COHA's Open Forum/News

COHA's Open Forum and
News Regarding COHA

On a periodic basis, COHA will post comments and responses coming from its readership regarding its publications, including:
Memoranda to the Press, COHA Commentary and the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
Open Forum Editor: COHA Staff

To Contribute to COHA's Open Forum.
Send your emails to coha@coha.org

Table of Contents

June 20, 2006: Regarding COHA’s June 6 release “Flirting with Danger: Mexican Presidential Campaign Grows Tense”

COHA has received a number of comments regarding its June 6 report, “Flirting with Danger: Mexican Presidential Campaign Grows Tense.” These have ranged from high praise to harsh criticism. A frequent comment was that Michael Lettieri’s evaluation of President Fox was overly critical. Below, COHA reprints one such letter (slightly edited) and offers the author’s response to several themes which appeared frequently in readers’ comments.

Dear Sirs,
Living in Mexico I feel that the recent letter prepared by Michael Lettieri simply expresses a perception that is distorted.

If Fox did nothing else other than defeat the PRI, that was enough.

He faced a congress controlled by PRD and PRI, if PRD cared for the country as much as their own power they could have joined with PAN in helping the forward movement of Mexico viz when Fox attempted to appoint an experienced group of executives as a board to bring Pemex into the 21st century, he was shot down.

In the U.S. I have never seen a presidential election when the incumbent party did not push the candidate representing their party. If Blair appears to support Bush, as Thatcher supported Reagan, it is no big deal. That the former Spanish Prime Minister intervened in Mexico’s presidential race on behalf of his ideological compatriot, will not affect the race.

The article makes it appear that Mexico is on the brink of disaster; this is simply wrong. The gentleman from COHA is expressing a narrow view which is dependent on sophistry.

Arthur J. Kreizel

COHA’s Response
Many readers shared Mr. Kreizel’s belief that COHA’s rather rough treatment of President Fox was unwarranted, yet I do not feel this is the case. While I share the belief that Fox deserves plaudits for his work in defeating the PRI both prior to his 2000 campaign and during it, to suggest that simply ending the one-party system was sufficient reeks of defeatist fatalism. Frankly, to claim that defeating the PRI was “enough,” sanctions failure and lack of vision, and provides an excessively gracious six year free-pass.

Mexican democracy is still in a nascent phase, and has hardly been fully consolidated on all levels. Important changes in subnational practices, institutional structure, civic culture and social participation still remain unconsummated. Moreover, contemporary politicians are less than six years removed from an authoritarian system, and are struggling to accept the values of democracy. It was this inexperience – a flaw which all were guilty of – that helped stymie Fox’s early attempts at reform. And as much as the opposition parties are deserving of criticism in this failure, neither can Fox be completely exonerated.

While Fox was not entirely inactive, as the countless signs shamelessly proclaiming “El gobierno de cambio cumple” (“the government of change delivers”) next to bridges and highways attest, I feel that there are two areas where he has fallen short. First, while Mexico’s macroeconomic indicators are better than ever, the country remains highly unequal and growth has not been inclusive enough, a fact evidenced by the unremitting stream of northward migration to the United States. Second, and I believe perhaps more importantly, Fox has done little to help the country advance a democratic culture. A 2006 survey by Mexico City daily El Universal found that only 50 percent of respondents felt that Fox had aided the development of democracy in Mexico, and his behavior in the current campaign has underscored that sad reality.

As previously noted, Mexican democracy is exceedingly youthful, and that is precisely why Fox’s interjections into the campaign are so problematic. To compare the Mexican political system to that of the U.S. or U.K. overlooks that fact. For one, such actions have only had a negative influence on Mexico’s political tone. Secondly, quite frankly they were in violation of campaign laws. To suggest that Aznar’s visit was “no big deal” is to excuse the PAN’s breach of regulations – the event may have been insignificant because it had no impact on the electorate, but it was hardly legal. The establishment of the IFE was one of the great legacies of Mexico’s democratic transition, and that body has come to play an important role as a referee on an admittedly rough and tumble playing field. For Fox and the PAN, who as much as anyone have benefited from the IFE’s contributions to democratization, to systematically trample the organization’s strictures – both in letter and in spirit – is a display of rank hypocrisy at best.

Because of this cutthroat approach to Mexico’s electoral campaign, at the time of the COHA article’s publication, it appeared as though conditions existed which would have made a post-election conflict likely. I shared this feeling with many others, including distinguished Mexican historian Enrique Krauze, who also expressed concern that a dispute could arise, although the degree to which we feared disintegration perhaps differed. At any rate, I was hardly suggesting that a revolution was looming, though I did fear an acrimonious post-ballot conflict. Since then, the climate has cooled somewhat with the June 13 signing of a civility pact between all of the major parties participating in the election, a move which represents a significant and important step towards ensuring governability after July 2. I do not think chaos is inevitable, but I feel there is reason to believe that a minor crisis could emerge.

Even if the election and its aftermath proceed smoothly, however, Mexico may not be clear of danger. A “disaster,” as Mr. Kreizel puts it, can take many forms, and more worrisome than a July 3 conflict would be the lingering effect on Mexican democracy of a tainted electoral process and ensuing political gridlock. Already, many Mexicans are disenchanted with the nature of their democracy, feeling that it fails to adequately address problems or offer meaningful representation. According to a 2004 study, 54 percent of Fox supporters in 2000 were dissatisfied with democracy, and the El Universal poll put dissatisfaction with democracy overall at 55 percent.

