[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
THE SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS: A NEW BEGINNING FOR U.S. POLICY IN THE
REGION?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-8
__________
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
48-000 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
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GENE GREEN, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TED POE, Texas
BARBARA LEE, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
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
VACANTFrom 2/10/09 through
3/12/09 deg.
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
Brent Woolfork, Junior Professional Staff Member
Genell Brown, Senior Staff Associate/Hearing Coordinator
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Thomas F. ``Mack'' McLarty, President, McLarty Associates.... 8
Mr. Peter Hakim, President, The Inter-American Dialogue.......... 16
The Honorable Otto J. Reich, President, Otto Reich Associates,
LLC (former Assistant Secretary of State for Western,
Hemisphere Affairs)............................................ 23
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Thomas F. ``Mack'' McLarty: Prepared statement............... 11
Mr. Peter Hakim: Prepared statement.............................. 19
The Honorable Otto J. Reich: Prepared statement.................. 26
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 54
Hearing minutes.................................................. 55
The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs: Prepared statement.................................... 57
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia: Prepared statement................. 59
The Honorable Ron Klein, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida: Prepared statement........................... 60
The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois: Prepared statement................. 61
The Honorable Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York: Prepared statement................. 62
The Honorable Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas: Prepared statement............................. 63
The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Prepared statement.................... 64
Questions for the record submitted by the Honorable Barbara Lee,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and
responses from the Honorable Otto J. Reich..................... 65
THE SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS: A NEW BEGINNING FOR U.S. POLICY IN THE
REGION?
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2009
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard L. Berman
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Berman. Good morning. The House Foreign Affairs
Committee will come to order.
I apologize for the tardiness. We had a breakfast meeting
with the Secretary General of the United Nations; when you are
talking about the whole world it takes a long time. Today we
are focusing on one critical part of the world.
A few small housekeeping items. Congressman Adam Smith took
a leave of absence from the committee in order to go on the
Intelligence Committee and is no longer serving on the African
Global Health and Middle East and South Asia Subcommittees. In
addition, pursuant to a letter from the ranking member, Mr.
Pence is not serving on the Subcommittee of
thefor deg. Middle East and South Asia.
Without objection, those subcommittee assignments shall be
changed to reflect the changes. I might add regarding
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey: There were a series of errors which
led to her not coming onto the committee at the beginning of
the year, but she will be taking Mr. Smith's place once the
House approves the Democratic Caucus recommendations.
To the subject at hand, I would yield myself 7 minutes.
From a foreign policy perspective, we live in a quiet
neighborhood. By and large, the countries of our region enjoy a
shared set of values. With one notable exception, the Western
Hemisphere is made up of elected democracies.
Of our three biggest trading partners, two are on our
border. Of our four biggest oil suppliers, three live close by.
Our economies are inextricably intertwined and growing more so
every day. Remittance flows from the U.S. to the region reached
$54 billion in 2007.
Culturally and socially, the region enriches the diversity
of the United States every day and in every way. We are today
one of the biggest Spanish speaking nations in the world.
About a decade ago, at the tail end of the Clinton
administration, we set out on a path of inattention to our
neighborhood and its problems. Here and there we teased the
region by proclaiming, as President Bush did in 2000, that the
Americas would be a ``fundamental commitment'' of his
presidency. But then grave problems appeared elsewhere, and by
the end of the Bush administration our influence and standing
in our comparatively quiet neighborhood was as poor as it has
ever been.
After spending the '90s doing our best to promote and
institutionalize democracy and the rule of law, we tacitly
endorsed a coup in Venezuela.
After 9/11, when we should have enlisted our neighborhood
friends in a methodical and joint counterterrorism plan, we
instead ham-handedly lectured a region that had known terrorism
for far longer than we had.
With our country's insatiable appetite for illegal drugs,
we fueled a regional drug trade and its attendant violence that
is today eating away at the institutions of the region's
governments, and then we spent billions of dollars on a heavy-
handed and ineffectual counter-drug policy that we left on auto
pilot years ago. Drug flows have changed little, deg.
and our emphasis on forced eradication at the expense of harm
reduction has made us few friends.
We aggressively extolled the virtues of trade, and then we
played hard to get. And last year, in a region in which our
past military involvement should cause us to move with
exceeding caution, we reestablished after 60 years in mothballs
a largely symbolic Fourth Fleet. After the fact, we explained
to our concerned neighbors that it was merely an internal
Pentagon matter.
On April 17, President Obama will try to change this
regional dynamic when he joins other regional leaders for the
Fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago. The good
bet is that he will be welcomed with open arms, especially
given the fine preparation work of the summit hosts and our
Caribbean friends, but expectations are high. Perhaps too high.
There are many questions to resolve: What can the U.S.
deliver at the summit or in the near term to begin to repair
our relationship? Should we walk in with a plan, or do we
simply listen? Are we putting in the right people to fix this?
Should we bring back the Special Envoy for the Americas?
While our gaze was focused elsewhere, the region created a
network of groups and subgroups with one common characteristic:
The United States was not invited to any of them. The premier
regional political organization in which we do have permanent
membership, the Organization of American States, is struggling.
How can we make the OAS part of the solution?
Although I have no intention of making this a hearing about
our policy toward Cuba, we would be remiss if we did not try to
understand better how our Cuba policy plays in the bigger
regional relationship.
Bolivia's Morales just announced he is throwing out another
one of our diplomats. Last year he expelled our Ambassador and
the Drug Enforcement Agency. Nicaragua's Ortega has spent 2
years in office confounding even the most charitable reading of
his governance, and Venezuela's Chavez, with his most recent
verbal tirade against President Obama, has proven it was not
just all about Bush. Are we condemned in the medium term to a
cycle of unfriendliness with these countries?
And is there any new thinking at all about Haiti and its
epic problems?
With President Lula's visit days away, we are properly
putting effort into our relationship with regional leader
Brazil. Can Brazil help us with some of the tough issues on our
plate? Does Brazil even want to?
And finally, there is Mexico. President Calderon is among
our best allies in the region, but a proven and solid
relationship does not in itself resolve the big issues that we
need to tackle together. It is only the starting point.
Ronald Reagan once said that ``status quo'' is Latin for
``the mess that we are in.'' I would add that status quo ante
for our relations with our neighbors may well just be ``the
mess that we were in.''
We have a unique voice in this region, and we need to
reestablish leadership on the positive things we believe in.
But gone are the days when our influence or authority permitted
us to raise our voice and get our way. It was easier, but as we
look forward it is neither possible nor wise.
And let us just say it: Building a wall on our southern
border is not going to make any of the big problems to the
south go away. Yes, it is great to be able to come home to our
quiet neighborhood, but while we were away things have changed.
I think that is what we should have a conversation about today.
Before I introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses,
let me turn to our distinguished ranking member, Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, for any opening comments she would like to make.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
witnesses.
As the chairman had said, democratic institutions in our
hemisphere are under increasing assault from internal and
external actors. We must help fight this trend not by engaging
with leaders who are demonstrably anti-American and anti-
democratic in the hope that they will miraculously change, but
instead by standing firmly with our democratic allies in
defending freedom as a central tenet of our policy in the
Western Hemisphere.
In a meeting this morning with U.N. Secretary-General Ban
Ki-Moon, I just had the opportunity to discuss the absurdity of
having a human rights abuser like Cuba sit on the U.N. Human
Rights Council.
In Nicaragua, we saw November municipal elections that were
widely recognized as the fraudulent manipulation of the
people's right to fairly elect their leaders. Ortega has
stripped the opposition of political space, developed
neighborhood councils to spy on the political rights of fellow
Nicaraguans, and consolidated control over all four branches of
the government.
In Venezuela, there have been attacks on property rights
and the freedom of the press, to decree rule and explicit
threats against opponents. Chavez is gradually stripping the
people of their fundamental rights, and his ongoing anti-
Semitic incitement is of particular concern to me. Since
Venezuela was listed by the State Department as a state sponsor
of anti-Semitism in 2008, Chavez has only worked to further
stoke the fires of anti-Semitism.
With the support of countries like Venezuela, Nicaragua,
Cuba, Bolivia and Ecuador, a realignment is taking place with
rogue regimes such as Iran. Iran is working to expand its
influence within the region. The Argentine Government concluded
that the 1994 attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center was
``decided and organized by the highest leaders of the former
Government of Iran, whom entrusted its execution to
Hezbollah.''
The AMIA case demonstrates that the Iranian regime has used
its Embassies abroad to extend its radical goals. Defense
Secretary Gates recently said,
``I am concerned about the level of subversive
activities that the Iranians are carrying on in a
number of places in Latin America. They are opening a
lot of offices and a lot of fronts behind which they
interfere in what is going on in some of these
countries.''
Bolivia and Ecuador are two recent hosts of Iranian
Embassies and resumed their baseless accusations against the
United States. Blaming dissent on the interference of the
United States, Bolivia's Evo Morales has expelled our U.S.
Ambassador and another American diplomat, kicked out our entire
DEA presence, removed some USAID personnel and programs and
forced our Peace Corps volunteers to pull out.
In Ecuador, last September's constitutional reform not only
allowed for Correa to potentially extend his Presidency to the
year 2017, but also forced the closure of the U.S. Manta base,
a crucial post for drug interdiction flights. Correa ordered
the expulsion of two U.S. Embassy officials, and we are also
seeing these authoritarian leaders establishing alliances with
Iran, Russia and China.
Fortunately, the U.S. does have strong partners in the
fight against narcotraffickers, extremists and organized crime.
There is no denying Colombia's commitment on these core issues.
It has made incredible progress against narcotraffickers and
the FARC. At the same time, it has worked to strengthen civil
society and its democratic institutions.
Colombia should be recognized for this, including with the
adoption of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. This
agreement will strengthen our bilateral ties, deg.
while benefitting workers and consumers in both of our nations.
Mexico's drug cartel problems are an imminent threat to our
homeland security. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Admiral Mike Mullen, referred to the recent spike in violence
as a crisis. Our Justice Department reported that more than 700
people were recently arrested as part of a crackdown on
Mexico's drug and smuggling cartels operating inside the United
States.
Another country in critical need of support is Haiti. A
myriad of challenges have placed Haiti at an extreme
disadvantage in finally securing peace, prosperity and
stability for its people. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to safeguard and advance critical U.S. interests in
the region.
And look at that, Mr. Chairman. With time to spare. I yield
back.
Chairman Berman. Regarding the order: We will hear from the
chairs and ranking members of the relevant subcommittees, and
then, with one exception, it is the chair's intent not to
recognize 1-minute statements because we have three suspensions
from the committee on the floor today.
We are going to have votes around 11:45 or 12:00, and I
want to try to get the witnesses' testimony and as many members
to have questions as possible because my guess is once we
recess for the votes I won't be able to come back, and we will
see whether the members will.
