[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
U.S. POLICY TOWARD LATIN AMERICA IN 2009 AND BEYOND
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 4, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-233 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RON PAUL, Texas
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
DIANE E. WATSON, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
ADAM SMITH, JOE WILSON, South Carolina
WashingtonUntil 2/9/ JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
09 deg. J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri CONNIE MACK, Florida
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York TED POE, Texas
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
GENE GREEN, Texas GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BARBARA LEE, California
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
GENE GREEN, Texas CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona DAN BURTON, Indiana
ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American ELTON GALLEGLY, California
Samoa RON PAUL, Texas
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
RON KLEIN, Florida
Jason Steinbaum, Subcommittee Staff Director
Eric Jacobstein, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member
Francis Gibbs, Republican Professional Staff Member
Julie Schoenthaler, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Sergio Bendixen, President, Bendixen & Associates............ 16
Cynthia McClintock, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science and
International Affairs, Director, Latin American and Hemispheric
Studies Program, The George Washington University.............. 27
Mr. Eric Farnsworth, Vice President, Council of the Americas..... 37
Ray Walser, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America,
Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies,
The Heritage Foundation........................................ 43
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Western Hemisphere: Prepared statement......................... 5
The Honorable Connie Mack, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida: Prepared statement........................... 9
Mr. Sergio Bendixen: Prepared statement.......................... 19
Cynthia McClintock, Ph.D.: Prepared statement.................... 30
Mr. Eric Farnsworth: Prepared statement.......................... 40
Ray Walser, Ph.D.: Prepared statement............................ 46
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record........................ 65
U.S. POLICY TOWARD LATIN AMERICA IN 2009 AND BEYOND
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:20 a.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eliot L. Engel
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Engel. Good morning, everybody. Sorry for the delay,
and welcome to what I believe is the first hearing of any
subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee. So we are
honored that we have such a large crowd and an overflow. I was
a hero out there being greeted by all these people. It was very
nice to know that there is so much interest in foreign policy
and in what the Congress is going to do this year with the new
administration and the new Congress.
A quorum being present, the Subcommittee of the Western
Hemisphere will come to order. It is my pleasure to welcome
everyone to today's hearing on United States policy toward
Latin America in 2009 and beyond. As I mentioned, this is our
first subcommittee hearing in the 111th Congress. I want to
welcome all of the members on the subcommittee on both sides of
the aisle, and, in particular, I would like to extend a warm
welcome to my good friend and our new ranking member, Connie
Mack.
I am delighted that Congressman Mack is the ranking member.
He and I have worked closely together on many things, and I
think I was quoted in one of the Florida newspapers not so long
ago as saying that Congressman Mack was a very important and
welcome member of our subcommittee. I know that as ranking
member he will even be more so. I look forward to working
closely with you and I am very delighted that you are the
ranking member.
I must also say something about the former ranking member,
Dan Burton. My gratitude to him as well. He remains on the
subcommittee but is becoming ranking member of the Subcommittee
on the Middle East. Dan Burton and I have traveled together,
worked together, and have had a wonderful relationship, and I
know that that will extend to Connie Mack and myself as well.
Barack Obama's election was greeted with excitement
throughout the hemisphere. When I traveled to Paraguay, Chile
and Peru shortly after the Presidential election, there was a
real sense of optimism, both among the heads of state and the
citizens of these countries. I believe that the goodwill
generated by President Obama's election will itself do a great
deal to reinvigorate United States/Latin American relations.
During his campaign, President Obama said, ``My policy
toward the Americas will be guided by the simple principle that
what is good for the people of the Americas is good for the
United States.'' That means measuring success not just through
agreements among governments, but also through the hopes of a
child in the favelas of Rio, the security for the policemen in
Mexico City, and the answered cries of political prisoners
heard from jails in Havana.
This bottom up and direct to the people approach is
precisely what is needed in the Americas right now. With 40
percent of the region's population, some 209 million people,
living in poverty, it is essential that we sharply focus our
attention on the social agenda in the Americas. I would like to
briefly outline what I think could be some positive steps taken
by the Obama administration early on to further deepen United
States/Latin American relations.
First and foremost, and I want to emphasize this, I believe
that President Obama's participation in April's Summit of the
Americas in Trinidad and Tobago would send an extremely
positive message to the heads of state from Latin America and
the Caribbean. I intend to be there, I hope many members of our
subcommittee will be there, and I hope that we will be active
partners because it is very, very important.
The Summit of the Americas is held approximately once every
4 years and this is a wonderful opportunity for the
administration to show that Latin America and the Western
Hemisphere is a priority.
Secondly, as Chairman Berman moves forward with foreign aid
reform and the Obama administration prepares its fiscal year
2010 budget, it is essential that we increase funding for the
countries in the Western Hemisphere.
I would venture to say that no member of this subcommittee
would disagree with me that we need to significantly increase
foreign aid to our neighbors in Latin America and the
Caribbean. Quite frankly, budgets show priorities, and when
foreign aid to the hemisphere lags behind, our allies
understand the message that is being sent to them.
Thirdly, cooperation between the United States and Brazil
significantly expanded during the Bush administration. This
relationship needs to be further deepened under President
Obama. The U.S./Brazil Memorandum of Understanding on Biofuels
is the cornerstone of our bilateral relationship and represents
the start of a program to help countries in the region to
develop domestic energy supplies, but it is simply not enough.
The U.S./Brazil MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) already
supports some so-called third countries but needs to be
expanded to additional countries in Central America and the
Caribbean most of whom are more than 90 percent dependent on
imported oil, predominantly from Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez. President Obama has spoken of establishing an energy
partnership for the Americas, something I strongly support.
As the House sponsor of the Western Hemisphere Energy
Compact Act in the 110th Congress, along with Senator Richard
Lugar, I look forward to working with President Obama on a
hemispheric energy partnership.
Fourth, we must continue to support our friends in Mexico
through the Merida Initiative. This is very important, but we
also need a more holistic, counterdrug strategy that includes
greater assistance to Central America and an expansion of
Merida Initiative to the nations of the Caribbean.
At the same time, it is critical to get our own House in
order. This means reducing the demand for drugs in the United
States by putting more money into domestic prevention and
treatment programs. It also means stemming the flow of firearms
into Mexico. Shockingly, 90 percent, and we learned this
through hearings that we have held in this subcommittee over
the past couple of years, 90 percent of the guns that are used
in drug-related violence in Mexico originate in the United
States.
I will soon be sending a letter to President Obama urging
him to return to enforcement of the ban on imported assault
weapons that was previously enforced by Presidents H.W. Bush
and Bill Clinton but not enforced by the most recent Bush
administration. Returning to enforcement of this ban would help
reduce violence in the United States and would also curb
violence in Mexico by limiting the number of assault weapons
flowing from the United States into Mexico.
Fifth, I would urge President Obama to focus on Ecuador and
Paraguay. It may seem odd that I mention these two small
countries. I visited both, the subcommittee visited both, and I
believe they are both countries where increased engagement by
the Obama administration could go a long way. Presidents Correa
and Lugo are both looking for ways to work with the United
States.
In Ecuador, I believe the Bush administration made a
mistake in just reaching out to President Uribe, whom I greatly
admire and respect, but not to President Correa after the March
1 Ecuador/Colombia border crisis. In the coming years we must
do more to support Ecuador's efforts to combat the FARC and
help refugees at the country's northern border.
In Paraguay, President Lugo was the first President to be
elected not from the Colorado Party in 60 years. President Lugo
showed his interest in a strong relationship with the United
States by visiting President Bush in Washington in October.
Lugo easily could have waited for a new administration to take
office, but he wanted to demonstrate right away the value he
places in a good relationship with the United States. He said
that to me in Asuncion.
I hope to introduce legislation later this year that would
add Paraguay as an Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA)
beneficiary country.
Sixth, we must continue to support disaster recovery
efforts in Haiti. At the same time, it is essential to help
Haiti prepare for the next disaster. Haiti is the poorest
country in the hemisphere and the need there could not be
greater.
I would, of course, be remiss not to mention two countries
of paramount importance to this subcommittee: Colombia and
Cuba. In the case of Colombia, I believe that it is important
for the new administration to continue to cultivate our strong
relationship with President Uribe who has been instrumental in
reducing kidnappings and homicides in his country.
I am very impressed with President Uribe and what he has
done for the people of Colombia, and we need to help them. Of
course we will want to talk more about Cuba today since Cuba
policy is at the forefront of any discussion on United States
policy toward Latin America. Finally, I want to bring
everyone's attention, I said this on the House floor yesterday,
to the weekend's heinous attack on a synagogue in Caracas,
Venezuela.
