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"

Most people use "Salvadoran" or "Salvadorian" and was then surprised to see COHA write "1986 El Salvadorian massacre" in its June 8, 2006 opinion. Wasn't the massacre in 1989 ? Just a heads up in case those errors are actually errors. Keep up the great work. Your press releases and opinions are really interesting and give many hope that there still are people in this nation that recognize commonsensical trends in Latin America. Thanks.

Best Regards,

A COHA Aficiondo

COHA’s Response
Your information about the Salvadoran massacre is correct. The event occurred in 1989, not 1986. Thank you for bringing the error to my attention. I am prone to numerical dyslexia and had the date correct in my notes, but transcribed it poorly. You are also right to question my use of “El Salvadorian;” “Salvadoran” or “Salvadorian” are absolutely correct. We have updated the web-site to include your corrections. I am a meager intern, with much to learn about the editing process. I appreciate your attention to detail, and your friendly email.

June 20, 2006: Regarding COHA’s June 7 release “Michelle Bachelet: Hurtling Toward 100 Days”
COHA Recieved the Following in Response to the June 7 Release, “Michelle Bachelet: Hurtling Toward 100 Days”

Dear Craig Jeffries:

You will be interested in the following response to your Memo from a lawyer friend of mine in Chile:

Hello Jim, you are right, it is a good article, but there is a lack of information about some issues, specially the following (I’m not sure if my English will be correct):

“Chile is one of the most unequal societies in the world”; in fact, our country is not Sweden or Norway… but, if you use the Gini index without some explanation or correction, the affirmation is not entirely correct. The explanation is the following: Chilean Servicio de Impuestos Internos - IRS in USA – is a very successful service; thus, the tax evasion in Chile is almost nothing compared with Argentina or Brazil… so, if their IRS were efficient like ours, the Argentinean and Brazilian tycoons must declare all their assets, foreign investments, and real estate wealth. In this case, of course Brazil and Argentina are more unequal than Chile, I’m sure.

“Since 1990, the Concertación Alliance has made only very small changes to Pinochet’s free-market economic policies and has benefited from the policy of expanding the economy with the poor paying much of the price”; when I read this sentence, I felt like I was reading El Mercurio!!!! This is not the truth… in fact, despite the binominal system impose by the dictatorship, since 1990 the situation has been improving a lot for the poor people… there are many reforms in different areas, like labor laws passed in favor of the workers - even facilitating the constitution of unions -, the care health reform, the impressive change in public works – ports, roads, airports, and other infrastructure -, and - of course - an important reform that you well know, the criminal procedure reform…

Well, I don’t want to bore you with my opinions, but I think that COHA Research Associate Craig Jeffries deserves one ticket to the real Chile…

[This email is from my friend Fernando Moya.]

James Manahan, Mankato, Minnesota

COHA’s Response
I am appreciative for your comments regarding my memoranda on President Bachelet. Your first-hand perspective and experience is enlightening.

In response to your first point concerning economic disparity throughout the region, I believe that you are correct to suggest that Argentina and Brazil are in the same league with Chile. But sadly all three of these nations lie toward the bottom in many of the global surveys concerning this issue. Unfortunately, Latin America, as a region, uniformly experiences this problem. Your assertion of ineffective revenue collection is valid and is an issue that COHA has been concerned about over the years.

As to your second criticism, I believe you present some insightful evidence regarding to Concertación policies. As you may have read in my memoranda, I noted that the poverty rate has, indeed fallen since democracy and civilian rule was restored. The sentence that you refer to, “Since 1990, the Concertación Alliance has made only very small changes to Pinochet’s free-market economic policies and has benefited from the policy of expanding the economy with the poor paying much of the price.” is meant to be more of a general theme which is supposed to demonstrate the inherent injustices of free-market economic policies overall. It is exceedingly evident that the social policies practiced by the Lagos and probably Bachelet Governments have been and most likely will be hugely different from those of the Pinochet dictatorship. I have try to point out some of President Bachelet’s noble initiatives in this light.

Once again, I thank you for your opinions and your insightfulness.

COHA in the News (June):

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

A Growing Fight for Power on Latin American Left (The Boston Globe, June 4, 2006)

OAS Chief Insulza seen facing "impossible task" (Caribbean Net News, June 5, 2006)

Peru's Garcia may buck Leftist Wave (Reuters, June 6, 2006)

U.S. baseball strikes out with Chavez (USA Today, June 8, 2006)

Chile como modelo (BBC Mundo, June 8, 2006)

Cuban Journalist Near Death Protesting Internet Restrictions (OneWorld United States, June 10, 2006)

Bolivia's Swoop for Gas Reserves Stuns Energy Giants (Guardian Unlimited UK, May 3, 2006)

Preval Faces Tests in Return as President (The Washington Times, May 14, 2006)

Restoring Democracy to Haiti, Preval to Take Office (Reuters South Africa, May 14, 2006)

Haiti's Democracy Restored as Preval Sworn In (Washington Post, May 14, 2006)

Preval Begins Second Term in Haiti (LA Times, May 15, 2006)

Preval Takes Office in Haiti (Gulf Times, Qatar, May 15, 2006)

U.S. Bans Arms Sales to Venezuela (Egypt Election, May 15, 2006)

U.S. State Department Report a Masterpiece of Science Fiction (Canadian Democratic Movement, May 17, 2006)

Envoy: Venezuela Poses No Threat (Houston Chronicle, May 18, 2006)

Chavez the Face of Political Change in Latin America (The Jamaica Observer, May 21, 2006)

Chavez: The Face of Latin American Change (The Jamaica Observer, May 22, 2006)

May 12, 2006: On the Bolivia Gas Nationalization

In response to COHA's May 6, 2006 Press Release "Navigating the Nationalization and Denaturing the Strife: The Aftermath of Bolivia’s Gas Golpe" COHA received the following commentary:

Congratulations for an excellent analysis of the implications of re-nationalization in Bolivia. We should welcome a "laxative" government in Bolivia for no other reason that any other would be a replay of those of the last 40+ years. Bolivia has not had any institutional innovation in government and governance since the former MNR ones, with Victor Paz Estenssoro being the last great reformer. Let us not get alarmed ("le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose" we say in France). I spent a great deal of time in Bolivia from 1964 until the mid-70's before my career shifted to the Middle East and East Africa. When Morales negotiates with his big, powerful neighbors, he's merely trying to secure competitive markets but, as inferred from your most recent text, not necessarily from a position of strength (except for relatively lower transport costs because of location). The big buyers "from the East" want to know: is this supplier reliable? I don't want to answer this in public. My major concern is what to expect for the Bolivian people who have suffered so much, for so long, after so many promises. Now we only need to watch it happen.As you said a few days ago: "Nationalization seemed to offer the possibility of redistributing the wealth generated by Bolivia's natural resources to an impoverished population, particularly when his deeply needy people were taking to the streets in order to pressure the government for wage increases"

Now we only need to watch it happen, by measuring income distribution and changes in resource allocation down the road, 3, 5, 7 years from now. Meanwhile Morales should step in actively and finish the MNR land reform with land titles and public infrastructure, especially in rural areas. If he emulates Chavez and predecessors of Venezuela, the battle is lost for the people, while the private bank accounts of the Tarijenos, Crucenos and La Paz fat cats continue to swell.

Jacques Kozub, Bethesda, Maryland

COHA in the News (April):

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

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

• The shift, turns and failures of Canada’s Latin American Policy.
• Continuities in the failures of Clinton and Bush’s Latin American Policy.
• The multiple wrong turns in U.S.-Cuban policies.
• China’s advent as a major Latin American player.
• The return of the mixed economy to Latin America.
• A trade agreement: The EU versus the U.S. in Latin America
• The Chávez Revolution and relations with the U.S.
• The politics of despair – U.S.-Haitian policy
• The Evangelicals in Latin America
• Looking back on the Fox administration, while looking forward to his successor
• Mercosur and its capacity for growth and paramouncy
• The past and future of the Latin American military
• Brazil, the reluctant superpower in waiting
• NAFTA – its winners and losers
• Post-Castro governance
• The lost leader – Lula’s controversial presidency
• Chile – the high price of success
• The multiple failures of the Bush administration’s regional policy
• Thinking about the unthinkable: Should Latin America turn its back on the OAS and seek out another autonomous organization?
• Centrifugal and centripetal forces affecting Caribbean unification

COHA in the News (March):

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

Oops! U.S. think-tank got its numbers wrong (Bermuda Sun, March 2, 2006)

Chavez's Oil Initiative Is Testing Old Allegiances in the Caribbean (Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2006)

Dodging a Bullet in Costa Rica (Time, March 8, 2006)

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

Slum Rallies for Haiti Election Front-Runner (Reuters AlterNet, February 1, 2006)