I now am pleased to recognize for opening statement the
chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Chairman Berman. As chairman of the
Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I very much appreciate your
calling today's hearing to discuss the upcoming Summit of the
Americas in Trinidad and Tobago.
Barack Obama's election was greeted with excitement
throughout the hemisphere. When I traveled to Paraguay, Chile
and Peru immediately after our Presidential election, there was
a real sense of optimism both among the heads of state and the
citizens of these countries.
I am delighted that President Obama will be in Trinidad for
the summit, and I believe that the goodwill generated by
President Obama's presence at this summit will itself do a
great deal to reinvigorate United States-Latin American
relations.
I will be leading a congressional delegation to the summit,
and I look forward to working with the Obama administration as
the summit approaches. As chairman, I have had the privilege of
traveling to the region and getting to know many of the Heads
of State.
I encourage President Obama to develop personal
relationships with as many of these leaders as he can. In each
of these meetings it will be important to emphasize that the
United States wants to once again work with our counterparts in
Latin America in true partnership.
In the past several years, we have really been disengaged
in the region. We need to be more engaged. If we remain
disengaged and others move in to fill the void, we have no one
to blame but ourselves, and by others I mean the Chavezes of
the world, China, Russia and Iran. We need to be engaged.
Our friends in the region recognize the U.S. is in a
financial crisis and is in a difficult position to immediately
promise new aid and trade opportunities, but there are actions
that can be announced at the summit that are cost neutral.
Given the interconnectedness of our economies, everything
that happens to the U.S. economy impacts the economies of our
neighbors in the Americas. A promise from President Obama to
coordinate with heads of state in the Americas as we try to
emerge from the financial crisis would be very well received.
In addition, I have spent a great deal of time recently
working to curb illegal firearms trafficking from the United
States to Latin America. A pledge from President Obama that the
United States will do more to enforce the current ban on
imported assault weapons that come into our country, and then
are trafficked in the Americas, particularly Mexico, would go a
long way.
Finally, sending the Inter-American Convention Against the
Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related
Materials, deg. (CIFTA)--a 1997 treaty that the U.S.
signed--sending that to the Senate for ratification in advance
of the summit would be another opportunity to show our
commitment to our neighbors.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the summit must not be the high
point of our relationship with Latin America and the Caribbean.
Rather, it must represent a new beginning where the U.S. shows
real respect for our neighbors to the south and pays sustained
attention to this important region.
In fact, I think President Obama should bring Secretary
Clinton's reset button to the summit as a symbolic way of
showing that we are ready for a change in how we deal with the
region.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I look forward to hearing
from our distinguished witnesses.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
And now, in the absence of the ranking member, I am pleased
to recognize for 3 minutes the former chairman of the Western
Hemisphere Subcommittee, the former ranking member of the
Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, the ubiquitous and
distinguished Dan Burton, for 3 minutes.
Mr. Burton. The former former. Mr. Chairman, I hope as many
members as possible can join Chairman Engel to go to the Summit
of the Americas. I think it is extremely important.
Central and South America and the Caribbean are at our
front door. We have been very concerned about what is going on
elsewhere in the world, and I think we should be, but we have
some severe problems down there, and I think it is extremely
important that we participate and be involved more than we have
in the past.
We need to get a new Secretary of State for Western
Hemisphere so that they can really get down to work in dealing
with some of the crises that we face down there; things like in
El Salvador the potential for another leftist leader being
elected could cause us more problems in Central America.
We already have Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Daniel Ortega
down there, and we don't want that Bolivarian leftist movement
to get any more attraction than it has in the past. It is going
to cause remittances that go down to those countries to be cut
back, I am afraid, if we continue to see that leftist movement.
We also need to be concerned I think, Mr. Chairman, about
our good friends like Colombia and Mexico. Colombia has been a
tremendous ally, and President Uribe has done an outstanding
job in trying to help us fight in the drug war.
I hope that we will learn from the Summit of the Americas
how important it is that we extend our trade agreements to
countries with free trade agreements like Colombia because they
have been such a stalwart ally in this area.
And finally, I hope that we will also be able to discuss
things like the border issues that we face with Mexico. Mexico
right now is a war zone in the northern part right on our
border, and I think it is extremely important that this
committee pay more deg.closer attention to that and
the administration pay more deg.closer attention to
that. We may even have to send troops down there to protect
some of those areas like down around Juarez and that border
area.
I think these are issues that we ought to bring up at the
Summit of the Americas. There will be almost all of the nations
present there, and I really think it is important that you have
a very strong delegation, Mr. Chairman. I intend to go with you
and try to get other members to go as well.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
I am now pleased, in an exception to the 1-minute rule, to
recognize my colleague from Arkansas in order to introduce one
of the witnesses. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross, is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I probably won't even
take that.
I appreciate the opportunity to welcome Mack McLarty to our
committee. As many people know, former President Bill Clinton
and former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, both from
Hope, Arkansas--and people are probably tired of Hope,
Arkansas, but Mack and I aren't. We both graduated high school
there, and it is good to have him with us today.
As most of you know, in his career he has developed an
extensive knowledge of U.S. foreign and trade policy. In
addition to serving as President Clinton's first White House
Chief of Staff, Mack organized the 1994 Summit of the Americas,
so it is very appropriate that he be here testifying today, and
of course later was appointed by the President as Special Envoy
for the Americas.
So as a member of the committee and as an Arkansan and
someone that is from Hope, I am proud to welcome Mack McLarty,
my dear friend, as one of our witnesses here today.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
And now we will introduce the entire panel. For some people
no introduction is needed, but Mack McLarty is going to get
two. He is president of the international advisory firm,
McLarty Associates, and chairman of the McLarty Companies, a
fourth generation family transportation business.
As the gentleman from Arkansas mentioned, we all know him
for his years in the Clinton administration. He served as Chief
of Staff, Counselor to the President and, of particular note
for our hearing today, the first Special Envoy for the
Americas.
He is the recipient of the highest civilian honors of
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and
Venezuela. He is a senior counselor to the Center for Strategic
International Studies, a senior international fellow at the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and is a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations.
Our second witness, Peter Hakim, is president of the Inter-
American Dialogue, a Washington-based center for policy
analysis and exchange for Western Hemisphere affairs. Mr. Hakim
previously served as vice president of the Inter-American
Foundation and worked for the Ford Foundation in both New York
and Latin America.
He has been a regular witness before Congress over a dozen
times. He is a regular contributor on hemispheric issues to
both American and Latin American news outlets. He sits on a
variety of boards and advisory committees and is a member also
of the Council on Foreign Relations, and he has spent time as a
professor at MIT and Columbia.
Ambassador Otto Reich is our third witness today.
Ambassador Reich is president of Otto Reich Associates, a
consulting firm which provides international government
relations, trade and investment advice to U.S. and
multinational clients.
In 2001, President George W. Bush selected Ambassador Reich
to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere
Affairs, where he served until 2002. Ambassador Reich also
served as President Bush's Special Envoy for Western Hemisphere
Initiatives.
Under President Reagan, Ambassador Reich served as U.S.
Ambassador to Venezuela, for which he was awarded the highest
commendations of both the State Department and the Republic of
Venezuela, and as Special Advisor to the Secretary of State
from 1983 to 1986, he directed the Office of Public Diplomacy
for Latin America and the Caribbean. From 1981 to 1983 he was
Assistant Administrator of USAID in charge of U.S. economic
assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean.
Thank you for being here today. Mr. McLarty, why don't you
start?
STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS F. ``MACK'' MCLARTY, PRESIDENT, MCLARTY
ASSOCIATES
Mr. McLarty. Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chairman,
distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you today. Congressman Ross, thank you for your warm
words.
I have already submitted my written testimony for the
record, so today I would like to just offer a brief summary.
Mr. Chairman, I genuinely feel this hearing is a very
timely one not only as we look out to next month's Summit of
the Americas at the Port of Spain, but also to April 2 when the
G-20 will meet in London where the United States, Canada,
Argentina, Brazil and Mexico will be participating.
The question that you have put before us is whether our
Nation has a chance for a new beginning and new course, if you
will, for U.S. policy in the hemisphere. I believe we do, and I
believe we must seize it not only for the opportunities that it
will create, but for the risk we will face if we do not.
Because the kitchen table issues that affect your
constituents, our citizens and our country's daily lives like
the economy, i.e., jobs, energy, the environment, security, can
only be managed, at least managed successfully, by working
directly and concretely with nations in our hemisphere.
While all of the hemisphere leaders are of course familiar
with our new President, and he has already met personally with
Mexican President Calderon, Canadian Prime Minister Harper and
will meet this Saturday with President Lula from Brazil, this
summit will be President Obama's first formal introduction to
most of his hemispheric counterparts.
Some have suggested that the President should go to the
Port of Spain in a listening mode. I agree, inasmuch as our
Latin and Caribbean partners have little interest in hearing a
lecture, but for the summit to meet its full potential as a
forum, whereas Eric Farnsworth of the Council of the Americas
has written, serious issues are seriously discussed, he will
have to do more than just listen.
The President needs a framework for sustained engagement
that treats our neighbors with dignity and respect for their
initial and collective concerns and that shows, as my
colleague, Peter Hakim, has described, that the United States
can now be counted on as a dependable partner and a responsible
neighbor in achieving common objectives.
So what are the elements of that framework? First, the
President needs to get his Western Hemispheric team in place,
complementing the fine work that Assistant Secretary Tom
Shannon has done, with ambassadors in place from Ottawa to
Buenos Aires to Bridgetown.
I think importantly, he does need to appoint a Special
Envoy for the Americas. President Obama promised to appoint a
Special Envoy for the region. It is time to get it done as a
signal to the quality of attention his administration intends
to devote.
Second, I believe the President must direct the rest of his
Cabinet--not just State and his economic team, but also
Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Agriculture, Energy,
EPA and more--to engage on a regular basis in ministerial
meetings with their regional counterparts.
Third, he should have a blueprint for engagement with each
country beyond the summit, such as regional meetings with the
Caribbean countries and Central America, continuing the North
American Summit process, regular bilateral consultations with
Brazil and Mexico, hemispheric powers in their own right.
And, finally, I believe he should call for a bipartisan
task force or action group with members of the Executive Branch
and of Congress to monitor and encourage summit follow-through
and promote collaboration with hemispheric counterparts. He
should meet regularly with this group and insist on benchmarks
for progress.
At the summit itself, the number one priority will be the
United States economy, and the most important thing the Obama
administration can do for our hemispheric neighbors is to get
our own economy going again. Our summit partners want and
deserve regular consultation, and, frankly, they may have some
good ideas to offer. In particular, they want to be assured the
United States will not respond to our domestic challenges by
building protectionist walls.
