Council on Hemispheric Affairs Forum

Dissenting Opinion by Readership, Regarding COHA's Piece, "Testing Time For Obama's Colombia Free Trade Agreement"

2009-06-18T12:07:00.000-07:00

The Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In the first paragraph of Ms. Knoth's article on
US/Colombia free trade, she asserts that, in the final presidential debate in 2008, " Obamavoiced his disapproval of the FTA,stating that continued violence in Colombia and the
treaty’s insufficient human rights protections should slow the agreement’s passage, perhaps
indefinitely."

In fact, Obama did something starkly different. He criticized Colombia for its failure to
protect labor organizers; and then he implicitly but unmistakably endorsed the treaty, noting that it does include labor and environmental protections. His sole stated concern was that the
protections be properly enforced. But even the most fevered ideologue must realize
that, in the context of Obama's statement, he means that they should be enforced within
the terms of the treaty; that is to say, he assumes its passage, not its indefinite postpone-ment.

Further, contra Ms. Knoth's assertion, he never mentions "go(ing) slow".

As well, he gratuitously mentions that he voted in favor of the US/Peru free trade treaty. It is
impossible (well, I'd have thought so until now) to read the words without recognizing that
Obama ran, at least on the occasion cited by Ms. Knoth,as fully opposed to the
COHA/Smoot-Hawley stance on international trade.

I go on regarding the subject at such length as a prelude to asking one question: If your commentators cannot comprehend the
clear facts in a 400-word text, what are they doing writing 2600 word "analyses" of public policy issues?
McElhone

Here is the entire text of the Obama-McCain debate as it relates to the pending free trade treaty between the US and Colombia:
MCCAIN: Well, you know, I admire so much Senator Obama's eloquence. And you really have to pay attention to words. He
said, we will look at offshore drilling. Did you get that Look at. We can offshore drill now. We've got to do it now. We will reduce the cost of a barrel of oil because we show the
world that we have a supply of our own. It's doable. The technology is there and we have to drill now.
Now, on the subject of free trade agreements. I am a free trader. And I need -- we need to have education and training programs for displaced workers that work, going to our community colleges.

But let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that Senator Obama opposes. Right now, because of
previous agreements, some made by President Clinton, the goods and products that we send to Colombia, which is our
largest agricultural importer of our products, is -- there's a billion dollars that we --our businesses have paid so far in order to get our goods in there.

Because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our country for free. So Senator Obama, who has
never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that's helping us try to
stop the flow of drugs into our country that's killing young Americans.

And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us create jobs in America because they will be a market
for our goods and products without having to pay -- without us having to pay the billions of dollars --the billion dollars and more that we've already paid.

Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.

OBAMA: Let me respond. Actually, I understand it pretty well. The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders
have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions.

And what I have said, because the free trade -- the trade agreement itself does have labor and environmental protections, but we have to stand for human rights and
we have to make sure that violence isn't being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights,
which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement which was a well-structured agreement.

But I think that the important point is we've got to have a president who understands the benefits of free trade but also is
going to enforce unfair trade agreements and is going to stand up to other countries.

And the last point I'll make, because we started on energy. When I talked about the automakers, they are obviously getting
hammered right now. They were already having a tough time because of high gas prices. And now with the financial crisis,
car dealerships are closing and people can't get car loans.

That's why I think it's important for us to get loan guarantees to the automakers, but we do have to hold them responsible as well to start producing the highly fuel-efficient cars of the future.

And Detroit had dragged its feet too long in terms of getting that done. It's going to be one of my highest priorities because
transportation accounts for about 30 percent of our total energy consumption.

If we can get that right, then we can move in a direction not only of energy independence, but we can create 5 million new
jobs all across America, including in the heartland where we can retool some of these plants to make these highly fuel-efficient cars and also to make wind turbines and solar panels, the kinds of clean energy approaches that should be the
driver of our economy for the next century.

MCCAIN: Well, let me just said that that this is -- he -- Senator Obama doesn't want a free trade agreement with our best ally in the region but wants to sit down across the table
without precondition to -- with Hugo Chavez, the guy who has been helping FARC, the terrorist organization.

Free trade between ourselves and Colombia, I just recited to you the benefits of concluding that agreement, a billion dollars
of American dollars that could have gone to creating jobs and businesses in the United States, opening up those markets.

So I don't -- I don't think there's any doubt that Senator Obama wants to restrict trade and he wants to raise taxes. And the last
president of the United States that tried that was Herbert Hoover, and we went from a deep recession into a depression.

We're not going to follow that path while I'm -- when I'm president of the United States.

Nicaragua's Interaction with Iran Poses no Threat to the U.S.

2008-08-04T07:28:00.000-07:00

On June 6 the Nica Times Published an article "Iranian Hydro Project Stirs Concern." The article discussed Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's recent economic interactions with Iran and the U.S.'s unjustifiable attacks over such negotiations. COHA Research Associate Maggie Airriess prepared and submitted the following letter to the editor in response to the article.

There is no reasonable justification for U.S. apprehension over the Iranian hydroelectric dam project in Nicaragua ('Iranian Hydro Project Stirs Concerns', June 6). Washington opposes the dam because it is financed by Iran, a political enemy. Clearly, the U.S. fears a growing Iranian presence in Latin American countries, following similar deals with countries like Ecuador and Bolivia that effectively thwart U.S. efforts to resume its traditional supremacy in the region. Nicaragua's interaction with Iran poses no threat to the U.S., considering that the ties seem solely economic, with no evidence to the contrary. The U.S. argues that Nicaragua, like other Latin American countries, should respect the U.N.'s sanctions against Iran's nuclear production and refuse any links to Tehran. This contradicts past U.S. unilateral decisions irrespective of past U.N. votes, such as going to war with Iraq. Accordingly, the U.S. has no right to scrutinize or exercise a veto right regarding the external affairs of another country.

Finally, Nicaragua is in desperate need of development, specifically in its energy sector. The country regularly suffers prolonged power outages. The building of a new dam offers the potential to remedy this problem by providing a reliable energy source. However, President Ortega should take steps to inform local populations of the possible safety issues linked to the project, including fatal nuclear accidents. Although new constructed infrastructure associated to the dam could cause local problems such as flooding, this is a domestic concern and not an ideological issue where a U.S. fiat rules supreme.