The attack is clearly the result of a climate of fear and
intimidation inspired by the Venezuelan Government and by Hugo
Chavez. On Monday I sent a letter, along with 19 of my
colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee, to President
Chavez urging him to end the bullying and harassment of the
Jewish community in Venezuela and to extend the community the
robust protection it deserves in light of the threats it faces.
The Venezuelan Government must quickly change its tune with
regard to the country's Jewish community. I am now pleased to
introduce our witnesses, and then I will call on Congressman
Mack. Your testimony today will be crucial as we shape the
agenda for the subcommittee in the coming Congress. Sergio
Bendixen is president of Bendixen & Associates and a leading
pollster in the U.S. and Latin America. Cynthia McClintock is a
professor of Political Science and director of the Latin
American and Hemispheric Studies Program at George Washington
University.
Next, Eric Farnsworth, who is an old friend--not really
old, Eric, but a friend--and has been in our subcommittee many
times is the vice president of the Council of the Americas.
Last, but not least, Ray Walser is a senior policy analyst for
Latin America at The Heritage Foundation. Welcome to all of
you. I am now pleased to call on Ranking Member Mack for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Engel
follows:]Engel deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
kind words. I look forward to working with you. We have a great
working relationship, as well as a friendship that goes beyond
the walls of Congress, and so I appreciate your kind words and
look forward to working on behalf of the people of the United
States on behalf of the people of Latin America with you, and
also would like to say hello and that I look forward to working
with all of our colleagues on the committee, both on the left
and the right.
I think as we tackle some of the issues that you mentioned
we do so best when we have open debate with opposing ideas and
we are willing to discuss them openly to come up with solutions
that will benefit all. So thank you to all the members who are
here as well. There are a lot of challenges as you have
outlined in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, in the
Western Hemisphere.
My hope is that we can take each one of those challenges,
whether it is human rights violations, drug trafficking,
poverty, the issues dealing with energy and oil, we can take
each one of those issues, look deep inside of us and work on
behalf of the people of Latin America. As you quoted, I believe
President Obama has said that the best way to help is to help
the people of Latin America, something like that.
I am sure you said it much more eloquently than I did. It
is true. The best way that we can move forward and Latin
America can move forward is by supporting the people in Latin
America. By supporting the people in Latin America, they will
force a change with inside their own governments that we don't
have to do directly.
You mentioned Venezuela and you know that I am a critic of
Hugo Chavez and will continue to be a critic of Hugo Chavez
because I believe the policies he has put forward in his
country have destroyed the hopes and dreams of the people of
Venezuela, and he hopes to spread that same message beyond the
walls of his own country.
We see that with the relationships that he has forged with
Iran and Russia. It seems that if you are an enemy of the
United States, then you are a friend of Hugo Chavez. So I hope
that our committee will continue to stay focused on the
problems and challenges that we face as they relate to Hugo
Chavez and his government in Venezuela.
Cuba is also another area where I am sure we will have
hopefully a lot of hearings, and conversations and debate about
the policies moving forward with the United States and Cuba. I
have seen nothing has changed in Cuba. You still have a Castro
who has not shown us that he is willing to unclench his fist,
and therefore, we need to stay vigilant in our actions toward
Cuba and ensure that our policies are those that support the
people of Cuba.
Mr. Chairman, I think that we have got a great panel today
for discussion, and I look forward to many, many more and hope
that we will continue to work together and make our foreign
policy decisions based upon what is right for the people of the
United States and Latin America. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mack
follows:]Connie Mack deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Mack. Let me first also announce
that the subcommittee in couple of weeks will be visiting
Mexico, Nicaragua and Jamaica as a fact-finding trip. I would
like to give members a chance, if they would like, to make an
opening statement. They don't have to. We can hear our
witnesses. Is there any member on this side of the aisle that
wishes to make an opening statement?
Mr. Mack. Mr. Chairman? Real quick. I ask unanimous consent
to submit additional documents for the record.
Mr. Engel. Without objection.
Mr. Mack. Thank you.
Mr. Engel. Yes. I didn't see who was raising their hand. I
am sorry. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would
like to welcome our new ranking member, Mr. Mack, to our
subcommittee, as well as our distinguished witnesses this
morning. Mr. Chairman, we deeply appreciate your leadership and
your willingness continuously to serve as the chairman of our
subcommittee, and especially addressing the serious needs of
our neighbors in Latin America.
Mr. Chairman, a new wind is blowing. We have a saying in
the Islands that goes something like this: [Representative
Faleomavaega spoke in his native language] which means a good
wind is blowing, but the sail is torn. To that extent, Mr.
Chairman, I think we have mended the sail, the good wind is
blowing, we have a new administration in Barack Obama, and I
think if there is anything else that we have ever learned in
what he has suggested in our foreign policy system is, for a
change, let us listen.
Let us listen to the leaders of our neighbors in Latin
America, their concerns, rather than dictating to them as what
they should be doing. Mr. Chairman, as you know, for over the
years I have always taken a great interest in the needs and the
welfare of the native indigenous Indians throughout Latin
America.
You had stated earlier something to the extent that 290
million people in Latin America live in dire poverty. I would
venture to say that probably 200 million of those people are
indigenous Indians. I think, Mr. Chairman, we deeply need to
address the important issue of what has happened to the native
indigenous peoples of Latin America after 500 years of being
smitten and conquered, and as a conquered people, marginalized
in just about every form of economic, social, political
opportunities and development.
I think this is something our subcommittee really needs to
look into a little more. I note with interest that the country
of Bolivia, which is about 60 percent or more population are
indigenous Indians. I think just yesterday the New York Times
had a cover page on the fact that this country of Bolivia
produces half of the lithium of the world which gives to rise
that I think the Latin American countries have tremendous
resources, and I think something to the effect that we need to
look at this a little more seriously.
I do want to say, Mr. Chairman, just yesterday in my office
we had distinguished members of Parliament from the Republic of
Venezuela. I know we may have different opinions about Mr.
Chavez, but I think this is something also as an opportunity,
let us get to the roots of the problem as to why Mr. Chavez has
always taken a negative attitude toward America.
Why for the past 8 years that we have treated, have this
relationship or this dialogue that it seems to be very
negative. I seem to get the impression that President Obama
wants to reach out even to those neighbors of ours that may not
necessarily agree with our political systems, but at least
establish some things that we could go on. I have always said
that there are more good than negatives in any country among
any people that we could better treat.
I agree with you, whatever happened, the bombing of the
synagogue in Venezuela needs to be addressed, and I hope Mr.
Chavez will look at this issue seriously because if it happens
to our Jewish community in Venezuela, it could happen to
anybody. I cannot agree with you more in that respect. So with
that, Mr. Chairman, fortunately I have another meeting I have
to preside over, but I really would like to ask our friends and
experts, if you have any information in terms of the status of
the needs of our indigenous Indians throughout Latin America,
we really need to address their issues and their needs. With
that, Mr. Chairman, thank you again.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
let me just say that our subcommittee is really very fortunate
to have you, Mr. Chairman, and our distinguished member, Mr.
Mack, at the helm, two extraordinary lawmakers and real
leaders, and so I think we are blessed and I think the people
of Central and South America will continue to realize that this
committee is their advocate and we want to forge a closer bond
with them.
For 8 years I chaired the Human Rights and International
Operations Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We
held a number of hearings on Cuba, as you know, and we actually
had one hearing on Elian Gonzalez when he was sent back and
have raised issues of political prisoners on that gulag nation
state for years.
I was actually with Armando Valladares when he was named in
the 1980s to be our ambassador at the Human Rights Commission
in Geneva and watched as he very masterfully corralled support
for a resolution on Cuba that sent a fact-finding mission to
Cuba to look at the prisons. That was the first time it had
been done. The ICRC and others have never since been allowed
in, regrettably.
Unfortunately, the Castro regime, as you know, Mr. Chairman
and Mr. Mack, retaliated against those people who came forward.
That abomination has to stop. Congressman Frank Wolf and I had
tried again to go to Cuba this weekend to seriously engage the
Cuban Government on the human rights issue. It looks like we
will not be allowed to go there.
We want to raise issues like Dr. Oscar Biscet and the
others who have been absolutely wrongfully incarcerated, have
been tortured, have been put into solitary confinement; their
lives are gravely at risk, and what do we get back from the
Cuban Government? Nothing. They do not allow any kind of
contact by parliamentarians and by, like I said, the
International Committee for the Red Cross and others.
