monde d'hier.", "Die Welt von Gestern."
And he committed suicide, of course, in despair of the situation in Europe, in Latin America,
namely in Petrópolis,
and what I wanted to ask you is, are you aware of the legacy of Stefan Zweig?
Would you recommend him also to be one of the advocates of the same thing you propose?
Because you said we have all the measures at hand right now to realise a free and liberal world,
which Stefan Zweig describes that we had it already 100 years ago also,
but then nevertheless the big catastrophe came.
So have we really learned something?
And can novelists help us to learn?
Oh, I am a great admirer of Stefan Zweig, yes.
I have read his essays, his marvellous memoirs, the description of the Europe of the past,
which summoned the culture, of civilization, of literature, of arts.
And I also admire his novels and short stories.
He committed suicide because he thought living in exile in Brazil, that all this has been defeated.
And that barbarism, the barbarism represented by Nazism, by Hitler, will win the war.
Fortunately, he was wrong.
It didn't happen.
Barbarism was defeated by civilization.
I think if he would live in our days, he would be very nostalgic of the Europe that he knew in his youth.
But I think he will be less pessimistic than he was when he committed suicide in Brazil.
The Europe in our days is much better than the Europe that he knew.
The Europe that he knew was still deeply corrupted by these stupid ideologies, destructive ideologies,
Communism, Fascism, these ideologies have been defeated by the culture of freedom.
They are defeated.
They are trying to reinvent themselves.
But still, what is represented in our days is minimum by comparison with the Europe of
60 or 80 years ago in which democracy was so small, so minimal.
The world seemed to be between the horrible election of Communism or Fascism.
This is not the case in our days.
And fortunately this is not the case in our days.
In our days, cultural freedom has made enormous gains.
Of course, we have enormous challenges, we have very serious enemies of the culture of freedom, but by comparison
with what represented freedom in the world of Stefan Zweig, we have made progress.
We have made enormous progress and what is important now is to defend this progress and not to regress.
Not to regress to barbarism once more.
(applause)
One more?
So, one last question.
And as the person that will take the question is up on the third level, please make it a very short one
because there is no microphone upstairs and otherwise we won't understand it.
Can you see him?
Yes, I do.
I want to thank you for your beautiful literature and your essays.
You mention that stories about you and your mom when you migrated to the U.S.
I can relate, I lived there for eight years.
And you mention how when she went back to Peru, that she said she is Peruvian and American.
Also, you yourself, you are Peruvian and Spanish.
That's right.
So my question would be,
if you would have to choose, let's say Spanish person, you can become Spanish
or would you become Peruvian, what is your choice?
I don't accept the choice.
(laughter and applause)
This kind of choice is terrorism.
You shouldn't accept.
I am very happy with my Peruvian nationality and I am also very happy with the Spanish nationality.
I feel Peruvian, Spanish, Latin American, European, man of the 21st century, man of the world, that is civilization.
That is civilization.
(applause)
I'll be very happy to be German, too.