Many of the countries in the regions that have implemented
sound policies have lifted millions from poverty to the middle
class, but we should keep in mind the risk that this economic
crisis poses for the stability in the region.
More than 20 percent of the population in Latin America and
the Caribbean lived on less than $2 a day even before the
crisis struck. If economic turmoil leads to social unrest, it
could put a strain on the region's fragile democratic
institutions.
The next item, deg. that has already been noted by
a number of distinguished members of the
committee, deg. has to be the security situation in
Mexico and its neighbors in Central America. I want to be
clear. I do not believe Mexico is a failed or failing state,
but the alarming level of violence needs to be gotten under
control for the Mexican people, for the stability and safety of
the border region and to preserve the rule of law.
Building on the bipartisan passage of the Merida
Initiative, the United States can play a meaningful role by
absolutely clamping down on the flow of arms across our border
and stepping up prevention and treatment efforts to reduce our
own drug demand and supporting Mexico's efforts to strengthen
civilian institutions.
I would respectfully urge President Obama to consider
putting Vice President Biden in charge of this vital effort,
working closely with Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano. In addition to the Vice President's extensive
experience in law enforcement and judicial matters, his
appointment would signal a U.S. commitment at the highest
levels.
On trade, I think President Obama sent the right message
during his visit to Canada last month when he said that his
desire is to grow trade, not contract it. He should make good
on this pledge by coming to the summit with the U.S.-Panama FTA
in hand or at least a clear strategy for passage and a strong
forward lean on the U.S.-Colombia FTA as long as labor and
human rights benchmarks are included.
On energy, there are many issues to be discussed not only
for the security of our base supply, where over 50 percent of
our energy imports comes from our own hemisphere, but also
interest in ethanol and integrated grids.
On the environment, the Brookings Commission study
recommended establishing a regional subgroup for climate change
cooperation to coordinate positions in advance of the
Copenhagen Conference. I think that would increase our
influence in that conference and perhaps achieve a more
positive outcome.
Another priority area is the joint efforts of lifting
people's lives, the basic fundamental tenant of any working
democracy, through the support of education, public health
collaboration, and continued commitment to the Millennium
Challenge established by President Bush. The private sector has
a role to play too, as do education exchanges.
On immigration, I think the time has come to move forward
with a comprehensive immigration reform, and the United States
will need to work closely with our hemispheric neighbors to
succeed. I have recently had the privilege of co-chairing a
Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on this topic with
former Governor Jeb Bush.
Effective immigration policy must begin by securing and
safeguarding our borders, but it also must reflect realities
and the labor force needs we have in this country and the
support of economic development in the migrant exporting
countries.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there can be no question that
North, South and Central America's futures, as well as the
Caribbean, are intertwined. The question before us is whether
that future will be one of shared peace, prosperity and
progress.
I am convinced that a purposeful, pragmatic, respectful
U.S. policy toward our neighbors significantly increases our
prospects for success, and that is the kind of approach I hope
and believe President Obama will bring to the Port of Spain.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McLarty
follows:]Thomas McLarty 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]
Chairman Berman. Thank you.
Mr. Hakim.
STATEMENT OF MR. PETER HAKIM, PRESIDENT, THE INTER-AMERICAN
DIALOGUE
Mr. Hakim. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam Vice
Chairman, thank you. It is a great honor to be here to testify
and to be on this panel with Mack McLarty and Otto Reich.
I met Mack McLarty about 15 years ago as we were preparing
for the first Summit of the Americas, and now I am proud to say
he is also vice chairman of the Inter-American Dialogue. I must
have learned a lot from him because my testimony will tend to
reinforce a lot that he said today.
In any event, the summit is a very critical opportunity for
the Obama administration to begin a new period of what I would
call consistent engagement, consistent over time and consistent
in message, and it is also an opportunity for Latin America.
Consistent engagement for the United States is not only good
for the United States; it is good for Latin America. I think
most Latin Americans want that kind of engagement.
I think we heard some discouraging words about the state of
Latin America here. I think that I am more encouraged by
developments in Latin America. I think the region has become a
region of countries that are more assertive, more confident of
themselves, more independent, and that sets a stronger basis
for more robust cooperation, more robust engagement with the
region.
When I travel through Latin America now and I talk to Latin
Americans I find a strange phenomena. You sense an enormous
enthusiasm for our new President, Barack Obama, enormous
expectations for what he might accomplish in the United States,
globally and in Latin America. Then you ask about the United
States, and expectations remain low and there is not much
enthusiasm.
It is very hard to hold those two views for very long; to
be enthusiastic about the leader of a country, but
unenthusiastic about the country. High expectations for the
leader and low expectations for the country are inconsistent.
So eventually those two are going to have to merge. Either
the expectations in the region, the enthusiasm in the region is
going to rise for the United States, or the expectations for
the President are going to decline. This is where the summit
comes in. It is really a very important opportunity for the
President to begin that process of showing that the United
States is ready and able to become a dependable partner to
engage in this kind of consistent engagement.
The spotlight in Port of Spain when the hemisphere's heads
of state meet in April is going to be on President Obama. There
is no question about that. Whatever the formal agenda is,
whatever items are, the real issue will be taking a measurement
of our new President, trying to convince him of their views and
trying to listen very hard to what he has to say.
And it is very important--I think Mack emphasized this--for
him to listen, but it is also very important for him to come
with a message. No one expects him to show up with a well-
defined, comprehensive policy for the region or detailed
recommendations, but they do expect to hear something about his
ideas, something about the directions he is likely to go.
And this is the time not to talk about the relationship in
the broad, not a time to think about grand visions, but a time
to attack specific items on a very difficult agenda. In many
respects it is an unfinished agenda. Many of the items have
been there for quite a while. But there are also new
opportunities and new challenges.
Let me say I agree fully with Mack McLarty. The central
item at the summit will be and should be the economic crisis.
This has an enormous prospect of changing Latin America and
changing it in rather devastating ways. Mack McLarty identified
some of them.
The past 5 or 6 years have been a period of real progress
in Latin America on many fronts. You have seen economic growth
that has been unprecedented in the past 25 years. You have seen
a reduction in poverty across the region. You have seen an
increase in democratic stability, particularly in the most
important countries of the region, and you have seen the growth
of a middle class.
For the first time, Brazil has more people in its middle
class than it has in poverty. There were enormous advances. The
question now is: Can they be sustained? The threat is that the
economic crisis will put them into reverse.
It is important--Mack McLarty echoed what President Lula
said--that we fix our economy. That is most important because
our economy is so vital to virtually every economy in Latin
America--for investment, remittances, trade, tourism and more,
but it is not just fixing our economy. It is how we fix the
economy.
In repairing the U.S. economy we have to take account of
the region. Mack talked about consulting with the region. That
is vital. It is also vital that we avoid protectionism, that we
not put restraints on imports from Latin America, on restraints
on investment to Latin America, or on remittances to Latin
America and that we consistently consult with the region.
As we work on our economic problems we recognize that the
way we go about solving them will have an enormous impact on
Latin America and the rest of the world.
The rest are in no order of priority. I think all of these
are important. One I think is important--not everyone will
agree--but Cuba. The question is simply whether the United
States can begin to work with Latin America on this issue. Can
it align itself more?
This is the issue that will probably capture the most
headlines in Port of Spain, what President Obama has to say
about Cuba or doesn't say about Cuba, but it does seem to me
the time has come to work with Latin America on trying to find
ways of bringing back the political and economic opening in
Cuba and reintegrating it into the hemisphere. Let me say it is
something I am reminded of every night because my wife is a
Cuban, born in Cuba.
The other, the security issue, Mack has covered rather
skillfully on Mexico, but we should remember it is not only
Mexico that is facing this huge upsurge in crime and violence.
Virtually every country in Latin America is now facing a
burgeoning criminal violence. It is a regional issue and we
ought to be dealing with it regionwise.
Immigration: I agree with what Mack said. We have to move
toward comprehensive reform, and we also have to deal with some
of the symbolic aspects like the fence or the wall, like the
raids targeted against immigrants.
Trade: I just want to emphasize very clearly, we have two
trade agreements that we have negotiated in good faith with two
close allies of the United States. To show our credibility, our
dependability, we have to find the way to move forward with
those agreements.
Clearly in the case of Colombia there are concerns about
human rights, but these can be resolved. Colombia is willing to
work to resolve them, and there is no reason not to begin to
try and move forward on that.
Let me just suggest there are lots of other issues here,
and I don't want to take up lots of time, but one is that the
Caribbean has always been seen as a neglected, ignored area.
They themselves, t deg.his is the first summit that is
taking place in the Caribbean. It is really very important that
the President have a message to the Caribbean. They have the
problems of the economic crisis, the security problems, et
cetera, and we ought to be able to begin to sort of relate, and
particularly at this summit.
Haiti, which is part of the Caribbean, is a particular
issue. We have had enormously good inter-American cooperation
on Haiti. It is almost a model with Brazil leading
peacekeeping, the Chileans involved, the Argentines involved.
Canada has made Haiti a priority. We should build on this
cooperation but recognize any solution is going to take a long
time.
And, finally, the Latin Americans are going to be very
interested in what we have to say about global issues. They are
a continent that has emerged. They are playing a global role.
They will want to hear what the United States is doing in the
Middle East, how it is resolving the Iraq War, its relations
with Iran.
The global issues should not be ignored. The hemisphere is
part of the world, and the leaders of the hemisphere will be
very interested in what the U.S. is doing globally.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hakim
follows:]Peter Hakim 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]
Chairman Berman. Thank you.
Ambassador Reich?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE OTTO J. REICH, PRESIDENT, OTTO REICH
ASSOCIATES, LLC (FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
WESTERN, HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS)
Ambassador Reich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Ros-Lehtinen, members of the committee. It is an honor
to be back in this room and to talk about something as
important as the summit.
In just the 3 years, listening to you generously relate my
experiences, Mr. Chairman, from 2002 to 2004, I personally
accompanied the President of the United States to six summits
in this hemisphere: One U.N. summit, one APEC summit, one
Summit of the Americas and three subregional summits.
Summitry is important, and I would like to restate some
obvious facts about summits perhaps from the inside that may or
may not have been obvious. A summit meeting of this hemisphere
presents opportunities as well as risks for the United States.
Not all the countries in this hemisphere are good neighbors.
Some undermine democracy at home and abroad and threaten
regional peace.
The U.S. should actively help the good neighbors, reject
the destructive and persuade the ambivalent to rejoin the
community of democracies, but we should not delude ourselves.
We must deal with the world the way it is and work to improve
it, not think that all leaders are good for their people.
The summit is an opportunity for our President to listen to
our neighbors' concerns, but, most importantly, to restate what
the United States stands for. A President stands for a nation,
and our Nation stands for freedom and democracy, and there lies
one of the risks.