I am sure many people in this room have read Armando
Valladares' book ``Against All Hope.'' I have read it twice. It
is an absolute tremor on what the Castro regime has done and
has continued to do against political prisoners. The use of
torture is systematic, it is pervasive and members of that
government ought to be at The Hague being held for crimes
against humanity.
So I do hope that we will spend at least a considerable
amount of our time and our witnesses' time focusing on--maybe
this is an opportunity with Barack Obama now in the Presidency
to really seize the moment and get those political prisoners
out of harm's way before more of them die. I yield back.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Klein?
Mr. Klein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Appreciate the outline of the issues as extremely well-
presented this morning. Just to add a few points to this. The
history of the United States' relations in Latin America has
been somewhat consistent over the last couple of decades. It is
not just this past administration; it predates that in terms
of, in my opinion, a somewhat lackluster approach and a
comprehensive view.
We have pushed trade, and we recognize that free trade is
important in our hemisphere, but beyond that, it is not just
trade. Trade goes so far in terms of the business community and
some opportunity for employment, but it is that underneath part
of the relationship that needs to be further developed.
The reason Mr. Chavez has had some success in his
neighboring countries is because he has applied some of that
oil money to healthcare and some things underneath there to
attract local people, people that don't have big relationships
with their central government or other people. That has been
somewhat effective.
We need to do a better job of showing the commonality of
interest that we have, the values that we share, the free
enterprise system that we believe in, all the various things
that can make their life better in a region, and it is very
important. Venezuela is a particular problem because we see the
use of the oil money, the attitude, the threats, the Venezuelan
Jewish community attack. That is unacceptable, and, as I know,
there are many people in this country that view it that way.
Even our transportation secured administration has taken
the position that U.S. passengers traveling back and forth
between Venezuela and the United States are not safe. I mean,
these are serious problems that need to be addressed. At the
same time, we have to look inward in the United States. The
chairman mentioned energy policy. We cannot deal with Venezuela
effectively until we recognize that we are buying millions of
barrels of oil and propping up economically a country that we
view as certainly not acting in our best interests, and in many
ways, hostile to our interests.
So this relates to our internal energy policy and us
dealing with energy alternatives and internal energy policies
that will allow us to remove ourselves from that commitment to
buying oil from that country, as well as having an energy
policy that is comprehensive for the entire Western Hemisphere,
which I certainly support as well.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with all of you
and our experts, and looking forward to hearing from them
today, the comments that they have, to help develop a policy
that will be comprehensive and suit us well in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Klein. Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
leadership, and I thank Mr. Mack as well for devoting a
significant amount of your public policy energy to these
concerns.
I have been a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee since
coming to Congress, but this is my first service on this
particular subcommittee, so I look forward to working with both
of you to strengthen our partnerships and our resolve in our
own neighborhood, confronting human rights abuses, as well as
endemic poverty, but also creating a platform for new dialogue
and new ways of thinking about creating hope and opportunities
among all of our people. So I thank you and look forward to
serving with you.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for
your leadership on this committee in moving forward, and I
think that we can tell by the way that this room is filled
today the interest in the Western Hemisphere and understanding
the importance that the Western Hemisphere is to the United
States of America. It is a new day. You know, that is a change
that we have got to understand and recognize that our dear
friends to our south are indeed critically important to us here
in the United States.
I think as the deg.Chairman Faleomavaega said,
and as President Obama said, that we need to reach out. Last
night, I had a small dinner with the Assistant Secretary of
State, Tom Shannon, and what he said was, I think he was
quoting someone else, I can't remember who, but he said that a
crisis is a terrible thing to waste. And so when I hear that we
have these challenges, we can call them a crisis in Venezuela,
but there is also opportunity.
We can call it a crisis in Cuba, but there is also
opportunity. There is a crisis in Colombia, there is also
opportunity. There is a crisis when you look at the plight of
those who are African, Latinos and those who are indigenous to
the nation, but there is also opportunity. That is what I think
that we need to look at and look at where we can open those
doors to make things better because when we make things better
there, we make things better for ourselves.
That being said, you know, as we talk about what is going
on today, and of course all of our concerns here in the United
States right now is the global financial crisis. As a result of
that, many of our concerns are definitely focused on the
stability of the United States' economy. I am also tremendously
concerned about our neighbors in the hemisphere and how the
shock from the financial crisis might impact the recent social
and economic gains that they have seen.
Without a doubt, when you go to South America, Central
America and the Caribbean nations, they can do many things to
prevent their loss of their progress, but it is also very clear
that they will need external support. I have watched the
transformation of many of these countries in the Western
Hemisphere with great hope and anticipation in the past few
years and I now watch with anxiety and fervent hope that there
will not be much slippage backwards in these trying times.
The economies of Latin America and the Caribbean grew at an
average annual rate of nearly 5.5 percent for the 5 years
between 2004 and 2008, lending credence to the once widely-
accepted idea that they were decoupling from slower growing
developed economies, particularly the United States. Today, we
find that despite years of economic reform and growth, the
region is not inoculated from the financial shocks
reverberating from the United States.
Our great lesson in this moment of crisis is that we are
all critically linked together and interdependent. Latin
America and the Caribbean, not unlike most developed and
emerging markets are today, find that they are indeed subject
to the movement of world markets and trends. However, unlike
the United States, and China and other similarly situated
nations, Latin America and the Caribbean governments are for
the most part ill-equipped to put 5 to 7 percent of GDP into a
stimulus package.
Even those nations that have been buoyed by high revenues
in the past now find that they have reduced their ability to
act because of falling commodity prices. None of this bodes
well for South and Central America and the Caribbean. Suddenly,
nations that had the gun to feel the benefits of sustained
growth are now turning to external stimulus packages for help.
They are looking to international financial institutions
more than they have in a long while. Until recently, there was
noticeably a decline in IMF, World Bank and IDB lending to the
region. That trend has since been replaced with IFIs announcing
aggressive new lending projects in the region. There are many
questions to explore if IFIs are to shed for good the negative
perceptions they have had in the region.
For example, what are the conditions associated with the
new liquidity of funds? If the severe policy changes of the
past return as conditions for lending, will they surely provide
ill feelings for IFIs? I look forward to hearing from this
magnificent panel today, and I am particularly interested in
your views on how Latin America, the Caribbean nations can both
recover from this crisis and hold on to important long-term
goals, like poverty reduction, social inclusion and trade
capacity building. Thank you.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. Mr. Sires, who has served
as our vice chair.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just be very
brief because I really want to hear what this panel has to say.
I wasn't going to speak but some of the members expressed by
thinking so well. I was very disappointed last year to begin
with when we didn't have a vote on the Colombia free trade
agreement. I think that would have sent a strong message to the
region in terms of this country trying to work with all those
countries.
I am obviously very interested in the issue of Cuba. I have
relatives there, a cousin there, and obviously I am very
interested in the new position that this President is going to
take. I also believe firmly that we cannot take a country by
country approach. We have to take a regional approach because
every one of those countries is important. So I look forward to
seeing what the new administration is going to do with the lack
of money that we have now about how we can improve our
relationship with all those countries.
I read also the story on Bolivia, the lithium concentration
that they have in that country. If we are going to move forward
on cars or battery cars, that is going to be an important
partner in this process. I am also looking forward to hearing
what the influence of Russia, China and some of the other
countries that are going into the region, even in Iran.
Obviously, I am very concerned about what is going on in
Venezuela. I see the trend of Venezuela, the abuse against the
Jewish community in Venezuela, as the same trends that happened
in Cuba many years ago. So I am really looking forward to what
the panel has to say. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working
with you and the new ranking chair, the member from the
Republican side. Thank you.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Sires.
Before I call on our witnesses, I just want to acknowledge
two friends who are here today, the Ambassador from Colombia,
Carolina Barco. Welcome. Behind her, Ambassador Villagran from
Guatemala. Welcome, Ambassador. It is always a pleasure to have
good Ambassadors here. In fact, when we were at the swearing in
for President Obama we had a walk through of the Ambassadorial
section. I said, I have so many friends there, I ought to sit
with them instead of with the Members of Congress. So welcome.
Missing quote from Mr. Meeks? deg.You could tell Mr.
Meeks is from New York. He has an attitude.
Let me again welcome the witnesses. We really do appreciate
your coming here. Part of the hardest job you have is not your
testimony, it is listening to all of us before you can testify.
Now we are going to listen to you, and we are very anxious to
hear what you have to say. Let us start with Mr. Bendixen.
STATEMENT OF MR. SERGIO BENDIXEN, PRESIDENT, BENDIXEN &
ASSOCIATES
Mr. Bendixen. Chairman Engel, thank you so much for the
opportunity and the privilege of addressing your subcommittee
about our foreign policy toward Latin America at such an
important time as the new President gives us hope and optimism
about the future.