Maggie Airriess

Research Associate

Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Regarding Chavez's Bid for a Third Term

2008-08-01T13:16:00.000-07:00

On July 18 the Miami Herald published an article "Chavez party seeks changes for third term." The article discussed Chavez's efforts to amend the Venezuelan Constitution and allow infinite presidential re-election. COHA Research Associate Lydia Pardini prepared and submitted the following letter to the editor in response to the article.

Venezuelan President Chávez’s renewed effort to amend the Constitution is based on his idea that “peace, tranquility and development” in Venezuela is contingent on him remaining in power (“Chávez party seeks changes for third term,” Jul 18). Yet his two terms in office have revealed a somewhat mixed record in achieving these goals. For example, the murder rate in Venezuela has risen in the past few years to 48 per 100,000, the second highest rate in the world.

The social missions aimed at bringing social justice to the country’s poverty stricken established early in the Chávez presidency, have enjoyed some successes. However, these programs are entirely dependent on a constant flow of high-price state oil revenue and do not necessarily constitute reliable development. Furthermore, the extensive and inefficient bureaucracy in charge of these programs (much of it inherited from the country’s past traditional regimes) has been marred by accusations of corruption.

In a referendum last December a narrow majority of Venezuelans rejected a set of reforms that would have allowed indefinite presidential re-election. Yet, as of now, up to 56% seem convinced of his ability to provide peace and development in the long term. Thus, if Chávez truly hopes to win the country’s upcoming regional elections in November, he needs to deliver on some of his promises, concentrating more on internal improvements rather than grand visions.

Lydia Pardini

Research Associate

Council on Hemispheric Affairs

En referencia el redireccionamiento de la política de Hugo Chávez con respecto a los Estados Unidos

2008-08-01T12:47:00.000-07:00

El 8 de julio de 2008, el periódico Panorama de la ciudad de Maracaibo, Venezuela, publicó un artículo llamado "Gobierno Venezolano busca reanudar lucha antidrogas con EEUU." El artículo hacía referencia a las intenciones del Presidente Hugo Chávez de mejorar las relaciones con los Estados Unidos, y la importancia de este comentario. La Asociada de Investigaciones Raylsiyaly Rivero, preparó la siguiente carta al editor en respuesta:

La postura que tomó el Presidente Chávez el pasado 5 de julio en cuanto a cómo será su nueva línea estratégica ("Gobierno busca reanudar lucha antidrogas con EEUU", 6 de julio 2008), ha despertado la atención de muchos. Si revisamos el historial de la política venezolana hacia la administración norteamericana, es más que evidente que se han ido cerrando las vías de comunicación entre ambos. Ahora sería un buen momento para preguntarnos ¿qué ha impulsado al primer mandatario nacional a tomar una postura tan flexible con los Estados Unidos, hasta el punto de considerar restablecer las relaciones de cooperación "que pudiesen poner en peligro el desarrollo de la Revolución Bolivariana"? que tanto pregona el Presidente. Esto sin olvidar la concepción de guerra asimétrica que se ha venido diseminando dentro de las Fuerzas Armadas. Quizás el ascenso en la popularidad del Presidente Uribe esté molestando a su homólogo venezolano y precise tomar parte en el acontecer de la región. Convenientemente, la reunión prevista entre ambos el próximo 11 de julio, servirá de trampolín para que se planteen nuevas líneas de acción al igual que el fortalecimiento de las relaciones, necesarias para combatir conjuntamente los problemas de seguridad y narcotráfico que hostigan a ambos países. La divergencia que presenta el nuevo discurso de Chávez puede enclaustrar a sus seguidores en una contradicción ideológica, en donde se sugiere aceptar nuevamente la ayuda del organismo norteamericano DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) que desplaza la premisa de amenaza que este ente representa. Esto Podría ocasionar que algunos seguidores del Gobierno Revolucionario se confundan.

Raylsiyaly Rivero

Asociada de Investigaciones

Consejo de Asuntos Hemisféricos

Merida Initiative

2008-08-01T12:35:00.000-07:00

On June 8 the San Antonio Express News published an article "U.S. lawmakers to review Mexico aid terms." The article detailed the Mexican governments objections to the Merida Initiative and the language regarding human rights. Research Associate Michael Katz prepared submitted the following letter to the editor in response to the article.

The Mexican government has every right to question the specifics of the United States anti-drug plan, but their objections regarding human rights stipulations might be misguided and counterproductive (“U.S. lawmakers to review Mexico aid terms,” June 8). Prioritizing human rights in the pending $1.4 billion US aid package to the Calderon administration needs to send an urgent message to Latin America, emphasizing Washington’s pledged commitment to protecting the basic rights of civilians and pursuing human rights violators. Past Latin American anti-drug initiatives, including the infamous Plan Colombia in 2000, demonstrated the ill effects that lax human rights policies can have on the well being of civilians of the recipient nation. Mexican officials who claim that a human rights clause in the pending legislation infringes on their sovereignty must carefully assess the dangers of a plan devoid of such stipulations. The US is not trying to infringe on Mexico’s sovereignty, as much as it is trying to learn from past mistakes, while still strengthening its human rights rhetoric in an effort to create a policy that stresses oversight and accountability. The United States should be lauded for refusing to compromise its strong position on human rights.

Michael Katz

Research Associate

Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Regarding End to Sanctions Sees Benefits All Around

2008-08-01T07:53:00.000-07:00

On June 11, 2008, the Cuban News Agency published an article entitled “Cuba Demands U.S. End to Sanctions at WTO Forum” which discussed the effects of the U.S. trade embargo on the Cuban economy. COHA Research Associate Amy Coonradt wrote the following letter to the editor in response:

You are correct in your claim that the termination of the U.S.’s economic sanctions on Cuba would not only resolve America’s institutionalized violation of World Trade Organization guidelines (“Cuba Demands US to End Economic Sanctions at WTO Forum”, June 11). However, you fail to state the benefits that lifting the sanctions could have for both the U.S. and Cuba. Such an action would help U.S. exporters by opening up Cuban markets. It would also help solve Cuba’s endemic fuel and food shortages and let Cuban families receive more remittances from relatives living abroad, which currently is restricted by the embargo to $100 per month.
Ending the embargo would allow for real reform on Cuba’s part, much more so than the modest and largely symbolic measures taken by Raul Castro. True, he has lifted the ban on cell phones and allowed Cubans to visit tourist hotels, but these rights are still financially unattainable for most Cubans, who average only $18 per month in income. Lifting the U.S. embargo would surely have a more lasting and positive effect for the average Cuban than Raul’s otherwise token reforms. Better yet, it likely will benefit both the U.S. as well as Cuba.

