[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
CHALLENGES TO DEMOCRACY IN
THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-78
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-761 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (800) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-214 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
TREY RADEL, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
TED S. YOHO, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
MATT SALMON, Arizona, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina Samoa
RON DeSANTIS, Florida THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TREY RADEL, Florida ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Alvaro Uribe Velez, senior fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center,
(former President of the Republic of Colombia)................. 10
Hector E. Schamis, Ph.D., adjunct professor, Center for Latin
American Studies, Georgetown University........................ 30
Mr. Carlos Lauria, senior coordinator, Americas Program,
Committee to Protect Journalists............................... 37
Cynthia J. Arnson, Ph.D., director, Latin American Program,
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars............... 44
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Albio Sires, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey: Prepared statement........................ 7
Mr. Alvaro Uribe Velez: Prepared statement....................... 12
Hector E. Schamis, Ph.D.: Prepared statement..................... 33
Mr. Carlos Lauria: Prepared statement............................ 39
Cynthia J. Arnson, Ph.D.: Prepared statement..................... 46
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 56
Hearing minutes.................................................. 57
CHALLENGES TO DEMOCRACY IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:03 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Matt Salmon
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Salmon. This committee meeting is called to order. A
quorum being present, the subcommittee will come to order. I
will start by recognizing myself and the ranking member to
present our opening statements. Without objection, the members
of the subcommittee can submit their remarks for the record.
I am going to actually do something a little bit unusual. I
have got to defer to my boss on the committee, our chairman.
And I am going to allow him to make the first opening
statement.
Mr. Royce. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also,
obviously, want to extend my appreciation for President Uribe
of Colombia, the former President of Colombia, for his being
with us today.
And I again thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very
important hearing on the challenges of democracy. And I think
it is timely, I think it is vital that we have a discussion
about the state of democratic institutions here in our
hemisphere. We are linked very, very closely with our neighbors
to the north and the south, and we all benefit when democratic
values are bolstered throughout this hemisphere because those
values are the values that help ensure peace, they are the
values that promote free trade, they are the values that
guarantee shared prosperity, that really offer people upward
mobility when they are deployed, that really offer people
opportunity in those types of democratic environments.
And while there are great examples of healthy democratic
developments in Latin America, as of course in the case of
Colombia, President Uribe, we do have a situation where we have
seen the unraveling of democratic values in several countries
over the last decade. And taking cues from Cuba's dictator,
Fidel Castro, the late Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, laid
the groundwork for the emergence of a populist extreme left in
Latin America. And as a result, time-honored democratic
principles like free and transparent elections, and freedom of
the press, and freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, all
of that has been under assault in Venezuela, in Ecuador, in
Bolivia, in Nicaragua.
I have been particularly concerned with the implementation
of a communications law in Ecuador that serves to stifle the
rights of freedom of press and expression. Passed this past
June by Ecuador's National Assembly, the law creates regulatory
bodies tasked with redistributing licenses equally among the
private, government, and nonprofit sectors, thus dismantling
much of the private media ownership in the country. These
regulatory bodies will be charged with monitoring content and
imposing sanctions, or imposing criminal penalties if they
assess, subjectively, that published information is not
precise, contextualized, or if an outlet neglects to cover
issues deemed to be in the public interest.
The passage of this law is chilling to those of us who know
the importance of press freedom and independence from
government for the proper functioning of a free society. The
language of this law is open to the whims of President Correa,
who has shown himself to be anti-press, anti-free expression.
In fact, according to Freedom House's annual press freedom
survey, Ecuador had the world's second largest decline in press
freedom over the last 5 years.
The passage of the law that offers that President the
sweeping and subjective control of the media will also
encourage Bolivian President Evo Morales, I suspect, or
President Cristina Kirchner of Argentina to advance their own
attempts at controlling dissent in the media. Through populist
rhetoric, demonizing private ownership, these governments are
seeking to put the executive firmly in control of media
content. These types of laws do more than challenge democracy,
they dismantle democratic institutions right here in the
Western Hemisphere. And I am looking forward to hearing from
each of the witnesses and discussing what can be done to
discourage these types of abuses, made cynically in the name of
democracy.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing
today.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will next yield myself such time as I may consume, and
then I will recognize our ranking member to make his opening
statement. Without objection, the members of the subcommittee
can submit their remarks for the record, or we can have a few
opening statements as long as we don't go beyond a minute.
I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me in
convening this important hearing, where we have the opportunity
to take a close look at the challenges to freedom and democracy
that exist throughout the Western Hemisphere. Since the
beginning of this Congress, we have focused our attention in
this subcommittee on the growth and opportunity that exists
throughout the region. I have long believed that the most
effective way for the United States to bring freedom and
democracy to people around the world is to promote principles
of economic freedom, entrepreneurship, and free trade, a
liberalized economic system where citizens are empowered to
innovate, pursue their dreams, and decide how best to provide
for their families. That is the best recipe for strengthening
democratic institutions and the rule of law.
Unfortunately, the Western Hemisphere is the home to
several leaders intent on stifling economic growth and freedom,
and eroding democratic institutions and values. The erosion of
democracy in Latin America is best described as
authoritarianism masked by progressive rhetoric that ironically
claims loyalty to democratic values. The late Hugo Chavez of
Venezuela, an acolyte of the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, paved
the way for the emergence of the populist left brand of
authoritarianism we still see today in Venezuela, Ecuador,
Nicaragua, Bolivia, and, regrettably, Argentina. By undermining
institutions and the rule of law, and threatening their
opposition and the press, these leftist leaders have
consolidated power and marginalized the opposition. Media laws
in Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina have blatantly stifled the
basic democratic right to free press and expression. When a
communications law that gives the government the power to
regulate media content was passed this summer in Ecuador's
National Assembly, President Correa declared that this
encroachment on the right to free expression democratizes
access to the news media. President Correa, like President
Kirchner of Argentina and other populist leftist leaders in
Latin America, have attempted to shield their very undemocratic
power grabs by labeling them democratic.
This shameless populist doublespeak has done much to
undermine the intrinsic value democratic institutions have had
in protecting the rights of individual citizens. These same
leaders have further used populistic, nationalistic rhetoric to
justify the squandering of vast economic resources, stifling
free enterprise and free trade, to the detriment of their
people. Venezuela's late President Hugo Chavez nationalized
major segments of industry, from oil to agriculture, as part of
his socialist agenda, and that included an overt hostility to
foreign investment. The result has been flagging production,
record high inflation rates, and scarcity, evidenced still
today under his dubiously elected successor, fellow populist
leftist Nicolas Maduro.
Democracies are almost always some form of market economy,
and they cannot function without the rule of law. Yet the rule
of law is literally under siege in many South American
countries. In 2011, Argentina's President Cristina Kirchner
announced the nationalization of the oil company YPF,
expropriating 51 percent of the shares owned by the Spanish
company Repsol. Her populist rhetoric declared the takeover as
a victory for Argentina's energy sovereignty, but the reality
has brought disappointment as Argentina is now a net importer
of energy for the first time since 1984.
Argentina has been plagued by high inflation, which even
questionable government figures are forced to acknowledge.
Meanwhile, Argentina has been a generally inhospitable
environment for the foreign investment needed to realize its
true economic potential. For instance, the government
consistently refuses to honor awards issued by the World Bank's
International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes.