I want to begin by making it clear that in my opinion,
actually I think it is going to be a very controversial
opinion, that the political and economic challenges facing our
Latin American foreign policy are daunting. There are now two
Latin Americas. The eight countries that make up what I call
the Socialist Coalition are not our friends. The leaders of
Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba had made that clear
through their words and deeds.
The Governments of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay
have been more careful about their rhetoric and even their
policies, but they have worked to diminish our power and
influence in the region. The other Latin America is made up of
Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile, the Central American nations and
the Dominican Republic. I call them the free market countries.
The two Latin America models reflect the political reality
of 2009, and let us not forget that in the 2006 Mexican
Presidential election, the candidate supported by the countries
of the Socialist Coalition lost by less than 1 percentage
point. Could have been a lot worse. Is it just the radical
Presidents and the leftist politicians that do not like us? No.
The image of the United States in most of the countries in
the Socialist Coalition was at an all time low in 2008. For
example, only 9 percent of adults in Argentina and less than 30
percent of those in Venezuela and Brazil had a favorable
opinion of the United States. As I mentioned before, the words
and deeds of many of the Presidents of the Socialist Coalition
countries have contributed to the decline of our image and
influence in the region.
``Capitalism is the enemy of humanity,'' says the coup
d'etat signed by the Presidents of Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia,
Ecuador and Paraguay at the World Socialist Forum held in
Berlin just last week. President Evo Morales of Bolivia
expelled our Ambassador last September. President Hugo Chavez
of Venezuela expelled our Ambassador 2 days later.
As I am sure we all remember, we were offended, all
Americans were offended, when he called our President the devil
at the United Nations. Lula, the President of Brazil, yes, he
is more moderate in his economic policies and rhetoric, but let
us not forget that he led the movement that is responsible for
the demise of the U.S.-led free trade agreement to the Americas
signed in Miami in the middle 1990s.
President Rafael Correa of Ecuador has ordered the closing
of our military base in Manta later this year. What factors
helped create the two Latin Americas? Let us review the six
characteristics that differentiate the Socialist Coalition
countries from the free market countries.
First, all of the free market countries have a free trade
agreement with the United States. None of the Socialist
Coalition countries have one. Second, most of the free market
countries have a large number of their citizens working in our
country, and therefore, they receive billions of dollars in
remittances every year. The opposite is true of most of the
Socialist Coalition countries.
Third, the image of the United States is positive, very
positive, among the people of the free market countries and
very negative among the people of the countries of the
Socialist Coalition. Fourth, free market economic policies in
one Latin America, Socialist economic policies in the other
Latin America. Fifth, our Ambassadors play an important role in
the free market countries. In contrast, they are almost
irrelevant in the countries of the Socialist Coalition. As a
matter of fact, we don't even have one in three of them.
Sixth, free market countries have increased trade, mostly
with Europe, Japan and Taiwan since 2000, while China has
become the most important trade partner for the Socialist
Coalition countries during the same period of time. One
statistic says it all: Exports to Latin America from China have
increased by more than 600 percent since the year 2000. Six
hundred percent. The equivalent number for the United States,
little more than a 40 percent increase, less than 6 percent a
year.
What do I recommend? Let us be realistic about our
limitations for the next couple of years. We do not have the
economic resources or the political credibility to have a major
impact in the countries that make up the Socialist Coalition.
Let them be for now.
Let us target our assistants, let us help our friends, let
us approve the free trade agreement with Colombia, let us
implement the agreements with Peru, Chile, Central America and
the Dominican Republic in a way that maximizes their
opportunity to achieve progress, let us full fund the Merida
Initiative and help Mexico fight the drug cartels, let us not
lose anymore power and influence in Latin America. In 2009, it
is unfortunately the best we can do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bendixen
follows:]Bendixen deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Bendixen. Dr.
McClintock.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA MCCLINTOCK, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL
SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DIRECTOR, LATIN AMERICAN AND
HEMISPHERIC STUDIES PROGRAM, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Ms. McClintock. Chairman Engel, Congressman Mack, members
of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify this morning. I would like to recommend a new tone of
respect for Latin America and new policies on Cuba, drug
control and immigration. My expectation is that this will help
reverse the recent deterioration in the relationship between
the United States and Latin America that was highlighted by Mr.
Bendixen.
Just to supplement some of his figures, consider that in
surveys between 2000 and 2005, approval ratings of the United
States fell by 20 points or more in countries that were our
friends--Chile, Brazil, Mexico. ``Mainly negative views of the
United States were held by more than 50 percent of the people
in those three, again, friendly countries.'' Unfortunately,
George Bush was among the hemisphere's most unpopular leaders,
tied with Hugo Chavez.
What went wrong? As elsewhere, overwhelming majorities
opposed the United States war in Iraq and the U.S. treatment of
detainees at Guantanamo. Also, the administration's welcoming
of a 2002 coup against President Hugo Chavez dismayed the
region's leaders. Further, as Mr. Bendixen has highlighted too,
we face new competition in the hemisphere. China is playing a
much larger role, and the Latin American nations themselves
grew economically and have been forging their own foreign
policies.
This is true, as has been mentioned, for Brazil and of
course for Venezuela. There was one estimate that Venezuela is
spending five times as much as we are on foreign aid. Of
course, that is one of the ways it has been courting allies in
the hemisphere. As Chairman Engel mentioned, this situation has
been helped by the election of Barack Obama.
At the same time, it hasn't been helped, obviously, by the
global financial crisis. Rightly or wrongly, this crisis has
been blamed on us by many Latin Americans. I couldn't agree
more also with Chairman Engel that there is a wonderful
opportunity for President Obama at the Fifth Summit of the
Americas in Trinidad and Tobago in April. I think it is crucial
that he listen at this event just as has been said, and also
hopefully that he can reach out to Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales
there.
In my view, the President's priorities should be Cuba, drug
control and immigration policies for several reasons. This
isn't to say that I disagree with many of the initiatives that
have already been mentioned by others, but I think it is
especially the case with these three policies that they have
been in place for a long time and it has really become clear
that our current policies have failed.
There was a recent excellent Brookings Institution report
just 2 months ago that elaborated very clearly the need for
change in these policies. Also, Latin Americans have rejected
these policies, so by changing them it is especially clear that
President Obama is listening to what Latin Americans want.
With respect to Cuba, of course for nearly half a century
the United States has maintained a trade embargo and other
sanctions against Cuba with the hope of a democratic
transition. I certainly share that hope, I share that concern
about political prisoners. This is abominable. Unfortunately,
our policy has not succeeded. We are confronted with U.N.
sanctions, we are confronted by repudiation in the United
Nations and other forums. Every other government in the
hemisphere has diplomatic and economic relations with Cuba, and
also very important, more than 60 percent of Americans favor
free travel to Cuba and United States trade with Cuba, so I am
with that 60 percent.
I think it is an excellent moment to change our policy
toward Cuba precisely because of the election of an African-
American. His support in Cuba and his reaching out to Cuba will
make it much more difficult for the Castro brothers to blame
the United States for Cuba's problems.
With respect to drug control, again, this is a policy that
has failed, and large majorities of Americans recognize that it
has failed. We have been spending about $20 billion annually
but U.S. drug use has not declined since the early 1990s and
the price of cocaine has fallen. In the Andean region as a
whole, despite large expenditures, coca cultivation in 2007 was
at a 20-year high. What should be done? Chairman Engel
mentioned a very important point that is mentioned very, very
frequently by the Mexicans in particular, trying to get a
handle on the guns that are smuggled across our border that
originate in the United States and that fuel these drug wars.
Also, most Latin Americans want an end to coca eradication
and fumigation and the replacement of those policies with real
support for alternative development, which of course fits into
the goals of poverty reduction, and especially reduction of
rural poverty. Much more controversially, and I recognize that
this could be a minority view, but I think it is time to
consider after 20-plus years whether or not supply reduction
efforts really have any chance to succeed.
In my own view, there is just too much land in the Andean
countries, there is too much money for the traffickers and it
is just not unfortunately going to happen in my view. Ideally,
and again, I know this is controversial, but it seems to me
that if the use of marijuana and cocaine were decriminalized,
we could go a long way to reducing drug-fueled organized crime
and drug-fueled insurgencies in the region.
Unfortunately, a third failed policy is immigration, which
has been based since the mid-1990s primarily on border patrol.
Since 1996, the number of border patrol officers has more than
tripled and a 700 mile long, 16 foot wall is being constructed
at the cost of about $9 billion. However, the possibility that
an illegal immigrant is apprehended at the border has not
increased; the number of illegal immigrants from Latin America
in turn has gone up by some 40 percent.