There is a risk that the summit may descend into chaos, as
it did in Mar del Plata, Argentina, in December 2005 when a
small group of undemocratic leaders decided to gratuitously
attack the United States.
In the best of neighborhoods there are dishonest, abusive
or violent persons. In some neighborhoods there are drug
traffickers, thieves and murderers. Why is it that we
understand that reality when we lock the door to our homes, but
not in our foreign relations?
There are leaders in this hemisphere who have aided and
abetted drug trafficking, massive corruption and hideous human
rights violations. They know who they are, and several agencies
of the U.S. Government also know who they are. More than one of
them will be present in Trinidad for this summit.
We should listen to our neighbors when they uphold common
values, but we should not listen when we put expediency ahead
of principle, when they use a summit to embrace a military
dictator as they did, literally, with Cuban General Raul Castro
in the Rio Group meeting in Brazil this past December.
Warning signals of the risks at Trinidad abound. Two weeks
ago, Hugo Chavez said he was indifferent about meeting U.S.
President Barack Obama at the summit. Chavez said he would go
``to defend the integration of the Caribbean and Latin America
and demand that the empire that Obama leads lift its blockade
of Cuba, abide by U.N. resolutions and condemn Israel.''
As a participant at the summit, that is Chavez's
prerogative, but does not harbor well for a new beginning in
this hemisphere. In Trinidad, Chavez will be reinforced by at
least two other anti-Americans--Bolivia's Morales and Ecuador's
Correa--who relish expelling U.S. diplomats, confiscating U.S.
companies, harassing private enterprise and then blaming the
United States for their lack of economic and social progress.
When countries expel another country's diplomats for no
good reason they are usually not interested in genuine
dialogue. This is an opportunity for President Obama to restate
U.S. support of democracies; real democracies, not those who
claim the title simply because a leader was at some point
democratically elected.
This hemisphere has a long list of democratically elected
people who later became drunk with power and stayed on until
they had to be removed: Peron in Argentina, Batista in Cuba,
Aristide in Haiti, Fujimori in Peru, and I could go on.
The United States has many good friends in Latin America
and the Caribbean, such as Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile,
Uruguay, and most of the Caribbean nations and Central American
nations. President Obama should make a very public
demonstration of support for those nations.
Trinidad will allow our new President to show that he knows
the difference between despots and democrats, statesmen and
demagogues. The President should embrace Mexico and Colombia,
for example. They are under attack by our common enemies:
Narcotics traffickers, organized crime and terrorists and now
the global financial crisis. Mexico and Colombia are ruled by
honest reformers that support civil and political rights,
individual freedoms, free enterprise and free markets.
Recently we have heard Mexico described as a failing state.
I disagree. Mexico today is the Colombia of a decade ago. We
need to support Mexico like we supported Colombia in a
bipartisan fashion.
Plan Colombia was passed by a Republican Congress and
signed by President Clinton. Not long ago Colombia was also
described as a failed state. It has not only survived; it has
thrived and now is capable of levels of development
unimaginable 10 years ago. With our help, Mexico will do no
less.
Colombia deserves to be treated as a friend and partner. In
the 10 years that Plan Colombia has been in effect, the nation
has made remarkable social, economic and security progress. Mr.
Chairman, it is time to help create decent jobs in the United
States and in Colombia and in Panama by approving the long-
stalled trade agreements with those friendly countries.
These hearings ask if there can be a new beginning to
United States-Latin American relations. We must also ask
whether it is possible to establish a relationship of trust
with governments that violate human rights, that invite the
Russian naval fleet to maneuver in the Caribbean, that allow
passengers on flights from Iran to land in their capitals
without checking travel documents, that purchase weapons
factories to manufacture hundreds of thousands of AK-47 assault
rifles, that allow revolutionary guards to be assigned to
Iranian Embassies under diplomatic cover and whose high
officials are accused of conspiracy to abet drug trafficking.
The same Hugo Chavez who says he is coming to the summit in
Trinidad to demand the United States unilaterally lift
sanctions on the Castro dictatorship and condemn Israel is the
leader of a government that just this week saw three senior
officials, including a close aid to Chavez, accused by the U.S.
State Department of assisting narcotics trafficking from
Colombia in an annual report that describes Venezuela as a
``major drug transit country.''
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, President Obama said the
following in his inaugural address, and I quote,
``To those who cling to power through corruption and
deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are
on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a
hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.''
We may not know for years if a new beginning in hemispheric
relations will be achieved at this summit, but if President
Obama reminds our friends, our adversaries and the ambivalent
of those words in his inaugural address, the United States will
be well served in Trinidad.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reich follows:]Otto
Reich 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]
Chairman Berman. Thank you, Ambassador, and I thank all of
our witnesses.
I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the
committee from one of the centers of the Western Hemisphere,
Dade County, Florida, the gentlelady, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
indeed have a whole host of questions, but I would like to
yield my time, if I may, to Mr. Mack of Florida, the ranking
member of that subcommittee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
generosity.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also thank the
ranking member for the time. This is a most important hearing I
think, Mr. Chairman, as we move forward.
I guess I will start by saying I think I disagree with some
of the statements that have been made by the panel. When I look
at Latin America I see real concerns on the horizon.
You see a continuing influence by Hugo Chavez and others in
growing away from freedom and democracy and liberty and moving
more toward a socialist, communist dictatorship type of
governments, and that is not good for the people of Latin
America and it is not good for the United States.
But I do think the summit offers a real opportunity for the
United States to show it is serious about engagement in Latin
America, and I think it is critical that as we move forward we
are clear to our neighbors that we want to support those who
support us, that we want to strengthen our ties with our
allies, that we want to walk hand in hand, shoulder to
shoulder, with those that believe in freedom, democracy,
liberty.
For those that don't and for those who have turned their
backs on the concept of freedom, I think we need to be tough,
and I think we need to suggest and tell them that I don't know
how we can continue to support countries that are looking for
every opportunity to turn away from us.
I think the President has a real opportunity at the summit,
and I think all of us have talked about what it is, what kind
of symbols can the United States or the President take to Latin
America or to the summit, and I think the most important one is
a sense of fairness and a sense of hope and that we do so by
supporting those that support the United States and that we
show strength in opposing those who do not believe in the idea
of freedom and democracy and liberty.
So I would like to ask one question to the Ambassador. You
made some serious allegations in your remarks that at least one
of the heads of state attending the summit will commit serious
crimes or have committed serious crimes. I would like to know
who they are.
And also to Mr. Hakim. You talked about Cuba and changing
the policies, our policy toward Cuba. I would ask you in
changing policies with Cuba are you suggesting that somehow if
Castro, the Castro brothers, were to somehow get their hands on
more money and more prosperity for themselves that that would
somehow move out into the rest of Cuba? I don't think so.
You know, this argument somehow that we are going to start
supporting someone with a record like the Castro brothers is
crazy to me. They have done nothing to show that they are
interested in supporting or enhancing the lives of the people
of Cuba. They have done everything to suggest that all they
want to do is support their own lives and enhance their own
lives through an iron fist mentality that destroys every hope
that everybody in Cuba wants to have.
And so this talk that we keep hearing about changing our
policy with Cuba, I think it is irresponsible to suggest that
without backing it up with how you think that is going to help
the people of Cuba when you have the Castros in charge who are
bound and determined and do not want to see prosperity for the
people of Cuba.
So with that, I would ask for comments from the panel.
Thank you.
Chairman Berman. The gentlemen have 1 second each. Under
the policies announced at our first hearing, I have to say to
the gentleman that his time has expired.
The two issues that you raised, I feel, can be worked in
through this hearing through other people, and I now call on
the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, and yield him 5
minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, and I am sorry I can't be
as gracious as the ranking member and yield all of my time to
you, but it will be interesting to hear the answers to your
questions.
You know, I am wondering if there will really be a real
kind of partnership with Latin America. In my opinion, we have
never had a real partnership. I think President Kennedy tried
the Alliance for Progress and the move in the middle 1960s, but
in my opinion a policy toward the Caribbean, Central and South
America has not really been, in my opinion, a fair policy.
We, I think, in the past were pretty exploitive. We
controlled the oligarchies and the ruling parties. We supported
dictators, which we hear people talk about. There are people
who have dictatorial tendencies today. We are very critical of
them. However, during the '30s, '40s, '50s and 1960s we tended,
and even further on, to be supportive of people who were not
very fair to their own constituents.
I don't know. I think, Ambassador Reich, you seem to
certainly have the most experience, seven presidential
appointments under three Presidents and have certainly been
involved in Latin America much more, I believe, than probably
or as much as anyone else here, and I just wonder.
We don't have much time at these hearings. Our chairman has
a strong gavel, but I wonder if there were some--you know, the
way we hear it now is these new leaders are indigenous. Some of
them feel that perhaps they should move toward socialism. We
condemn socialism in Latin America perhaps.
Socialism may not be the worst thing for Latin America.
Leaders are elected. They are elected primarily I guess because
they are looked at as those who can change the plight of the
people. There is abject poverty in Latin America. The wealthy
tend to do pretty well.
So I am just wondering. Did we ever have a flawed policy,
in your opinion? I mean, listening to the way you are speaking
is that all of this new stuff is wrong. Therefore, I guess you
can logically conclude that what was going on in the past was
all good.
I just wonder like in Venezuela was it a great government
and leadership in Venezuela in the old days? Did Bolivia have a
very just leader? We hear about the new leader of Venezuela is
very bad. The new Bolivian leader is not good for their people.
Of course, it is clear that there is a very strong criticism of
Castro, and he has really kind of ruled with an iron fist and
not allowed people to have expression.
Is there any way? I mean, if we go down there with this
opinion is there any way that we can change policy, or was the
policy in the past good and this new regime of leadership bad?
Maybe you could in about the 2 seconds I have left if you could
say something about that?
Chairman Berman. A minute and 10 seconds.
Ambassador Reich. Very quickly, in no way am I going to say
that some administrations were all correct and some were all
wrong. I think that U.S. Governments in the last 50 years,
which is like the period you are looking at, have made
mistakes, including those that I have worked for.
However, I think that we learned from the lessons of the
1940s, 1950s and 1960s, that you mentioned, and by the 1970s
and 1980s our bipartisan policy, and although I am very
critical of say former President Carter in some things I will
give him credit for beginning the human rights policy that
President Reagan really picked up and ran with.
When President Reagan came to office in 1981, 90 percent of
the population of Latin America lived under military
dictatorships. When he left 8 years later, 90 percent--more
than 90 percent--lived under democracy. They were imperfect
democracies--they still are--but that was a very important move
in the right direction.