Amy Coonradt
Research Associate
Council on Hemispheric Affairs

The Argentine People Finally Heard

2008-08-01T07:30:00.000-07:00

It appears the Argentine people have finally been heard after the Fernández de Kirchner administration for months failed to successfully negotiate with the nation's farmers. The recent Senate vote against the government's legislation to raise export taxes demonstrates Fernández de Kirchner's inability to centralize power as her popularity crumbles.

It appears that Argentines have finally clearly been heard after the Fernandez de Kirchner administration for months failed to successfully negotiate with the nation's farmers ["Argentine Cabinet Chief Offers to Resign," July 23, 2008]. It is a relief to see the Senate strongly oppose the government's attempt to raise export taxes in recent months, which has failed to curb inflation, while adding to growing food shortages and rising food prices.

The Senate's recent vote represents both a victory against Fernandez de Kirchner to centralize power and a positive step for the citizens who are now recognizing the all too familiar rhetoric of their leaders' illusory promises to help the impoverished locals within the capital district. While it is obvious that the President is trying to run the country based on the credibility of her husband's former administration, it is equally clear that she has little support from the Argentine people, as reflected by her narrow defeat in the Senate. Her basic problem is that by a slender majority, the Argentine public doesn't believe that the passing of an export tax would help curtail either food shortages or inflation rates, which today are among the top six in the world.

President Kirchner just doesn't have the political base to continue with her husband's "uncompromising political style." Now that Argentines have spoken through the Senate's negative vote, it appears the Kirchner administration needs to find different long-term alternatives to high inflation. Instead of pressing economic strategists and chief advisors with the task of solving national crises, Fernandez de Kirchner needs to realize she cannot always win and that acting by pressure, rather than through conciliation, rarely produces results.

Regarding the Merida Intiative to Mexico

2008-08-01T07:22:00.000-07:00

On May 29 The Palm Beach Post published an article, “Richardson urges US on aid package for Mexico," which described Governor Richardson's urging U.S. policymakers to strike a deal acceptable to President Calderon of Mexico so that Mexico may receive aid to fight crime.
COHA Research Associate Emily Dunn submitted this letter to the editor in response to the article.

Dear Editor,
Despite the argument that it would be a violation of Mexico’s sovereignty for the U.S. Congress to lay down conditions before any aid is dispersed under the $1.4 billion Merida Initiative, investigations into recurring human rights abuses by Mexico’s military would prove extremely beneficial (“Richardson urges US on aid package for Mexico,” May 29). In addition to curbing human rights abuses, Mexico could gain from this telling blow against corruption, U.S. aid aimed at stopping crime and ending of the spate of crime and drug shipments crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

Mexico’s failure to adequately confront its rampant gangs has allowed the number of armed groups to climb. As The Post correctly notes, crime-related homicides have increased considerably this year. Clearly, President Calderon needs the aid that the proposed Merida Initiative would supply him in order to curb the dangerous increase in the number of organized crime groups and the lethal weapons at their disposal.

While the equipment and training that the Merida Initiative would provide may be essential to stem organized crime and ward off drug cartels that adversely affect both Mexico and the United States, the assistance to one of the most corrupt societies in the world needs to be supervised. If Washington is to aid Mexico in confronting crime, gangs and drugs, then Mexico should not oppose reasonable conditions calling for close monitoring of its war against derelictions in all forms.

Emily A. Dunn
Research Associate, Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Death of Manuel Maralunda

2008-08-01T06:41:00.000-07:00

On May 27 the Boston Globe published an article "Colombia urges FARC to surrender: Impact of rebel's death still unclear," which described optimism surrounding the death of FARC leader Manuel Maralunda. COHA Research Associate Michael Katz wrote submitted this letter to the editor in response to the article.

Dear Editor,

The death of Manuel Marulanda, leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), will not improve the chances of a sustained peace resolution nor stop the violence of FARC as some have suggested (“Colombia urges FARC to surrender: Impact of rebel's death still unclear,” May 26^th). Optimism surrounding the significance of Marulanda’s death, with respect to peace talks, falsely presumes that a new leader can single-handedly stop the violent ways of an entire guerilla force and create peace. This notion is impractical considering that FARC is a terrorist group with a long history of spontaneous and counterproductive violence. For example, promising peace talks in 1998 and 2002 were abruptly halted because of FARC’s terrorist activities. All parties involved in future peace talks with FARC cannot assume that Marulanda’s death is a positive step toward peace and an end to FARC’s violence, as has been proven in recent history.

Sincerely,

Michael Katz

Research Associate,

Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Regarding As Raúl Transforms Cuba, Washington Refuses to Budge

2008-07-31T13:26:00.000-07:00

COHA Research Associate Michelle Quiles wrote the following Op-Ed regarding the recent reforms enacted by Raúl Castro in Cuba. She argues that the significance of these reforms warrants an international response such as the EU’s decision to lift its diplomatic sanctions against the island.

On July 4, Cuba witnessed the imprisonment of pro-democracy dissidents wishing to commemorate U.S. Independence Day. Even though Cubans are accustomed to these exhibitions of intolerance, Raúl Castro’s recent reforms seemed to portend a new era of liberalization. Hope was again renewed when, three days later, the Cuban government kept its promise of using detainment merely as a warning and released the dissidents. This setback, though, is not surprising considering the U.S.’s unremitting hostility towards the island. The Cuban government argued that the U.S. Interests Section in Havana was aiding opposition groups and that Washington would be “responsible” for the “consequences” of these actions, hence the detainments.