Further, from the point of view of our Latin American
friends, the wall, and also, unfortunately, the frequently
demeaning treatment that Latin Americans receive when they seek
visas at United States Consulates are deeply alienating in the
region. The Brookings Institution and I believe that the
prospects for control of illegal immigration are much better at
the workplace than at the border.
Laws against the hiring of illegal workers should be
strictly enforced and fines increased at the workplace, and the
technology facilitated to make that happen. Also, it is really
not acceptable in Latin America or here that immigrants' work
be welcomed, but yet they, and their families, have to live in
the shadows. Almost two-thirds of U.S. voters support a path to
citizenship for illegal immigrants who pay taxes, pay a penalty
and learn English, and I am in that group.
As I said, none of this doesn't mean that I don't agree
with other initiatives that were advanced, certainly efforts of
poverty reduction, energy partnership, would be very desirable,
but I think that given the emphasis by our President on the
need for change, it is with change in these policies that we
could most clearly signal those changes. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McClintock
follows:]McClintock deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Dr. McClintock. Mr. Farnsworth.
STATEMENT OF MR. ERIC FARNSWORTH, VICE PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF
THE AMERICAS
Mr. Farnsworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
kind comments earlier. I appreciate that very much. It will be
good to work with you again in the 111th Congress. Mr. Mack,
congratulations to you. We look forward to working with you
again and other members of the subcommittee, Mr. Meeks and
others. We have a very good relationship and anticipate that
continuing.
This is an important and timely hearing. This has already
been talked about both by the subcommittee members, as well as
the witnesses. We think that there is a tremendous opportunity
in the coming weeks and months to work with willing hemispheric
partners in a pursuit of a mutually beneficial agenda.
A spirit of good will and cooperation with the United
States exists across much of the hemisphere, but we have to
realize that the expectations right now are exceedingly high
and they have to be managed on all sides. Even so, now is the
right time to really try to advance concrete steps to build
this agenda.
Let me posit, if I could, the first, most obvious point,
which cannot be overlooked. The best way to assist the
hemisphere at this point would be to fix the U.S. economy,
resisting any understandable but ultimately self-defeating
impulses toward trade and investment protectionism. If the
current economic crisis has proven anything, it is that Latin
America remains dependent on the United States for its own
well-being, both directly through trade and investment flows
with the United States and indirectly through commodities
exports to Asia.
Regardless of politics or ideology, the region remains
hungry for investment from the United States and trade with the
United States. Were we to do nothing else, restoring the U.S.
economy while doing everything possible to keep markets open
and investments flowing would do the most to return much of
Latin America to precrisis growth levels.
Of course, there is much additional work to do. The Fifth
Summit of the Americas, which has already been raised, to be
held in April in Trinidad and Tobago will be a prime
opportunity to consider an agenda for renewed hemispheric
growth and development. With this in mind, the Americas Society
Council of the Americas, has issued a major working group
report laying out several priorities for the summit, including
financial recovery, energy security and climate change,
microeconomic reforms and capacity building and workforce
development.
Concentration on these issues, we believe, will do the most
to help restore a regional growth agenda and to build prospects
over time. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the
repercussions of the economic crisis will almost certainly be
broader and deeper than originally anticipated. Despite years
of badgering by economic development specialists, many at this
table, the region continues to rely primarily on global
commodities markets for growth, and commodities from
agriculture, to oil, to zinc have taken a beating.
Even before the economic crisis hit, roughly a third of the
region's population was living in poverty. Some governments,
like those in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, were making solid
progress reducing poverty and building a stable middle class.
Other countries were stagnating as populist policies
overwhelmed sound economics. But now, prospects have
deteriorated throughout the region.
This can have profound implications, we believe. Democracy
remains the accepted organizing framework for hemispheric
governance, but antidemocratic steps in some countries are
proving worrisome. To the extent populations become restless
for improved economic conditions and a newly emerging middle
class is squeezed, fragile democratic institutions could come
under added strain.
Despite our efforts to build democracy elsewhere around the
world, we cannot be complacent about such matters closer to
home. The development of a new hemispheric growth agenda, we
believe, is therefore critical. In the immediate run, a focus
on access to credit, trade finance and infrastructure
development would help keep hemispheric economies from seizing
up.
Economic stimulus programs can be appropriately considered,
although we do have to remember Latin America's history with
hyperinflation and one has to be cognizant of that. Over the
longer term, education and workforce development issues,
infrastructure and the rule of law must also be addressed. The
United States can play a very important role here through
technical assistance, Millennium Challenge support, increasing
the countries, frankly, in Latin America which are eligible for
Millennium Challenge support. The list goes on, but we can play
a very important and positive role.
Open markets also hold a key to economic recovery and
longer term growth and job creation. As we saw in the aftermath
of the Mexico peso crisis in the mid-1990s, keeping markets
open contributes significantly to quicker and more robust
recovery. As an aside, the President would go to Trinidad and
Tobago for the summit with a much stronger hand on these
issues, and overall, if we pass the trade agreements that have
already been talked about, Colombia and Panama, which are
manifestly in U.S. strategic and economic interests.
Growth would also be supported through implementation of an
energy partnership of the Americas, which President Obama has
spoken about. Finding a path forward to increase traditional
and nontraditional energy supplies, encourage conservation and
build a coordinated regional approach to climate change would
be a significant contribution to the agenda, as well as to our
own daily lives.
More broadly, I believe the United States must also
continue to place special emphasis engaging with Brazil.
Several steps could quickly be pursued. Among them, inviting
Brazil to join in the G-8, but in any event, Brazil is a nation
that cannot be taken for granted, either in the hemispheric or
the global context.
In particular, Brazil's emerging super power profile on
traditional and nontraditional energy and environmental issues,
along with an active and constructive participation in the
global nuclear nonproliferation regime, point to prospects for
heightened cooperation on energy and global climate change
issues, for one. Yet, even as we look to Brazil, we cannot
overlook Mexico.
The reality is that United States relations with Mexico
will always be the most intensive and complex of all our
relations with Latin America. Nurturing them is perhaps our
most urgent regional task. President Calderon's courageous
actions against the illegal cartels have provoked a
predictable, violent backlash.
The sad reality, and we have already heard about this, both
from members as well as people giving testimony, the sad
reality is that much of the fire power fueling this downward
security spiral, in addition to the demand for the illegal
drugs and other products in the first place, comes from the
United States.
Even during difficult economic times full support is
imperative for the Merida Initiative for Mexico and Central
America, which you, Mr. Chairman, have championed, and others
on the subcommittee have championed. I also want to commend
your leadership on border affairs and some of the other issues
you have already talked about. There are many other issues to
discuss, and time is limited, but I want to thank you again for
the opportunity to testify before you. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farnsworth
follows:]Farnsworth deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Farnsworth. This makes up for the
time I kept you waiting in my office and never showed up. Dr.
Walser.
STATEMENT OF RAY WALSER, PH.D., SENIOR POLICY ANALYST FOR LATIN
AMERICA, DOUGLAS AND SARAH ALLISON CENTER FOR FOREIGN POLICY
STUDIES, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Walser. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of
Congress, it is an honor and a privilege to be here again
before the subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. I feel like
the person who comes into the candy store and all the ideas
have been picked over, so I hope to add maybe a couple of new
ideas. I will try to move away from my prepared testimony. I
left a large stack with 10 different sorts of recommendations.
I will try to narrow them to five recommendations for your
consideration.
The first one of my recommendations is do not disparage the
Bush administration's achievements. Build on them in the
future. In 8 years in office, the Bush administration doubled
foreign assistance budgets, created the Millennium Challenge
account--I don't think we have heard that mentioned here--
launched PEPFAR. They took fairly substantial interest in the
hemisphere.
The MCC, with its long-range, performance-based approach,
has a place in the mix of development strategies for the
future. One hopes the compacts for El Salvador, Honduras and
Nicaragua will be able to progress and that fresh attention can
be given to the developing rural Guatemala and southern Mexico,
both significant sources of illegal migration to the United
States.
During the Bush presidency, Congress, with bipartisan
support, passed free trade agreements with Chile, Central
America, Dominican Republic and Peru. Obviously, we know that
the agreements with Colombia and Panama await congressional
approval, and action should be taken upon them as quickly as
possible.
Plan Colombia, begun under the Clinton administration and
continuing under the Bush administration, achieved remarkable
improvements in security and reductions in levels of violence
and crime. The presence of the Colombian Government extends
much deeper into the countryside than at any point in the past.