Under President Reagan we tried to help the people of the
Caribbean. I am proud of having been rebuffed by Baby Doc
Duvalier. He would not receive me when I was head of USAID for
Latin America and the Caribbean because I said that we were not
going to give money to a corrupt government that violated human
rights.
Chairman Berman. Ambassador, I am sorry to interject, but
the time has expired. Again, I am confident you will have a
chance to expand on that.
Ambassador Reich. Sure.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
just welcome Ambassador Reich, an old friend who I have worked
with over many years, and just call attention to his last
statement and underscore that that when President Reagan became
President of the United States 90 percent of the people of
Latin America lived under dictatorship. Eight years later, 90
percent of the people of Latin America lived in democracies.
That was no accident. That was a strategy that we would
change. It was a change in the Cold War strategy of using
democracy as a means to promoting something positive to defeat
Communism rather than simply being against Communism and
supporting caudillos like Samoza and others that had dominated
Latin America for so long.
And let me just note that Ambassador Reich played an
important role in that transition, and for that the American
people should be very grateful. Unfortunately, we see what was
accomplished during the Reagan years and since seems to be
eroding today.
We see very dangerous trends in Venezuela, of course, and
Bolivia and even in Nicaragua where the democratic opposition
was split in Nicaragua and former Marxist authoritarians are
now back in power. Those things should be of great concern to
us.
For example, this weekend there is an election in El
Salvador. The election this weekend in El Salvador should be of
great concern to all of us. We have former Communist
guerrillas, people who would have instituted a Communist
dictatorship on that country, who now are participating in the
democratic process, are running neck and neck with people who
are committed to democracy and have brought friendship and
progress, friendship to the United States and progress to their
own people.
Let me just note, Mr. Chairman. You stated that there are
$54 billion in remittances that go from Latin America to the
United States every year. If we end up with left wing
caudillos, which are replacing those former right wing and
Samoza type caudillos that dominated Latin America, we should
not be expected to have the same policies toward those
governments as we do toward democratic governments.
Specifically, if countries like El Salvador decide to turn
to the left and to anti-American regimes like the FMLN then
they should not expect to have a policy that permits the $4
billion of remittances that come from the United States to El
Salvador. That should be true of other countries as well.
Ambassador Reich, what I am getting at is the people of
Latin America who decide to go with democracy and decide to be
friends of the United States should be treated differently than
those governments that become hostile to us. Would you agree
with that as a fundamental proposition in dealing with Latin
America?
Ambassador Reich. May I? Yes, Congressman Rohrabacher, I do
agree. The United States simply doesn't have the resources to
be equally generous, let us say, or open with every country in
the world.
When a country, a government, decides that it is not going
to be a friend of the United States, when it decides to
undermine our interests, whether it be on the international
scene or even domestically, for example, by violating the
rights that we consider important or by kicking out our DEA
offices that we consider important or by throwing out a
military base as in Manta in Ecuador that helps the entire
region in the surveillance of antinarcotics or when they
confiscate U.S. properties or expel U.S. diplomats, I think
they are sending a signal that they don't want to be our
friends.
Now, that doesn't mean we should break relations. It means
we should certainly not subsidize them.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Ambassador Reich. I have said when I was a government
official that we should not have normal economic relations with
countries that are hostile to the United States. I don't know
that that is a very radical position.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think when the people of El Salvador and
other countries go to the polls they are determining the
government that they will have, and they are also determining
their relationship with the United States.
They should know that if they choose a hostile government
to the United States like the FMLN down there in El Salvador
then that will be determined, the policies we have on things
like remittances and other economic cooperation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
To abuse the privileges of the chair, the $54 billion that
I referred to was not foreign assistance appropriated from
taxpayers' funds. It was the size of individual remittances to
this hemisphere made by individuals under their own freedom of
choice.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That we permit them to do that. We permit
those remittances.
Chairman Berman. I thought we were against takings, but
never mind.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sires, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this very important hearing today.
You know, one of the challenges facing the Obama
administration is how to best deal with the current poor
relations with countries such as Nicaragua and Bolivia. How do
we move forward in light of blatant hypocrisy regarding fair
elections and dismissal of U.S. diplomats?
Do you anticipate any confrontation from these countries at
the summit, either one of you? Mr. McLarty?
Mr. McLarty. I think you raise a very fair question. I
think we have to be very thoughtful in how we approach some
relationships that you note and where there have been positions
taken that are clearly either not in our interest or, more
specifically, disrespectful of our Government I think we have
to be very firm and clear in that regard.
Having said that, I think we need to be very careful not to
work against our own interest by overreacting or making a bad
situation worse by complicating it with unnecessary statements
or positions, so I think we need to be very measured, very
careful, but when there is a specific situation that we need to
firmly speak out on and reject we need to do that, whether it
is at the summit or in the ordinary course of our diplomatic
business or some of the other business that the Congress
undertakes in terms of trade preferences and other programs
authorized by the Congress.
It is hard to predict how any summit meeting of this type
will go with 34 heads of state. My sense is in talking to
leaders around the region that it is likely that those who
might be confrontational or disruptive will feel an increasing
sense of isolation and an increasing sense not to be disruptive
or destructive in their discussions, so that is my hope and
that is my belief in how I think this summit will go.
Mr. Sires. I just think that sometimes some of these
countries, in order to cater favors with other countries, let
us say Venezuela, may go to the summit and really be aggressive
and really be confrontational because they will get favor
status let us say with oil.
I mean, oil is a very powerful tool to make countries to be
confrontational and have someone up front do the confrontation.
Mr. Hakim, would you address that?
Mr. Hakim. There is a problem with the framework that says
some countries are our adversaries and other countries are our
friends.
We are talking about a continent with 34 other countries.
Some really are adversaries or enemies, but these are 34
countries that are very different. They have different
histories. Some have very turbulent histories. Some are richer
countries. Some are more stable with stronger institutions.
One would expect a great variety of governments in these
countries, and it seems to me that we ought to not be looking
at the short run, the immediate tension, to punish this leader
or that leader. We are a country that has a 200-year history of
democracy. Our job ought to be to assist those countries that
are moving toward democracy, to try to persuade those that
aren't.
There is no good reason for the United States, for example,
to pursue a fight with Bolivia. Bolivia is a small, tiny
country. What we should do is continually try to find ways to
wean it away from the influence of Venezuela.
Our ending of trade preferences for Bolivia. It seemed like
a reasonable response to having our ambassador expelled, to
having the DEA expelled. No question. On the other hand, there
are some 100,000 jobs at risk, poor workers who will suffer.
This doesn't help. It pushes Bolivia closer to Venezuela. It
seems to me that it doesn't serve the purpose that we want to
serve over the longer term.
And let me just bring in the Cuba question. You said that I
could work it in. I want to be very, very specific.
Chairman Berman. In your 25 seconds.
Mr. Hakim. Very, very specific.
Mr. Sires. I did want to work it in myself, but----
Mr. Hakim. You know, Brazil has promised to invest
something like $1 billion in Cuba. Now, you can say that that
is not going to help the average Cuban person, that it is going
to largely go to the government.
I can't answer that. I don't have the data to answer that
question, but I do know I would rather have Brazil investing in
Cuba than having only Venezuela there. I think Brazil is a
democratic government and is going to go to Cuba with a
commercial relationship in mind. This is much healthier than
simply leaving it to the Chinas and the Venezuelas.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to commend you for being my kind of a chairman with the way you
run the trains on time.
Welcome to all of our witnesses. Mr. McLarty, good to see
you back. We worked together many years ago when you had a
different hat on and great respect for the challenges that you
faced during those times.
I am going to try to be as brief as I can so that we can
have a chance to have a couple answers on a couple questions,
but one that really kind of has been a long-term issue that I
have associated myself with is the issue of immigration that we
have and the challenges that we face.
You mentioned the word comprehensive immigration reform,
and now is probably the time. Now, reasonable minds can differ
on the definition of comprehensive immigration reform, but it
would be very hard in a one-on-one to debate, to argue that it
is not de facto amnesty.
We talk about how many folks we have illegally in the
country today. No one really knows. Some say 12 million. Some
say 20 million. We do know that the 12 million figure was used
7, 8, 9 years ago. It would be hard to argue that that number
has not increased. I think probably in my own mind the number
is probably closer to 20 or maybe even greater.
Can you tell me how you believe that from a political
standpoint our current Majority here can aggressively try to
persuade the American people that de facto amnesty,
comprehensive immigration reform, the time is correct when we
are facing over 10 percent unemployment, when we take a look in
many states like California, when we take a look at the
challenges on education, health care and the criminal justice
system with almost a third of our jails--county jails, city
jails, state and Federal penitentiaries--with populations by
principally about a third that are illegally in the country
having committed a crime; not an immigration violation?
How can you tell me that you really think without taking
many members off the political cliff that this agenda can move
forward?
Mr. McLarty. I don't think there are very many persuasions
on the left or the right that feel our current immigration
program and system is working in a satisfactory manner. I would
start from that premise.
And I don't think you can argue persuasively that the
current policies we have reflect the realities that you
outlined in your comments, so I think that calls for a serious
addressing of the issue and hopefully, hopefully the ability to
achieve some type of consensus and reform.
I don't think you can persuade the American people to have
outright amnesty, even though there may have been reasons for
those people coming here that were very personal, very family
oriented, but nevertheless they did not follow the law so there
has to be some way to address the realities of the 12 million
or 20 million people that are here and how we deal with that.
I would suggest that from a security standpoint and for
many more reasons it is essential that we try to address that
problem. I think you have to have a very comprehensive program
to have some restitution of those people who are here if they
are going to earn citizenship.
I think that has to be done, but I would start with even a
more basic premise, and that is we have to start with securing
our borders first and then work toward comprehensive
immigration.
Finally I think you can make the case from the American
people's standpoint. I realize the economic situation in our
country. I understand your point. You have made it very clearly
and with great sincerity.
But I would suggest that our economy is strengthened if we
can get our immigration laws in much better order than they are
today, not detracted from, and therefore I think the well being
of all of our citizens would be enhanced with the proper type
of reform that has got to be done on a bipartisan basis. That
is what Government Bush and I are working to try to come up
with a proposal.
Mr. Gallegly. I certainly can't disagree with a great deal
that you said, but all too often around here the devil is in
the details. If we can collectively work on it, maybe we will
be able to move ahead in a positive way.
I wanted to talk about Iran, but I see my time is down to 1
second. Out of consideration for my chairman, who I admire
greatly, I yield back.
Chairman Berman. I appreciate that. Given the subject you
talked about, I will refrain from abusing the privileges of the
chair.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent
to have my statement placed into the record.
Chairman Berman. Without objection. That will be the order.
Mr. Green. Coming from Texas, obviously Latin America is
very important to us, particularly in energy. Many argue that
energy security is an area where there is broad consensus in
the hemisphere, and it should serve as a launching point for
cooperation. In fact, this is one of the three main themes of
the upcoming summit.