While Mexicans are sanguine about their country’s political prospects (47 percent of those surveyed by El Universal predicted a better situation next year), this optimism could be fleeting. A Calderón presidency stonewalled by the PRD, or a López Obrador government receiving the same treatment from the PAN, would dash those hopes and exaggerate feelings of disenchantment. In this sense, the winner on July 2 is far less important than the manner in which that triumph is attained. Whichever candidate emerges victorious will have to reconcile the country’s divisions and move forward with an agenda that benefits all Mexicans. The bitterness sown during the campaign, with both Calderón and López Obrador employing – to varying degrees – polarizing language, will only complicate the prospects for progress, which all agree would be an undeniably “disastrous” outcome for the nation.

- Michael Lettieri

Regarding COHA's June 8, 2006 Opinion " Torture is Un-American: The SOA and its Devastating Legacy"

April 20, 2006: Concerning the Honor of Jackson Diehl

In response to COHA's April 19, 2006 Press Release "Neither Honor nor Professionalism to be Found in Jackson Diehl’s Analysis of Latin America" COHA was criticized for what the reader felt was an excessively personal attack over what he felt was a matter of opinion. The comment, and COHA's response follow.

How dare you attack a man's honor for what obviously are opinion pieces simply because he disagrees with your point of view.

You should be ashamed of ourselves.

Jay Brodell
editor
A.M. Costa Rica

COHA Responds: Our answer begins with the insistence that Mr. Diehl is as much an ideologue as he is a journalist, and that we who have closely monitored his work know him more as someone who works his shiv in the most indecent of manners when it comes to skewering his prey. As we have written (and will shortly write again on the subject) a typical Diehl product will contain massive distortions concerning the facts he relies upon to establish his case, chronic selective indignation in selecting his targets, and a refusal to engage in fair play. Diehl’s writings, for example, on the Venezuelan anti-Chávez organization, Súmate, are little better than a puff piece mixed with propaganda in which he leaves out key information in favor of creating a straw man who he then proceeds to savage. Some of us at COHA happened to have gone through the destruction of the constitutional government of Chile and President Allende, realize that there are those (as was the case on the editorial page of his own newspaper) who were quite prepared to risk the system in order to get rid of a sitting elected government that they happened to despise. This is why we feel that Diehl operates beyond the acceptable perimeters of debate and why we pointed to the absence of honor in the mixed baggage that he brings to the table and this is why we “dare” challenge him to a public two-way dialogue.

April 20, 2006: On Plan Patriota and the FARC

In response to COHA's April 20, 2006 Press Release "Plan Patriota: What $700 Million in U.S. Cash Will and Will Not Buy You in Colombia" COHA received the following critique of what was perceived as one-sided analysis. The comment, and COHA's response follow.

Granted Uribe's not such a tasty bit. But if COHA wants the appearance of even-handedness, why don't you question FARC's hostage politics? Stolen lives. As anti-human, anti-democratic as a tactic comes. And to what end? No one in power gives a damn about those stolen lives. Apparently they aren't even tradeable.

yours

Kai Maristed

COHA Response: We think that FARC's hostage tactics are horrendous, but our Plan Patriota article was about the Colombian government's program and not necessarily about FARC. But we do intend to do a FARC analysis piece shortly.

March 21, 2006: Regarding COHA's Analysis of the Mexican Election Campaign

In response to COHA's March 20, 2006 Press Release "Mexican Campaign Turns Dirty as López Obrador Stretches his Lead," COHA received the following criticism that our analysis was heavily biased in favor of the PRD candidate. The comment, and COHA's response follow.

I'm truly surprised by this "analysis" by Michael Lettieri, it sounds more like a rallying call in support of Lopez Obrador than serious political analysis. True, Lopez Obrador may be waging a successful campaign by hiding from public scrutiny -- he has not agreed to participate in the four proposed televised debates -- but history has taught us many times that a successful campaigner for president does not necessarily makes for a good president when in office, suffice to mention President Bush and President Chavez.

Sergio Ferragut

COHA Response: The prime example of a successful campaigner who fails in office, of course, would be President Fox – the right man to defeat the PRI, the wrong man to govern afterwards. In our analysis, COHA sought to recap the recent events in the race, which regardless of your political affinities, seem to favor López Obrador. Indeed, in the report we point to objective poll numbers which reaffirm López Obrador’s “unassailable” standing. In criticizing the new tactics adopted by Calderón and Madrazo, COHA was not implicitly praising the PRD candidate – in fact we find his refusal to debate curious at best – but rather observing that the strain of running in second (or third) place has greatly affected the PAN and PRI. While the article may pivot around López Obrador, it does so simply because the campaign itself increasingly seems to turn on that axis.

March 16, 2006: Regarding COHA’s March 16 Opinion article, "Guatemala's Cursed Armed Forces: Washington's Old Friend is Back in Town."

In response to COHA's March 16 opinion article, "Guatemala's Cursed Armed Forces: Washington's Old Friend is Back in Town," COHA received the following email from Frank Mankiewicz.

Nice piece on the Guatemalan military. Are we setting up a multinational force to move on Venezuela, awaiting only a pretext?

Frank

Coha Responds: We hear such a force is in the works, only awaiting the sign up Frank Mankiewicz as its communications director, so at least one aspect of the operation will be done in a non-embarrassing manner.

March 7, 2006: Regarding COHA’s Memorandum to the Press: Costa Rica's Oscar Arias, A Man not Without Flaws (March 7, 2006)

The following is a response to COHA’s opinion article that Guatemala’s president at the time, Vinicio Cerezo, is the person that rightfully deserved the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize as much as its ultimate winner, recently re-elected Costa Rican president, Oscar Arias.

Dear COHA,

I consider it an act of disrespect the way that you characterized Oscar Arias, President-Elect of Costa Rica. You have not read very well the events of the Central American wars. Oscar Arias was the promoter of peace in this region. Maybe, COHA obeys selfish interests, abundant everywhere, including in those fanatics that wish to come back to the chaos of the 1980s. The Nobel Peace Prize was a tribute to Oscar Arias and to the people of Costa Rica.