A continued projection of a mix of civilian, law enforcement
and military elements is needed to broaden the capacity of the
Colombian state to curb the armed extremes of the paramilitary
right and the FARC left.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America
advanced the concept of working with Canada and Mexico to
develop a closer relationship which improves efficiency and
competitiveness while enhancing security. We should, however,
make sure that all SPP deliberations will be conducted in a
fully transparent manner and be presented for public scrutiny
and debate before being implemented as regulation or law.
I agree the drug issue is fundamental. We really do need a
new bipartisan approach. I clearly endorse the idea of moving
forward, supporting Mexico with the Merida Initiative. The one
thought that occurred to me was the possibility that we go back
to the 1980s and look at what President Reagan did when faced
with the Central American crisis, which was to create a high
level, bipartisan commission on drug policy.
Try to reignite the bipartisan consensus, look at those
elements of our past drug policies that do not work and move
forward. It is very critical that we get a handle upon it. Yes,
consumption in the United States continues to drive a major
problem, major insecurities in the Western Hemisphere, and we
really must do something about it.
I think that one of the things we must do is to develop a
bold initiative. My choice for this bold initiative is
education. Many look back with nostalgia at the Marshall Plan
for wore torn Europe or JFK's Alliance for Progress. We
recognize the continued need for policies that aim high and
reflect our best intentions. The United States moreover needs a
bold headline capturing initiative that is capable of touching
the lives of ordinary Latin Americans.
Education is the key to permanently reducing poverty and
making more equitable societies. The United States is well-
positioned to present a broad, multifaceted educational
initiative. Rejuvenating programs at the higher education level
could be a signature initiative for the new administration. It
can reach directly to future leaders and spur innovation in
sciences and technologies, areas where Latin America lags
behind on the global scale.
President Obama should consider creating a senior level
voluntary western hemispheric education council to energize and
revitalize the gamut of educational strategies and
opportunities.
Clearly, the debate on Cuba is not going to go away. I
believe that we need a freedom agenda for Cuba. It is important
to keep clearly in focus the fact that Cuba, after 50 years
under the revolutionary anti-American Castro brothers, remains
a totalitarian state, an ideological dinosaur and an island
prison with a stronger kinship to the regimes of Stalin and Mau
than to modern social democratic states.
While the desire to move barriers that separate Cuban
families and presumably infringe upon rights to free travel for
United States citizens is commendable, it is important to
remember that Cuba's restrictive bureaucratic regime, with its
rigid controls and dual currency system, is skilled at skimming
as much as possible from every fresh resource of foreign
currency in order to perpetuate the regime strangle hold on
Cuban economic life.
New flexibility and openness to travel and wider contact
with Cuban society should be accompanied by demonstrable
relaxation of the repressive political and economic controls of
the Castro regime that have impoverished and repressed Cubans
and left the island's once vibrant economy in shambles. Efforts
to remove United States administrative and legislative
restrictions on travel and trade with Cuba should be calibrated
with reciprocal changes that free political prisoners, allow
the growth of civil society, remove restrictions on speech,
access to information, including the internet, and travel.
Empowering the Cuban people rather than extending an
economic lifeline to the moribund Communist regime should
remain at the core of a new Cuba policy.
Finally, don't bend over to appease Hugo Chavez. The
challenge of dealing with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is
considerable. He is an outsized populist authoritarian, a study
in contradiction to the country torn between an impulse to
populist class or unit socialism and the preservation of
political and economic pluralism.
While Chavez enjoys a significant following among
Venezuelan citizens and is lionized as Fidel Castro's
successor, his ability to construct a viable domestic economy
and a system for sustainable social development are subjects of
fierce debate. The battle for the political soul and future
direction of Venezuela is for its people to determine, but the
United States has a legitimate, if still undefined, role in
working with the majority of Venezuelans who I believe do not
desire to surrender their civic rights and freedoms to a
monolithic President for life.
The referendum on February 15 on altering the Venezuelan
constitution to remove term limits will say much about the
nation's political future and viability of Chavez' Bolivarian
revolution. The primary concern of the United States is dealing
with a leader who routinely insults the U.S. and warmly
embraces every rogue and tyrant from Fidel Castro and Robert
Mugabe to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Moreover, he seeks to become the energizing axis for Latin
America's socialist integration, as well as a pivotal player in
a new world order that he hopes will freeze out capitalism and
globalization and weaken the U.S. Sending an ambassador to
Caracas ought to be quietly placed low down on the White House
to do list.
A United States ambassador should not be sent to Caracas
without a comprehensive, tough-minded strategy, one that
focuses foremost on actions harmful to U.S. interests, such as
drug trafficking, potential links to radical Islamist
terrorism, support for the FARC and fronting for Iranian
sanctions evaders. There needs to be a serious and satisfactory
attempt by both parties to resolve differences before seeking
agrimon for another potential sitting duck of an ambassador. I
thank you for your time. I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walser
follows:]Walser deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Dr. Walser.
Let me start with the questions. A number of you,
particularly Mr. Farnsworth, so I think I will start with you,
mentioned the global economic crisis and how we can best help
the Western Hemisphere. Obviously because of the financial
crisis, our ability to provide increased aid and trade
opportunities for the hemisphere may be more limited than we
would like. What actions could President Obama take in the
hemisphere that could be cost neutral, or a little bit cost
neutral, but symbolically important.
When he goes, hopefully, to the Summit of the Americas in
Trinidad and Tobago in April, should he use the summit as an
opportunity to role out a major new initiative in Latin America
or would it be more useful for the President to simply attend
and listen?
Mr. Farnsworth. Well, thank you for the opportunity. I
think that those are both upstanding questions, and let me do
what I can to see if I can add some thoughts. In terms of the
immediate financial crisis, I think what the Federal Reserve
has done in terms of opening the facilities for Mexico and
Brazil and other countries I think is very, very good. That is
the type of creative, forward looking thinking that is
required.
That obviously doesn't address the region as a whole. I
think there are several things that can, and should, be done in
that capacity. Number one is simply a process of consultation.
Yes, the crisis might have begun in the United States, but the
impact is felt throughout the world, certainly in Latin
America.
I think it would be entirely appropriate if senior members
of the U.S. Treasury, of the Federal Reserve, of the White
House, whatever is the appropriate vehicle, were in close
consultation with their counterparts throughout the region, not
just saying here is what we are going to do, but, frankly,
asking for their thoughts as well in an actual consultative
process. I think that is number one.
I think a regular series of meetings at the margins of the
IMF and World Bank annual meetings could be something that
would be very productive to begin to, number one, put
procedures in place and vehicles in place so that this crisis
hopefully is not repeated, but certainly, even if it is, that
there are early warning systems that are put in place so that
people can react appropriately and with some sort of foresight
and understanding.
Other ideas that I think could be very useful, I mentioned
inviting Brazil to join the G-8. Frankly, that should be done,
but also, Mexico. The reason why, these are two very important
economies, but the G-8 is the global coordinator of financial
issues, and I think to have Latin American voices at that
particular forum is relevant in this point in time, and it is
certainly consistent with where the weightedness of those
particular economies are going in their global impact. So I
think that would be a very good thing to consider.
The other thing I would mention briefly in this regard is
something that actually President Lula mentioned at the Social
Summit a few days ago. You know, President Lula was a labor
organizer when he got his start, but he quite clearly, and was
quoted as saying to the United States: ``You need to keep
markets open, you can't revert to protectionism.'' Here is a
former labor organizer telling the United States the best thing
you could do for us right now is keep your markets open.
That is not a financial issue, per se, but it is directly
related and it would help Latin America's largest economy, and,
frankly, the rest of the economies, to get back to the growth
path. I think that is the primary issue.
In terms of the summit, my personal view is that, and I
went to the first summit in Miami with President Clinton, I was
part of the summit package in Santiago in 1998, I have been
around the Summit of the Americas process since the very
beginning in my professional capacity, and I have to say that
it can be a very good vehicle and a very effective vehicle to
bring the leaders of the hemisphere together, to sit in one
place, to get to know each other, to develop the relationships
that drive the overall national relationships. I think it is
very, very positive.
At the same time, this is happening so early in the
administration. There are many new faces around the table and
we already have seen that much of what the hemisphere wants is
to have a voice in the process. My personal view is that at the
summit a very valuable aspect of that would be to go and listen
and to hear what the rest of the hemisphere is saying. Yes, the
President of the United States can't go with empty pockets,
can't say, ``I have no ideas.'' That is not what I am
recommending.
I am saying that the rest of the hemisphere also has good
ideas, and I think if we came with a precooked major
initiative, whatever and however well-meaning that would be,
that could actually backfire. So I think that we need to have
the summit begin a process, not be the end of a process.