Larry Birns on PetroCaribe Plan (BBC Caribbean, February 1, 2006)

Larry Birns on Hugo Chavez (CBC's The Hour, February 2, 2006)

Hemispheric Affairs Group Backs PertroCaribe Plan (The Bahama Journal, February 3, 2006)

Larry Birns on the Haitian Elections (Al-Jazeera News, February 3, 2006)

Democracy's 'Special Forces' Face Heat (Christian Science Monitor, February 6, 2006)

Venezuela Extends US Poor Oil Subsidy (Business Day, February 6, 2006)

Quiet but not Necessarily Clam in Haiti (Washington Post, February 7, 2006)

Venezuela's Oil Giveaway (Time Online Edition, February 7, 2006)

UN Looks at Ways to Reduce its Staff (The Boston Globe, February 9, 2006)

Hatian Election Seen as Victory for Aristide (Reuters AlterNet, February 16, 2006)

El Caso de Lydia Cacho Llega hasta Washington (Milenio.com, February 16, 2006)

Chavez Vows to Resist U.S. 'Inoculation Strategy' (The Guardian, February 18, 2006)

Mischief Stirs for Bush in the 'Axis of Good' (The Sunday Times UK, February 19, 2006)

Challenges Loom for Preval in Haiti (The Washington Post, February 21, 2006)

Peso Predicament (The Monitor, February 26,2006)

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 Monde and El Pais of Madrid, after the March 2003 roundup of Cuban independent journalists, labor activists, economists, and librarians, their wives and mothers “discovered an internal strength they never suspected they had.” The women, known as the Ladies in White, deserve to be compared to “the Argentine mothers who demanded information about los desaparacidos in the seventies.”

The women, together with the French organization Reporters Without Borders, and a Nigerian human rights attorney, Hauwa Ibrahim, were awarded the European Union’s 2005 Sakharov prize, the most prestigious European human rights award. The outgoing British president of the EU said he lamented the Cuban regime’s decision to not allow the Ladies in White to come to Europe to accept the award.

While in the United States, discussion of US-Cuban relations is a recurrent theme, the deteriorating situation between Havana and Europe has received scant attention. Fidel Castro has denounced EU officials repeatedly, often in very non-diplomatic terms. In a session with the EU in late November, Cuba’s Deputy Foreign Minister Rogelio Polanco said, “We do not need the European Union, we do not need it for our development, nor for our international relations.”

The EU has earned this manifestation of Castro’s displeasure due to its insistence that the island introduce a series of political and economic reforms. The situation has now begun to have an impact on trade matters. Europe has called for reforms regarding human rights practices; Castro reacted by summarily withdrawing Cuba’s application for the Cotunu tariff relief which would have granted important benefits to Cuba. .

The Sakharov award could not come a day too soon: the abysmal human rights situation in Africa requires international scrutiny, Reporters without Borders (RSF in their French acronym) denounces censorships, detentions, killings and abuse of journalists around the world, while the Cuban “Ladies in White” have dared to challenge the regime by urging an amnesty for all Cuban political prisoners and project their cause by attending Sunday mass all dressed in white.

The recipients of the awards are in good company: United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela have been honored in the past. The “Ladies in White’s” peaceful behavior would scarcely raise eyebrows anywhere, but in Cuba, where any independent manifestation of this type is not easily tolerated, the official response has been to send rapid deployment brigades to harass and insult them.

Much of what is written about Cuba is burdened by ideological preconceptions. For example, the European Union’s decision earlier this year to stop inviting dissidents to their member states’ national day celebrations in Havana was described by academic pundits who favor terminating U.S. sanctions, as a major defeat for Cuban exiles, who were said to favor only a policy of confrontation “while the European Union prefers a softer approach.”

But, in fact, the EU-Cuba policy remains in flux. A few weeks ago, Germany broke with the EU’s policy of discrimination against Cuban dissidents, and invited them to their national holiday. The Czech Republic has done the same. Romania has continued to invite them because Bucharest is not yet a member of the EU.

The Cuban leader is obviously upset because routinely giving him the benefit of the doubt is no longer part of a EU consensus, as the Slovakian foreign minister recently indicated when he said that his country hopes to have enough arguments at the next EU meeting on Cuba to convince Spain to reverse its posture of “caution and special considerations for Havana.”

On the 4th and 5th of August, an international committee of “Women for Democracy in Cuba” organized by the conservative German Konrad Adenauer Foundation and Argentina’s Center for Latin American Democratization and Development (CADAL is the Spanish acronym.) met in Buenos Aires. Among the attendees was a former Chilean minister of education, as well as parliamentarians from Europe and Latin America. The gathering received messages of support from Elena Bonner, Andrei Sakharov’s widow, and from Dagmar Havlo, wife of former Czech president Václav Havel. Blanca González, mother of Normando Hernández, an independent Cuban journalist, also attended.

Later in the month, an international committee of young people affiliated with the Democracy in Cuba movement met in Mexico City. The event brought together more than two hundred participants from the host country as well as young political leaders from the Czech Republic, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Peru, Costa Rica, Canada and the Dominican Republic. Former Uruguayan president, Luis Alberto Lacalle spoke to the gathering.

Perhaps the most exiting part of the event was a telephone conversation with Néstor Rodríguez Lobaina, leader of Young People for Democracy in Cuba, who spoke from Havana. Rodríguez Lobaina was recently released by Cuban authorities after serving 5 years in prison in Cuba for his human rights advocacy.

Also, in Havana at the end of July, a small group of young political activists from Argentina, Chile, Peru and the Dominican Republic signed the “Memorandum of Havana,” reaffirming their commitment to work for the establishment of democracy and human rights in Cuba.

And at the recently concluded Ibero-American Summit in Salamanca, Spain, a radio appeal taped in Havana by Dr. Hilda Molina, a famous neurosurgeon who resigned in protest from Cuba’s handpicked parliament, urged the Spanish citizens to call upon Castro to permit her to travel abroad to visit her Argentine grandsons Roberto Carlos, 10, and Juan Pablo, 4.

For over forty years, free Cubans everywhere have worked to awaken international support for Cuban dissidents. Today, human rights organizations, newspapers, and European and Latin American leaders recognize the courage of the political opposition on the island, and the dignity and dedication of the “Ladies in White.” Policy differences notwithstanding, men and women of good will everywhere should ask the Cuban leader to release all his political prisoners and allow Hilda Molina to visit her grandkids without adverse repercussions.

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba, “a Washington, D.C., based non-partisan, not-for-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of human rights and a transition to democracy in Cuba.”

TOP

December 19, 2005: COHA in Odd Places

In a recent speech, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez cited COHA's analysis of the opposition boycott of the parlimentary elections, and observed that Venezuela's democracy had not been abandoned by the world. Click here to read the full story.

TOP

December 1, 2005

Open Letter to the Journalists Covering the Venezuelan (December 4) Legislative Elections

The decision of four opposition parties in Venezuela to withdraw from elections this weekend raises important questions for the media. It is clear to anyone familiar with the situation that this is an attempt to discredit the election, by parties that (according to opposition polling) were indisputably expected to do very badly in the election. This is despite their control over the majority of the broadcast and print media in Venezuela, as well as most of the country’s national income and wealth.

Yet much of the international press coverage would convince the general reader, who is not familiar with the details of the situation, that these parties may have a case for their claim that the ballot couldn’t be trusted. In this coverage it appears to be a matter of opinion, despite a strong statement to the contrary from the OAS, which is observing the election. (See below). As of this morning, almost none of the English-language press had reported the OAS comments, although they were reported in Spanish-language newspapers such as Clarín in Argentina.

It is clear that the opposition’s attempt to discredit these elections will be joined by powerful figures in the United States, including some Members of Congress and - possibly, depending on how the media covers these events - the White House and State Department.

It is worth noting that most of these same opposition parties, and also Súmate (an opposition group that coordinated the August 2004 attempt to recall President Chavez), refused to accept the results of that referendum, which they lost by a 59-41 margin. They claimed that a massive electronic fraud had taken place, and even commissioned a statistical analysis by two economists, at Harvard’s Kennedy School and MIT, which provided a theory and alleged evidence for this fraud.

The referendum was certified by the OAS and the Carter Center. The electronic voting machines used in that election produced a paper receipt for each vote, which was then deposited in a ballot box. It was thus a simple matter for the election observers (OAS/Carter Center) to audit a sample of the electronic vote and match it to the paper ballots, which they did.

The Carter Center subsequently appointed an independent panel of statisticians who found that there was no statistical evidence for fraud in the election. The panel’s review included the above-cited paper, which was methodologically flawed and relied on data from opposition-gathered exit polls. (See http://www.cepr.net/publications/fraud_venezu_conspiracy.pdf).