Ronald Obaldía,
Costa Rica

March 2, 2006: COHA in Odd Places

Hi Cohistas,

This is Selina Carter, a past intern during the Summer of 2004. I hope everything is going wonderfully at COHA! I just wanted to mention that last night a speaker came to campus from the University of Central Florida, Professor Waltraud Morales, to talk about Evo Morales' election win and its effects on Latin American politics. She quoted COHA, I could only imagine that her "expert" was none other than the Dr. Larry Birns himself. I felt so proud!

My warmest regards, Selina

Dickinson College
Secretary, Model United Nations Team
Co-President, Spanish Club & House

COHA on the Road

Beginning in April, COHA director Larry Birns will be speaking on a number of university campuses, and will be available to interview prospective interns for COHA’s highly regarded summer internship program. While other appearances are now being scheduled, Birns will be speaking at the University of Chicago’s Center for Latin American Studies on April 3 and on April 23 and 24, he will be addressing a forum at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. Birns will be speaking on the current crisis in U.S.-Latin American relations posed by the resurgence of the left as a dynamic regional force. For information about setting up a local interview, please contact COHA via email (coha@coha.org) or by phone, 202 223 4975.

A Moment for Pride: Two COHA Interns Win the World’s Most Coveted Student Award

On November 19, the highly prized 2005 Rhodes Scholarships for up to three years of post-graduate study at Oxford University, were handed out to the 32 recipients nationwide. These awardees had met some of the most exacting standards of academia and beyond. In a highly competitive contest, that had them first selected by their home institutions to participate, then to make the final cut, and then to go on to prevail in the final round against other members of the nation’s most promising young scholars. COHA is proud to take note that two of the 32 successful candidates had served as COHA interns in recent months. Both Jessica Leight and Xuan Trang Thi Ho had stellar tenures at COHA, and each wrote a number of outstanding articles while being exemplary members of its 30-member intern corps. Aside from their skills and their ebullient brightness, they brought with them to COHA a capacity for great goodwill and a determination to better themselves every day in every way. Their ability to write brilliant studies was almost a bonus.

In the case of “Trang,” this meant a series of compelling pieces for COHA’s biweekly professional publication, the Washington Report on the Hemisphere. These included an analysis of China’s economic and political probe of Latin America and the battle over the Central American Free Trade pact. Trang’s research on China’s emerging role in Latin America was one of the earliest pieces in this country to be written on the subject and generated a good deal of commentary in the media and among political Washington. It was particularly relevant, as it delved into the implications of what China’s growing involvement in the region portended for future U.S.-China relations. Trang and her Vietnamese refugee family moved to the U.S. in 1994. They settled in Nebraska, where she later entered Nebraska Wesleyan University. Like Jessica Leight, Trang will graduate in 2006. More about Trang’s truly remarkable background is available in a press memorandum released by her university (http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/media/releases/2005RhodesScholar.html). Trang was also recently named one of USA Today's First Team College Academic Allstars, one of 20 of the nation's highest achievers. The USA Today article is available here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-02-14-college-allstars-first-team_x.htm.

Jessica, of Northampton Massachusetts, came to COHA after finishing her freshman year at Yale University. She joined us during that summer and for one month during the following summer (when she was made a COHA research fellow,) as well as continued her COHA association as an extramural research fellow for part of the following year. Aside from her social activist engagements in New Haven, Jessica managed to author and co-author literally scores of articles and papers, as well as being the most quoted analyst in COHA’s history, which included over 1,000 other interns. If one would google her name today, one would encounter literally hundreds, if not thousands, of citations referring to her articles. During her time at COHA, she specialized on Venezuela and Haiti, including co-authoring the afterword of Dr. Paul Farmer’s recently published The Uses of Haiti, in which Jonathan Kozol and Noam Chomsky also participated.

She also co-authored an article on Washington’s Latin American policy in the Foreign Service Journal. Jessica’s on-site work on Chile and Argentina’s economies, enabled by summer research grants awarded to her by Yale, fundamentally challenged common perceptions about these countries’ recent growth, and revealed that development had come at significant social cost. For a biographical treatment of Jessica, read the Yale Daily News article that contains revealing information about her career at her university (http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=30997).

TOP

COHA Internships

COHA is now seeking candidates for its Summer of 2006 internship program. COHA internships are highly respected by the Washington policymaking community for their rigor and the valuable learning experience they provide, with former COHA interns gaining prominent positions in journalism, the Foreign Service, staff positions in congressional offices, as well as being admitted to some of the most renown professional schools and graduate programs in the country. Internships, which are available throughout the year, are voluntary and usually are awarded on a highly competitive basis. COHA interns (classified as research associates) receive a very substantial experience featuring multiple publication opportunities under the intern's own byline, as well as to appear on public affairs - related radio programs. COHA's office provides a very friendly, if informal, environment in which interns strengthen their writing skills and analytical abilities. COHA is a recognized factor in the evolution of U.S., Latin American, and Canadian policy, and its interns (who average 30 members in a class) play a major role in every phase of its work.

For More on COHA Internship Opportunities Click Here

TOP

Announcing the 2006 COHA Speakers Bureau

Over its 30 year history, COHA has sent its director, trustees, staff members, senior research fellows, analysts and affiliated experts around the country and the world to speak on a variety of economic, political and social topics that are having a compelling impact on the U.S., Canada and Latin America. COHA speakers are established experts in their field and draw on a wealth of current relevant information, as well as explore the ancient roots of many contemporary crises. Fees are set on a sliding scale and all proceeds from speaking engagements, less expenses, are returned to COHA, allowing the organization to continue its respected tradition of non-partisan research, analysis and advocacy.