Instead, President Kirchner has focused agenda on growing the
public sector in an effort to further consolidate her own
power. She has led the passage of media and judicial laws that
represent an assault on democratic values, while contemplating
reform of the Argentinian Constitution in order to give her
another term as President. A nation so rich in natural
resources and human capital is being strangled by authoritarian
populism that Kirchner has admired in Hugo Chavez.
As I said at the outset, a commitment to the rule of law,
coupled with free trade and economic liberty, will lead to
stronger and more vibrant democracies. We should all be
encouraged by the exciting free trade bloc known as the Pacific
Alliance, ongoing negotiations for the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, as well as the prospect that energy reforms in
Mexico could bring about greater North American energy
independence and security. The Western Hemisphere is
commercially and culturally vibrant, and the United States
should do more to encourage the opening of markets and
opportunity to those nations currently strangled by populism.
This will do much to empower citizens, make them less dependent
on government, thereby making governments less powerful and
less authoritarian.
I am so pleased that former Colombian President Alvaro
Uribe is here to testify on our first panel.
Mr. President, I consider you to be one of the foremost
leaders in the entire world of our last century. I know that
the great strides that have been made in Colombia have been a
direct result of your leadership and your guts and your
willingness to stand up and lead. The United States has done a
lot of things to try to help that happen, but it would have
never happened, never, without your great leadership.
As President of Colombia, you tackled a serious threat at
the hands of narcoterrorists, while bringing security to the
people of Colombia. You worked to bring greater prosperity to
your country, including with the signing of a free trade
agreement with the United States. This subcommittee is eager to
hear what you consider to be the major challenges to democracy
in our region and how we can be a positive force to encourage
the protection of democratic rights and institutions all across
our hemisphere.
I also want to thank the second panel of experts, Dr.
Hector Schamis, Mr. Carlos Lauria, and Dr. Cynthia Arnson for
being here with us to discuss the state of democracy in our
hemisphere. I look forward to a productive and informative
hearing, and appreciate you all taking part today. And I will
now recognize the ranking member for his opening remarks.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. Thank you to our witnesses for being here
today, especially President Uribe, who I have known for many
years.
Colombia wouldn't be Colombia today if you weren't around,
Mr. President. Thank you for being here.
Across the world, we are witnessing the implosion of anti-
democratic regimes. And as a consequence, the lengths that some
authoritarian leaders will go to in order to remain in power.
As a child in Cuba, I witnessed the deterioration of democracy
as the Castro regime began its decades-long stranglehold on the
freedom-loving people of Cuba. Today, over 50 years later, the
Castro brothers' dictatorship continues to act with impunity,
restricting basic human rights, freedoms of expression, and
economic opportunity.
The road to democracy in the hemisphere has long been
fraught with challenges. The lack of inclusive participation by
all members of society in the growing economic prosperity of
the region has made the Americas vulnerable to anti-democratic
forces. Additionally, weak state presence and corrupt
governance has allowed drug traffickers to act with impunity,
while economic and fiscal insecurity has merely dampened
sustainable progress and further encouraged immigration abroad.
Furthermore, democratic progress has been beset by the
inability to ensure political accountability, public goods and
safety, and uphold the rule of law. For instance, in Mexico and
in Central America drug-related crime and violence has set back
democracy and public security. While in Venezuela, Bolivia,
Ecuador, and Nicaragua, elected leaders have abused executive
office to consolidate power, limit the rights and freedoms of
political opponents, and dismantle institutional checks and
balances.
Democracy, however, has shown indications of progress.
While 16 of the region's countries were ruled by authoritarian
regimes in 1981, today all but Cuba are ruled by elected
leaders. Nonetheless, elections do not make democracy, nor do
they guarantee its depth or legitimacy. The elections of
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Ecuador's Correa, Bolivia's Morales,
and Nicaragua's Ortega are products of poor governance that
failed to address crime and endemic corruption, weak
institutions, and social and economic inequalities. Their
emergence cannot be attributed to a failure of democracy,
rather to the failure of previous leaders to advance and uphold
democratic principles. As a result, the disenfranchised and
democratically disillusioned citizens turned to their leaders
to solve difficult economic and social problems through
undemocratic and comparatively authoritarian means.
Moreover, these leaders rationalize the need for themselves
to stay in office in order to see the social and institutional
reforms take hold. And they utilize the rents from the state-
owned natural resources industry to fund their projects and
further consolidate their rule. Under Chavez's 14-years rule,
power in the executive was accumulated as human rights eroded
and opposition censorship and intimidation and prosecution
escalated. Owners of media outlets that refused to play by the
rules have been forced to sell their assets and leave the
country for fear of reprisal.
We have seen similar trends take hold with respect to
freedoms of the press in Bolivia, Ecuador, and now Argentina
with the intimidation of journalists and media critical of the
government. Mexico, consumed by the drug-related violence of
cartel turf wars, is considered to be the most dangerous
country in the hemisphere for journalists, as they are murdered
with impunity by organized crime and corrupt officials.
Similarly troubling is the deterioration of the rule of law as
seen with diminished judicial independence and the failure to
prosecute high level officials deemed above the law.
The May 2013 conviction in Guatemala of former military
dictator Efrain Rios Montt for genocide and crimes against
humanity was deemed a watershed moment against the acts of
impunity. However, the overturning of the ruling just 10 days
later questioned the state of Guatemala's rule of law and
judicial independence. Paramilitary groups, like Peru's Shining
Path and Colombia's FARC, have been significantly diminished. I
am closely following the peace talk negotiations of President
Santos with Colombia's FARC. If successful, Colombia could
potentially free itself of a longstanding obstacle to peace and
economic prosperity. Nevertheless, I am skeptical on the
willingness of the FARC leadership to simply cede control and
forego the revenues of drug and criminal activities. And
additionally, I find the intermediary role of Cuban officials
particularly dubious.
I look forward to hearing from our panelists regarding
their assessment of the hemisphere's challenges to democracy.
Additionally, I look forward to discussing how Congress can
work with our regional neighbors to respect and advance
democratic principles like free, clear, and contestable
elections, freedoms of assembly and press and human rights, and
the rule of law. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sires follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Salmon. At 4:15 we have to go vote on the floor, but I
do want to get to our panel as quickly as possible. I would
like to recognize one more opening statement with the
gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and
welcome to our great friend, President Uribe. And when talking
about the theme of today's hearing, the challenges to democracy
in the Western Hemisphere, we need only look no further than
Cuba, where 11 million continue to be oppressed by the brutal
Castro regime, activists risk their lives on hunger strikes,
dozens of brave democracy advocates face intimidation,
harassment, and beatings by regime thugs. In Venezuela and
Nicaragua, millions were deprived of their basic democratic
freedoms through fraudulent elections. And the leaders continue
to exert control over important institutions such as the
courts, the military, and the media.
And these efforts have been orchestrated by ALBA nations
like Bolivia and Ecuador, who continue to attempt to undermine
and weaken the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. There
have been some reports that Venezuela is pulling out today. And
that is why I joined with Congressman Sires to introduce the
Countering ALBA Act, which would help protect human rights and
democratic institutions in these countries. And the bill urges
the President to sanction those individuals who are officials
of, or acting on behalf of, ALBA nations who are responsible
for the commission of serious human rights against the
citizens. And I am interested in hearing President Uribe's
views on the talks, the peace talks taking place in a state
sponsor of terrorism country in Cuba between FARC and Colombia.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you. I would like to get to our panel of
one very distinguished leader in the world. We would like to
recognize former President Uribe. He is a senior fellow now at
the Bipartisan Policy Center. He did serve as President of
Colombia from 2002 to 2010. During his 8 years in office, he
was responsible for the transformation of Colombia from a
country with limited territorial control, escalating violence,
and considered by many to be a failed state, into one of the
most thriving, dynamic countries in our hemisphere.