In spite of this, opposition leaders continue to maintain their allegations: "We felt we were victims of fraud" in the referendum, said Henry Ramos, Secretary General of Accion Democratica yesterday (Associated Press), in justifying his party’s withdrawal from the election.

The vast majority of the international press (with some exceptions such as the Wall Street Journal editorial board) accepted the certification of the OAS and the Carter Center in the August 2004 referendum, and did not take seriously opposition claims that the ballot was stolen.

The media would do well to treat with similar objectivity this latest attempt to discredit what appears, with OAS support, to be a fair and honest electoral process. If Walter Mondale, the Democratic candidate for President in 1984, had withdrawn a few days before the election (which he lost by a wide margin), claiming that the vote count could not be trusted, he would not have been taken seriously in the press for such self-serving actions. There is no reason to take these allegations about the Venezuelan elections any more seriously, especially from a political bloc that has refused to accept the clear results of internationally monitored and certified elections. And the safeguards against electoral fraud in the Venezuelan elections are arguably stronger than those that prevail in the United States even today.

Mark Weisbrot
202 746-7264
Co-Director
Center for Economic and Policy Research

Larry Birns
202 223-4975
Director
Council on Hemispheric Affairs

TOP

A Criticism of COHA's Perspective on Latin America (November 30, 2005)

COHA received this letter from Henry McDonald regarding our November 29 COHA Opinion release "Spanish Arms Sale to Chávez: Venezuelan F-16s Bad; Chilean F-16s Good." His letter, which attacks several of the article's main points, and COHA's response follows:

As a long time resident of Mexico I read your web site for perspective, hoping to find some insight on Latin America from your left-leaning viewpoint. From most readings, however, I come away staggered by COHA’s astonishing absence of logic, your apparent lack of Latin American historical perspective, and equally awed by your disdain for the United States and its principles. Let me give you some examples from your latest article:

“This fall has been a trying time for the Bush administration, both at home and around the world, but in no arena is its reputation more compromised or the contempt with which it is held is greater than throughout Latin America.” You are saying that Mexican and Brazilian contempt for Bush (75% of Latin America) exceeds that of France, Germany, and other parts of Continental Europe? I do not think so. Your main logic error is forgetting that the majority of the Latin American people are too poor to think past dinner time, and do not even know who George Bush is, much less what he stands for. And do you think that Fox or Lula have been more hostile to Bush than Schroeder, Chirac, or even Martin? Of course not.

“…particularly when it comes to Washington’s arrogance of power and the White House’s one-sided trade policy for the region.” Do you know anything about NAFTA? Of the $200 billion in combined trade, how much is “one-sided” for the benefit of the US? Before NAFTA induced Mexico to drop its protectionist foreign investment laws, do you have any idea of the how bad the domestic products and services were (and all owned by a handful of Mexican mega-rich families who cared nothing about customer service)? Telephones were a joke. Television and print media were 100% monopolies controlled by a handful of men loyal to the PRI. Cars and public transportation vehicles were junky pollution factories. Before the trade agreement encouraged competition and free enterprise, only three office buildings in Mexico City had air conditioning. (The bosses, of course, always had package units in their offices.) Working conditions throughout the country were deplorable. Today Mexico is building some of the best office and industrial working environments in the world…complete with US-style life safety and environmental control systems. Are you aware that Mexicans have voted with their pesos and now Walmart, due to its quality service and economy pricing, is the largest non-government employer in the country? What “one-sided” trade policies are you referring to except for agricultural subsidies, which, if you know anything about US political history, are a Democratic Party incarnation, not a Bush policy, and in addition, pale in comparison to European subsidies. And yet later you claim that there is “strong possibility that in the future Latin America will have its principal trade ties with the EU rather than the U.S.” How ridiculous. If Lula cannot deal with US agricultural protectionism, how in the world will he contend with France and Germany?

“The Bush administration repeatedly has denounced Chávez as a socialist doctrinaire of the mold of his close friend Fidel Castro.” And obviously he is an aspiring dictator. Do you actually think Chavez will step down at the end of his “constitutional” term? It appears that you see him as some Che Guevarian mythical hero. You may have failed to notice, but a primary, tragic flaw of Latin America is their historical tendency to seek out and accept Caudillo leadership. Replacing Fascist caudillos with Socialist caudillos has never and will never lift the conditions of the Latin American populace. You have also failed to notice that virtually all nations in history that have accepted a government built around the Strongman Principle have doomed the majority of their people to poverty, deprivation, and absence of individual free will. Venezuela will not likely defy the lessons of history, despite their current oil revenues. And in even with the temporary surge in oil prices, Venezuela still suffers from massive poverty and boasts Latin America’s highest rate of inflation. Why would you not question the Chavez interest in buying billions of military supplies from Russia and Spain instead of investing in domestic infrastructure that would employ his own people? Oh wait; I forgot; Chavez is about to be invaded by the USA. Or lets talk about Chavez magnanimously buying a billion dollars of Argentine debt, instead of investing in his own people. I seem to recall that the last guys to loan money to Argentina got back 30 cents on the dollar. I am not as sure as you that Chavez is wisely re-investing his county’s resources.

“…only heightens State Department paranoia fueled by right-wing Miami exiles” Have you ever met Miami Cubans? Lets see if I remember the story. When Castro and his men were in the mountains they were fed and funded, not by Batista’s rich friends, but by the Cuban middle class, the small businessmen, farmers, and shop owners. And when Batista fled, Castro and his armed men marched into Havana and summarily confiscated their businesses, their farms, their houses, and their money. And if anyone disagreed he threw them in prison or had them shot. Now why would all those people and their descendants unanimously hate Castro, I wonder? Maybe because he completely betrayed them? Because he murdered their fathers and brothers? Gosh, how would the COHA staff react if George Bush decided to confiscate your worldly possessions and throw you in jail based on ideological differences? You might very well become paranoid, right wing D.C. exiles. For the most part, Miami Cubans are typical American heroes, persecuted or economically deprived by their original home country, who came to United States and rebuilt their lives, just like all of our American ancestors from Europe, and now the immigrants from Asia and Mexico who continue to fuel America´s energy. To denigrate Miami Cubans and their hatred for dictators is simply denouncing a group that strongly believes in human liberty. Who are you COHA guys? Clearly your own avocation of open governmental dissent would not be permitted by Castro (or his acolytes), so why do beneficiaries of a free society such as you find such fault with the Miami Cubans’ fervent opposition to an oppressive dictator?

“Furthermore, is the Spanish sale of equipment which, Caracas insists, will be utilized in the war against drugs, any more menacing than the $500 million sale of U.S. F-16s to Chile, which demonstrably has the potential to trigger an arms race with Peru and Argentina?” What a monumentally illogical comparison! Are you completely blind to the Chavez “Bolivarian Revolution” ambitions? Did Chile announce that they intend to enforce their socio-economic system on the rest of Latin America, and I missed it? Your point is almost as valid as comparing the French nuclear energy program to that of North Korea.

“At a time when Bush’s approval ratings are at the lowest of his presidency, Chávez’s ability to aid poor people in the U.S. only rubs salt in the U.S. president’s many political lesions.” Your admiration for this Stupid Pet Trick, this charlatan diplomacy, is absolutely touching, but stunningly witless.

In choosing Chavez and Kirchner as your heroes, COHA demonstrates complete gullibility for the same shallow ploy that caudillo leadership in Latin America has historically relied on to retain power. For more than a century, whenever the egos, greed, and failed policies of Latin American leadership have led their people to ruin, their first defense is to convince their ignorant people that all their problems are the fault of the American Imperialists. Kirchner and Chavez are simply following the script of all good Banana Republic caudillos. And apparently they have sold a few ignorant COHA staffers the same story. Do you really think that the Argentine crash was the fault of the USA? Could it possibly have been due to the greed and corruption of Menem and his pals? Do you really believe that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and now George Bush are some of the main culprits behind 400 years of Latin American malaise? And by the way, have you noticed that Mexico matured immensely as a stable economy when, after their own 1995 crisis, for the first time ever, correctly blamed themselves, not the Imperialists from the North?

I like you am genuinely troubled by the generations of failed societies and economies in Latin America, by the entrenched poverty, injustice, and lack of freedom of choice suffered by the majority of Latinos. But you must give some consideration to the idea that leaders such as Chavez are not the future of Latin America, they are simply more of its past. On this issue, George Bush is right. Chavez and Kirchner are definitely not Messiahs, and COHA refuses to learn from history.

COHA Response: Mr. McDonald’s and COHA’s basic premises are too divergent to allow for a debate. He trumpets the Bush-line while we fault it. We are always willing to “learn from history,” but, unfortunately, this doesn’t terminate the dialogue because there is McDonald “history” and COHA “history,” and they are not to be found in the same neighborhood. Regarding Hugo Chávez, we invite Mr. McDonald to look over our references to the Venezuelan leader in our many listings on our website. While the spirit of those articles differs from his Miami perspectives on the issue, we feel that they are at least as balanced as the McDonald intemperate “take” on the issue.