Below is a sampling of the many topics COHA speakers could address. If you are interested in booking a speaker, please contact COHA at

February 16, 2006: Comments on COHA's Haiti Analysis

In response to our February 3 press release, "Botched Job: The UN and the Haitian Elections," COHA received several comments, excerpts from an email we received from Neal Perrochet are published below:

Congratulations on fairly reporting how an international police force (UN) is not the promised good fairy of the official left and "liberals.." Currently, in Africa, it has become a source of conflict and mismanagement, and worse, using foreign mercenaries to supposedly bring "peace" after years of proxy wars sometimes organized by the members of the Security Council. Isn't it time that the UN be called for what it is? The bastard child of the failed European Military Alliance - The League of Nations. Now everyone who is a major player in this club wants a bite of the cherry - membership on the "security council". If the left wants credibility on this issue(not labelling the author of good integrity here, just generally) it should denounce the UN as a military alliance (it is indeed the world's largest military alliance) and demand its restructuring as a decentralized facilitator of environmental, agricultural, cultural and public health initiatives, perhaps diplomatic forums for what they are worth (not much).

Thank you for this very well written story informing of the situation on the ground in Haiti.

Sincerely, neal ("non political" enviromental org can be seen at ERI)

February 13, 2006: Disputing COHA's Assessment of Súmate

COHA received the following email concerning our February 9 opinion article, "The Devil Wears Prada:" María Corina Machado and Washington’s Indecent Game Against Venezuela." In it, the author contests several of our assertions about the nature of the Súmate organization headed by Ms. Machado. The letter, and COHA's response follow.

My name is Manfredo Gonzalez, a 39 year old Venezuelan engineer, and one of the thousands of volunteers that SUMATE has all over the country. I’ve recently read your article “The Devil Wears Prada: María Corina Machado and Washington’s Indecent Game against Venezuela" published in your site www.coha.org, and I feel that I have to make some remarks about your allegations that have to be considered:

- In fact, SUMATE is a non-profit NGO whose primarily objective is to encourage individual freedom, the free expression of though and the full exercise of constitutional rights and obligations in Venezuela. (Source: www.sumate.org ). As for now, in all the visits and workshops I have had the chance to attend in SUMATE’s headquarters there hasn’t being a single action that has showed me otherwise.

- As you appoint in your article about Machado and Plaz, “The two are currently facing prosecution for “conspiracy against the republican form of the nation,” a charge stemming from Súmate’s acceptance of a $31,000 National Endowment for Democracy grant”. As you may consider, changing the republican form of the nation means that they should be trying to impose some source of monarchy, dictatorship or some other political form different from a democracy. Nothing farther from the truth, since all the actions and workshops done by SUMATE are strictly oriented by democratic criteria and sharply enclosed in our laws and constitution. And the idea of trying to change the republican form of the nation with $31.000 couldn’t be considered more than laughable.

- SUMATE has never being or plan to be a political party. A proof of that is the fact that many political groups have offered SUMATE’s directors an members the chance to run for political office (due to their big popularity among Venezuelans) and they have repeatedly turn down those offers. I think that there is a difference between politics (which SUMATE’s members are always concerned about) and political parties (which SUMATE IS NOT). As an example, I could imply for your writing that you are politically opposed to the Bush administration, but that doesn’t make you a Democrat Party leader, or further more, makes COHA a political party opposed to the Republican Party.

- In our Political Parties Law is well expressed, as you recall, that POLITICAL PARTIES “may not accept donations or subsidies…from foreign companies…or from foreign governments or organizations.” As proven before, SUMATE is not a political party since its members are not running for office. Further more, SUMATE’s involvement in the 2004 referendum exclusively oriented their actions toward the awareness of voters in the rights and obligations included in the recently approved Constitution (December 1999), that included the possibility of calling up a Revocatory Referendum (RR) for any elected official after their mid term in office. Such RR had a question to be answered NO or YES (in that order) meaning that you may choose between not to revoke President Chavez from office, or otherwise. SUMATE’s officers never called, sponsored or oriented voters in one or other direction. They just interpreted the Constitution and showed the voters how to call up that right (as I said, included in the 1999 Constitution), and helped organize many recollections of signatures needed to call up the RR (about 2.4 MM signatures were constitutionally required and over 3.7 MM signatures were collected).

- If we enter to consider the trial itself, you may not know some facts about it. First, it has being postponed 8 or 9 times so far, making it longer that it should be. Second, the appointed judge has risen as a unipersonal court (without the election of two jurors, as our laws imply). Third, in the first trial session that took place on Feb. 8th. the defendants and their lawyers were not allowed to respond the state allegations against them, in fact, they were not allowed to talk at all. Fourth, the public prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General to this case is asking for the defendants to be trialled in prison, alleging the possibility of not showing or escaping trial, contradicting a prior sentence made by the Supreme Court that they should be trialled in conditional freedom. There are strong rumours that in the next trial session schedule for Feb. 14th. both Machado and Plaz are going to be imprisoned, but they are decided to attend it anyway. Alejandro Plaz has even declared today that they have received several anonymous calls urging them to leave the country as a last chance given by the government.

These are just a few remarks I have allowed myself to make about your article. There are some more that probably I will be willing to share with you in the future. I can understand your willingness to confront the Bush administration in his Latin American foreign policies, in many ways I confront them myself, but you should deepen you knowledge in the Venezuelan reality to better understand what we are dealing with. We may have our differences with your government, but that doesn’t give the right to any president to call President Bush a murderer, genocide, Mr. Danger, or addressing to Condolezza Rice as a woman with lack of man companion, or the top U.S. government officials as a bunch of bandits. This kind of language has being used by Chavez and his supporters for over 3 years. More recently, Chavez confronted Great Britain Prime Minister Tony Blair with words that just cannot be translated.