Therefore, Washington’s continued hard-line approach towards Cuba has been largely responsible for repeatedly providing the revolutionary government with a justification for concentrating power and enforcing loyalty to the government, so as to protect itself from the “American empire’s attacks.” The Cuban Revolution was successful precisely because of its anti-imperialist rhetoric, which fed Cubans’ desire to free themselves from American intervention in their domestic affairs. It is Washington’s obstinacy, not Raúl’s determined effort, which reduces the U.S.’s ability to negotiate and encourage a continuation of Raúl’s liberalizing reforms.

In February 2008, Fidel Castro transferred power to his younger brother Raúl, sparking a worldwide dialogue regarding the implications of the first major transition of power seen in Cuba in almost five decades. Although the majority of observers believe that Havana has, in fact, carried out many significant reforms, the Bush administration views these recent developments as merely cosmetic because of continued instances of repressive state control. Although Cuba is still far from being a liberal democracy, it is narrow-minded to label Raúl’s reforms as inconsequential. His administration has become much more tolerant of opposition groups, given many islanders titles to their homes, eliminated the salary cap, and decentralized agriculture. In addition, it has released political prisoners, commuted thirty death sentences, and unofficially abolished capital punishment.

Raúl Castro has implemented policies that his brother Fidel blocked for decades. Even if Raúl is not interested in carrying out further reforms, he has dared to raise expectations on the island and abroad, contributing to the mobilization of a citizenry intent on effecting real change. Reversing this liberalization process now could potentially result in stiff opposition from Cubans who have tasted change and do not wish to give it up.

Analysts should not limit the definition of Cuban progress to an automatic compliance with western democratic standards. The government has controlled most aspects of its citizens’ lives since the Revolution. Fidel micromanaged the island’s politics and economics, making the government synonymous with his persona. This cannot be reversed overnight. Now that he has formally stepped down, the government will need to differentiate the executive office from Fidel in order to promote a new style of autonomous governance. Raúl has not been overly aggressive in transforming his brother’s state, but he has certainly started to create a sharply different Cuba.

The EU’s recent decision to lift its diplomatic sanctions against Cuba is precisely how the international community should greet Raúl’s positive changes. Sanctions were imposed to pressure Havana to democratize, but proved ineffective. Not even the U.S. economic embargo, which profoundly hurt the Cuban economy, was effective in coercing Fidel to conform to Washington’s desiderata. The embargo’s only discernible accomplishments have been to promote economic instability, resulting in the further deterioration of the lives of average Cubans. In fact, the rationing system was implemented due to the lack of food and supplies caused largely by the embargo. This attempt to topple the revolutionary government has failed repeatedly. It is time for a different tactic.

By lifting the sanctions, the EU is not merely opening the path to dialogue and positively reinforcing Raúl’s progressive actions now and into the future; it is also performing an enormous act of good faith that could fully restore Havana’s connection to the international community. The question now remains: will the US follow suit or will it maintain a policy that has only produced negative results? Lifting the embargo would not only open communications but also eliminate the justification of American intervention used repeatedly by the Cuban government to detain dissidents and quarantine hostile ideas.

Michelle Quiles
Research Associate, Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Regarding Bolivian Provinces Empty Secession Threats

2008-07-31T13:16:00.000-07:00

On June 2, 2008 El Nuevo Día published an article entitled "En ruta a la autonomía" which discussed the outcomes of the autonomy referendum carried out in the Bolivian provinces of Beni and Pando. COHA Research Associate Michelle Quiles wrote the following letter to the editor in response. Even though people in these regions voted overwhelmingly in support of autonomy from Bolivia, the article fails to take into consideration the fact that more than 30% of the population abstained from voting. Therefore, it is narrow-minded to assert that the majority of the population supports autonomy when a significant portion did not even vote. Furthermore, only if President Morales recognized these results will the referendum hold any significance and he has stated that he does not recognize these referendums as valid.

A pesar de la victoria decisiva hacia la autonomía en Beni y Pando, un porcentaje significativo de la población no participó en el proceso electoral (“En ruta la autonomía,” 2 de junio de 2008). Aproximadamente un 46.5% se abstuvo en Pando y un 34% en Beni, según el Latinnews Daily. Por lo tanto, muchas de éstas abstenciones se pudiesen traducir en votos en contra de la autonomía regional y, combinado con el 20% de los votos en contra, es posible que los votos a favor de la autonomía no reciban una mayoría tan drástica. Sería incorrecto, entonces, asumir una victoria definitiva para los movimientos autonomistas en estas regiones cuando no se ha logrado recopilar las opiniones de la mayoría de sus habitantes.

Tampoco se puede declarar concluyentemente el éxito de dichos movimientos. El Presidente Morales ha declarado en varias ocasiones que no reconocerá la validez de estas elecciones, convirtiendo la declaración de autonomía de Beni, Pando y Santa Cruz simplemente en un deseo, no en una realidad a nivel nacional e internacional. Dado a que estas tres regiones contienen solo un 30% de la población boliviana, su poder e influencia en la política pública nacional para poder independizarse es debatible.

Michelle Quiles
Research Associate, Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Regarding EU Should Recognize Significance of Reforms under Raúl Castro and Inefficiency of Sanctions

2008-07-31T13:01:00.000-07:00

On June 16, 2008 The Guardian published an article entitled "EU postpones decision on Cuba sanctions" which discussed the European Union’s debate regarding its diplomatic sanctions against Cuba. COHA Research Associate Michelle Quiles wrote the following letter to the editor in response.

It seems that the some countries do not fully appreciate the significance of Cuba’s most recent reforms (“EU postpones decision on Cuba sanctions,” June 16, 2008). Although Cuba is still far from being a liberal democracy, it is narrow-minded for countries like Sweden, the Czech Republic and the US to label the reforms being implemented by Raúl Castro as inconsequential. Exercising greater tolerance for opposition groups and homosexuals, signing two human rights treaties, and establishing greater property rights are unprecedented changes for the island. In addition, four political prisoners have been released, 30 death sentences have been commuted, and capital punishment has been unofficially abolished. Alone, these events might seem minor but taken together, they provide genuine hope for the creation of a new Cuba.