Additionally, in May 2008 in a campaign speech President
Obama proposed an energy partnership of the Americas. Having
traveled with our Western Hemisphere Subcommittee to Bolivia,
and their problems with energy are really not with the United
States. It is actually with their neighbors as a good example,
although Ecuador and obviously Venezuela is a different
situation.
How do you all recommend that President Obama approach the
topic of energy security at the summit and then our policy with
Latin America more broadly on energy, both in Latin America,
but also for our own citizens? Mack?
Mr. McLarty. Congressman Green, I think we have had
discussion and dialogue this morning about the proverbial glass
being half full or half empty, and we have appropriately I
think discussed some of the concerns, deep concerns, problems
and emotional issues that we all feel about the region.
Energy is clearly the glass is half full. This is an area
of enormous opportunity and logical cooperation, and I think it
certainly goes to our economic security in the United States.
I think many of the major countries in the region are very
receptive and have already demonstrated that, particularly
Brazil and the fact that we are holding this meeting in
Trinidad and Tobago, I think one of our largest natural gas
producers to the United States.
I mentioned in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, that 50 percent
of our energy comes from this hemisphere, so it is a very
logical area for us to deepen our relationships and
partnerships and particularly in the renewable energy side.
You have Brazil as one of the few countries in the world
that is truly energy independent because of their very skillful
use of ethanol and their bountiful blessings of sugar cane in
their country, but they have been very, very skilled in that
regard.
So I think there are a lot of areas we can work together.
Obviously with the State of Texas it is a natural. You will
have some major private sector players that will understand
that, and we would be foolish not to take advantage of that in
the Summit of the Americas and not only to discuss at the
summit, but have an ongoing effort with our Secretary of Energy
and other key Cabinet members.
Mr. Green. Any other responses?
Ambassador Reich. Yes, just quickly. Probably Mr. Delahunt
may think that I am picking on Venezuela a little too much, but
part of our energy problem, frankly, relates to the fact that
Venezuela's oil production has dropped by one-third since Mr.
Chavez has come to office.
We are far too dependent on oil from other sources, from
outside our borders, as President Obama has said and other
Presidents of the United States, and I think it is particularly
important, especially at a time like this where the price of
oil is relatively low, certainly relative to where it was 6
months ago or 9 months ago at $147.
At $45, we should take advantage of that and begin to end
our dependence on unstable countries led by unstable leaders
such as Venezuela and others; not just picking on Venezuela,
but other countries, and develop our own resources.
Mr. Green. Thank you. I only have time for one more
question.
Because this committee held a number of hearings last
Congress, and I am a supporter of the Merida Initiative and
what is happening in Mexico, again having a lot of friends and
spending time in Mexico real often myself, seeing the tragedy
of what is happening in northern Mexico.
My concern right now, and in fact there was a meeting of
the Texas delegation bipartisan today on moving the equipment
that was made, all the decisions made to there. To the extent,
what do you believe the United States needs to review its
counternarcotics efforts, and what recommendations do you have
in this area? Do you expect the drug policies to come up at the
summit?
Additionally, what can we do on our side of the border to
help reduce the violence? We had hearings on trying to get
control of the firearms that come through the United States and
particularly Texas to Mexico. Some folks have heard it. Mack,
you understand it.
In Texas, we think it is our God right to own every firearm
there is, so we don't want to export them to Mexico, but we
also know that we have to deal with it on that side of the
border, but also the technology and the help that we want to
give the Mexican authorities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
welcome all of you, but especially Mr. McLarty. He is a native
son of Arkansas, and we are very, very proud of him and the way
that he has served his country and state in a variety of
different ways.
One of the things I would like to ask that is certainly
related, I grew up in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and through the
years we have seen a number of different situations where
because of economic plight we have had a number of refugees
pass through there.
I guess because of the economy, the dire straits in the
economy, looking forward can you predict if you see? Most of
these people were fleeing not for freedom or political things.
They were just literally starving to death. Can you look
forward and kind of give us a prediction if you see not naming
countries, but just what are the chances of that?
And then again can you give us some advice as far as
planning for the future to make arrangements if those kinds of
situations occur? It seems to me like it would be the
responsible thing to do now rather than have a situation in the
future where we just have to react.
Ambassador Reich. Anyone in particular?
Mr. Hakim. If there is one country that is most in danger
it is Haiti.
It just is a very small island with close to 10 million
people living at levels of an African country in the midst of a
civil war, very different from any other country in the
hemisphere. Clearly this is an unstable situation, and it is
going to be like that for many years.
The solution, the first solution, what we are trying to do
now with many other countries, is to begin to provide Haiti
with the basic elements for development, and that is absolutely
crucial.
Haitians in this country, and there is a large population--
the vice chairman knows that--are providing a lot of income to
Haiti through remittances.
I don't think there is any magic wand on this. I think if
war breaks out anywhere we have the large Central American
population in Washington and throughout the country in part
because of the wars in Central America. There are lots of
different reasons for migration. Some of it is economic. Some
of it is political. Some of it is for security reasons.
The one country that is in obviously most danger right now
is Haiti, and it probably will be for the next 15, 20 years.
Ambassador Reich. Sir, the United States has provided the
equivalent of two Marshall Plans to Latin America in the post
war era, the equivalent in dollars. We should continue our aid
programs, but we should also recognize that the main problem in
Latin America in development--the answer to your question is
economic development.
If people have decent jobs they will stay in those
villages, whether they be Haiti or Mexico or any other country
that sends immigrants to the United States. The main problem in
my experience--I ran our aid programs for Latin America; this
is what I studied in graduate school--is corruption.
The money that has gone particularly from governments in
ODA, official development assistance, has not been put to good
use either because it has been stolen, outright stolen, or been
wasted, a lot of it. A lot of it has done good. I can tell you
in Central America back there in the Reagan administration the
Central America that we saw in 1981-1982 is totally different
from what it is now.
Now, unfortunately I think it has the potential to revert
if we don't do something. What we can do, frankly, is continue
to open our markets. This is why the last administration put so
much emphasis on trade because we don't have other resources.
We don't have huge pots of money to provide to a country like
say Mexico with 100 million people, Brazil with 180 million
people. Fifty-three million of them live on $2 a day. That is
the equivalent of an entire country.
But the issue is corruption and goes back to Congressman
Mack's question about the crime. The crime that I am referring
to is the crime, for example, that you see in Bolivia where a
private oil company owner on his way to give a bribe of several
hundred thousand dollars in a suitcase to the head of the oil
company is murdered and the money is stolen. Now, who did it?
It should be investigated.
Crime in Venezuela. A prosecutor by the name of Danilo
Anderson investigating government corruption is murdered. The
investigation stops.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Mr.
Engel, is recognized for 5 minute.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me say, Mr.
Hakim and Mr. McLarty, it was good having dinner with you last
night. I want to just make a couple of statements and then ask
anybody to comment on them.
First let me say, Mr. McLarty, you were President Clinton's
Special Envoy for the Americas, and in my opinion you were
extremely effective, and I think in part because of a
combination of your knowledge and your ability to get things
done, but also because of your relationship with President
Clinton.
The Bush administration eliminated the special envoy
position. I think that was unfortunate, but President Obama has
said that he will bring that position back to the White House,
so I am happy about that and want to know if anybody might want
to comment on that.
Let me also say, Mr. McLarty, you had mentioned about
President Lula in Brazil saying that the best way for the
United States to help Latin America is to swiftly revive our
own economy. In light of that, what specifically could
President Obama promise at the summit that would help our
neighbors in the Americas as they deal with the financial
crisis?
Let me throw out a few things. Would it be useful for us to
increase U.S. funding for the International Monetary Fund to
help countries in the region deal with the crisis or increasing
funding for the development banks like the Inter-American
Developmental Bank and the World Bank? Let me ask that.
And let me also say that in my opening remarks, I talked
about a few actions that President Obama could take in the
hemisphere that could be cost neutral, but symbolically
important.
One of the things might be a greater commitment to
combating illegal firearms trafficking from the United States
to Latin America, which I think could in part be shown by
sending the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit
Manufacturing Of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition,
Explosives and Other Related Materials--we call it CIFTA;
sending that treaty to the Senate for ratification.
If anybody would like to comment on any of the things that
I have mentioned? Thank you.
Mr. McLarty. I will try to comment very quickly. Number
one, I do think the envoy position should be reestablished, and
President Obama during the campaign promised that.
I think it can be quite an effective coordinating position
if done properly, and of course you have already seen other
special envoys appointed to other regions of the world, so I
think it would be a particular mistake not to have a special
envoy for the region.
Number two, in terms of the overall U.S. economy, I think
the first step is for President Obama to really engage in
serious consultations with major trading partners within the
region and also other important relationships in the region due
to proximity, as well as trading relationships.
Thirdly, I think there is a case to be made for increased
support of the agencies that you noted, but there has to be,
and I am sure you would fully agree, strong accountability if
any additional funding is put forth.
Those would be the three comments I would make, and I would
defer to my other colleagues to finish your question. Thank you
very much for your gracious hospitality last night.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Hakim. On the specific items, I think that it should be
mentioned early on in the crisis last fall the United States
did make available $30 billion in currency swaps to four
countries, two of them in this hemisphere, Mexico and Brazil.
This was very important. It didn't cost the United States
anything. It was a financial arrangement, but it did reassure
investors in the two countries and prevented a real collapse of
the currency potentially in Mexico and Brazil or inflation.
Mr. Engel. And those two countries I think are the most
important in terms of our bilateral relationships with them.
Mr. Hakim. That is also correct. With regard to the
international financial institutions, the numbers are huge when
you look at what the countries might need.
The estimate of the World Bank president for all developing
countries was something like $300 billion to $700 billion to
just make up the kinds of resources that will be lost. For
Latin America I have seen estimates between about $70 billion
to $250 billion.
So the institutions do need more resources. There are some
imaginative ways to get at those resources. They have been
writing about them in various places. For example, the special
drawing rights.
There are ways to increase the resources and flexibility of
the IMF particularly, which is the one that handles the large
amounts of money, but also the Inter-American Development Bank,
the World Bank, the Andean Development Corporation. These are
all organizations that have good track records.
Mr. Engel. Let me just say, because my time is up, as
chairman of the subcommittee, I will be at the summit in
Trinidad and I hope that we can raise some of these things
because it is really important.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. And your time is up.
The gentlelady, the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for excellent testimony, gentlemen.
Would you all agree that failing to move forward with a
Colombia FTA sends a negative message to our allies that the
United States cannot be relied upon and that cuts in spending
for Mexico that were included in the omnibus tells the Mexican
people and those fighting the drug lords that they should not
count on the full support of the United States?