Congratulations.
President Uribe studied law at the University of Antioquia.
Also, he received a certificate of special studies in
administration and management at Harvard Extension School, and
a certificate in negotiation and dispute resolution at Harvard
Law School.
Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, I am
going to explain the lighting system there in front of you. You
will have 5 minutes to present your oral statement. When you
begin, the light will turn green. When you have 1 minute left,
the light will turn yellow. And when your time is expired, the
light will turn red, just like driving. I ask that you conclude
your testimony once the red light comes on.
After our witness has testified, all members will have 5
minutes to ask questions. I urge my colleagues to stick to the
5-minute rule to ensure that all members get the opportunity to
ask questions.
President Uribe.
STATEMENT OF MR. ALVARO URIBE VELEZ, SENIOR FELLOW, BIPARTISAN
POLICY CENTER, (FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA)
Mr. Uribe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sires,
distinguished members of the committee. I am very grateful for
this invitation. I am not an academic, I am a political
fighter, generating controversy almost every time.
Elections are not enough for democracy. In the region I see
two sets of countries. One is ALBA. In my opinion, these
countries are in a regressive path against democracy. To
consider which country is going on a progressive democracy or
on a regressive democracy, I have considered five parameters:
Security, freedom, freedom of investment, social cohesion,
independent institutions, and pluralistic people participation.
ALBA countries, led by Venezuela, they have in oil their main
bond.
Security. Venezuela has passed from more than 4,000 cases
of homicide per year to more than 21,000, in kidnapping from 63
to more than 1,200. At the same time, the government disregards
security [inaudible] Violence because the government promotes
social class hatred.
Freedom of investment. Expropriations, shortages. Venezuela
has expropriated more than 4 million hectares and has to import
more than 17 million tons of food. At the same time, we see
problems for the freedom of investment in Ecuador, Bolivia, and
Nicaragua. Ecuador enjoys good economics at this moment, has
advanced a lot in infrastructure, subsidizes the poorest
people, but it lacks investment confidence. Therefore, these
policies, the good policies, seem not to be sustainable in the
longer term.
Bolivia has a similar situation, with lack of investment
confidence. And in Nicaragua, for investors to prosper they
need to be close friends of the government. These countries
have included in their agendas social policies, but with the
lack of investment these social policies are not sustainable.
Independent institutions. In Venezuela, there was a coup
d'etat against the Congress elected 2 years ago. Pluralistic
people participation. In some of these countries members of the
opposition are taken to trial or even to jail. The cases more
notorious are in Venezuela and Bolivia. Restrictions to free
media all across these countries. In Ecuador, I want to say
that the restrictions create distrust in the business
community.
On the other side, progressive democracies--Mexico,
Colombia, Chile, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay--with the exception of
Uruguay, these democracies have some challenges. The youth
unemployment is very high, between 17 and 23. These same
progressive democracies have to face this challenge, the
aspiration of the middle classes. They have to follow the
example of Mexico, to aggregate value to the commodity-based
economy and the free trade agreement with the United States.
For people to legitimize the free trade agreements, people had
to perceive that these free trade agreements are convenient for
all these countries, not only for industrialized countries.
And of course in Central America they have made significant
progress in democratic values, but they, in my opinion, need
much more help from the international community for them to
overcome violence and the growing trade of illicit drugs. In
Venezuela, one of the main problems is that they harbor, the
government harbors terrorists from all over the world and
promotes anti-Semitic speech.
For the first time I am on time to finish my introductory
remarks.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. President, for your statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Uribe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Salmon. Before I ask questions, I would like to
recognize our Peruvian Ambassador, Harold Forsyth.
Thank you for coming today.
I also would like to do just a little shout-out, our summer
intern's last day is today. Thomas Harrigan, thank you for all
your hard work this last summer. I really appreciate you.
Mr. President, I am concerned that in many countries
respect for effective rule of law seems to be weakening. And in
some cases it is the government itself that is the prime
instigator of that shift. Do you share this concern? And if so,
what countries, and what can be done?
Mr. Uribe. One of the main violation of the rule of law,
Mr. Chairman, is the gradual elimination of independent
institutions. In Venezuela, and in some degree in Ecuador and
Bolivia and Nicaragua, the executive branches have overtaken
the justice administration. And they take advantage of this
dominance of the justice administration to proceed against
dissidents. It is a very grave violation of the rule of law.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you. In the aftermath of the death of
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, what are Venezuela's
political prospects in terms of restoring checks and balances
to this political system? And what has been the Maduro
government's track record on respect for the rights of the
minority or freedom of expression? What are the prospects of
the December local elections that they will be conducted freely
and fairly? And how do you characterize media freedom in
Venezuela now that the last remaining television station
critical of the government, Globovision, has been sold to a
group of businessmen with links to the Venezuelan Government?
Mr. Uribe. Some journalists have fled to foreign countries.
Other journalists are intimidated, and they cannot openly
express their opinions. The government has bought media and has
promoted the purchase of media by its own friends. At the same
time, the government has taken advantage of its influence on
the justice administration to go after independent journalists.
Fraud. In past elections, there were rumors of fraud. But
in the election this year that elected President Maduro there
was evidence of fraud, evidence of fraud. The economic
situation is very severe because of the shortage and the
macroeconomics have [inaudible]. For instance, Venezuela was a
country with a public indebtedness that represented no more
than 24 percent of the GDP. Now it represents in between 70 and
80 percent of the GDP. Therefore, the situation is very
complicated. The private sector is under permanent threat. The
same case is for the freedoms.
Mr. Salmon. In your testimony you mentioned that Chavez's
economic policies, continued by Nicolas Maduro, have placed
Venezuela at high economic risk and clearly undermine
democratic governance. In your opinion, what countries in Latin
America are implementing some of the sound policies, economic
policies that represent democratic governance and contribute to
economic prosperity?
Mr. Uribe. I will mention Mexico, Costa Rica, some other
Central American countries, Panama, Colombia, Peru, Chile,
Uruguay. And we are very hopeful with Paraguay and of course
Brazil. And I am very hopeful for what is known as the Pacific
Alliance that included some of these countries. They are
working with all the democratic values, but they face many
challenges. One challenge is to make the reduction of poverty
quicker. Other challenge is to provide the youth with
opportunities because of the high level of youth unemployment.
And at the same time, to combine the knowledge-based economy
with the commodities-based economy.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I yield 5 minutes
for questions to the ranking member, Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. President, I would like your view, because I have a
very different view of what is going on in Cuba in terms of the
changes and where you see that leading the Cuban people.
Obviously, I feel that they are just trying to soften their
world, how can I say, the world thinks of Cuba. I would just
like to hear from you what you think this is going to lead in
terms of is there really a change or is it just a facade?
Mr. Uribe. Mr. Congressman, Ranking Member, when we compare
Cuba with China, China has gone much far in economic openness
than Cuba. In my opinion, the economic openness of Cuba is only
an excuse, is only for appearance, and there is no political
openness. Therefore, in my opinion, this economic openness in
Cuba won't be enough to satisfy the basic needs of the people
of Cuba.