Now is the perfect time for the EU to exercise its creative leverage over Raúl Castro and help him consolidate the island’s transition to an open and democratic society. The existing EU sanctions against Havana are not being enforced, so maintaining them signifies nothing. Officially eliminating them, however, would signify an enormous act of good faith that has the potential to restore the Cuban government’s connection to the international community.

Michelle Quiles
Research Associate, Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Regarding Guns, Drugs, and Growing Violence

2008-07-31T10:08:00.000-07:00

On June 10, 2008 The Dallas Morning News published an article entitled "U.S., Mexico launch unprecedented effort to disrupt cross-border weapons smuggling" which discussed a joint venture by Mexican and the US security forces to address issues of border security. COHA Research Associate Chris Sweeney wrote the following letter to the editor in response.

My hat goes off to U.S. and Mexican customs officials for the initial success of their joint operations (“U.S., Mexico launch unprecedented effort to disrupt cross-border weapons smuggling” June 10). Such progressive law enforcement is a promising development in the otherwise disheartening war on drugs. However it is a misguided solution. The US must instead focus its attention on the domestic issues of drug abuse and gun control – not border security – to achieve any sort of resounding victory in the drug war. After all, it is the American lifestyle, not the Mexican drug cartels, that is to blame. The widespread demand for drugs by U.S. consumers gives the cartels incentive to do business, and the accessible supply of weaponry from U.S. arms dealers makes their business possible. This lethal mix of supply and demand has resulted in far too much violence, some of which is now spilling into the U.S. How ironic that the global spread of American consumerism and violence has taken its ugliest form along our very own border. Meanwhile, law officials on both sides, regardless of their joint operations, continue to suffer the consequences of inappropriate national drug policies.

Chris Sweeney; Research Associate
Council on Hemispheric Affairs

To read the full article, please go to:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/dmn/stories/061108dnintborderguns.3ac7ebe.html

Regarding the Surge of Violence in Mexico

2008-07-31T09:55:00.000-07:00

On May 18, 2008 The Houston Chronicle published an article entitled "In reeling Mexico, a change in strategy" which discussed the measures being taken by Mexico and the US to combat drug-related violence. COHA Research Associate Chris Sweeney wrote the following letter to the editor in response.

Your article clearly details the recent surge in drug-related violence throughout Mexico. However it fails to adequately link this violence with the larger issue at hand – the failure of America’s brazen but largely ineffective war on drugs.

Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon has mobilized his country’s law enforcement forces to directly combat drug cartels. The results are at best mixed. Local police have often become involved in the very drug trade they are supposed to prevent. Meanwhile the recent involvement of the Mexican military in the fight against drugs already is being linked to increased human rights violations. These failures make clear that direct intervention in the drug war does not guarantee success.

What is needed is an upgraded approach: US funding of the drug war should be redirected from prevention abroad to domestic programs designed to target users. Reducing the demand will in turn affect supply, and a decrease in violence could very well result.

Chris Sweeney; Research Associate
Council on Hemispheric Affairs

To read the full article, please go to: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2008_4569699

Regarding "The Failings of Chile’s Education System: Institutionalized Inequality and a Preference for the Affluent"

2008-07-31T07:08:00.001-07:00

The following response was sent to COHA by Mr. Bernard McElhone in response to Andrea Arango's article regarding the Chilean education system.

You must be especially proud of Andrea Arango's report on Chilean education. The clear writing and attentive research are far above average for COHA. There is hardly a tendentious formulation or bloody shirt to be found. I hope this praise has not cost the woman her non-paying position at COHA.

Inevitably, though, there are a few points with which one might disagree. I mention these simply to open for you and the COHA staff another perspective on the matters considered in the release.

1. In 2800 words no mention appears of the trajectory in test scores nationwide under the current educational system. Are more Chileans literate and numerate when compared with their predecessors of five or ten years ago? How do their achievements compare with those of neighboring countries, where the effort at educational leveling is further progressed? Surely, those are basic, more critical evaluative questions than asking which students gain access to a particular rank of university.

2. The question of poor people's access to better primary and secondary schools is complex. It is insufficient to attribute the disparity of access at the primary and secondary levels to inconvenient transport and a lack of knowledge of an occult admission process. It has been demonstrated across the world that the middle class will suffer great inconvenience to ensure their children's educational success. They instill a greater respect for education, they tutor them, they program their days, they game the application systems for better public and private schools. It cannot be a surprise, then, that middle class children achieve higher rates of admission to choice schools than the poor. After all, they have been formed as education-seeking missles since they left the womb.

The two small points raised in this regard (access to transport and knowledge of the system's variables) could be readily addressed via the provision of transport vouchers and a program of public
notification regarding school rankings. Many cities allow students to travel free on the mass transit system, and so could Chilean cities. School rankings could readily be broadcast via the news media, as they are in many places. The sad/happy truth, though, is that the middle class is largely self-selecting. The people who join are those who decipher and negotiate the system, not those who manage to discern and protest yet another pea under another heap of matresses.

3. The fact that more than a fifth of Chilean students fled the public schools when given the opportunity is a telling fact about life in that system. If the calculus were based on families rather than students, the rates would be still higher. Parents do not thoughtlessly inconvenience themselves and upset their children's social networks by bouncing them from school to school. They transfered because, like so many government systems, the public schools had come to serve constituencies other than the children they purport to serve. My point is best illustrated by a case mentioned in Ms Arango's essay, that of the encouragement of test-day absences. I doubt that there is a private or semi-private school in Chile where the administrators would direct children to be truants in the service of test scores. Yet, that maneuver is a device employed by education bureaucrats in many countries. The thread that ties those bureaucrats together, across borders, mountains and oceans, is the fact that they are almost inevitably government employees.

4. . The essay cites more than once the lower quality of public school teachers when compared with their confreres in the more private systems. In a free market, that sort of failing is addressed by the gradation of salaries according to job performance. Even in the public sector, that rational approach is sometimes employed. The US military, for example, pays increments for everything from qualification as a parachutist to the ability to speak a second language. The pay enhances capacity and performance. Yet -- I just know -- if the spectre of performance pay for teachers were raised, it would be opposed as a further imposition of divisive capitalist norms on a well-intentioned, failing system of education. The inept teacher would be more deserving of protection than the under-served student.