TOP

Understanding the EU (November 30, 2005)

COHA received the following note from Steve McGiffen, editor of the online magazine Spectrezine, regarding a confusion in COHA's November 10 memorandum to the press "The EU and Colombia: Betraying Responsibility." Mr. McGiffen points out that we poorly describe the leadership of the EU's foreign policy.

Dear Larry (Birns) and Julian (Armington)

I intend to make full use of your excellent piece on the EU and Colombia. I just wanted to point out that the EU has no "foreign minister" and thanks to the wonderful results of the two recent referenda – for which many of us put in a lot of hard work - it's not about to have. I hope this doesn't sound like pedantry. Just after you mention the "EU Foreign Minister" (actually the Commissioner for External Affairs) you mention the Council of Ministers, in which she does not participate, so the distinction seems to me important. Confusing, I know. I would heartily recommend Dick Leonard's Guide to the
European Union (see my review at http://www.spectrezine.org/reviews/Leonard.htm) as the most comprehensive reference guide to these matters and my own The European Union: A Critical Guide as the least boring. Keep up the good work, especially subjecting the EU (which is less rapacious than your own country as much as a leopard is less so than a tiger) to critical scrutiny as it touches upon your concerns,

All the best,
Steve McGiffen
Editor, www.spectrezine.org

COHA Responds: Since receiving this letter we have corrected the error we overlooked regarding Benita Ferrero-Waldner’s title, which is indeed Commissioner for External Affairs. Our error is quite glaring when one considers that one of the great debates within the EU at the moment is whether or not the body should have a common foreign policy, which would include a minister for foreign affairs. As to Mr. McGiffen’s second comment, regarding the Commissioner for Extern Affairs’ relation to the Council of Ministers, we were aware of the fact that the office is not directly related to the Council, nevertheless, we have further clarified that point in the article. Thanks very much to Steve McGiffen for pointing out our error and for his quality online publication, Spectrezine.

TOP

COHA in the News (November):

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

Former COHA Interns Received 2006 Rhodes Scholarship (Yale Daily News, November 29, 2005)

Chávez Brings Oil Diplomacy to U.S. (Associated Press, November 23, 2005)

Chávez Pushes Petro-Diplomacy (Washington Post, November 22, 2005)

Thousands in Massachusetts to Get Cheaper Oil (Boston Globe, November 20, 2005)

Chávez Oil Diplomacy Attracting New Friends (Miami Herald, November 17, 2005)

US on Sidelines as Latin American Voters Prepare to Redraw Continent (Guardian, November 14, 2005)

Se dividen opiniones en EU (El Universal, November 11, 2005)

Bush Aware He Faces Dissent (Houston Chronicle, November 4, 2005)

President's Talks with Venezuela's Chavez Are Likely to Be Strained (Houston Chronicle, November 2, 2005)

Little Sunshine for Bush's Brazil Jaunt (Reuters, article reproduced in Washington Post, Boston Globe, ABC News, November 1, 2005)

COHA Research and Our Readers

COHA operates with a large staff of volunteers, scholars and interns onsite, as well as extra-mural researchers and specialists. COHA’s current roster of ongoing research projects on various aspects of U.S.-Latin American relations, as well as on Canada’s hemispheric ties, follows. We welcome the affiliation and collaboration of our readers who are interested in:

Contributing information and analysis of pressing hemispheric issues

Actively researching topics of mutual interest

Drafting an article for submission for possible publication

Recommending additional topics that deserve to be scrutinized

Those interested students, recent graduates and graduate students, retirees and committed Latin Americanists who would like to collaborate with COHA, should contact the secretary of extra-mural research by sending an email discussing your background and an outline of your proposed research project to “Extra-mural Research” at coha@coha.org. This institutional design allows COHA to not be subject to the influence or vagaries of government agencies or large donors on expending energy, creativity or labor on seeking out large contributors.

Research Projects (Fall 2005)

Botched Job – The UN in Haiti

Haitian Elections: A Caricature of a Democratic Process

Illegal immigration from Central America: problems and issues for Salvadorans and Guatemalans transiting to the U.S.-Mexican border.

Nicaragua: What happened to the Sandinistas?

Colombian elections: the issue of the likelihood that President Uribe is allowed to run by the Constitutional Court and his foundering demobilization plan

Mexican Elections: Can López Obrador be Bushwhacked?

Moving to the right of the Bush administration – the EU’s controversial Latin America policy toward Haiti and Venezuela

U.S. Regional Policy: Officiousness at high places

Former Foreign Minister Gabriel Valdes’ role in shepherding SELA into a possible new development institution for Latin America

Future of the Cumbres Iberoamericanas – will it, with the help of SELA, evolve into a replacement of the OAS?

EU-Latin America trade negotiations

Millennium Account – are Honduras and Paraguay viable democracies? or is it a matter of rewarding one's friends?

Venezuela’s military: centrifugal and centripetal forces affecting the institution’s integrity

Chávez: The need to consolidate his Revolution

Can the OAS be reformed?

Does Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin have a Latin American Policy?

Venezuela oil diplomacy towards the outside world and to private foreign oil giants operating in the country

Canadian-U.S. trade war

Venezuela land reform (update)

Haiti and CARICOM – heroes and opportunists; (positions of Trinidad, Jamaica, Barbados, St. Lucia, Guyana, etc.)

Washington vs. Venezuela in the campaign for Latin America's ear

Association of Caribbean States

Paraguay’s socio-political relations with Brazil

Paraguay’s socio-political relations with Argentina

Uruguay under President Vazquez

Turning Things Around? Analysis of the Cuban Economy

The Short-lived “Pink Tide”

Bermuda courts Independence, but at a price

COHA in the News (October):

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

U.S. Inroads Raise Alarm (Washington Times)

Another Act for the Grand Annexation Circus (Granma International)

El eterno embargo, Colombian internal newsweekly, Semana

COHA on Nicaragua Political Situation "Flashpoint" Pacifica Radio

Guest Comment Iberoamerican Summit, IAD Latin America Advisor

Castro, Chavez may grab limelight at summit in Spain (Reuters)

Analysis: Venezuela's economic war (United Press International)

Panama's Ambassador Responds to COHA's Accusations Corruption and Cronyism (October 5, 2005)

COHA originally received this letter from the Panamanian Ambassador in response to our August 19, 2005 Memorandum to the Press "Diploma Scandal at the University of Panama Further Mires the Torrijos Government in Corruption Charges," but our recent COHA Opinion release on September 30, 2005, "University of Panama Situation Worsens," makes it apropos to publish the letter now. The Ambassador wrote:

I am writing to you with deep concerns about the Council’s recent publication ‘Diploma scandal at the University of Panama further mires the Torrijos’ Government in Corruption Charges’

With all the respect that an organization such as COHA deserves, I can honestly tell you that the report would not survive the most basic journalistic or research methodology test, to say the least. From the various false and out of context statements, to the use of unsuitable sources, the document shows no evidence of a solid investigative effort. As a person who has been involved with the news industry in the past, I am a strong advocate for freedom of expression and understand the importance of this fundamental right as the core value of a democratic society, but at the same time, the essence of this right is based on the objectiveness, balance and fairness a journalist should abide by in the use of their mighty pen.

Right from the start, the main argument on which the memorandum is based is completely out of context. I find it inappropriate to elevate the diploma issue to the level of a national problem that ‘further mires the Torrijos government in corruption charges’ COHA’s research associate considered this statement to be of such importance to use it as the title for the report while not mentioning a single word in the whole document returning to those other ‘corruption charges.’ Leaving aside this out-of-context issue, one has to ask what relationship exists between the investigation of allegedly false diplomas in the University of Panama and the Torrijos’ Administration. None, I have to say.

There are more than three statements contained in the document that are not only false, but could even be considered as incriminating. The best example is the opening sentence of the report: ‘The distribution of thousands of fraudulent diplomas by the University of Panama (UP) launches an escalating scandal, involving the administration at the highest levels’. Not a single line or word in the document even mentions who those high level officials are. As far as I know, high level officials are the President and his staff.

Then, as you continue reading the document, the very next sentence states that ‘President Martin Torrijos’ refusal to seriously investigate the educational institution’s growing uproar or to curb UP Regent Gustavo Garcia de Paredes’ increasingly oppressive reign draws sharp criticism from Panamanian professionals and people of stature, but scarcely more than yawns from Torrijos’ It is unfair to state this considering that there is a criminal investigation going on headed by the Attorney General and, additionally, The President, as in the United States, has no constitutional power or authorization to investigate this or any case, not to mention that this would be considered an interference of the Executive Branch in Judicial issues.