Cuba has been a failure. First, Cuba survived because of
the subsidy of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union
collapsed, the Cuban economy dropped by 30 percent. After, Cuba
got the Chavez government subsidy. And now Cuba has subsidized
loans from Brazil, for instance to build the Mariel port, and
at the same time, the growing amount of money that is
transferred from the United States to the Cuban families.
Therefore, I don't see enough signs for the better off of the
people of Cuba.
Mr. Sires. Thank you. One of the complaints that I receive
in my office when I receive people from Central America is the
issue of corruption. They want to invest more in the region,
but they feel that the corruption is too risky with the
corruption in some of these countries. Can you talk a little
bit about corruption in the region?
Mr. Uribe. Of course. The main remedy against corruption is
the independent institutions and the total openness for
people's participation. For instance, when I was President to
assign every contract in my government it was necessary to have
a public hearing on TV. Therefore, all the bidders had the
opportunity to discuss their proposals. When a country
eliminates the independence of institutions, the country is
much more willing to have growing corruption. Therefore,
independent institutions, eliminated gradually in some of the
countries, are a part to increased corruption.
Mr. Sires. Can you talk a little bit about the Merida
Initiative? I know that is pretty much in the same mold of what
we tried to do in Colombia. But I don't know if we have the
kind of backing from the country that we have in Colombia. Can
you talk a little bit about that?
Mr. Uribe. In Mexico?
Mr. Sires. In Mexico.
Mr. Uribe. In my opinion, President Calderon did a great
job, because in the absence of President Calderon's fight
against the drug cartels Mexico was not as it is today. In
Mexico there is optimism.
In my opinion, President Calderon recovered the
predominance of the institutions over the drug cartels. And
this policy has allowed President Pena Nieto to promote the new
structural reforms that the Mexican economy needs. But these
structural reforms, in my opinion, are going to produce very
good output under the condition that Mexico never forget that
they have to fight drug cartels.
Mr. Sires. Thank you.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes the former--actually, chairman
emeritus of this committee, this full committee, the
gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
delight to have President Uribe with us.
As Congressman Sires talked about, corruption is such a
deep problem in our hemisphere, the lack of the rule of law,
weak institutions. All of these factors continue to plague many
countries in Latin America, and this prevents democratic forces
from flourishing, from growing. And we continue to see many
leaders, more in the ALBA nations, manipulate elections, move
away from democratic principles. And once they are in power,
these rogue leaders change the rules of the game. They
manipulate the legislative system, the electoral councils, the
judicial systems in their favor to hold onto power at any cost.
And at the same time we see countries like Colombia and
Chile do well economically because of the stability and the
implementation of regulations that promote trade and open
markets. But these democratic advances, as we have seen,
continue to be threatened by narcoterrorism, by violence, by
the lack of political will, by corruption.
You are a leader who can really speak on the issue of
narcoterrorism, FARC, because the great progress that you made
in Colombia in the struggle against this terrorist group during
your presidency. As we know, peace talks have been underway,
sometimes they get halted, between the Colombian Government and
the FARC. They are being held in a very unlikely place, in
Cuba, which is a state sponsor of terrorism. I wanted to know
your opinion about whether Cuba, a state sponsor of terrorism,
is a proper forum in which to have these peace talks. And do
you believe that the FARC will dismantle its terrorist network,
abandon their efforts on illicit activities as a result of
these talks?
And then also related, Nicolas Maduro remains very much in
control in Venezuela. Do you think that his control will
continue or do you see--there is a lot of talk about maybe
getting rid of him, putting in another stooge who will continue
this farce.
And then in Ecuador, as we talked about here, the
manipulation of this referendum to eliminate the print media by
forcing them to go digital. And he is not the only one who has
been threatening the press.
And then lastly about the OAS, which has such a lack of
leadership, which could be a real institution for democracy and
for the rule of law. And what reforms do you think are possible
in the OAS so that it can be living up to the principles upon
which it was founded?
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. Uribe. Thank you, Mrs. Congresswoman.
When I was President and my government was inaugurated, my
predecessor, President Pastrana, had two initiatives for peace,
one with paramilitary groups through the Catholic Church, and
the other with the ELN through the Cuban Government. I said we
are ready to continue these talks under the condition that
these criminal groups make the decision to unilaterally cease
all their criminal activities.
And we tried to advance in Cuba with the ELN, but the ELN
did not accept our claim. And I had the opportunity to talk to
President Castro, and he said to me that he no longer had
influence on FARC. And I believed in what he said to me because
FARC is very rich and arrogant. With the incursion of FARC in
narcotrafficking, FARC no longer needs the help of Cuba.
Therefore, going to the case of Venezuela, I can't
understand why from midnight to early morning Venezuela has
passed from being the promoter, promoter of terrorist groups,
and becoming the promoter of peace. I cannot accept this.
And in the case of Ecuador, when the Government of Ecuador
says that they are in need of having communitarian social
media, they are right. But it could not be at the expenses of
free, independent media. It could be an excuse to eliminate
every expression of independent media.
Going to the Organization of American States, it has been
very weak. I cannot understand why they adopt one stand in the
case of Honduras, one stand in the case of Paraguay, and they
do not say anything against the coup d'etat in Venezuela
against the new congress 2 years ago.
And I want to conclude with this. We should not ask for
replacing the Organization of American States. The region needs
democratic governments in joint action to make all the region
to comply with the Democratic Charter of the Organization of
American States. No one could be the police in the region, but
we need to reform and to review and to rethink what will be the
role of the Organization of American States, because it seems
that the Organization of American States depends on the whims
of some dictators or quasi-dictators and are not ruled by its
own charge.
And finally, Mrs. Congresswoman, I am very critical of some
of the steps in Colombia at this moment. However, I prefer to
say what I did, what was, what were my wrongdoings. What
Colombia needs more at the moment of the end of my terms than
here to criticize the current government, I am a daily fighter
in my country. Therefore, I have to keep the criticism to my
country for my country. And I accept that.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Uribe. I understand you will accept this excuse.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I sure do. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
for convening this hearing. I would also like to extend my
personal welcome to his excellency, the Honorable Alvaro Uribe,
the former President of the Republic of Colombia.
I am impressed that in less than 25 years, 16 countries in
the Western Hemisphere have transitioned from authoritarian
regimes to governments by elected leaders. Such a monumental
achievement is a testament to the backbreaking work and
tireless dedication of the Canadians and Latin Americans and
Caribbean people. Yet I am aware and sure that our witnesses
will instruct us even more in terms of what needs to be done.
As our Secretary of State Kerry stated, and I quote,
``The Western Hemisphere is our backyard. It is of
vital importance to us. Too often many countries in the
Western Hemisphere feel that the United States does
not--does not give them enough attention. And sometimes
this is probably true. We need to be closer and we plan
to do it.''
And I could not agree more with Secretary Kerry's observation
about this in all the years that I have been a member of this
subcommittee.
Mr. President, my question, first question is, what is the
role, both positive and negative, has the United States played
in the development of democracy in this region? What successes
and failures have we contributed to?
My second question is that, and correct me if I make this
as an observation, that maybe one of the serious problems that
Latin America has always been confronted with is the extreme
social and economic inequalities existing in the societies of
the different Latin American countries. And I believe that with
this inequality it does affect the government institutions,
leading to corruption, trafficking, and all these negative
aspects of what has been discussed earlier this morning.