I can assure you that both Maria Corina Machado and Alejandro Plaz (which I both personally know) are proven democrats, and all the actions taken by them and SUMATE are definitely oriented to show the voters their rights encouraged in the Venezuelan Constitution, and in no way are using international funds for partisan reasons.

I hope that you take this remarks in consideration, and if you are willing to deepen into the matter, don’t hesitate to contact me and I’ll be more than willing to write back.

Yours truly,

Manfredo Gonzalez

P.S. I will use the chance to show you a link to a web page, http://www.gentederedes.org/delfino-salas.pdf, which is a study made by two university professors about the RR completely in English. Soon this study is to be publish in Statistical Science, a well recognized magazine in the U.S. I also urge you to read the recent report made by OAE officials about our electoral system and the objections they make about it, the same objections hold by SUMATE.

COHA Responds: We welcome Mr. Gonzalez’s assessment of Súmate, but choose to disagree, as we find it far more than just one more NGO. Rather, we find the organization to be a militant ally of the opposition’s cabal. While we grant him that Súmate does all the things upon which he insists, we maintain that it also is in the business of overthrowing a constitutional government by all means that are necessary. We also believe that accepting NED and US AID funds further removes the “neutral” NGO mantle from it.

Regarding the assessment of the 2004 referendum, COHA feels that the assessment Mr. Gonzalez cites has pretty much been discredited as an “action” piece of research by two anti-Chávez militants, rather than a no-strings-attached reliable piece of work. Several other analyses have found no evidence of fraud, including one done by Stanford University professor Jonathan Taylor, which is discussed here: http://www.economist.com/World/la/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3157671.

COHA in the News (February):

An Occasional Sampling of COHA-generated Information and Analysis Cited in the Major Media

January 26, 2006: Specificity Regarding the Environmental Components of NAFTA and CAFTA-DR

COHA received the following email from University of Arizona Professor David A. Gantz of the Rogers College of Law in response to our January 23 Press Release "NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, and the Role of the Environment." In his email, Dr. Gantz criticizes COHA's characterizations of the Metalclad case and suggests that we recognize an important change which was made in the CAFTA-DR agreement. His email, and COHA's response follows.

Ms. Harr, I read the COHA papers on a regular basis and generally find them valuable, including this latest one. I don't quarrel with your general assessment of the NAFTA and CAFTA-DR environmental provisions, but I find your treatment of NAFTA Chapter 11 and CAFTA Chapter 10 (investment) incomplete and somewhat misleading. Metalclad is, of course, a favorite whipping boy of the anti-NAFTA forces generally, but I think you should be more careful quoting Public Citizen without cross checking the so called "facts." To date, there have been only four monetary awards under Chapter 11—Metalclad (around $18 million), SD Myers (around $6 million), Pope & Talbot (around $500,000) and Feldman Karpa (under $2 million)—about $27 million total, in twelve years. Perhaps more significantly, whatever one thinks of the Metalclad award, it's worth noting that the site Metalclad contracted to develop was a hazardous waste disposal site causing serious environmental problems before Metalclad arrived on the scene; Metalclad never operated the site (or caused the deposit of additional waste); and some years later, neither the Mexican government nor anyone else has cleaned up the site. This was not a situation in which Metalclad and the Mexican federal government wanted to put a hazardous waste site in a location that was pristine ante.

Secondly, you should have noted that there is a significant change in CAFTA-DR with regard to expropriation and regulatory takings. Annex 10-C of the CAFTA-DR provides in pertinent part, "Except in rare circumstances, nondiscriminatory regulatory actions by a Party that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, and the environment, do not constitute indirect expropriations." (Virtually identical language appears in the investment provisions of the Chile and Singapore FTAs.") Public Citizen may find it convenient to ignore this significant change, but COHA shouldn't.

Best regards,
David A. Gantz
Samuel M. Fegtly Professor of Law and Director, International Trade Law Program
Rogers College of Law
University of Arizona

COHA Responds: After exploring Professor Gantz’s well-reasoned comments, it does in fact appear that some statements made regarding NAFTA’s investment chapter (Chapter 11) as well as CAFTA-DR’s Chapter 10 warrant clarification. In regards to the total monetary fines distributed under Chapter 11 arbitrations, Professor Gantz takes issue with COHA’s citing of a Public Citizen Report which claims that five cases have been settled since NAFTA’s creation. Gantz asserts that in NAFTA’s 12 year history there have only been four monetary awards under Chapter 11—Metalclad, SD Meyers, Pope and Talbot, and Feldman Karpa—which together amount to approximately $27 million versus the over $35 million cited in the Public Citizen Report. The discrepancy is found in the latter’s inclusion of a fifth case, Ethyl vs. Canada, in its financial assessment of total awards. In this case, the Canadian government, concerned about losing the case, settled by paying Ethyl fines of $13 million before the final court ruling, as well as rescinding the contested MMT ban and issuing a statement that MTT was neither an environmental nor health risk—though it initially had provided substantial scientific evidence to the contrary.

Professor Gantz also feels that the circumstances described in the article regarding the Metalclad case were misleading. After careful review, it appears that he is correct in calling for clarification of the facts. The COHA article which states that “In one example, the Mexican government was forced to pay $15 million to the U.S. company, Metalclad, after being sued for denying it permission to build a toxic waste dump in an environmentally sensitive area,” was not accurate. The statement should have read “expanding” a toxic dump, rather than “building.” Professor Gantz’s explanation of the circumstances of Metalclad’s involvement in the dump site is indeed an accurate portrayal of the situation, and no doubt is worth noting. Nonetheless, the details he provided do not detract from COHA’s purported point that under Chapter 11, business interests—in this case Metalclad (as the action was brought under its name)—are provided with a method in Chapter 11 to trump NAFTA countries’ abilities to enforce environmental protection.