Going as far as the third paragraph of the document comes what I consider to be a serious accusation towards the Government of Panama. With absolutely no regard for the veracity of the statements, your associate simply writes that there is ‘…evidence of a new way of rampant impunity for members of Torrijos’ palace circle of self-serving corrupt elite’. How can COHA make such a strong accusation without even citing a single piece of information or evidence to uphold it? Furthermore, it is a basic rule of journalism and research methodology to always contrast your information with other sources, which in this case happens to be the government of Panama. The very least that you could have done was to ask the government for its version.

I could easily continue to go through the document citing all the statements that could be considered misguiding, but that is not the main purpose of this letter. I would like to put this embassy’s resources at the disposal of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs to help ensure a more accurate research and publication criteria in the future, in order to maintain intact the reputation and the high level of respect its reports have always have.

Respectfully,
Federico Humbert A.
Ambassador

COHA Response: We feel that our September 30, 2005 release addresses some of the concerns raised in the Ambassador's letter.

A Deteriorating Situation in Panama (September 28, 2005)

COHA has received the following communication from Panama, from a supporter of Prof. Miguel Antonio Bernal who apparently is facing an alarming situation at the hands of the authorities, which was the subject of a COHA Press Memorandum release issued on August 19, 2005 (Diploma Scandal at the University of Panama Further Mires the Torrijos Government in Corruption Charges). Due to the possibility of retaliation the informant has asked to remain anonymous.

Dear Friends at COHA,

The Univ. President, Gustavo Garcia de Paredes and the corrupt gang that runs the university are moving towards expelling Prof. Miguel Antonio Bernal from the University. This is in obvious retaliation for Bernal’s exposé of a University’s diploma-for-sale ring. AS you know, the Garcia de Paredes gang is deeply involved in this ring. The Attorney General’s office is still investigating the University Administration on this matter.

As a step towards getting back at Bernal, the General University Council (controlled by Garcia de Paredes) on Tuesday Sept 26th, passed a resolution (see copy below and attached) declaring Prof. Bernal “non grata” citizen at the university.

It is anticipated that the next step is to ask the Academic Council (also controlled by the Garcia de Paredes gang) for a vote on Bernal’s expulsion. The idea would be to use the “non grata” resolution as the basis for expulsion. The Academic Council meets on Wednesdays, so they could move against Bernal as early as this Wednesday, September 28th.

Anything you could do to alert the international human rights and academic community would be appreciated.

TOP

COHA in the News (September):

U.S. Military in Paraguay Unsettles South America (Reuters)

Rice to Visit Haiti as it Prepares for Elections (Reuters)

Larry Birns on Argentina (BBC's The World)

Praise for Berenson Analysis (October 31, 2005)

In reference to Lori Through the Looking Glass: A New Perspective on the Berenson Case (September 28, 2005), COHA received the following commentary:

Nick, [Dr. Nicholas Birns]

I just wanted to commend you for the excellent Lori article. I had suspected as much about the latest Inter American Court decision, but you made it clear. The context you gave to Lori’s case was succinct, current, and believable.

I have been tangentially involved in Lori’s case since I found a brief message from her supporters in a list-serve when I was researching a piece I was writing about Peru soon after she was arrested. I organized a seminar in Delaware a few years ago and used to write many letters on her behalf, although (mea culpa) this activity has fallen off. Your piece inspired me and informed me, and I want to thank you.

Yours,

Phillip Bannowsky

Better Strategies for the Berenson Case? (October 3, 2005)

In response to COHA's September 28, 2005 Research and Opinion article "Lori Through the Looking Glass: A New Perspective On the Berenson Case," we received the following letter:

Dear COHA,
Nicholas Birns' article was informative and very convincing when speaking of Lori Berenson's health problems: she has indeed been there long enough. Less so when it contrasts "indigenous and mixed-race population in these countries, not just urbane, Europeanized elites." I'll try to keep the word "urbane" out of my mind next time I see Walter Alfaiate, contributor to the great samba tradition, walking along the Avenida Nossa Senhora de Copacabana in his self-tailored clothes and gold neckchains as immune to attack from the uncouth or envious as anyone can be.

As for Lori Berenson, I wonder whether there wouldn't be less resistance in Peru if there wasn't such US exceptionalism involved in demands for her release. Wouldn't it be more fruitful, more solidario, to to pressure the Peruvian government to distinguish between such cases as Lori Berenson's, regardless of nationality (her good intentions, social commitment) and Sendero's scorched earthers? Maybe that would that help us distinguish terrorist from activist. Constantly relating her predicament to geopolitics and US policy and accepting (while apparently defending Lori Berenson from it) prejudice against the Left is, it seems to me, a disservice to human rights.

Best regards,
Liv Sovik

The Author's Response: The question that Liv Sovik's thoughtful letter raises is, in the first instance, a philosophical one: does mercy towards one individual help the cause of the multitude? It could have been asked during the Cold War, when concern was expressed about the internal exile of Andrei Sakharov, a world-famous physicist, but many 'ordinary' Soviet political prisoners in far worse conditions had their suffering unheeded.

The irony is, Lori's advocates are often accused of invoking 'white privilege', of doing special pleading on her behalf because, as a white North American, she is someone to whose plight mainstream American opinion can gravitate. Yet Lori herself felt so concerned about white privilege that she went to Central America and then Peru in order to understand how people in other conditions lived. Can Lori can be put in double jeopardy as far as white privilege is concerned? She has explicitly refused special treatment while in prison. But as long as the illusion of American exceptionalism exists--and it is not going away anytime soon--should it not be used to help one person out of an cruel situation? And will not Lori's release further calls for the release of Peruvians unjustly imprisoned?

Sovik apparently wants Peru to implement a blanket pardon for all MRTA prisoners but not for Sendero ones. Would that not be imprisoning people based on their political affiliation, not on whether or not they have committed crimes? To decide cases based purely on ideological allegiances seems not in accord with due process.

Nicholas Birns

Concerning the New York Times' Coverage of the Berenson Case (September 29, 2005)

Concerning COHA's September 28, 2005 Research and Opinon Article "Lori Through the Looking Glass: A New Perspective On the Berenson Case," a New York Times reader wrote us:

Regarding the Coha analysis of the Berenson case, I have a quick comment (that's between you and me): The report says that the Berenson case is largely ignored and has "occasioned a meager squib in the NYT. I went back to check our archives and she's been mentioned in 120 articles, several of them long pieces detailing her ordeal, and a handful of them editorials that overall take her side. There are also in addition a couple dozen more briefs tracking news developments in her case. I'd say it all adds up to more than just a squib.

TOP

Barbados' Ambassador Responds to COHA's Evaluation of the Island's Questionable Haiti Policy (26 September, 2005)

In response to COHA's June 6, 2005 article "Barbados Creates Rift Within CARICOM - Who are the Heroes and Who are the Knaves?" we received the following letter from Ambassador Michael I. King, who attacked our assertions about Barbados' role in CARICOM relative to Haiti. COHA has selected some excerpts from the letter to include in the Open Forum.

The self-declared mandate of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) is to monitor political, economic and diplomatic issues facing the Western Hemispheric. It prides itself in providing non-partisan professional analysis on regional affairs, and continually trumpets a Congressional definition of its reputation as: “one of our nation’s most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers.”

Regrettably, there is no sign of scholarship, research or objective in the two recent vitriolic diatribes issued by COHA on May 25th and June 6th, 2005 purportedly on the subject of the Barbados Government’s policy on Haiti. Director Larry Birns does a great disservice to his Council’s credibility bias allowing such unadulterated fiction to issue under its name. But given his long-term and visceral bias against the Barbados Labor Party Government, dating back to the Grenada intervention of 1983, it should come as no surprise that Coha would seek to publish a series of articles whose only purpose is to vilify and defame Prime Minister Owen Arthur and his Foreign Minister Dame Billie Miller. His real agenda is not so hidden.

Barbados has been committed for decades, as a matter of policy, to the goal of assisting the people of Haiti to lay the foundations for a lasting democracy that can deliver the benefits of economic and social development to all of its citizens. That commitment became a solemn obligation once Haiti attained membership of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Indeed, Mr. Birns might be surprised to learn that Owen Arthur’s first official act as newly-elected Prime Minister of Barbados in 1994 was to approve the deployment of Barbadian military and civilian personnel to Haiti as part of the UN effort to stabilize the resorted Presidency of Jean Bertrand Aristide. The authors of the articles under reference are woefully, and perhaps deliberately ignorant of the fact that Minister Miller’s visit to Haiti in July, 2004, was neither unilateral nor unsanctioned. If they took the trouble to read the Communiqué issued by CARICOM Heads of Government at that time they would have been aware of the consensus decision by the CARICOM Leaders to mandate the Barbados Minister, in her member Ministerial Team to Haiti for discussions with Haitian officials. They also make no mention of the fact that the Mission met with the Interim Administration, the representatives of political parties, including LAVALAS, and members of Civil Society.