5. At the level of higher education, many solutions to the cited problems are available. You will recall that Jews in the US, denied access to the Ivy League, made the New York public colleges models of underfunded, intellectually glorious institutions. Similarly, poor Asians across the US bring their academic excellence with them to less prestigious public schools. Their very presence enhances the institutions. Protesting one's inability to gain admission to PUC is less effectual that taking the Chilean version of a Kaplan course. In the American model, the Ivy League, confronted with the promise, achievements and growing influence of those whom it had rejected, adjusted its admissions policies in order to avoid becoming a dumping ground for the stupid privileged. As recent world history has made clear, that process is sadly incomplete, but its force and direction are undeniable.

All of which is to say, Ms Arango (did I mention what a good expository writer she is?) and her sources might have identified aspects of the Chilean education system in need of improvement, but they have not made the case for tearing up the blueprint and beginning anew.

Regarding "China’s Claim in Latin America: So Far, a Partner not a Threat"

2008-07-30T07:17:00.000-07:00

The Jaime Heine (related to the poet?) article regarding Chinese trade in Latin America, seems to me to tacitly pose the central question in US-Chinese third world trade competition: which trading partner is better for the people in the third world. As you know, the Chinese have demonstrated a willingness to trade with and support any tyrant, no matter how bloody toward his own subjects or threatening toward his neighbors. Chinese policy in Zimbabwe and Iran are models of that policy, though it is replicated in many other places. Simply, the Chinese assert that they are in those places to make a buck, not to advance any particular norm of governmental behavior. That a moral policy makes China a welcome trading partner to dreadful types across the globe, and in most cases, makes China an enabler of pariah governments.

By contrast, the US has struggled constantly and openly with the question of trade and the moral burdens that attend it. Thus, we sometimes trade with dictators and sometimes do not. When we do trade, we press, with varying degrees of effectualness and sincerity, for higher standards of humane governance. I prefer the Chinese model, in which business is simply business; it seems to me a less impeded route out of poverty. Naturally,I acknowledge the moral ledge on which such a policy is balanced. I would defend my position by pointing to the hundreds of millions killed in the name of utopian planning: they far outnumber the people murdered by free trade. Opposite to my line of thinking, COHA has consistently held that trade imposes grave obligations on the US to press democratic development on our more benighted trading partners, even if that development leaves them as wards of the international community.

Curiously, though, the Heine article appears to welcome the increased momentum of the Chinese model.

So, what do you want? Trade free of moral cant and posturing, as the Chinese offer? Or the conflicted American model in which we dither constantly between doing business and moral agonizing?
- usually not doing either particulary well.

Congressional Action on Cross Border

2008-07-30T07:14:00.000-07:00

On 9/11/07 Sen Cornyn of Texas introduced an amendment to the Omnibus Spending Bill, HR-3074 (Amendment 2842) that "would ensure that every motor carrier entering the United States through the cross-border motor carrier demonstration program is inspected and meets all applicable safety standards established for United States commercial motor vehicles"

It was defeated by a vote of 29/69. Voting for the amendment was Thomas Carper (D-Del) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) One the Republican side, 27 voted for the amendment, which was a logical compromise. They were, Lamar Alexander, Wayne Allard, Robert Bennett, Kit Bond,
Jim Bunning, Richard Burr, Saxby Chambliss, Thad Cochran, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, John Cornyn, Michael Crapo, Jim DeMint, Pete Domenici, Charles Grassley, Judd Gregg, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Johnny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Trent Lott, Richard Lugar, Mel Martinez, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Ted Stevens, John Sununu, David Vitter

Earlier the Dorgan Amendment was introduced, (2797) It passed, as we know by 75/23. The vote on the Democratic side of the aisle was unanimous at 49. 25 Republicans voted for the original Dorgan Amendment.

Those opposing the original Dorgan Amendment were Wayne Allard, Robert Bennett, Kit Bond, Jim Bunning, Richard Burr, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Jim DeMint, Pete Domenici, Charles Grassley, Judd Gregg, Chuck Hagel, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jon Kyl, Trent Lott, Richard Lugar, Mel Martinez, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Ted Stevens, John Sununu, David Vitter. John McCain and Larry Craig abstained.

This was the Bill were the now infamous word "establish" was used as a supposed "catch all".

I haven't found the specific vote count on the new amendment yet but the committee members are as follows. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out who did what unless they flipped.

Democratic Subcommittee Members:

- Senator Patty Murray (Chairman) (WA)
- Senator Robert C. Byrd (WV)
- Senator Barbara Mikulski (MD)
- Senator Herb Kohl (WI)
- Senator Richard Durbin (IL)
- Senator Byron Dorgan (ND)
- Senator Patrick Leahy (VT)
- Senator Tom Harkin (IA)
- Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA)
- Senator Tim Johnson (SD)
- Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ)

Republican Subcommittee Members:

- Senator Christopher Bond (Ranking Member) (MO)
- Senator Richard Shelby (AL)
- Senator Arlen Specter (PA)
- Senator Robert Bennett (UT)
- Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)
- Senator Sam Brownback (KS)
- Senator Ted Stevens (AK)
- Senator Pete Domenici (NM)
- Senator Lamar Alexander (TN)
- Senator Wayne Allard (CO)

Sent to COHA on July 30, 2008 by Porter M. Corn

Regarding A New Approach to Economic Development

2008-07-18T11:00:00.000-07:00

On June 17, 2008 The Guardian published an article entitled "Latin America's poor provide rich pickings" which detailed a new approach for economic development in Latin America's most impoverished regions. COHA Research Associate Chris Sweeney wrote the following letter to the editor in response.

The Base of the Pyramid (BoP) approach certainly has the potential to bring economic development to the poorest areas in Latin America. This business model provides an effective way to bring essential goods and services to those most in need; it bypasses the inefficiencies of government aid by cutting out state involvement altogether. Still, BoP runs the risk that any market-led approach to development faces – the systemic continuation of an uneven class divide. The poor may benefit from newfound employment opportunities, but as long as the profits they generate are repatriated to wealthy multinational corporations, current inequalities will persist and even worsen. In the short run, BoP may be a positive step because it improves the living conditions of the poor by providing them with the chance to compete in the outer limits of the business world. However this is only a small step and not a sufficient solution. The challenge for the future will be to find a way to distribute not just wages, but profits more equitably.