Finally, Professor Gantz calls attention to Annex 10-C of the CAFTA-DR agreement. This clause provides that “except in rare circumstances, nondiscriminatory regulatory actions by a Party that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, and the environment, do not constitute indirect expropriations.” COHA is grateful to Professor Gantz for bringing this important information to light. However, while a significant provision in itself, it remains to be seen if Annex 10-C will have the capacity to repair the egregious flaws found in NAFTA’s Chapter 11. Furthermore, “rare circumstances” is another glaring example of how the imprecise language used in reference to free trade pact’s tolerance for environmental considerations is intentionally vague, as well as highly open to a variety of interpretations.

COHA greatly appreciates the invaluable insights offered by Professor Gantz.

TOP

COHA in the News (January):

An Occasional Sampling of COHA-generated Information and Analysis Cited in the Major Media

Las elecciones en AL no inquietan a Bush (El Universal, January 2, 2006)

To the Left, March! (Time, January 9, 2006)

Larry Birns on CNN with Lou Dobbs (January 10, 2006)

Larry Birns on the Chilean Elections (BBC's The World, January 15, 2006)

Evo-lutionary Challenge (The Guardian, January 17, 2006)

Uruguay sacude al Mercosur con coqueteo con EEUU (Reuters, January 17, 2006)

Michael Lettieri on Bolivia (Marketplace Morning Report, January 20, 2006)

Cuba is Back in the Game (LA Times, January 21, 2006)

Revolutions Waged with Ballots (Toronto Star, January 28, 2006)

The Hugo Factor (U.S. News and World Report, January 30, 2006)

Harper Facing Latin American Challenge (Toronto Star, January 30, 2006)

TOP

COHA in the News (December):

An Occasional Sampling of COHA-generated Information and Analysis Cited in the Major Media

4 Parties Boycott Venezuela Vote (Chicago Tribune, December 1, 2005)

U.S. Military Presence in Paraguay Irks Neighbors (Christian Science Monitor, December 2, 2005)

Larry Birns on CBS Evening News, December 3, 2005)

Venezuela Holds Congressional Elections (AP, December 4, 2005)

Chávez Opponents Face Tough Times (BBC, December 6, 2005)

Venezuela to Help Bronx Residents with Heating Bills (New York Times, December 6, 2005)

Hugo Chávez Paraliza a Washington (La Vanguardia, December 11, 2005)

Larry Birns on Newsweek on Air (December 16, 2005)

Bolivia May Give U.S. New Problem (Miami Herald/Knight Ridder, December 16, 2005)

Bolivia's Morales Looks to Venezuela's Chávez (The Daily Journal, December 16, 2005)

Disaffected Bolivians May Join Turn to the Left (Chicago Tribune, December 17, 2005)
Also appeared in: the Boston Globe, the Duluth News Tribune, the San Luis Obispo Tribune, and the New Albany Tribune, among others.

Bolivian Hopeful Blasts U.S. (San Jose Mercury News, December 18, 2005)
Also appeared in: the Kansas City Star, the Bradenton Herald, the Miami Herald, and the Myrtle Beach Sun News, among others.

Larry Birns on CNN International (December 18, 2005)

New Bolivian Leader Poses Challenge to U.S. Policy (Reuters, December 19, 2005)

LATINOAMÉRICA: La equivocación de Estados Unidos (La Opinion, December 25, 2005)

Chicago Turns Down Discounted Venezuelan Oil (New Standard, December 29, 2005)

December 25, 2005: COHA in La Opinion

The following Op Ed on the deteriorating state of U.S.-Latin American relations by COHA Director Larry Birns and Research Fellow Michael Lettieri was published in the Los Angeles-based Spanish language paper, La Opinion. The published Spanish version, and the original English version, can be found below.

La equivocación de Estados Unidos
Las sorprendentes elecciones presidenciales del 18 de diciembre en Bolivia no sólo significaron más que la confirmación de la victoria del candidato populista de izquierda, Evo Morales, sino que también intensificó una tendencia que los observadores en Latinoamérica ya vienen observando. La política de la región, en particular de Sudamérica (a diferencia del resto de América Latina) se dirige hacia la izquierda y sus ciudadanos respaldan a una nueva generación de líderes escépticos de las panaceas económicas que durante tanto tiempo les vendió Washington. Una grieta tectónica está emergiendo actualmente entre Estados Unidos y una cantidad creciente de países en Sudamérica. Esta tendencia tiene implicaciones profundas para el futuro del hemisferio y sugiere que, a pesar de los desacuerdos políticos generales entre este grupo de naciones, es posible que a la brevedad un credo levemente izquierdista una fuertemente a los líderes regionales como nunca antes desde la época colonial.

El alejamiento actual de América Latina con Washington se origina en parte en la polarización ideológica como causa directa de un conjunto de políticas de poca visión, sin tacto y gravemente erráticas llevadas a cabo por los legisladores de Estados Unidos desde que asumió la presidencia la Administración de George W. Bush. Bajo los auspicios de ideólogos políticos sin credenciales algunas como Otto Reich y Roger Noriega, la política regional pasó a definirse como una lucha maniquea entre aquellos que miraban hacia La Habana y los que se ataban a Washington en la batalla entre la oscuridad y la luz.

Esta interpretación binaria de las políticas del hemisferio con el tiempo comenzaron a teñir las negociaciones de libre comercio, a medida que Washington tercamente buscó imponer un acuerdo que simplemente continuaba con las políticas neoliberales de la década de 1990 —programas económicos que tuvieron como consecuencia una profunda miseria y caída de los estándares de vida no sólo para las clases bajas de la región, sino también para la clase media baja. Estas políticas ahora se repudian de plano, particularmente entre los grupos indígenas, si bien no necesariamente en las esferas de liderazgo. Cuando los líderes latinoamericanos, con Hugo Chávez de Venezuela a la cabeza, se atrevieron a manifestar su oposición a la oferta de Washington que consideraba sus propios fines, fueron condenados rápidamente como fidelistas antidemocráticos.