One area that I am of particular interest in, would
certainly like to ask for your comments and your insights, is
that of all the testimonies that I have read this morning, not
one, not one item ever mentions the fact of the plight, the
suffering of the indigenous Indian populations that make up
practically every one of these Latin American countries. I have
met with delegations of the various indigenous tribes that have
come from Latin America, and it is the same story, Your
Excellency. They are the West's not just bottom of the barrel,
they are below bottom of the barrel when it comes to economic,
social conditions, educational opportunities. They are the
worst off. Somewhat very similar to what the American Indians
are going through right now even in our own country.
I would just like to start with those two questions, Mr.
President, if I could. Your response?
Mr. Uribe. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
Indigenous people in our country are making significant
progress. During the Barco administration in Colombia between
1986 and 1990----
Mr. Faleomavaega. By the way, I am sorry, I didn't mean to
interrupt you. I do want to say my highest commendation for the
achievements that you made during the time when you served as
President. You reduced the kidnappings by 80 percent in
Colombia, and as high as 50 percent reduction in homicides, and
as high as 90 percent of terrorist attacks in your country
because of your leadership and your commitment to public
service. And I want to commend you for that.
Mr. Uribe. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. But we
did not only work for security, our democratic security policy
had other two companions: The policy to promote investment and
the policy to advance in social cohesion. At the same time, we
reduced poverty, we reduced unemployment. We began to improve
income distribution.
My country, and before my administration, since many years
ago, had made some significant progress in dealing with the
indigenous communities. And in my country many governments have
worked to assign them land titles, to give them educational
possibilities, to give their children possibilities for
nutrition, to give them access to health services, and so on.
But I agree with you that we need to do much more in order to
overcome poverty and in order to eliminate these inequalities.
But one aspect, distinguished Congressman, it is necessary
to take hand in hand investment with social cohesion. If you
only want to create social opportunities, and at the same time
you are hostile against the private sector you won't have the
necessary resources to sustain social cohesion.
The role of the United States. I once said, and I apologize
for this, that Latin America is the back yard. Latin America
and the Caribbean is the front yard of these North American
countries. And at this moment we cannot say that we need the
United States as the police of the region. But we need a set, a
group of democratic countries, the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay. Uruguay, it has a leftist
government, but with all the respect for democratic values. It
does not matter that they are center left or center right. What
matters is that they are progressive democratic countries with
the rule of law.
We need this group of countries to review the Organization
of American States to make that Democratic Charter be complied
with by all the countries. I remember, and I finish with this,
the role many democratic countries played for Chile to push out
Pinochet, for Peru to push out Fujimori. And what is the reason
for silence in the case of Maduro in Venezuela? I cannot
understand. Democratic value, the rule of law should prevail
over any ideological willingness.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much, Mr. President. My
time is way over. Thank you.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
Recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. President, for being here today. I was
reading your written testimony. And you point out the regional
success stories of Chile and Uruguay. And what I was reading
there, it says Chile represents one of the most developed
democracies in the region, and Uruguay has demonstrated strong
institutions, a vibrant democracy. They are key ingredients for
economic and social progress. But I can say that Colombia is
the epitome of what success looks like in South America.
When we were down there, the ranking member and I, and he
has left now, but we were down there in Cartagena for the
Summit of the Americas, and we met with some congressmen from
Colombia. And one thing that struck me was three things that
they talked about. They talked about that Colombia is pursuing
low taxation, corporate taxes and individual taxes; a debt-to-
GDP ratio of 4 percent or less; and just enough government to
support a free market. These are American principles. This is
what made this country great. And I see Colombia applying those
principles.
And then I see Chile, Uruguay, Peru even, Brazil, Mexico to
some degree putting the principles in place that made America
great. And you are seeing a tremendous economic and political
progress in Latin America.
I read also that Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Peru, and
Uruguay represent 70 percent of the region's population, 75
percent of the regional GDP. That is pretty strong when you
compare, well, when you factor in Brazil and Argentina and
their GDP as well. So thank you for that.
Every instance I have had to go to Colombia I have been
impressed. And I think it falls back on your shoulders, the
leadership that you provided that Chairman Salmon talked about
earlier. When we were down for seeing the cooperation between
the U.S. and Colombian military with regard to helicopters and
the 10-year, $10 billion investment the U.S. made in
cooperation with Colombia and the effect it has had on pushing
back the narcotrafficking, pushing back FARC to the borders,
that came under your leadership. So I just say thank you for
that.
You speak of the importance of reforming the OAS. How can
the U.S. affect the reform, and what do you think would be most
helpful for the U.S. as far as helping Colombia and other
countries reform the OAS?
Mr. Uribe. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
My main concern is that the Organization of American States
needs to be much more strict on preserving the Democratic
Charter than it has been so far. Therefore, I don't know
exactly what are the regulations that the organization needs to
be introduced. In my opinion, it is necessary to have political
determination, because it seems the Organization of American
States fears the Government of Venezuela, fears the Government
of Ecuador. They are very strong against what happened, what
did happen in Honduras, very strong against what happened in
Paraguay. They have been very weak in regarding Venezuela and
Ecuador and Bolivia.
Therefore, much more than regulation, it is necessary to
adopt the political determination to preserve democratic value,
the rule of law all over the region.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you for that. I believe you are right.
And I believe Colombia is leading by example with individual
freedoms, with economic prosperity. Those are the things I
think the neighboring countries will notice. I think they do
notice. And when you see what is going on in Bolivia and
Venezuela, Ecuador, the best example that those folks can look
toward is to Colombia.
And I just in my limited time I just want to point out that
the South Carolina National Guard has a sister states
relationship in the State Partnership Program with the
Colombian air helos and their army. So we are glad to watch
from Columbia, South Carolina, to Colombia, South America, the
progress and have that sister relationship.
So thank you again. I enjoyed the testimony and the
questioning today. And I yield back.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
Mr. Radel.
Mr. Radel. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, being Members of Congress, we have a bit of a
megaphone here, and in today's discussion we keep hearing the
same names, the same countries over and over, and our very
serious and legitimate concerns with those countries. But with
that very same megaphone that we have, I would also urge the
people of those countries to know and to understand that at the
end of the day we all want the same things for ourselves and
for our children: Oportunidad y libertad, opportunity and
freedom for all.
And let there be no question that the Honorable Presidente
Uribe in front of us right now has led the charge in Latin
America of being able to show and exemplify how, when we as
countries work together, we create more opportunity in our own
country.
And what has happened in Colombia is nothing short of
amazing, and that is because of your leadership, and we thank
you for that, and we cherish the relationship that we have with
you.
One thing, though, that I think also right now is
threatening parts of Latin America and the opportunity and
freedom that we are all looking for is organized crime. I think
that it could potentially lead to a political backlash of
erosion of civil liberties in particular and others.
That said, let's take a look at the violence that has
plagued Mexico. I would ask you, could we use Colombia as an
example of where foreign aid and cooperating when it comes to
national security, where we can work together. But Mr.
President I would also ask this: In the context of this, if we
are talking about narcotraffickers, if we do the same in
Mexico, are we simply going to end up pushing the problem
somewhere else?
Mr. Uribe. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I want to express my
gratitude to the comments that some of you have made and I want
to remember that the United States has been very helpful to my
country.