Mr. Engel. You know, Mr. Farnsworth, it is interesting that
you say that because one of the things that I have been saying
in the 2\1/2\ years that I have been chairman of this
subcommittee is as we go around to all countries, it doesn't
matter whether it is in the Caribbean, or in South America, or
in Central America, the one thing that is there all the time is
that people feel or the governments feel that the United States
has been disengaged, that we have not been engaged, engaged in
a respectful way, you know, not where we are telling people
what to do because we know better, but having a dialogue with
our partners and our sisters and brothers in the same
hemisphere, in our own backyard.
I am a big believer, and that is why our subcommittee has
travelled and we have gone and we have met with heads of state
in all these countries, both on the left and on the right. It
is amazing, you know, except for a few, they really want to
have better relations with the United States, regardless if
they are on the left or on the right.
One of the things that I really believe is that engagement
for the United States is not only the right thing to do for the
Western Hemisphere, it is the right thing to do for the United
States because if we are disengaged, and if we create a void
and a vacuum, others will rush in to the vacuum. We have seen
that happen with the Chinese, we have seen it happen with the
Iranians, we have seen it happen to a lesser extent with the
Russians, and of course we see it with Hugo Chavez and his
nonsense.
So we need to be engaged for us, but also for the other
countries in the Western Hemisphere. I hope that that is the
policy that the Obama administration will articulate, one of
engagement. Now, we have plenty of problems all around the
world, and I am not suggesting that we disengage from the
Middle East or we disengage from some of the other places, but
I think we are able to juggle a few balls in the air and we are
able to say that our own backyard is important to us, not at
any other expense of any place around the world, but we cannot
ignore our own backyard while we are doing all these other
things.
I hope that that is what the Obama administration will
show, that we are not any more disregarding or not engaging our
own backyard.
Mr. Farnsworth. I completely and totally agree. I think
that, you know, I have had some similar conversations, and you
ask, well, what is the nature of the engagement that you are
actually looking for? What determines in your mind what is
engagement? Oftentimes, it is simply a matter of having a seat
at the table and having a voice and being consulted. It is not
to say they are always going to agree or we are always going to
agree. That is not the point.
But to actually have that discussion, I think that is very
valuable and that can begin a process with the--you know, you
have, again, a very wonderful opportunity right now to use the
spirit of reconciliation in the hemisphere toward the United
States, but I don't think that window is going to remain open
forever, and so if we can take some steps now that will begin a
path, begin a process, I think that would be time very well
spent.
Mr. Engel. Let me just say, and this is the last comment I
will make before I turn it over to Mr. Mack for questions, no
matter where we went in the hemisphere we had these press
conferences, you know, and we thought we were doing so well,
but after the election, or even before the election, the only
thing the media wanted to know about was Barack Obama.
He was such a rock star in every country we went to. It
didn't matter whether we were in Chile or Paraguay. Everywhere
we went to, people wanted to know about him. And, so I think
that we have a tremendous opportunity here and the
administration has a tremendous opportunity here to change the
perception, to change the feelings.
As was mentioned before, there are negative feelings on the
street about the United States. While we don't conduct our
policy because we want people to feel good about us, why
shouldn't we want to have people feel good about us? I think
there are enormous opportunities in the Obama administration.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess my first
question is for Mr. Bendixen. I was very interested in your
testimony and want to give you an opportunity to expand on it a
little bit. You talked about, I guess, two Americas, and you
outlined the differences between the two. I would like to focus
for today a little bit on those that would be considered our
friends and allies. If you could talk a little bit about the
strengths that we already have and what you believe we could do
from a policy position to support to continue those
relationships as well.
Mr. Bendixen. Sure. First of all, we have to be realistic
not only about what our friends want but what all of Latin
America wants that I don't think it is possible right now. If
you listen to the Presidents, the politicians, public opinion
in Latin America, they want us to end the embargo to Cuba. That
is not going to happen. They want us to end our agricultural
subsidies which they consider to be tremendously important in
terms of their ability to progress economically. That is not
going to happen.
You hear this a lot on television. They want us to spend as
much money as we spent on the war in Iraq and help create a
Marshall Plan for Latin America. That is not going to happen.
We have tremendous economic limitations.
In countries like Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Central America,
which, as I mentioned, are still what you might call very
friendly countries, countries that are our allies, our friends,
there is tremendous respect not only for our Government and for
our new President--which, by the way, I think is also popular
in other places, it is just the opportunities aren't there for
much progress. But I think culturally there is a history there
that is very powerful.
Now, since we cannot really devote many economic resources
to those countries right now, I think the most important thing
we can do is open up trade. I think the chairman asked about
the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad in April. I don't think
President Barack Obama is going to be able to bring a new
initiative that costs billions and billions of dollars. It is
just not going to be possible under our economic reality.
If he could announce at that summit that finally he has
figured out a way to get the U.S. Congress to approve the free
trade agreement with Colombia, and why not Panama, that would
be a tremendous symbolic signal to Latin America that we are
now moving in the direction of not only engagement, which the
chairman was mentioning, which is also very important, but
actually doing things that help the countries that have proven
already over the last few years to be on our side and have been
our allies not only in terms of policy but also at the United
Nations and the OAS and other international organizations.
Mr. Mack. Thank you. You know, I couldn't agree with you
more. I think that we have been working and fighting a long
time to get a vote on the free trade agreement with Colombia
and also Peru, Panama, so, you know, that would be a tremendous
way for the United States to extend our hand to our friends.
The next question I would like to ask Dr. Walser about, and
that is the upcoming elections in Venezuela where Hugo Chavez
is once again asking his country to make him President for
life. I wanted to see if you would talk a little bit about what
you think that would mean for Venezuela, but also for Latin
America, with the influence that Chavez is trying to spread
through those that aren't our friends in Latin America.
Mr. Walser. Well, I hate to claim to be an expert on
Venezuela, but for the moment, I will at least try to make a
few predictions. Clearly, he sees February 15 as the
opportunity to sort of seize the initiative. My understanding
is from the analysis of the Venezuelan economy that it is
headed toward serious problems, given obviously the decline in
the price of oil.
Chavez has built an economy that stills relies upon the
expert of all earnings for roughly 96 percent of its overall or
gross export earnings. Something like 50 percent of its
budgetary earnings come from the oil industry. It is a country
which has become far more dependent upon the export of oil, so
clearly the declining price and the promises that he has made,
are sort of headed toward a train wreck, as one might say, so
he has advanced the effort for the referendum for February 15.
He says that this is the defining point that will enable
him to spend at least another term to install his Bolivarian
revolution. Obviously, a defeat of that referendum will raise
very significant questions about the future of Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela, very serious questions about the nature of his
revolution. Victory will clearly open the door for continued
efforts by the Venezuelan opposition and we will still have
parliamentary elections.
In the elections in 2012 he would still have to stand for
office. So it is not a sure path for Chavez. I think the
overall implication at this particular point is that the money
train has sort of run out, and we are going to see where Chavez
positions himself in the months and years ahead without oil at
$120, $140 a barrel.
So he is facing some very serious domestic constraints
which are going to alter, I think, in the next couple of years
his position, his opportunity to influence events in the
Western Hemisphere and that, as I think was said earlier,
crisis opens up opportunities. It certainly opens up
opportunities for us to try to, as the chairman and others have
said, engage in the Western Hemisphere. So it is going to be an
acid test but I don't think it is the final test.
Mr. Mack. Thank you.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Mack. Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got a few
questions, and of course I have first got to express some
concerns also because I think what the opportunities that I
think that presents itself with the crisis that we are
currently engaged in is to change the way that we have been
dealing with South America and Central America, especially when
it seems as though we are doing it with the Cold War attitude.
Picking, you know, who can do this or that as we did in the
Cold War.
We should be moving to change and going in a different way
and looking at South America and Central America in a different
way because that is exactly what we are talking about that they
don't want. They don't want us just to come and tell them this
or that or this is our friend as we did in the Cold War. Here
is opportunity to change. We have got to make sure that we take
advantage of it.
I agree with certain things. I mean, clearly I think that
would send a strong message is if in fact, and I found that
there is countries whether or not wherever they may be that say
we should pass a free trade agreement with Colombia. They agree
on that. Some who lean to the left. So I think that would be a
message that us not telling them but we listening to them. That
is change.
It helps bring all of them together because, whether we
like it or not, they are interrelated. The politics of
Venezuela is related with Colombia because they trade with one
another. And so for us to try to pick winners or losers and
dividing the continent I think is an old way of thinking and
here is the opportunity of a new way of thinking and going
forward.