De varias formas, fue la falta de respeto y descuido flagrante de Washington, combinado con la intención de sacrificar los intereses de América Latina para poder avanzar sus propios objetivos, que sin ser conscientes ha fomentado en la región una búsqueda de alternativas y ha contribuido directamente al ascenso de líderes alienados, como en el caso de Evo Morales, de Bolivia, que basa su legitimidad política en el hecho de negarse a ceder a Washington, cuyo rol ha generado que una gran parte de la población esté excluida y haya sufrido tremendamente. Las manifestaciones específicas de esta nueva generación de líderes varía desde la ortodoxia internacionalmente aclamada de Lula, tan apreciada por las naciones ricas, hasta el “socialismo de Chávez para el siglo XXI”, pero el hilo conductor que los une a todos es el mandato de gobernar desde la izquierda, o por lo menos decir que lo hacen. Y es posible que los demás países pronto se unan a esta “ola izquierdista”. El candidato mexicano que actualmente lidera la campaña presidencial, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, antiguo alcalde de la Ciudad de México, representa una ideología que tiende moderadamente hacia la izquierda, lo que podría malinterpretarse como una amenaza por la miopía de la Administración Bush, que se aísla cada vez más. Asimismo, el rápido ascenso del candidato presidencial peruano, Ollanta Humala, a pesar de ser una figura problemática, indica una profunda insatisfacción en ese país con las elites políticas tradicionales y sus políticas en favor de Washington.

Entonces, ¿qué significa este mar de cambios en Latinoamérica? Primero, sugiere nuevas posibilidades. Unidos por un terreno ideológico común, una gama de nuevas iniciativas regionales pueden cobrar alas. Por ejemplo, las cumbres iberoamericanas, ahora agraciadas por el famoso Enrique Iglesias como su secretario permanente, puede transformarse en una organización de los estados latinoamericanos que podrían suplantar o hasta reemplazar a la OEA, con la distinción clave de que Estados Unidos podría quedar fuera como un observador. O, programas de integración energética como Petrosur, que conectan los yacimientos de petróleo de Venezuela con consumidores en Argentina, Uruguay y Brasil, pueden ampliarse para incluir recursos de gas natural bolivianos.

A medida que el movimiento de izquierda se fortalezca, los demás países y sus líderes pueden sentirse atraídos a esta órbita. Solamente El Salvador, Colombia y Chile, como los servidores más fieles de Washington, pueden descartarse de esta nueva tendencia, y hasta Bogotá ha manifestado ciertos instintos ocasionales de agallas que ha tomado a Estados Unidos desprevenido. Recientemente, el presidente colombiano Álvaro Uribe se reunió con Chávez, y en una discusión amigable, estuvieron de acuerdo en construir un oleoducto entre las dos naciones. Al mismo tiempo, Uribe reprendía al embajador de Estados Unidos en Bogotá por “inmiscuirse” en los asuntos internos de su país. La solidaridad de los demás países bajo la “ola izquierdista” ayudó a proporcionar la estructura medular a varias naciones andinas en sus negociaciones del tratado de libre comercio con Estados Unidos —conversaciones que en última instancia se quebraron cuando Estados Unidos no hizo suficientes concesiones, y cuyo resultado probablemente hubiera sido diferente si los tiempos de cambio no hubieran virado tan sorpresivamente su rumbo, alejándose de la dirección política tradicional que dependía normalmente de la influencia de Washington.

Dada la impenetrabilidad de Washington en su política para Latinoamérica que caracterizó a la Administración de Clinton y más aun a la de Bush, es probable que la tendencia izquierdista de Sudamérica genere un deseo de parte de Washington por intentar perseguir a los que considera como sus líderes renegados. Ésta puede ser su alternativa más probable a llevar a cabo con una nueva estrategia regional más inspirada y creativa que intente asimilar estas situaciones. Para empezar, el Departamento de Estado ya no podrá coaccionar libremente en forma rutinaria a las naciones latinoamericanas para que acepten sus decretos altaneros, dado que las naciones regionales han salido de los guetos y corrales mantenidos por la administración de la OEA del oficialismo de Washington, y ahora negocian con el resto del mundo, incluyendo a la Unión Europea, China y también manejan una amplia gama de iniciativas en el Tercer Mundo. Y si Washington no es capaz de convencerse de que Brasil será una superpotencia a fines de este siglo, es muy probable que la Casa Blanca encuentre que en la región, que una vez era como los fondos de su casa, ahora cambiaron las cerraduras. Pero si Washington está dispuesto a cambiar su tono, es posible que encuentre que estos nuevos líderes estén abiertos a trabajar con su contraparte del norte de modo profesional, pero no solamente en términos equitativos, sino también sobre la base del respeto mutuo. El presidente electo Evo Morales lo afirmó, “estamos abiertos a una relación, pero no a una relación de sumisión”.

Los cambios generalmente no son fáciles, y tanto para Washington como para Latinoamérica existen dificultades iniciales asociadas con este cambio hacia los gobiernos de izquierda y sus agendas autónomas. Pero la tendencia debe verse como un desarrollo positivo que ofrece muchas más oportunidades que las pasadas doctrinas rígidas, desequilibradas y a menudo teñidas de intereses propios.