And it is not a question of bilateral relations between
Colombia and the United States, the fight against organized
crime, terrorist groups should be a universal fact. And one of
the problems I see in the region is the penetration of other
terrorist groups, different than FARC, to the region through
the Government of Venezuela. This is the case of the connection
with Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.
Mexico, in my opinion, has advanced a lot, but it is
necessary that every country is ready to support Mexico with
whatever Mexico requests, because, you know, we need to respect
the sovereignty of every country. And at the same time, I am
very concerned because of impunity in some countries. This is
not the case of Mexico. It could be the case with my country,
because impunity is the midwife of new violence. Therefore,
peace talks should never be at the expense of justice.
And the same time, illicit drugs. I want only to bring one
example. The constitutional provision of my country enacted in
the year 2009, it states that point, those points. First,
addicts, consumers may never be taken to jail, always to
hospital for rehabilitation. Second, there should be prevalent
policies on prevention, on education. And third,
narcotraffickers and distributors, the street distributors,
from national narcotraffickers, all of them should be taken to
jail. Don't forget, FARC is the main drug cartel all over the
world and has all the connections with the Mexican cartels.
Therefore, it is necessary to have a universal fight.
You have expressed one concern: What if Mexico succeeds as
it is going on in this country and at the same time the drug
cartels flee from Mexico to the Central American countries?
Therefore, it is necessary to have a universal policy against
the drug cartels.
Mr. Radel. With 7 seconds left, again, thank you so much
for being here today. It is a real pleasure to have you here.
Gracias por venir.
Mr. Uribe. Muchas gracias.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you so much, Mr. President. We really
appreciate your willingness to come. It truly is an honor. And
thank you for all the great leadership you have provided, not
just for Colombia, but for the world.
Mr. Uribe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of
you distinguished members of the committee. It has been a great
honor.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
I move that we install our next panel. And with regard to
some of the time constraints, I am going to dispense with the
introductions. I apologize. You deserve very flowery
introductions, but in the interests of time, I would like to
move quickly.
Thank you. Again, I apologize for dispensing with
introductions, but I would really like to get to the meat of
the testimony. And we will probably be called to vote in about
15 minutes, and so I want to make sure we hear from all of you
that have waited and been patient for so long.
So I am going to start out with Dr. Schamis.
STATEMENT OF HECTOR E. SCHAMIS, PH.D., ADJUNCT PROFESSOR,
CENTER FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Mr. Schamis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
invitation. And it is a pleasure to be here sharing this panel
with good friends, and I appreciate your concern with this
important subject.
I don't want to speak too long, because time is short and
you have more important things to do, I guess, today, but I
would reiterate something that I put in writing here, which is
that the single most critical challenge to democracy today in
the region, it is in my view the impermanency of constitutional
rules.
It has become customary for incumbent Presidents to modify
constitutional rules with the immediate goal of getting
themselves reelected for another term or for an indefinite
number of terms, which generates, I would say, a whole set of
pathologies of political life. And that has happened, as we
discussed here, in a variety of countries and in much more
countries that we don't remember, perhaps, but it has happened
in the Dominican Republican and it has happened in Honduras and
it has happened even in Brazil, even if it didn't lead to the
perpetration of anyone in power.
And that generates a bad example. That generates this idea
that, well, rules are flexible and rules can be changed. And
indeed, constitutions are somehow flexible, but occasionally,
not all the time. And also constitutions are not there to be
changed for the benefit of an incumbent President. That
generates, again, a toxic political environment.
When that happens, these constitutional tricks, these
quasi-constitutional reelection processes, in Ecuador or in
Venezuela or in Bolivia and so on and so forth, it generates a
dramatic concentration of power in the executive by definition,
and that affects also some of the fundamental principles of
democracy, which is checks and balances and separation of
powers.
As a result as well, there is a heightened concentration of
authority in the executive, which turns executive branches into
legislating executives at the expense of congress, and rule by
decree has become customary. That has generated a contradiction
between the majority rule and minority rights. It has become
quite frequent the case the majority rule is invoked to violate
the rights of the minority. Whether those minorities are
political parties in the minority or ethnic minorities, as the
Congressman suggested, is irrelevant in the sense that it
happens equally to whoever is the minority in this context in
which majority rule is the pretext for violating those rights.
Judiciaries have been at risk, judges have been
intimidated, judges have been harassed, supreme courts have
been packed, and the cases, again, we have discussed them over
and over again.
The most tragic consequence, in my view, of this has been
increasing violence and particularly increasing violence to a
particular group of people, journalists. And I am sure Carlos
Lauria here will discuss that issue in detail, but it has
become quite frequent.
A range of state actions on the part of elected
governments, that somewhere I have called new authoritarianism
in the region, but it has become frequent for these governments
to go from censorship, to mild censorship and intimidation, to
harassment, to manipulation of the courts against journalists,
all the way to assassination and rape, in the case of--there is
documentation in which in certain countries where violence
against journalists has been diffuse, has been prominent, the
case in which, if those journalists have been female
journalists, rape has also taken place, a particular form of
violence. And, therefore, we are in a situation in which the
mutilation of press freedom, as I call it here, is the single
most critical deficit of democracy and political life in the
region as a whole.
I want to conclude with two things. One is--or three
things, I would say. One is President Uribe said that it
doesn't matter very much whether right or left, and I agree
with him. It doesn't even matter whether they are more or less
populist, which is a common word that has been pronounced here
and is pronounced in debates in the press, in the academic and
the political debates. It doesn't even matter that. And let me
illustrate that with one example.
In 2009, one of those Presidents, at times one of those
Presidents in Latin America, at times called a populist,
certainly a leftist, a former labor leader, President Lula of
Brazil, in 2009 he was approaching the end of his second term
in office. His popularity was above 80 percent. A reporter
asked him in a press conference why wasn't he going to change
the constitution and stay in office. His popularity was above
80 percent at the time, his 7th year in office. And he said,
no, because democracy is about two things: Constitutional rules
and alternation in power.
And here we have someone we have called leftist for sure, a
labor leader from industrial Sao Paulo, and a populist in some
other commentary. Well, he rejected that. So ultimately it
doesn't matter that much how they call themselves or how we
call them, whether it is populist, leftist or rightist or et
cetera, et cetera.
The second point I want to make is that a question that has
been already asked here is, what can we do? What can we do as a
community in the hemisphere, I would say, the OAS? I think what
we can do is highlight and constantly point fingers to these
bad practices, at the OAS, but at the summit. There are
regional summits that go on and on with speeches forever, and
the conversation goes from trade to infrastructure and
integration, very nice things, while many of these governments
are abusing the rules and abusing their citizens, therefore.
And it is not that important in the context of Latin
America today that the U.S. does it, but that the U.S. does it
in combination with many other quite democratic countries in
the region. The puzzle is not so much whether the U.S. is
saying something, but why isn't Chile and Brazil and Uruguay
saying something to their counterparts in those regional
summits? And that is a puzzle that I legitimately present here
as an honest puzzle, intellectual puzzle, if you want.
The final point is there is a label by which we have
addressed these realities of politics, which we owe to a
commentator and author, Fareed Zakaria, which is illiberal
democracy. Let me say that we are getting to a point in which
in Latin America illiberalism has turned that idea of a liberal
democracy into an oxymoron. Without liberalism, with that level
of illiberalism, there is no democratic politics possible.
Thank you.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Dr. Schamis.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schamis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Salmon. Mr. Lauria.