Now, I think that the chairman is absolutely correct in
that we have got to think of some new and inventive ways that
we can come down to Trinidad, et cetera, to figure out what can
we do? How can we make a difference given the fiscal
constraints that we have? I was meeting with some last evening
and we were talking about the roles that, for example, the IMF
may have.
I understand that they have a stigma, was the word that was
told by me, because most countries say that if they go into the
IMF that shows that their economies are weak or about faltering
and they don't want that stigma placed on them.
So my question to Dr. McClintock first, and whoever else,
is do you see any roles for, whether it is the IMF, or the
World Bank, or any of the IFIs in the region that could be
beneficial, that, you know, could help where we might not be
able to come up with some money without having the stigma
placed upon those nations and/or putting them in a severe debt
as, you know, some of the countries were placed under when they
were able to take some of those loans before which causes them
also to have a bad relationship or bad look when you talk about
the IFIs?
Ms. McClintock. Yes. You know, I agree. I think that there
is definitely a role for, you know, the international banks in
consultation with us and the Latin American countries in
providing low interest loans and enhancing new investment. I
agree with Mr. Farnsworth that the summit is an ideal place to
begin more of those discussions, to get together. So I think
those are crucial.
One point I would like to mention that agrees with the
spirit of your comment is that Latin America at the moment is
divided between the socialist, you know, and the market
friendly, but that is this particular moment. I think all the
incumbent governments are going to be hurt by the global
financial crisis. What that means for us, as Mr. Walser was
saying, it is good news regarding Venezuela, this undermines
Hugo Chavez, but by the same token, it does hurt some of our
friends, so I think it is a delicate moment.
We just have to be sensitive to the ways in which these
crises and problems are going to affect. My own hope is that,
you know, as we engage and as we listen, we undercut Hugo
Chavez, we undercut Fidel Castro, and that helps everybody in
the long run.
Mr. Meeks. One of the other things that I think, though,
that is in common, and then I am going to go to you, Mr.
Farnsworth, and ask you the same question that Dr. McClintock
answered, but one of the things that I think that we have
neglected to say that has taken place over the last few years
where, whether they are left leaning, or socialist leaning, or,
you know, part of a free market is that democracy. There have
been elections.
Each leader has been elected by the people. There has been,
you know, no coup d'etats, except for the one that was
attempted in Venezuela in, what was it, 1991, 1992? There have
been elections. As a result of some of those elections, for the
first time individuals who are indigenous to the countries were
elected President from people who were never heard of, or heard
from, or participating in elections before.
There were never given any services or any attention before
by governments prior to the election of these Presidents. No
one seemed to have cared and said anything. These were
elections. They are continuing to elect. In Venezuela there was
a referendum where Chavez tried to get, you know, talked about
extending the term limit before. The people of Venezuela said
no. Nobody said anything to say that it was a free election or
anything. They turned him down.
We have yet to see what is going to happen on February 15.
I was there at the election before as an observer and I saw
lines that were miles long of people waiting to vote. I think
that is progress that we should compliment and not just take
for granted and say, you know, it is. So rallying around the
progress that was made, because I like to look at the positive
side. Mr. Farnsworth, same question. Where do you think we are
headed?
Mr. Farnsworth. Thank you for the opportunity. I couldn't
agree more. In fact, what we are seeing in the electoral
changes across much of the hemisphere are direct results of the
fact that long overlooked whole populations, particularly in
the Andes, all of a sudden have the franchise and they can
elect, they can choose their leaders, through the vote.
We can help with the democratic process, but ultimately, it
is up to the people to elect their own leaders, and that is
what they have done. In some cases, those leaders don't
particularly like us. They have historical grievances; they
have all kinds of things. That doesn't justify in some cases
some of the behavior, but the fact of the matter is one can
understand this, and it is a healthy development for democracy,
I believe, in the region. Just exactly, Mr. Meeks, what you are
saying.
You are seeing that all throughout the region where, and
particularly Mr. Faleomavaega is not here anymore, but the
indigenous community has been the primary beneficiary of a
broader franchise, again, through the Andes, through parts of
Central America and what have you. I think that is a healthy
development. Now what one needs to see as the next step as
these democracies begin to mature to try to channel those very
legitimate political aspirations into a healthy movement for
the positive direction of their countries.
Very quickly in terms of the questions that you asked on
finance, and then I want to add one other quick topic about the
broader, you know, left, right dichotomy.
Mr. Engel. We are going to have to do it a little quickly
because they are calling us for a vote, and I want to give Mr.
Smith and Mr. Sires a chance.
Mr. Farnsworth. Very quickly. There is a huge role for the
IFIs. Yes, there is a certain status of the IMF in Latin
America, but there is a huge role for the IFIs: Credit; access
to credit; keeping the economies flowing; the World Bank in
terms of not forgetting the least of the populations who could
be touched by financial crisis; the Inter-American Development
Bank; the Andean Development Bank. Huge role for those who
would like to discuss it further.
In terms of bringing the hemisphere together for a new day,
one of the issues that brings us all together, whether as a
supplier or producer, is energy. I personally think that energy
should be, needs to be, a primary topic of discussion at the
summit because whatever we think on the politics, look, we
might not like Hugo Chavez and he might not like us, but we
sure are doing business every day with that country, and so are
other countries.
Whether it is traditionals, nontraditionals, or biofuels
from Brazil, or other countries working together, Brazil having
a left-leaning government, our previous President was right
leaning, to have those two countries cooperating so well on
biofuels in Central America, in the Caribbean, these are
logical areas that need to be expanded.
It goes to your entire point about let us find the areas
where we can cooperate, let us forget about, you know, who
called somebody who in the newspaper yesterday and let us move
forward in a cooperative agenda for the Americas. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Let me just say, Mr. Bendixen, to your comment
about the 600 percent increase of exports from China to Latin
America, we see the same kind of exponential increase to Africa
as well, but we have got to remember, we helped enable that.
When we lifted MSN and delinkage from human rights--and
obviously there is no labor rights in China, they get 10 cents
on the hour--the USTR looks scant and does nothing in terms of
an unfair labor practice. We need to resurrect all of that and
hold China to account.
Secondly, let me just say to Dr. McClintock, you know, it
is an excellent moment for change and you noted the Zogby poll.
I believe that the Zogby poll asked as a precondition for
opening up free travel and free trade with Cuba that there be
the release of the political prisoners. There would be huge
percentages of Americans who would say absolutely.
I would hope that at the very least if President Obama
moves in that direction he will insist that all of those
political prisoners be released. Finally, the 1980 Hague
Convention on civil aspects and international child abduction
established, in principle at least, a transparent, predictable
process to impartially adjudicate child abduction cases.
The Hague Convention entered into force between the United
States and Brazil on December 1, 2003, yet, the U.S. State
Department determined in its 2008 compliance report that Brazil
continued to demonstrate patterns of noncompliance with the
convention in its judicial performance. On Friday, since I am
being denied, and Frank Wolf, to go to Cuba to talk about human
rights, I will be joining a man who lives inside of New Jersey,
David Goldman, who has been trying for 4 years to not only
obtain custody of his son but also to just see his son.
His wife, who is now deceased as of August, sadly and
tragically left to go on a vacation for 2 weeks and said I am
not coming back. The Central authority and the other important
people in the process in Brazil have not lived up to their
sacred obligations under the Hague Convention. I am wondering
if any of you would like to comment on this Hague Convention as
it relates to these child abduction cases in general, relative
to Brazil, and especially to the David Goldman case, if you
would like. Appreciate it.
Mr. Walser. I think you have a very valid point there. I
don't think any of us at the table would question the
importance of reciprocal actions in the observations by
independent states of their international obligations, so we
would support you and sustain you in your efforts.
Mr. Engel. Well, thank you, Mr. Smith. I think this has
been a very interesting and productive first hearing and we
could go on and on. Obviously, there are so many issues, and
the interest that has been generated is just fantastic. I just
want to let everyone know that this subcommittee will continue
to be active, we will have hearings. Our next hearing is March
3 on Bolivia. We will continue to tackle the issues of the day.
I want to again conclude by thanking my colleagues,
particularly Connie Mack. I know we are going to have a very,
very good year, 2 years, actually, with this subcommittee.
Thank you all for attending.
[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
[Note: The following material was submitted for the record but is not
reprinted here: Florida Cuban-American Voters Survey by John
McLaughlin, February 2009, McLaughlin & Associates
(www.mclaughlinonline.com); Building the Hemispheric Growth Agenda: A
New Framework for Policy by the Americas Society (AS) and the Council
of the Americas (COA). They are available in the committee's records.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