Mr. Hakim, on Cuba, first of all, condolences. A Cuban
wife. You can commiserate with my husband, Dexter, on your
plight.
Mr. Hakim. I would love to do that.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. All right. You refer in your written
testimony to the need for an end to the Cuban embargo, whether
justified or not, so are you suggesting that we ignore the
prerequisites in U.S. law about freedom for political
prisoners, free elections, multi-party system, labor unions,
simply to send a message of change to the hemisphere?
Thank you to all three of you. Whoever cares to answer
would be fine. Thank you.
Mr. McLarty. I will take the first two very quickly and
then defer, Peter, to you and Ambassador Reich.
Number one, on the Colombia Free Trade agreement I have
already said in my written testimony I think President Obama
should go to the summit either with the passage of the Panama
FTA, which I think is first in the queue, or at least a clear
strategy to get it passed and with a strong forward lean toward
the Colombia FTA.
I do think you have to have very specific measures
regarding human and labor rights, but I am on record supporting
that agreement, Madam Vice Chairman.
As far as the support of Mexico, I have tried to be very
strong and clear in my position, in my remarks, regarding our
support of Mexico. I don't think it is simply, however, a
matter of just more money. I think it is active engagement of
focus.
And going back to an earlier question in terms of Chairman
Engel's comments about the trafficking of guns, in no way does
this get into any of the gun issues. We feel just like
Congressman Green in Arkansas.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thanks, Mack. I am going to cut you off.
Peter?
Mr. Hakim. First let me just on the Colombia issue. I would
like to put it in the positive way that if we were able to move
ahead with this, if we were able to sort of approve this
agreement in Congress, I think it would mean a good deal to our
relationships. It would increase our credibility across Latin
America, so I agree with you, but I think the positive is
better than the negative on that one.
On Cuba, yes, I probably should commiserate with your
husband, but let me say I think we are all after the same
thing. If you read the full item under Cuba in there, I think
Obama should not only go to Cuba with some idea there is going
to be some opening, but that he should make clear that he
expects the other countries in Latin America to worry about
political and economic opening, to worry about democracy in
Cuba as well. In other words, that shouldn't be just the United
States' interest. It should be the hemisphere's.
Right now it is impossible to work with the rest of the
hemisphere because our policy is so far out of line with
everybody else in the hemisphere. I think we would move much
more quickly, much more steadily, toward a democratic opening
in Cuba, frankly--my view--if in fact we were able to work with
countries like Spain and Brazil and Canada, all who have rather
extensive relations with the country, and I would much rather
have them have the relationship than the Venezuelas, the Irans
or the Chinas, frankly.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Ambassador Reich, what do you
think of this concept of lifting the embargo on Cuba with no
preconditions and yet for Colombia oh, let us whack them with
all of these conditions?
Ambassador Reich. I have never seen in my years in
government a government more determined to negotiate with
itself. The Cubans have yielded absolutely nothing in this
debate. All the concessions are unilateral on the part of
whether it is the Carnegie Endowment report, whether it is
Senator Lugar's staff report. They say just lift the embargo.
Lift the embargo, and after 50 years Fidel Castro will
immediately release political prisoners, allow free trade
unions, do all the things that he has never done. I don't know
what they are importing, frankly, from Latin America.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Ambassador Reich. Yes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady has yielded back her time.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair, and I want to say hello to
Peter Hakim. You may recall we used to work together 20 years
ago when I was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Mr. Hakim. Right.
Mr. Connolly. It is fun to be back, and you are still here.
Let me ask a question. I am somebody who believes that
focus often helps. When we look at the summit in the CRS report
prepared for today's hearing, they point out that there are 600
initiatives that have been introduced through the summit
process.
What constructively can really be accomplished with that
kind of diffuse lack of focus, and how do we monitor progress
on such initiatives? Frankly, is the summit the most useful of
platforms for the United States in the pursuit of diplomacy in
the region?
Mr. Hakim. Let me, because I am just going to plagiarize
from something Mack McLarty said yesterday, so if I let him
talk he will say it and then I won't have something to say.
But the idea of the summit initially was not to sort of
come up with mandates for the hemisphere, to come up with huge
plans, but really to change the tone and texture of relations
among the countries of the hemisphere. There hadn't been a
meeting of the heads of state since 1967, more than 25 years
since there had been a meeting.
Just the very fact that the U.S. called the meeting, asked
the heads of state, suggested that there was something of a
community of nations, probably a loose community at best, but
still that there is something that binds the hemisphere
together.
I frankly have never thought the working through this list
of deliverables, this list of mandates, initiatives, is
terribly helpful. I think the most important thing is to get
the leaders together to talk.
At this summit particularly I think the formal agenda will
be less important than the open discussions among the
Presidents, and obviously with the spotlight on our President,
President Obama.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. McLarty?
Mr. McLarty. Well, first of all, thank you for bringing us
back to the real world and underscoring some accountability in
the process and a bottom line; that is, real results. What
kinds of programs really help people or help strengthen
democracies? I think you are right on point. Obviously 600 is
far too many.
I agree with Peter in terms of the overall framework of the
summit, the tone, the relationships, but I do think you can
have a measured number of specific initiatives. I think you can
have more than one or two because you had the full Cabinet, who
are anxious to engage in the region for the most part, who have
common interests or common problems, and I think on a couple of
the much higher level priorities like security in Mexico you
need to have a strong engagement by the Executive Branch on
that.
So I think that is how the process should be broken down. I
tried to suggest some at least ways to pursue that in my
testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Ambassador Reich?
Ambassador Reich. Yes. On democracy, I think we need to be
very clear that democracy is more than just an election. I
referred to what I said in my prepared remarks. A lot of the
heads of state that are going to the summit and go to other
summits are democratically elected leaders, and a lot of people
say as long as they are democratically elected we have to
respect what they do. I disagree.
To be a democratic, a small D democratic, you have to rule
democratically. It is not sufficient. It is essential to be
democratically elected, but it is not enough. You have to
respect the rights of the people, provide opportunities. We can
help provide those opportunities, and I agree with my
colleagues as to some of the things that we can do.
I will give you a specific example with Brazil. When
President Lula came in, and it refers a little bit also to Mr.
Payne's question about whether we reach out to governments that
we don't necessary agree with. When President Lula was elected
in Brazil, I was the Assistant Secretary of State.
He had been a far left radical in Brazil, but we recognized
the fact that he was also a small D democrat, had run for
President three times, had lost, had never become violent,
never become a terrorist like some of his colleagues, and we
made a decision to work with him.
President Bush reached out to him, set up a series of
bilateral Cabinet level working groups across the economic and
social spectrum that assisted enormously in some of the gains
that Peter Hakim mentioned earlier that Brazil has achieved in
the last few years under President Lula.
We can do this with left of center democrats, with right of
center democrats. We just can't work with extremists.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
You know, on that question of working with President Lula,
he will be in town this week. The House has a resolution on the
floor later on today, H. Res. 125, that speaks to a very
serious problem of child abduction.
There is a man in my district or just outside of my
district, David Goldman, who had not seen his son for 4\1/2\
years, utterly frustrated by the abductors, the kidnappers. His
wife is dead, so there is no mother involved. She died last
August.
We have been trying very hard to get the Lula government to
step in. I do believe that there are people within his
government who get it, who understand it, that they have an
obligation under the Hague Child Abduction Treaty. Words are
good, sentiments are good, but we need actions and deeds.
Any one of the panelists might want to speak to this; there
are 51 cases arising out of Brazil and several hundred in
Mexico. The number is 2,800 children worldwide who seem to fall
into the category of Hague where they should be returned home
to their habitual residence and to the left behind parent, yet
they have not been.
It seems to me the summit offers an opportunity to
accelerate the training of judges or the call for the training
of judges. Many of the judges were not Hague literate,
particularly at the lower court level, who were dealing with
this case.
Again, David had not seen his son for 4\1/2\ years. I was
there when they had their reunion, and it was a moving
experience. The son recognized his father. By an hour's time
length they were actually playing around the world basketball
and laughing and joking just like dads do, and yet they are
still separated, father and son.
Secondly, Frank Wolf and I tried to get into Cuba a month
ago to meet with Dr. Biscet to raise the issue of political
prisoners who are today being tortured and mistreated in the
Cuban gulags. It seems to me that we need to say to our
President if you are going to make any move whatsoever, and to
the Congress, absolutely the precondition has to be the
unfettered release of these brave, nobel--the best and the
brightest and the bravest of Cuba who suffer for democracy and
for human rights.
They are the Vaclav Havels, the Lech Walesas, the Harry Wu,
the Wei Jingshengs of Cuba. They are great people, and today
they languish and are so mistreated. So if you could speak to
those too?
Ambassador Reich. Mr. Smith, I am a little bit familiar
with the Goodman case. I think what it points to, frankly, is
the need for one of those elements that is inherent in this
entire hearing, the importance of the rule of law. We haven't
specifically mentioned it implicitly, but it has been explicit.
It is an essential element to the economic development,
which in turn affects terrorism, immigration and everything we
have been talking about, and I would really hope that the
Brazilian authorities would recognize the human tragedy
inherent in this case and return the child to his natural
father, but I am not a lawyer. I don't represent anybody in
this case.
As far as Cuba, I agree with you completely. What I don't
understand also, and I am glad you mentioned the case of
Biscet, a doctor, an Afro-Cuban who has been in jail because he
opposes the government's forced abortion policies, for
example--I mean, this is a moral case--and yet Castro despises
him personally because, among other things, he is Afro-Cuban,
and Castro believes that all Afro-Cubans should be very happy
with him because he told them that he had liberated them.
In fact, that is one of the most racist government
structures in the world. There are very few members of Cuban
minorities in the Castro Government.
I will yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Hakim. I can't really speak to the Brazil case, but let
me just say I am always concerned about preconditions. I would
like to see all the prisoners released, no question. I sit on
the advisory committees of several human rights groups and the
like.
But the question is, how do you get it done? That would be
the question, and I would want somebody who was a professional
negotiator to be involved. I think the pressure from other
Latin America countries, from European countries, would be
helpful. As long as Latin America countries see us as sort of
their adversary on the issue of Cuba they are not going to be
helpful on many of the issues we want.
It seems to me that the outcome in a year, 6 months better,
3 months even better, of beginning to get these prisoners out
of jail and back to good health and back to good nutrition is
crucial, but the question is to make it a precondition may in
fact lengthen the time they are in jail. They have to get out.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So much to say, so
little time. Let me just try to get some points out first
before we run out of time.
From my point of view, one of the things that is most
important that we do do is I will deal with the trade
agreements first. Two negotiated trade agreements that we have
with the hemisphere that I think the world is looking at to see
what we do.