The central thesis of COHA’s writing is that CARICOM is deeply divided over Haiti; that Barbados is somehow the instigator of the division, and that those who do not believe in absolute isolation of the Interim Administration have been coerced into those beliefs by an indeterminate number of Western powers. While this may be a convenient interpretation to support the agenda of anti-establishment activists, it is unfortunately not even a distant cousin of the truth.

From that time until the present CARICOM has been unanimous on the core elements of its position on Haiti. These include: deep concern at the circumstances surrounding the departure of President Aristide from office and at the dangerous precedent set by the use of unconstitutional means to remove a duly elected leader from office; support for the international efforts under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council to restore order and stability to Haiti, and to assist in creating the conditions necessary for the holding of elections and the return to constitutional democracy within an acceptable timeframe; insistence that the actions of rebel forces should not be legitimized, nor should they be included in and interim administration; concern that there be full respect for human rights, and no resort to acts of political recrimination or to disarmament and reintegration and to the fostering of national dialogue to promote reconciliation and political inclusiveness; support for the release of funds by the donor community to assist the development process in Haiti, and above all, acceptance of a deep moral and humanitarian commitment to the safety and well-being of the people of Haiti.

Contrary to COHA’s assertions, there is an overwhelming degree of coherence and unanimity of thinking among the leaders of CARICOM with respect to fundamental policy on Haiti. We have created a Task Force, and have put in place a CARICOM Assistance Programme on Haiti to support the normalization efforts in areas where our countries have recognized capacity, in particular, the area of electoral assistance. The only real difference we have is one not of policy, but of execution. It centres on the dilemma as to what should be the appropriate conduit for the delivery of our assistance to the people of Haiti in the absence of an elected Government. On the one hand, some of our members abhor the notion of dealing with the Latortue Administration. On the other, Barbados and several other member states believe that that in order to be a full partner in the reconstruction effort we must use all diplomatic channels open to us, and must therefore be prepared to engage with Interim Administration. We do not see this as conferring recognition or permanent status on the Interim Authorities, but rather as an accepted feature of diplomatic practice in circumstances such as these. Above all, we believe that this is the only way in which CARICOM can hope to exert political influence and moral leadership in the normalization effort.

The situation of governance in Haiti is one of the most complex in our region, and solution will not come in the form of a single prescription. Barbados will continue to operate on the basis of its principles and values, in the interest of the welfare of the people of Haiti and the stability of the Caribbean region. If the directorate of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs has any lingering doubts as to our independence of thought and action they might wish to research our consistence and principled stances on matters such as constructive engagement with Cuba, the doctrine of pre-emptive strike in the case of Iraq; the question of Article 98 and the International Criminal Court, the transshipment of nuclear waste through the Caribbean Sea or the matter of harmful tax competition and the OECD.

Michael I. King
Ambassador of Barbados to the U.S.A.
And Permanent Representative of Barbados
To the Organization of American States

TOP

Evangelicals and Missionaries in Latin America (26 September, 2005)

COHA received the following letter from Eric Jackson, editor of the Panama News, in response to our September 19, 2005 article "Evangelical Protestants in Venezuela: Robertson Only The Latest Controversy In a Long and Bizarre History."

I look on with dismay at the way that the religious right in the USA is playing the mirror image of Osama bin Laden, moving all across the world to incite a new epoch of holy wars. Like fanatics everywhere, they irresponsibly try to bring violence down upon not only the people they profess to hate, but also those who are nominally "their own people.

Most Latin American Evangelicals are not right wing fanatics. Some of them have very good liberation theology credentials.

But of course, to indigenous peoples trying to advance their cultures in their own terms, missionaries of whatever stripe - Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Communist et al --- tend to set themselves up as enemies. The message is almost always a version of "you're backward and superstitious and we are here to enlighten you and deliver you from your barbaric darkness."

Back in 1993 three men from the New Tribes Mission were kidnapped by FARC from the Panamanian village of Pucuro, a Kuna community. The New Tribes Mission rejected ransom demands and years later, when the captives became far more of an embarrassment than a potential asset to FARC, they were killed.

US military and diplomatic sources told me that what happened was that these missionaries, who were there to preach a conservative but not particularly political brand of Protestant fundamentalism and translate the Bible into Kuna, offended some of the traditional leaders with their religious based denigration of Kuna culture and religion. Thus these leaders for that reason told FARC, which at the time would commonly come through the area to buy groceries and take vacations from their campaigns across the border in Colombia, that the missionaries were running an American spy outpost. So FARC came in and took the men away. New Tribes people told me that they were absolutely not engaged in any sort of spying, though part of their religion is that they don't like FARC or any other sort of communists.

But here in Panama City, it was commonly alleged in leftist circles that the New Tribes people were in fact American undercover agents sent to keep track of FARC's movements in the area.

That notion received a bit of support a few years back when the Panamanian government busted a network of AUC paramilitary folks in Panama, in the series of raids seizing the airplanes of a skydiving school in Chame that was run by a retired Colombian paratrooper colonel. The airstrip and hangars raided were shared with one other group: the New Tribes Mission, whose Panama headquarters are next door.

My gut instincts are that the New Tribes Mission is not a front for the CIA or the AUC, but just as bunch of religious conservatives concerned with saving souls rather than playing politics.

But of course, thuggish posturing by Pat Robertson and people like him puts the New Tribes Mission people in danger. In a region where we once had the Spanish Inquisition and where all through the 19th century Colombia fought wars over, among other issues, whether Catholicism would be the sole legal religion, provocations like Robertson's are sure to move those who are predisposed to do so to smear all Evangelicals, all Protestants, and especially missionaries from these denominations, with a broad brush.

The progressive tradition in this region has historically rejected that sort of thing. Such leaders as Bolívar, San Martín, Sandino, Zapata and Allende were, after all, freemasons who opposed the Catholic Church over the religious liberty issue.

I don't think that the Venezuelan government can take the assassination talk as if it were of no consequence. It's a threat that has to be taken seriously. However, I wish that Chávez and Rangel would be more subtle and selective, watching out for subversive activities by folks who take their marching orders from the likes of Pat Robertson but isolating those people with a traditional Bolivarian policy of religious tolerance rather than swallowing their bait and clamping down on a broad spectrum of religious advocacy.

Eric Jackson
Editor, The Panama News

TOP

Flaws in COHA's Analysis of Brazilian Corruption (21 September, 2005)

Regarding COHA's September 13, 2005 Opinion article, "Doing Right By Latin America's Behemoth," we were criticized for providing a superficial and unrealistic take on the scandals occurring in Brazil. COHA Senior Research Fellow Sean Burges writes from Rio:

Regarding, your release on Brazil on September 13, 2005, it is not the best thing that COHA has released and frankly, I would say is not going to do your credibility much good here in Brazil.

Brazilian democracy IS consolidated. The depth, detail, and sustained manner with which the rule of law is being used to delve into problems of corruption is something that the U.S. would do well to take on board with respect to things such as the naming of CIA operatives and corporate ties between the White House and the Oil industry. What you totally miss in the piece, and this is a titanic event, was the recent arrest of Paolo Maluf, the ex mayor of Sao Paulo on corruption charges -- to the order of taking $200 million. He is still in jail on preventative detention.

The corruption scandals are a problem and point to some systemic problems with the nature of party political structures and congressional representation/election procedures, but they aren’t a disaster. Indeed, they are contributing to a remarkable consolidation of the party system, breathing substantive and forceful life into party authority structures that until now have been but paper tigers. Nonetheless, the extent to which corruption exists in Brazil is slightly disturbing, and these events will only lead to positive changes in the country if they propel society to begin to confront the corruption problem in public and governmental institutions. Another point that you overlook is the structure of the Brazilian economy. Bresser-Perreira´s work on democracy of the elites versus democracy of civil society is very useful here.

There are three massive additional problems with my colleague Alana Gutierrez’s analysis. First, Brazil is not really a developing country. True, it is an unequal country, but also a tremendously sophisticated one, one that has the resources to actually help itself. Take the Brazilian National Bank for Social and Economic Development as an example (BNDES.gov.br), an institution that has R$60 billion available for disbursements this year alone, a sum probably greater than that of the World Bank.

Second, there is absolutely no way that the US would ever be able to have any influence on corruption programs and general socio-economic ordering in Brazil. Just think of what Fernando Henrique Cardoso said to Bush when they first met...his offer of assistance with voting procedures for the next election. Simply put, Brazil is not Honduras.

Finally, any suggestion that Brazil lacks the capacity to resist US attempts to foist an FTAA on the hemisphere is absurd to the point of ridiculous. First, Brazilian diplomacy continues in a more or less consistent trajectory irrespective of what is going on domestically, and has done so for over 100 years. Second, one of the most important and influential actors in global trade talks is Brazil – every decision in WTO talks is rotating around Brazil and Brazil-coordinated positions. To this vein the G-20, led by Brazil, has just started consolidating an alliance among the different developing country groups in the WTO, to push the agriculture issue.