Chris Sweeney; Research Associate
Council on Hemispheric Affairs

To read the full Guardian article, please go to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/17/latinamericanpoor

Regarding Canadian Tar Sands

2008-07-17T09:24:00.000-07:00

On May 22nd, 2008 Time Magazine published an article titled “Well-Oiled Machine” which detailed the renewed interest Canada’s tar sands are receiving as the price of oil skyrockets. COHA Research Associate Stephen Okin wrote the following letter to the editor in response.

Dear Editor,

Looking at the size of the mine shovel behind Pat Crisby makes me wonder how far mankind is willing to go in its quest for oil (“Well-Oiled Machine,” May 22). The pyramids of Giza and the Great Wall of China are monumental engineering achievements that added to the natural landscape; however, the consumption of tar sands in Althabasca threatens to destroy a territory the size of England and turn Alberta into a desert due to the large amounts of water required for the process. This is an amazing feat of engineering in scale but not in purpose. A more impressive achievement would be a world where fossil fuels are no longer the dominant energy source. Besides the obvious environmental benefits, sustainable energy results in stable jobs and economic growth. This is in contrast to the oil industry, which experiences constant fluctuations as sources come online, peak, and then slowly decline. Althabasca’s tar sands will provide only temporary gains in oil production and economic growth at a permanent cost to the environment. Alberta authorities would be wise to invest a major part of revenue from oil taxes into a serious sustainable development program.

Stephen Okin,
Council on Hemispheric Affairs Research Associate

To read the full Time Magazine article, go to:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1808610,00.html

COHA responds to the San Francisco Chronicle's, “Venezuela weapons worry US, Colombia” (May 16th, 2008)

2008-07-17T08:37:00.000-07:00

In an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle on May 16th, 2008, AP reporter Christopher Toothaker contended that the Venezuelan military build-up was cause for alarm. COHA Research Associate Jessica Bryant's response follows:

Newspaper accounts of Venezuela’s military buildup often paint a picture that is more alarming than accurate. Christopher Toothaker’s article “Venezuela weapons worry US, Colombia” (May 16^th) may provide an example of this. His reference to a military analyst’s opinion that the arms that Venezuela is now acquiring are, “just the sorts of weapons that the FARC would find interesting since these are the standard tools of guerrilla warfare” could easily be said of the more than $5 billion of weapons and aid that Washington currently supplies to Bogotá and adds nothing to an understanding of the situation.

Additionally, your author fails to contextualize his story within the history of defense spending in the region. He could have revealed how links between Colombian officials and rightist paramilitary groups render Caracas’ apprehensions over US military aid to their neighbor entirely credible. Toothaker fails to turn a critical eye in all directions, overlooking US support of an ill-conceived plot to overthrow President Chavez in 2002.

While Chávez’s modus operandi has favored haranguing leaders with whom he disagrees, he has yet to manifest this in a threatening manner. Recent Interpol findings that Venezuelan officials funded and supplied weapons to the FARC certainly warrant further investigation but are not conclusive. It would be wise to maintain rhetoric that generates more light than heat.

Regarding "A Hidden Agenda: John McCain and the IRI"

2008-07-01T06:52:00.000-07:00

I read the COHA article on IRI activities in Latin America. Whatever one might think of what this institution does or is capable of doing, the idea that Latin America's "lost decade" would not have occurred without the IRI is not credible.

The "lost decade" of Latin America was attended by an equally lost decade in the state of Texas and in other economies where raw materials played very important roles After rapid increases in the price of oil and other commodities during the 1970s, prices fell hard in the early 1980s - plunging in the late 80s. Countries that depended on these sales for tax revenues began to default on their government's debt. Of course these same problems caused difficulties in the private sector. As the poor got poorer, and even the rich did, political strife became common across Latin America. Everybody wanted to grab what was left. It isn't for me to be telling anybody about the effects of IRI activies, but I am certain that much of the conflict was a reaction to these price shocks and resulting income shocks. While it is interesting to read about the IRI as a conduit for politically charged money, turbulent world commodity markets and subsequent sovereign debt defaults would have been plenty by themselves to cause a lost decade. This is not rocket science. Just access databases of the prices for oil, copper, gas, iron, or soybeans.

However, the easiest way of figuring this all out is through each country's terms of trade statistics. Most people don't quite understand what "terms of trade" means. Terms of trade is simply the ratio of the prices of things that a country exports to the prices of things that a country imports. Just go to the World Bank's World Development Indicators, pick out an assortment of Latin American countries, and then command the database to produce terms of trade statistics from the late 1960s to the present. I just did this. I punched in the names of each of Latin America's seven largest countries - (in order of population size) Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, and Chile. Terms of trade fall throughout the 1980s and are at their worse in the second half of the decade. Try this and I think that you will not have the slightest difficulty deciding what the lost decade was really about.

William Gruber

In response to "A Hidden Agenda: John McCain and the IRI," by COHA Research Associate Sarah Hamburger.

Sarah Hamburger's response:

Mr. Gruben,

You have obviously considered my article thoughtfully and your explanation of the “lost decade” in Latin America was clarifying. I regret it if I was not clear enough in my article. My intention was never to imply that the lost decade was a result of the IRI, in fact the events I spoke of regarding Haiti and Venezuela took place in the 2000s, not the 80s and 90s. My point is that the IRI illegally intervenes in the affairs of sovereign nations, which is a violation of international law. The “lost decade” portion of the piece was just a brief statement about the auspices under which the IRI was founded (essentially, it is an organization based on a speech by President Reagan, a man with a demonstrably disastrous Latin American policy with Iran-Contra and the Salvadoran Civil War). I appreciate your response.