TOP

U.S. Gets it Wrong in Latin America
Bolivia’s stunning December 18 presidential election did more than confirm victory for populist, left-leaning candidate Evo Morales; it also highlighted a trend that increasingly has been apparent to Latin American observers. The region’s politics, particularly in South America (as distinguished from the rest of Latin America) are moving to the left and its citizens are embracing a new generation of leaders skeptical of the economic nostrums long vended by Washington. A tectonic rift is currently emerging between the U.S. and a growing number of its southern neighbors. This trend has profound implications for the future of the hemisphere, and suggests that despite often broad policy discordances among this cohort of nations, a shared, mildly leftist credo may soon profoundly unite regional leaders as never before since the colonial epoch.

Latin America’s current estrangement from Washington stems in part from an ideological polarization which was the direct result of a amalgam of shortsighted, tactless, and gravely errant policies put into play by U.S. policy makers since the Bush administration took office. Under the aegis of such uncredentialed political ideologues as Otto Reich and Roger Noriega, regional policy came to be defined as a Manichean struggle between those who looked to Havana and those who were lashed to Washington in the battle between darkness and light.

This binary interpretation of hemispheric politics eventually came to taint free trade negotiations, as Washington doggedly sought to impose an agreement which simply continued the neoliberal policies pursued throughout the 1990s – economic programs which brought profound misery and downward living standards to not only the region’s underclass, but to the lower middle class as well. Such policies are now being repudiated at the base, particularly among the indigenous groups, although not necessarily at the leadership level. When Latin American leaders, spearheaded by Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, dared to voice their opposition to Washington’s offer of self-serving initiatives, they were quickly condemned as anti-democratic Fidelistas.

In many ways, it was Washington’s flagrant disrespect and neglect, combined with a willingness to sacrifice Latin America’s interests in order to advance its own aims, that unwittingly has fostered the region’s search for alternatives, and directly contributed to the rise of alienated leaders, who like Bolivia’s Evo Morales, stake their political legitimacy upon their unwillingness to defer to Washington and the latter’s role in creating a large disenfranchised population that grievously has suffered. Specific manifestations of this new generation of leaders ranged from Lula’s internationally acclaimed orthodoxy, so appreciated by the wealthy nations, to Chávez’s “socialism for the 21st century,” but the connecting thread binding them all is a mandate to govern from the left, or at least say that the are. And other countries may soon join the “pink tide.” The current frontrunner in Mexico’s presidential race, former Mexico City Mayor Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador represents a moderate left-leaning ideology, which could misguidedly be seen as a threat by the myopia of an increasingly isolated Bush Administration. Furthermore, the rapid acceleration of Peruvian presidential candidate Ollanta Humala, despite his being a problematic figure, indicates a profound dissatisfaction in that country with traditional political elites and their pro-Washington policies.

So what does this Latin American sea change mean? First, it suggests new possibilities. United by general ideological commonalities, a range of new regional initiatives could be be given wings. For example, the Iberoamerican summits, now newly graced by the famed Enrique Iglesias as its permanent secretary, could morph into an organization of Latin American states which would supplant or even replace the OAS, with the key distinction being that the U.S. could be left on the sidelines as an observer. Or, energy integration programs, such as Petrosur, linking Venezuela’s oil fields with consumers in Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil, could be expanded to include Bolivian natural gas resources.

As the leftward movement strengthens, other countries and leaders could be drawn into its orbit. Only El Salvador, Colombia and Chile, as Washington’s most loyal servitors, can be ruled outside of this new tendency, and even Bogota has displayed occasional instincts of spunk that managed to catch the U.S. off guard. Recently, Colombian president Álvaro Uribe met with Chávez, and in an amicable discussion, agreed to construct an oil pipeline between the two nations; meanwhile, Uribe was chiding the U.S. ambassador to Bogota for “meddling” in his country’s internal affairs. The solidarity of other pink tide countries helped to provide a backbone to several Andean nations in their negotiations over a free trade agreement with the U.S. – talks that ultimately broke down when the U.S. failed to offer sufficient concessions, and whose outcome likely would have been different if the winds of change had not surprisingly veered from their traditional prevailing political direction normally dependent on Washington’s leverage.

Given Washington’s opacity in its Latin American policy, that characterized both the Clinton, and even more so, the Bush, administrations, South America’s leftist tilt is likely to generate a desire on Washington’s part to try to defuse it by hunting down what Washington sees to be its renegade leaders. This could be its likely alternative to coming up with a new, more inspired and creative regional strategy that would try to assimilate these situations. To begin, no longer will the State Department routinely be able to freely coerce Latin American nations into accepting its supercilious diktats, because regional nations have now broken out of the ghettos and pens maintained by the OAS’ stewardship for official Washington, and are now dealing with the rest of the world, including the EU, China, as well as a wide spread of third world initiatives. And if Washington is unable to convince itself that Brazil will be a superpower by the end of the century, the White House is almost certain to find that the region which was once its back yard has now had its locks changed. But if Washington is willing to change its tone, it may well find that these new leaders are open to working with their northern counterpart in a businesslike fashion, but only on equal terms and on the basis of mutual respect. President-elect Morales said as much when he declared, “we welcome a relationship, just not a relationship of submission.”

Change does not usually come easy, and for both Washington and Latin America, there are growing pains associated with this shift towards left-leaning governments and their autonomous agendas. But the trend should be seen as a positive development – one that offers far more opportunities than the rigid, imbalanced, and often self-serving and gaseous doctrines of the past.

TOP

December 19, 2005: An Article on Cuba's Human Rights Situation

Frank Calzon, a longtime anti-Castro activist asked COHA to run his following essay in its Open Forum. Although COHA has a dramatically different “take” on U.S.-Cuba relations, and the Center for a Free Cuba administers a grant from the United States Agency for International Development, we thought it would be a constructive gesture to run Mr. Calzon’s article on our site and invite our readers’ responses.

Castro's Anger and International Solidarity

According to a recent article published in Le