And I would just like to ask the panelists again to watch
the lighting system. And red means stop. So thank you very
much.
Mr. Lauria.
STATEMENT OF MR. CARLOS LAURIA, SENIOR COORDINATOR, AMERICAS
PROGRAM, COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS
Mr. Lauria. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
commend you and the members of the House Subcommittee on the
Western Hemisphere for holding this important hearing and for
providing the Committee to Protect Journalists with the
opportunity to testify before you.
I am CPJ's America senior program coordinator. CPJ is an
independent nonprofit organization dedicated to defend press
freedom worldwide. And, Mr. Chairman, my statement today will
summarize the issues raised in my written testimony.
I would like to highlight the threats that journalists face
while reporting the news and its impact on fundamental human
rights. In different countries, broad aspects of public
discourse are limited by the threat of violence, government
censorship, restrictive laws, and financial pressures. The lack
of debate on issues of public interest is creating political
instability, reducing government accountability, and
compromising economic development.
With the exception of Cuba, democracy in the Americas has
become entrenched. While many countries in the region have
great investigative journalism, reporters and media outlets are
still exposed to both violence and government repression, which
are the emerging trends that illustrate the major challenges
facing the press in the hemisphere.
During the last 20 years, transnational criminal groups
have extended their sway and spread a wave of lethal violence
in Latin America. Scores of reporters have been killed or
disappeared with impunity, as dysfunctional justice systems
have been incapable to solve these crimes. With more than 50
journalists killed or disappeared over the last 6 years, Mexico
is the deadliest country for the press in the Americas and one
of the most dangerous worldwide. Terror and censorship have
devastated the news media, while placing Mexico's democracy at
risk.
Criminal organizations and impunity have also forced the
press into silence in some Central American countries, but
nowhere more so than in Honduras. With the highest homicide
rate in the world, according to U.N. statistics, a climate of
violence and widespread impunity have made this country one of
the most dangerous in the region.
Even as lethal violence has drastically declined in the
last decade, as expressed by former President Uribe here in
this panel before, Colombia continues to rank among the most
murderous countries for journalists in the world, with 44
journalists killed in direct reprisal for their work since
1992. This year, unfortunately, CPJ has documented a series of
press freedom cases that illustrate the serious risks
journalists still face when reporting on sensitive issues.
Besides the threat of physical violence, the subsequent
most pressing issue for the regional media is an array of
restrictive measures imposed by democratically elected
governments. Showing disdain for the institutions of democracy,
several governments are seeking to stifle dissent and control
the flow of information.
Venezuela provides the starkest example of the lack of
tolerance for different views and opinions. In the last 14
years, Venezuela has used different laws, regulatory measures,
judicial decisions to progressively break down the private
press. Authorities have closed dozens of broadcasters, censored
critical coverage, and sued reporters for defamation. Venezuela
has served as a model to other leaders in the region who are
trying to repress dissent and control information, but perhaps
none has learned the lesson better than President Rafael Correa
of Ecuador, whose policies have transformed the country into
one of the hemisphere's most restrictive nations for the press.
Ecuador has made use of archaic criminal defamation laws to
silence critical journalists, and the new Communications Law,
which establishes regulation of editorial content and gives
authority and power to censor the press, represents a severe
below to freedom of expression.
In the last few years, Cuba has projected an image of a
nation opening up economically, but the government has taken no
actions to promote freedom of expression and access to
information.
Finally, and being in Washington today, I must mention
recent developments that have worsened the climate for press
freedom in the United States. Actions taken by the U.S.
Department of Justice in seizing journalists' phone records and
emails, the aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers who leak
information to the press, classified information to the press,
and massive surveillance of communications send a chilling
message to journalists and their sources, particularly on
issues of national security that are vitally important to the
public. At the same time, just as troubling, these actions in
the United States set a terrible example to the rest of the
world, where governments routinely justify intervention in the
media by citing national security.
Mr. Chairman, members of this subcommittee, thank you again
for your invitation.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Lauria.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lauria follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Salmon. Dr. Arnson.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA J. ARNSON, PH.D., DIRECTOR, LATIN AMERICAN
PROGRAM, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
Ms. Arnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.
Tomorrow, September 11th, is not only the anniversary of
the terrorist attacks against the United States, but also marks
the 40th anniversary of the military coup in Chile. The
commemorations that are underway in Santiago and other major
cities throughout the country show how the reckoning with the
legacy of those abuses, the search for justice, the search to
end impunity continues to pose tasks for Chilean society even
this many decades after the formal transition to democracy.
In terms of democratic governance, I agree with my
colleagues, there is much to celebrate since the 1960s and
1970s and 1980s, when many countries in the region were in the
grip of military dictatorship or civil war. But I would like to
refer you to my testimony to summarize some of those and rather
focus on the setbacks to representative democracy in the Andean
region, but also broader challenges to democratic governance in
those countries even where liberal democracy is strong.
First, and despite the significant strides in reducing
poverty and more limited steps in reducing inequality over the
last decade, the region as a whole remains the most unequal
region in the world. Social mobility has improved, millions
have entered the middle class, but they remain highly
vulnerable to falling back into poverty. Frustration with
corruption, with the poor quality of services, and with the
unequal distribution of the fruits of economic growth remains
high, sparking protests from Chile to Brazil to Colombia, as we
have seen in these recent weeks.
Second, in many countries electoral democracy survives
amidst new threats: The unprecedented increase in the rates of
crime and violence abetted, but not entirely caused by the
growing activities and sophistication of transnational
organized crime. My colleague, Mr. Lauria, has pointed to the
attacks on the media in places like Honduras and Mexico,
including those who have reported on organized crime.
Latin America as a whole has a homicide rate that is more
than double the global average. It is second only to parts of
sub-Saharan Africa, and with the notable exception of Colombia
it is increasing in most countries, disproportionately
affecting young men, particularly in urban areas. And as has
been mentioned in earlier remarks, this is an especially grave
problem in Central America as well as part of the Caribbean.
In addition to these overall trends that affect many
countries of the region is the growing authoritarianism of
regimes in the Andean region and with echoes in places such as
Argentina and Nicaragua.
In previous testimony, my colleagues have outlined many of
the difficulties. I will summarize, I think, some of the most
egregious. Today's populist regimes in Latin America are
focused on transformational or revolutionary projects that
concentrate power in the executive and do not envision ceding
power to political opponents. Even when leaders enjoy
significant popular support, largely as a result of social
programs that have been supported by the high prices of basic
commodities, the institutions and legal frameworks that
constrain power have been systematically eroded. Constitutional
reforms have done away with limits on Presidential terms. There
has been the weakening or elimination of checks and balances
through the packing of institutions, such as judiciaries and
electoral councils. Leaders themselves foster actively the
polarization of society from above, and politics is lived not
as a process of bargaining with accepted rules of the game, but
as a full-blown confrontation between irreconcilable interests.
Populism's authoritarian qualities are most evident and
advanced in Venezuela. Since his victory by a razor thin margin
in April 2013, Nicolas Maduro has struggled to establish his
authority. The opposition has refused to recognize the
legitimacy of his election amidst numerous credible allegations
of fraud. The government has failed to thoroughly investigate
reliable reports of violence against opponents during the
electoral period in April, at the same time that it conducts
thorough investigations of incidents in which the opposition is
alleged to be responsible.