The question you really want to ask is: why are these corruption problems emerging right now? The answer possibly is because the country’s democracy is consolidated and the people are starting to flex their discontent in a constructive, constitutional manner.

Cheerio from rainy Rio,
Sean

COHA Response: Sean's analysis is a very incisive one. However, his perspective that the current scandals represent a somewhat positive rather than a negative development - provided civil society seizes upon them to induce a change - provides us with a remarkable, if controversial insight. Nonetheless, we feel that U.S. policies could, as COHA's Alana Gutierrez persuasively argues, help steer the eventual outcome of the corruption scandals towards beneficial change. In this scenario, the U.S. role should not be proactive, but mainly weighing Brazil's national interests as, quite properly, the main determinant of the outcome.

TOP

Biased Perspectives on Guyana (8 September, 2005)

In a September 8, 2005 COHA Memorandum to the Public and the Press, "Justice and Democracy in Guyana Fly Limply in the Breeze," COHA referenced the New York-based Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy. We received the following note from a high Georgetown (Guyana) PPP official:

I don’t have any problems with the article, but you give too much credence to the Caribbean-Guyana Institute for Democracy (CGID) which, in case you don’t know, is a front organization of the opposition PNC in New York.

Indeed, the crime situation is very serious and political links are in evidence. The Gajraj fiasco has been mentioned, but you did not mention the strong links that the [opposition party] PNC has in it as well. When a notorious murderer/bandit was killed, his funeral was attended by leaders of the PNC and his coffin bedecked with the Guyana flag. His body “lay in state” at the Square of the Revolution” and thousands of PNC supporters went to pay respects.

Think in terms also of all the post-elections violence in 1992, 1997, and 2001, all led by the PNC and occurring during PNC demonstrations because they never wanted to accept the elections results.

The President has made vocal complaints about the judiciary and opposition groups have criticized him for being blunt. They said he has no right to question the judiciary about how it is doing its work.

I am not saying that you should ask the government’s view on this matter, but it will be good if you have a word with Mr. David DeCairies, editor of the independent Stabroek News to get his general views.

But by quoting CGID which has attempted to raise funds for the defense of one person who was charged for treason after organizing a violent attack on the Office of the President in 2002 tells you about its credibility. Very few people responded to this fund and the organization, according to a letter in the Guyanese newspapers, managed to raise just about $300.

Regarding the Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy (28 September, 2005)

Below we re-print, the welcome contribution of CGID taking issue with our brief comment (see above) that the CGID appears to be pro-PNC in its orientation. We have excerpted all material relating to the Mark Benschop case because there was no prior mention of it, its lack of context would produce confusion.

The CGID Response:

CGID is concerned about the trivial basis for COHA’s conclusion that the organization is “markedly pro-PNC in its orientation.” The Council’s postulation appears to be based entirely on the opinion of a PPP government official. The Institute considers this statement to be grossly erroneous and strongly challenges its basis. It would seem that COHA has cowed to the dictatorial tactics of the ruling PPP in Guyana, whose reaction to criticism has perennially been a strategy of condemning the critic and labeling their views as “PNC.” They have done this with the World Bank, the IMF and officials of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Therefore COHA must retract this statement or provide the foundation for its conclusion. Such a foundation must be derived from within the institutional framework of CGID.

The Board of CGID is made up of one Grenadian, four Jamaicans, two Haitians, one Trinidadian, two Barbadians, one American, one Dominican and six Guyanese. Apart from the President, none of the other five Guyanese have ever had a political affiliation in Guyana. A clear majority of the Board members are non-Guyanese and have no interest in Guyanese politics. The President is the former Chief of Staff to late President of Guyana, Hon. Desmond Hoyte, and was previously involved in politics in Guyana. However, Mr. Burke’s former professional assignments in Guyana are no basis for deeming the Institute “a front for the PNC in Guyana” or “markedly pro-PNC in orientation.” The Institute therefore finds the complaint of the ruling PPP ludicrous and laughable. It brings to mind the adage “Thou protesteth too much.”

The Council must be aware that the PPP government labels any organization or individual that criticizes it as either “racist” or “PNC.” CGID offers no apologies for condemning the PPP government of Guyana, and will continue to do so if the grave deficiencies of governance persist. The government can shout as loud and as long as its wants that the Institute is pro-PNC. This diatribe would not change the conclusions of the Institute. Only fundamental change in the attitude of the government itself will result in a review of the Institute’s positions.

The PPP government is marred in corruption at the highest levels; the government is facilitating a narco-state; true democracy in Guyana is moribund and press freedoms and human rights are constantly under threat. There is a popular view that PPP governance is rooted in ethnocratic principles and racial triumphalism. This is evidenced by the open marginalization of Afro-Guyanese. This phenomenon has led to the use of the term “ethnic cleansing” to describe the government’s actions.

The international community concurs with the conclusions of CGID. The US State Department’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report for 2005, issued in March 2005, concluded that “....Joint U.S.-Guyana operations in combating narcotics were undertaken but quickly compromised due to corruption… “…A lack of political will and a National Drug Strategy within the government has hampered the implementation of needed reforms.” “Guyana is party to the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption, but has yet to fully implement its provisions. Allegations of corruption are widespread, and reach to the highest levels of government, but continue to go uninvestigated.”

Additionally, the World Bank in its 2003 country report on Guyana declared that “there is a crisis of Governance in Guyana” and “there is no confidence in the judiciary.” On April 12, 2005, Press Secretary for the US Department of State, Ambassador Richard Boucher, made the following statement about Guyana’s Minister of National Security, Ronald Gajraj: “We believe significant questions remain unanswered regarding his involvement in serious criminal activities. The United States and the Government of Guyana enjoy close, cordial relations and share an important bilateral agenda. However, Gajraj’s resumption of a key ministry, with direct authority over law enforcement activities in Guyana, undermines the rule of law in that country.”

Mr. Gajraj is strongly connected to the leadership of a gang that is responsible for hundreds of extra-judicial killings and murders of young African men. Mr. George Bacchus, the whistle-blower and self-confessed financier of the gang’s operations was gunned down in his home a few hours before he was scheduled to testify in court about the murders committed by the gang as well as Gajraj’s involvement.

CGID is unquestionably an independent organization. If the PPP government wants to label it Pro-PNC, then so be it. But COHA has no basis for concurring and should review its impulsive statement.

Allison Skeete

Director of Communications and Public Affairs
Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy (CGID)
September 28, 2005

COHA Response: Because of the vigor of the CGID’s defense of its bona fides, particularly in its insistence that it is not biased in favor of the PNC/R, as COHA had suggested in its earlier response to the off-the-record letter from a high Guyanese official included above, COHA has been persuaded to modify its earlier position.

In its initial press memorandum, we straight-forwardly cited the CGID’s charge against the ruling PPP government, without characterizing that body. Upon publication, it invited a response from a PPP official, with whom we have had a long and rewarding relationship, who requested anonymity because he was critical of the government. But this individual also challenged COHA’s characterization of the CGID as a non-partisan body. To the contrary, he maintained that it was closely tied to the opposition PNC/R party of the late Forbes Burnham and that the CGID’s director, Rickford Burke, had been an assistant to Desmond Hoyte, who COHA had always characterized as one of the most villainous and repugnant figures in modern Guyanese history.

In recent days, COHA has given the issue of CGID’s mission and performance lengthy consideration, and hopes to resolve the issue at this point. Although it initially appeared that the presence of a former high PNC/R official like Mr. Burke on the CGID board of directors, and the organization’s publication of highly charged material against the Guyanese government, suggested a possibly biased perspective, we have since noted that the CGID monitors the entire Caribbean basin, not just Guyana, and that it has criticized the very governments that we sometimes ourselves have. So, we will closely watch the CGID’s round of activities just as we expect them to scrutinize COHA’s daily work.

TOP

Mexico's Disputed 1988 Election

In a September 6, 2005 COHA Memorandum to the Public and the Press, "Madrazo – Gordillo Split Poses a Serious Problem for the PRI and Mexico," COHA stated that in 1988 Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas' "...bid for the presidency fell short by a wafer-thin margin, and forced the PRI to fudge the results in order to make their victory appear more convincing." In regards to this assertion we received the following comment:

Dear Coha,
Most of this report was very interesting and informative, but I could not believe that you made the following inaccurate statement: In 1988 Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzano ... defected to form his own political movement. His bid for the presidency fell short by a wafer-thin margin, and forced the PRI to fudge the results in order to make their victory appear more convincing. Cárdenas did not lose by a wafer thin margin; everyone in Mexico knows that he actually won by a large margin and this has been well documented. (See, e.g., Preston & Dillon, Opening Mexico). The wafer-thin margin was what the PRI/government officials invented when they "fudged" the results. You owe your readers a correction and an apology.