It is important that we pass Colombia and Panama because
wherever I go in the western hemisphere or in South America
those are the questions that are asked of me; whether or not we
are going to pass it.
When you look at what Colombia has done, as I think stated
here, and if you look at Colombia now as opposed to 10 years
ago there is no question of the tremendous progress that they
have made and continue to make. If you look at it from a
selfish point of view as far as whether or not there is a
bilateral trade deal, whether or not we are accepting goods
into our country and them accepting our goods into theirs,
there is no question about it.
So to me it sends and it would be important for the
President of the United States to send a signal to the rest of
the region that, yes, those trade agreements that we have
negotiated with both Colombia and Panama, that we are going to
pass them. I think that is tremendously important.
I think that it is also important that we realize and talk
about what we can do in the region as opposed to pointing
fingers at everyone else, understanding that a lot of the
countries that people are pointing at and others, there is
abject poverty.
I think it would be more constructive if we were talking
about how the United States could be more facilitating or
inclusion in the region for poverty reduction and social
inclusion.
That is also with reference to the Caribbean, who has to be
an integral part of the conversation, because when you talk
about these areas and we point fingers and you try to put
people down, the fact of the matter is, and this is a good
thing, that democracy is alive and well.
I think sometimes people forget what democracy is.
Democracy means that the people go and they vote and they
choose the way that they live.
Now, I have been to Venezuela. I have seen some of the
elections there, and I have to tell you. The people have come
out to vote. The same thing in Bolivia. Bolivia for the first
time has an individual who is indigenous to the country, and
therefore just as Presidents of this country go to their
populous who supported them, that is what is happening with
some of those Presidents there. It is called democracy.
Now, democracy. You know, we call it democracy in the
United States, yet 50 years ago, and this shows you how long we
have come. Fifty years ago in the United States my father
couldn't vote in the South, but we still called it democracy.
We said if any country looked bad at us or called us names even
then, we said shame on you. Who are you?
Now we come back, and we have made great progress in this
country, to go to these same countries and try to tell them who
are you when it happened to us. We should first look in the
mirror to determine the man in the mirror before we start
criticizing everybody and saying we are going to divide this
hemisphere up.
The hemisphere itself in South America, they are trying to
come together, but yet we are trying to divide them and make
them choose. If you want to be with us, you have to be against
them. What good is that?
So what is the role that the United States is going to play
with UNISOL, who is trying to come together so that they can
have regional security, which if that happened that helps us.
You are talking about you want to prevent it. If there is
regional security that benefits us, so why aren't we talking
about how we can properly interact with UNISOL so that we can
make sure that we are now working well on the entire hemisphere
for the benefit of all?
I mean, part of this hearing, I wished that it wasn't
televised because I think the people are laughing all over
saying, What is going on here? And we call ourselves the United
States of America who want to promote democracy? You know, it
is almost hypocritical. That is the problem. Sometimes people
are looking at us as hypocrites.
This conference will give the President of the United
States, to show the change that he was talking about not only
domestically, but with foreign policy also, and so I think that
there is great opportunity to happen in Trinidad, but we have
got to talk with people, respect people and understand our own
history.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The cherry on the charlotte rousse here might be Mr.
Delahunt because we do have votes. The real question is, do
people want to come back? Do people want to come back
afterwards?
I have three suspension bills from the committee on the
floor, and the ranking member does as well. We need a presiding
officer.
In any event, Mr. Delahunt is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Every member has gone around once, so----
Mr. Delahunt. I will be happy to return, Mr. Chairman. I
will take the gavel.
Chairman Berman. You will take the gavel? All right. Will
you get the 5 minutes?
Mr. Delahunt. You get 10, 15 minutes when you take the
gavel.
Chairman Berman. Do you want to come back?
Mr. Delahunt. No. I don't want to hold our witnesses up. I
will just echo the comments by my friend from New York, but I
will do it in a more moderate tone.
I think what I have heard here today----
Chairman Berman. A first.
Mr. Delahunt [continuing]. Is of concern because I think
Mr. Meeks is correct. What I hear is words and rhetoric that
would divide our policy in very simplistic terms into good guys
and bad guys. We have been through that.
You know that famous you are with us or you are against us?
I really think that we have to move on because we saw and have
witnessed over the past 8 years what that achieved for us. At
least what it achieved in Latin America was resentment.
I am reminded of the poll by John Zogby which posts a very
simple question. How would you grade the United States
Government's handling of our relationships with Latin America?
It was 86 percent negative and 13 percent positive, and I guess
1 percent was undecided.
So we didn't do too well during the Bush administration in
terms of Latin America no matter how many summits were held.
Clearly there was resentment because we were perceived to be,
as Mr. Meeks said, telling them what they had to do. That era
should be over.
I am really disturbed when I hear that somehow we are going
to hold up remittances to El Salvador if they dare vote in an
election for a government that we might not like. I thought we
won the Cold War, Mr. Chairman, and I am presuming--at least my
information is--that the FMLN is no longer considered a
terrorist organization, much like the IRA and the Sinn Fein in
Northern Ireland morphed into mainstream Irish politics and
democracy. So I think it is very, very dangerous not to be
labeling all the time.
You know, the Ambassador mentioned me earlier in reference
to Venezuela in that he was picking on me. I don't think you
are picking on me, Mr. Ambassador. We have had disagreements
about your policy vis-a-vis Venezuela.
You know, you mentioned in your remarks that it was
important that President Obama send a signal that he knows the
difference between despots and democrats. Let me assure you he
does. I have no doubt. I have full confidence in President
Obama. He will know that distinction.
I daresay in the case of Venezuela he would not have made
an effort to support tacitly the coups. He would not have
attempted to influence other ambassadors in other nations in
Latin America to confer legitimacy to the Carmona government,
which, as you know, Ambassador Reich, because you were part of
that effort, when Pedro Carmona swore himself in in Venezuela
his first act was to abolish the National Assembly, to abolish
the judiciary, and I don't know what other democratic
institution was abolished under Mr. Carmona, but I daresay that
prompted the return of Hugo Chavez.
So I don't think that President Obama would have made the
mistake of tacitly supporting a coup and then conferring or
attempting to confer some legitimacy on a government that
clearly was undemocratic, authoritarian.
Ambassador Reich. Neither did we, sir.
Mr. Delahunt. No.
Ambassador Reich. I am afraid I am not going to have time
to respond, but I have to respond to that.
Mr. Delahunt. Do you know what? There are rules here. I
have the floor. You are not yielding the time. I have the
floor, and I will yield back.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has been yielded
back.
Do you want second rounds? We have 6 minutes to get to the
floor for votes. Do you want to chair it?
First of all, to the witnesses. Did you plan to have lunch
today?
Ambassador Reich. I would be very interested, Mr. Chairman,
if I could, in responding to Mr. Delahunt's allegations because
they are serious allegations.
Chairman Berman. Well, I will tell you what. I will take
time, which I haven't taken yet on this round, and give you a
minute to respond. How is that?
Ambassador Reich. Very quickly, sir, I was the Assistant
Secretary of State when those events took place. I personally
ordered----
Chairman Berman. I thought you weren't. Were you Assistant
Secretary? I guess you would know, but I was told that you were
no longer Assistant Secretary of State.
Ambassador Reich. To the best of my recollection, sir, I
was the Assistant Secretary of State on April 11, 2002.
I instructed Ambassador Charles Shapiro to find Mr. Carmona
and tell him that if he swore himself in--and this, by the way,
is a matter of the record of the State Department, and it is in
the investigation of the Inspector General that followed these
events, just to make sure we were all telling the truth. The
State Department Inspector General was doing his job.
I instructed Ambassador Shapiro to tell Mr. Carmona that if
he swore himself in, violating Chavez's own constitution, that
he could not count on the support of the United States
Government, and we would have to impose economic sanctions,
number one.
So, Mr. Delahunt, I am happy to refer you to----
Mr. Delahunt. If the gentleman would yield?
Ambassador Reich. Yes.
Mr. Delahunt. Okay.
Chairman Berman. I will yield.
Mr. Delahunt. I thank the chair. You did not convene a
meeting of Latin American ambassadors in the State Department
and urge them to recognize the Carmona government?
Ambassador Reich. Sir, the Latin America ambassadors
requested a meeting with us to find out what----
Mr. Delahunt. Did you urge them to----
Ambassador Reich. No.
Mr. Delahunt. You did not?
Ambassador Reich. I did not.
Mr. Delahunt. That is your testimony here right now in
front of this committee?
Ambassador Reich. The----
Mr. Delahunt. Okay. I will accept that. Is that your
answer?
Ambassador Reich. Well, the----
Mr. Delahunt. Is that your answer, Ambassador?
Ambassador Reich. My answer is that we told the Latin
American ambassadors what we believe was taking place in
Venezuela at the time, but I am telling you that we did not
tacitly endorse a coup.
Mr. Delahunt. What I am asking you is did you urge----
Ambassador Reich. No, I did not urge.
Mr. Delahunt. You did not urge the Latin American
ambassadors to recognize the Carmona government----
Ambassador Reich. No.
Mr. Delahunt [continuing]. In the State Department?
Ambassador Reich. I do not--you know, the events of that
week, by the way, where nobody in the State Department got much
sleep, the events of that week are compressed.
I do remember the meeting that my deputy came to me and
said the Latin American ambassadors are asking for a meeting.
They want to know what is going on in Venezuela. I said I want
to know what is going on in Venezuela too. I don't know,
because our ambassador, Charles Shapiro, could not find out
what was going on. That is when I told him what I just said.
Mr. Delahunt. He was on the scene in Caracas at the time?
Ambassador Reich. He was on the scene in Caracas at the
time.
Mr. Delahunt. Right.
Ambassador Reich. We did not encourage----
Mr. Delahunt. The Rio Group on the 11th and 12th, they took
action. Do you remember that?
Ambassador Reich. Yes. The Rio Group was meeting I think in
Panama, and they condemned the--not on the 11th and 12th. It
was actually a little later, if I am not mistaken. It was that
weekend.
The events were April 11, a Thursday, and I think the Rio
Group was meeting in Panama Saturday. Saturday night was the
night that the Venezuelan military brought Chavez back
because--you are correct--Mr. Carmona violated the
constitution, swore himself in in spite of everything the
United States Government in my person and the ambassador of the
United States, Shapiro, told him we were going to have to do.
Mr. Delahunt. Well, thank you. Thank you for that.
Chairman Berman. This is exciting. This is wonderful. This
is what I came for, but I have to go vote.
The committee hearing is adjourned. I thank all our
witnesses very much. We touched on a lot of important issues,
and I appreciate it.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordHearing notice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hearing minutes deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Berman statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Connolly statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Klein statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Manzullo statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
McMahon statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Green statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Watson statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions for the Record (Reich to
Lee) 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]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