The erosion of media freedoms and of political space for
autonomous civil society, the aggressive concentration of power
in the hands of the Presidency, the destruction of checks and
balances, the assault on the very notion of political pluralism
and alternation in power, and the fostering of polarization at
all levels of society, these characteristics of contemporary
populism constitute the new face of authoritarianism in Latin
America.
But they are not the only threats to democracy and
democratic governance in the region. To conclude, efforts to
support democracy must include policies to improve citizen
security, combat organized crime and its corruption at all
levels of society, and foster inclusionary growth and
development that benefit the region's citizens more broadly.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you very much, Dr. Arnson.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Arnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Salmon. We will now turn to the questioning phase of
our hearing. And given the time constraints that we have, I
will limit each member, including myself, to 3 minutes.
I just have one question, and, Dr. Schamis, I would like to
direct it to you. While Argentina has high Freedom House
ratings for political rights and civil liberties, the
government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner enacted
a controversial media law regulating broadcast and print media.
How would you characterize the current status of media freedom
in Argentina and the government's effort to break up the media
concentration? What is your view of recent efforts by the
Argentine Government to provide for the election of magistrates
to oversee the judiciary. More broadly, how would you assess
the current state of democracy in Argentina?
Mr. Schamis. Mr. Chairman, yes, one could say that the
current Government of Argentina has conducted a double strategy
to try to stay in power longer than elected for, control of the
media, control of information in the form of legislation that,
while it was written in simple antitrust law, was no more than
an attempt to break down the main media organization in the
country and take away different outlets, whether radio or
audio-visual or print, and give it to friends. And that has
already started to happen, and now it is up to the Supreme
Court to decide on the constitutionality of that law.
The second strategy of the government to stay in office was
to have control of the so-called magistratura, which is an
organ, an institution that appoints, nominates judges, and to
invoke in the name of democratization of justice, make those
appointments electable through political party lists. That law
would have control of the nomination and appointment of judges,
including the electoral courts, which at a time in which
reelection, indefinite reelection was in the minds of many
people in the government, that would have been, you know,
extremely convenient. However, the Supreme Court in a 6-1
ruling determined the inconstitutionality of that reform, in
what introduced, I have to say, a breath of fresh air into
Argentine society and politics.
Recently there has been an election. The government didn't
do well, and there is all of a sudden a lot less, if any, talk
of reelection. And there is an upcoming election in October in
which the government has gone from 54 percent in 2011 to 26
percent just now. And much of that has to do with the, I would
say, courageous attitude taken by the judiciary and also by
Argentine society that has expressed in a clear and loud way
its rejection of any attempts of perpetuity on the part of the
government.
And therefore we will see what happens with the ruling of
the Supreme Court on the constitutional status of this law, but
overall the climate in Argentina, both in terms of freedom of
expression and independence of the courts, has improved
dramatically from just, I would say, 6 months ago.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you very much.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I actually had
100 more questions I wanted to ask our panel. But thank you so
much for the testimony that you have given.
Let me just ask one question and I would like to ask all
three of you to comment on it. We have got problems of a
permanent constitutional framework of how these governments are
lacking and then the problem of absolutely no freedom of the
press and what they are doing to the journalists. And then Dr.
Arnson's observation, the fact that corrupt governments are
also a major cause of instability that we have in Latin
countries. I had asked earlier to President Uribe, could you
give me, each one of you, what you consider to be the top
priority of what we need to do in dealing with Latin America.
Dr. Arnson.
Ms. Arnson. I will start. In terms of supporting democratic
governance, I think it is obvious that the United States needs
to use its voice and prestige on behalf of democratic systems
and on behalf of those who are struggling to preserve and
advance the cause of democracy in the region. When I say that,
I also note that the involvement of the United States, for
example in supporting overtly the opposition in Venezuela or
Bolivia or Ecuador, is not something----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, what about the fact that 85----
Ms. Arnson [continuing]. That the opposition itself is in
favor of, and it is often the kiss of death. And so it is very,
very complicated to find ways concretely to support, other than
rhetorically and verbally, to support democracy and civil
society. There are restrictions on the flow of funds to civil
society organizations in virtually every country in the Andean
populist region.
Mr. Faleomavaega. What about the fact that 85 percent of
all the small arms that come into Mexico comes from the United
States causing one of the serious, serious problems. And I am
sorry. We can get into that discussion, but I need to get to
Mr. Lauria and Dr. Schamis.
What do you consider to be the top priority of what we
should do as a country to deal with Latin America?
Mr. Lauria. Sure. First of all, I think that, you know, the
issue of killings and disappearances of journalists should be
part of, you know, the bilateral agenda of the U.S. in talks
with Mexico and other countries like Honduras and even Brazil,
where journalists are killed with total impunity. That is an
important point.
And I think that another point is, and was expressed
before, that a group of countries of the ALBA bloc are
aggressively attacking one of the model systems in the
protection and promotion of human rights in the hemisphere in
the world, which is the Inter-American System of Human Rights.
The U.S. should work with regional countries, heavyweights like
Mexico and Brazil, to strongly support the Inter-American human
rights systems. Reforms like the ones proposed by the ALBA
could really weaken the Inter-American human rights system, the
Inter-American Commission and its special rapporteur. And this
is a last line of defense for citizens in the Americas when
their human rights are violated.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
Mr. Radel.
Mr. Radel. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have worked as a journalist all of my life. Started as an
intern at CNN. I have worked in radio, print, TV. So this is
something near and dear to my heart. I firmly believe, for the
record, that without a free press you are not a free country in
any way, shape, or form.
My question, Mr. Lauria, would actually be with respect to
Cuba. I guess it would be the Cuba question, without Mr. Sires
or Ms. Ros-Lehtinen here today. We have seen some economic
reforms, and I put gigantic sarcastic quotation marks around
reforms in Cuba, but I would ask you, has there been any sort
of reform to move toward a freer press or even freedom of
discussion in the country of Cuba?
Mr. Lauria. Thank you for your question. I think it is a
very important one. Unfortunately, despite, you know, the
opening up in the economic and political aspects, there has
been no attempt by the Cuban Government to promote freedom of
expression and even access to information. There is a project
recently implemented in Cuba, a cable fiber optic project
financed by Venezuela that was going to provide more Internet
infrastructure. That is not available for the Cubans. The
government has changed its policy of long-term detentions, for
short-term detentions, but harassments, intimidation, and
beatings of independent journalists and political dissidents
continue to be widespread.
Mr. Radel. And to clarify that, too, then the technology
that they are putting into the country is simply used for
government officials and, what, potentially tourists that show
up if they want to have Internet access?
Mr. Lauria. Well, it is for government officials or for,
you know, people that have close ties with the government.
Mr. Radel. Sure.
Mr. Lauria. Common citizens have no access to Internet and
have to rely on Internet cafes or hotels to get access.
Mr. Radel. All right. To all three of you, thank you so
much for your time today.
I yield the rest of my time.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you to our distinguished panel. This has
been a very enlightening hearing today. We are proud of the job
that most of the countries in the Western Hemisphere have done
protecting human rights and promoting freedom and democracy,
but we have some challenges, some bumps in the road that we are
all going to have to work together to try to overcome. And so I
appreciate your testimony in shedding the light on some issues
that need to be examined and corrected, and we applaud your
efforts. Thank you very much.
Without any other business, this committee will now
adjourn.
[Whereupon, at 4:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