Sincerely,
Professor Robert A. Blecker
Department of Economics
American University
Washington, DC

COHA Response:

While the debate over who won the 1988 election is likely never to be resolved, as the physical evidence was quickly and suspiciously destroyed, perhaps a preponderance of many academics now believe that Salinas did indeed win a majority of the vote. Although it is undeniable that fraud on a truly massive scale did occur, it is impossible to know whether that fraud turned defeat into victory, or simply provided a more comfortable margin. Many believe that in the face of unfavorable early results the PRI shut down the computer system in order to ensure that the rural areas would provide the necessary votes for a victory. In the end, there is no truth that can be uncovered, no definitive answer to the mystery. While we believe our statements was correct, we were remiss in not mentioning the possibility that Salinas did indeed receive fewer votes.

TOP

Bolivian Autonomy and Independence

Regarding an August 10, 2005 Memorandum to the Press, "With Bolivia Still Seized by Unrest and Instability, there are Lessons to be Learned about Autonomy from Nicaragua’s Comparative Experience," COHA received the following comment regarding the article's use of the words autonomy and independence:

This is a fundamentally excellent article on the rift between the eastern provinces and the rest of Bolivia. I worked (for the IDB) in that country for several months at a time in 1964 and thereafter, until the mid-70's. Sta Cruz province (and Tarija as well) have gone a long ways. The problems described aren't new, but date back to the post-revolution years of the 1950's. There are, however, two or three flaws (of fact) in the article: First, there are three, not two, Bolivias: the Altiplano to the East, where most of the indigenous population lives, and where the capital and seat of power, La Paz, is located. Second, the northern lowlands, commonly known as the Beni and Pando, which are vastly underpopulated, and perhaps also rich in resources. And, finally, the eastern and southern lowland provinces of Sucre, Tarija and Sta Cruz, with natural gas resources (not necessarily vast), and plenty of agricultural and rangeland, of varying fertility (depending on water resources). That region's main advantage is more ready access to Brazilian and Argentine markets. A last point, is that the main researcher, Melissa Nepomiachi, should be careful to distinguish between autonomy and independence. Which is it that Santa Cruz is going to vote on? Please do not use these terms interchangeably, because they also conflict with each other and mean different things. A correction is in order.

Sincerely,

COHA Response:

In discussing Santa Cruz's separatist movement we meant to indicate that autonomy and not independence was on the minds of the Cruceno leaders, although some of them are openly calling for the creation of their own country.

TOP

Soft populist politics?

In a July 15, 2005 Memorandum to the Press, "López Obrador’s Presidential Bid at a Time of Doubt for Mexican Politics," COHA stated that populist politician Andrés Manuel López Obrador in the 2006 Mexican presidential race had softened his politics as he shifted to the mainstream. We received the following comment in regards to the phrasing used to describe the transformation:

Do you know what populist means? "Softening a populist image" doesn't make much sense to me.

COHA Response:

What I meant was that as an election approaches candidates tend to put more qualifiers on their language. We probably should have used the phrase “tone down” instead of the words that the piece originally contained.

TOP

Moreno's IDB Worthiness

In a July 22, 2005 Memorandum to the Press, "Rising to the Occasion: Does Moreno Have What it Takes to be the Next President of the IDB?" and a July 29 2005 COHA Commentary "Moreno May Have to Reinvent Himself as the New IDB President," COHA addressed the selection of Luis Alberto Moreno as head of the Inter-American Development Bank. COHA Senior Research Fellow Josh Graee stressed the ambassador's inappropriate background for the position and the need to find someone of the same caliber as the then incumbent president, Enrique Iglesias. In response to the article, we received the following communication:

To whom it may concern,

I would like to complain about recent articles published by your organization about the newly elected president of the IDB. Two very negative opinion pieces authored by a Joshua Soren Graae, supposedly a senior research fellow at COHA (no information about him appears on your website), were posted on your website in the past couple of weeks. Far from providing any balanced or well supported arguments for Mr. Moreno's inadequacy as a candidate, Mr. Graee limits his articles to what seem to me to be cheap blows.

In his first article written before Mr. Moreno was elected, Graee refers to him as a "loyal servitor of Washington's cause in Colombia" and goes on to say that he lacks vision and depth and that during Moreno's presidency "the bank could very well slide back to the bad old days when nepotism, corruption and sexism thrived in the IDB's corridors of power." I would like to know the basis of such outrageous claims. Surely, the author must have conducted extensive research that led him to conclude that this peon of the Bush administration will lead the bank like a South American dictator from the 1970's. In this same article, Graee states that Moreno lacks the fiscal judgment to be head of the IDB merely because of his support for plan Colombia. I also believe this is quite a stretch and merely reflects the lack of any convincing arguments. It seems Mr. Graee is more interested in attacking ambassador Moreno personally rather than providing any useful information to your readers.

The second opinion piece written by the same author after Moreno's election starts with a more conciliatory title: "Moreno May Have to Reinvent Himself as the new IDB President". This title suggests that Mr. Graee would finally provide some useful facts and analysis about Mr. Moreno. However, his tone and lack of argumentation remained the same. After talking about salient IDB president Iglesias' 17 year tenure (complete with unnecessary details about an employee who committed suicide), he attacks Moreno again saying his credibility is in question because of his involvement in Plan Colombia and its known shortcomings. Mr. Moreno has barely made his first speech as the new president and the author is already asking him to "go above and beyond rhetorical platitudes". Here I must ask: Are not all speeches of this sort merely rhetorical platitude until their author is actually allowed to go to work and prove his commitment with actions?

Ambassador Moreno has a long trajectory in the private and public sectors that makes him a qualified candidate. He has done an excellent job as ambassador in the US for two different Colombian governments and is widely accredited with restoring relations between Washington and Bogotá after the torrid Samper years. It was his job as a government employee to secure funds for Plan Colombia and advance the Colombian government's objectives in the US and he has performed very well. The presidency of the IDB is a highly political post that, as Mr. Graee himself wrote, requires a "strong background in international finance as well as a keen sense of diplomacy and vision". I find the Mr. Graee's views about this subject to be very confusing. He advocates for a new president with sharp diplomatic skills and someone who can obtain needed funds from the US congress, but he then refers to Mr. Moreno's diplomatic skills as "adroit embassy-style wheeling and dealing", and even though securing funds from the US congress is probably the area in which Mr. Moreno achieved the most results, he actually uses this argument as a reason for him not being qualified to be the IDB president.

I am Colombian and do not necessarily agree with Plan Colombia or think that Mr. Moreno was the best candidate for the IDB post. However, I find Mr. Graee's articles to be poorly researched and inflammatory in nature. They provide no useful information and are completely unfounded. Throughout both of his articles, Mr. Graee makes it painfully obvious that he did not do any meaningful research on Mr. Moreno or the Colombian political situation. His ignorance about these subjects is reflected in the last paragraph of his second article: "While everyone is prepared to allow Moreno to demonstrate whether he’s up to the job, with former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria recently holding the position as Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) and now Moreno being elected to lead the IDB, some in Washington feel that these regional positions are being used as a dumping ground for Colombian political figures whose shelf lives have expired, and are not particularly welcome in their home country."

I don't understand were Mr. Graee gets this idea as Cesar Gaviria has gone back to Colombia to be elected the leader of the Liberal party and the principal figure in president Uribe's opposition. Additionally, Mr. Moreno is one of the most popular figures in the Uribe government and given the amount of lobbying and the press coverage that his candidacy received in the country, I doubt anyone who took the time to do ten minutes of research on the subject would consider him an unwanted political figure. Mr. Graee's articles seemed to be motivated more by his dislike of the Bush administration than by real solid arguments. It is very sad to see such poor editorial quality coming out of a respected institution such as COHA.

COHA Response: COHA has spent a good deal of time monitoring Ambassador Moreno’s modus operandi and the role that the Colombian embassy has played under his aegis as a result of his long stint in Washington at the embassy. We feel confident in our assertion that the Ambassador doesn’t traffick in innovative thinking and he certainly is without a defining vision. Unfortunately, the determining factor in his being awarded the presidency of the International American Development Bank is due to his Washington sponsorship and the reason why he had that was his service as Washington and Bogotá’s plough horse for a policy that not so much saw Colombia’s conflict as susceptible to peaceful resolution, but as susceptible of being merged into Washington’s elusive, if not chimerical war against terrorism. Because he is a man without either vision, enlightenment, or pluckiness, and has never had a reputation for independence of thought, we must continue to insist that he was grossly the wrong man for the job, and that the growing importance of the IDB was set back by this appointment.

TOP