-Sarah Hamburger

Regarding "Immigration Compromise Too Little Too Late"

2008-04-29T08:52:00.000-07:00

Greetings Mr. Racheotes,

In response to your piece "Immigration Compromise, too little too late...." from July 26th, 2007, I would like to present to you some real questions that I believe truly reflect the will of the American People. I would like to preface w/the fact that I'm a 34 year old, African-American, from Kansas. I lived in Mexico City as an exchange student during my senior year in high school and loved my familia Mexicana so much that I returned on 3 different occasions to have 12-16 weeks 'live-in' visits with them. As a younger man, I witnessed first hand Mexico's foray into the global economy, NAFTA and to Mexico's present day GDP ranking 12th in the world according to the World Bank. I know as well, as you, that Mexico is not a poor country, but has a lot of her citizens who live in poverty, thus my email to you today. Poverty, my friend, is the greatest enemy of the people on both sides of the border and here is where my question's come in to you. In your article you outline the common political argument's and/or sound bytes, such as, American's losing job's, wages being depressed, the 'criminalization' of people who enter illegally, that 'nativists' or restrictionist are a recent phenomena, immigrant's don't assimilate, the environmental impact and the war on terror. I would like to present to you the following questions, because as an American, I often feel that the actual American people are not consulted in this as it seems only migrant's, first or second generation, their lobbyist or the politicians seem to be the only voices heard on the matter.

So, Mr. Racheotes, is it not true that that this is largely an issue between The United States and Mexico? Our proximity,history, present and our future is our commonality. Mexico, is by far the largest source of illegal immigration, because the masses from say Lithuania, Haiti or Guatemala, don't have the option of walking through the deserts, mountains or rivers to reach the promise land. Also doesn't Mexico have 47 consular offices throughout the U.S.? So, in my opinion, we should give Mexico what she's been begging for all along a 'special' agreement between the two lands allowing for the free flow of people, as well as goods and services between the two nations. However, this could only happen if we can get Mexico's people, her pro-immigration lobby and President Calderone on board with channeling of their energies into real change in their house FIRST!!! On a micro scale, you and I are neighbors and I'm living in modest house on a meager existence and you have much the same, except your existence isn't so meager and your house is 13 times the size of my house. Your family is large with 1/2 of them doing really well, but the other 1/2 struggling to survive on a daily basis and really they don't have anything. My family, while also large is doing quite well, with only about 10% living in poverty, but opportunity exists to affect change. Because I have more does not give you carte blanche access to my house to further yourself and your needs. It would only be proper for you to knock on the front door and await my permissions to enter. Correct? On a macro scale, The US has acted with impunity or imperialistically in her historic actions and yes, we did take land from Mexico 160 years ago, but we all have to come to terms with the our present. The US also allowed slavery until shortly after this war, a morally bankrupted policy, but it is our American History. So,my point is if Mexico feels that she needs her land back, that should have been addressed centuries ago. So, geopolitics has altered the landscape and the outlook of some of it's inhabitants, but we common American's see such much energy being focused on changing our government's policies, but see no effort's in Mexico City to change the outlook of her peoples, to stamp out corruption and the lack of transparency. It would be nice for the American people to know that there is just as much passion for change at home as well as here, but we do not see this. We see millions of Mexican flags waving in the streets, millions of Mexican dollars being spent on immigration lobbying (sustaining those remittances, no doubt), even branding their efforts as Ya! Ciuadana! Also, according the an email from sarajuanavir.sre.gob.mx, if I attempt to enter Mexico City without a passport, I will be detained, arrested and deported for violating the entry requirements for La Republica Mexicana. She also went on to detail that if I purchase a home in Mexico, I'm required to pay taxes on my property but am not allowed to work without the proper permissions of their government. Again, a violation of Mexican law, which is criminally punishable and a deportable offense. So, in short, it feels as if many Open Borders Advocacy groups want the very thing that even their home country will not permit. I know first hand that many citizens in and from Mexico cry racists because US immigration policy doesn't work in their favor, yet many Guatemalans and Cubans are picked up by Mexico's department of Immigration Control and guess what, detained and then shipped back to their home base. As an African-American, I've also witnessed the cultural racism that exists in Mexico towards the Indian populous and even the attitudes towards the children of Africa who've been scattered throughout the earth. Another question or actually concern of the average American, is the immigrants who want so desperately to cling to their national identity. It's rather unsettling to know that I live in an area where a large percentage of my 'neighbors' are really concerned about our great nation first and foremost. I understand dual loyalties or even divided, but when a people live in a place that they have no allegiance too, it's quite disturbing. Of course I know that a lot of what we are experiencing in these times has a lot to do with globalization. But, I believe the average everyday American would like our Southern neighbors to love their country more so and not be afraid to live there and to be enabled to thrive there, like Canada. Again, it's the ruling superclass on both sides of the Rio that are going to have an awful future to face if they continually ignore the plight of the people. But it is absolutely not fair for one to dump their poor on the other.

Best Regards,

Derrick Osborne

Regarding "Macedonia: Reaching Out To Win Latin American Hearts and Minds"

2008-04-07T11:16:00.000-07:00

Zlatko Kovach, in his Macedonia: Reaching Out To Win L. American Hearts, proves one more time that he is the product of the continuous brainwashing condition and lies, provided by an education system which emerged from a Balkan nation, under Tito’s and Stalin’s tutelage.

Mr. Kovach begins his elaborations, stating: “Macedonia historically and culturally did transcend the country's current borders. In 1912-13, through two brutal regional wars, Macedonia was forcefully partitioned among Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. The Macedonians were subject to qualified genocide and many were driven from their land. It is this reality that Greece tirelessly tries to cover up.” Mr. Kovach fails to bring up that during the Ottoman era which lasted for five hundred years and ended in 1912 in that area, there was no use of the term Macedonia (meaning the boundaries of the geographic or ancient Macedonia). Ancient Macedonia was divided in two vilaets, the vilaet of Thessaloniki and the vilaet of Monastiri (Bitola). Skopje was the capital of the Kosovo vilaet and was never included in the so-called geographic Macedonia.

The author of this article is referring to the Slavic element that existed in Macedonia as part of a “Macedonian” nation whose people were wronged and “were subject to qualified genocide and many were driven from their land.” He however fails to explain why there was no “Macedonian ARMY” to fight for the rights of the supposed “ethnic Macedonians” during the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. In addition during the negotiating talks of the Bucharest Treaty, which determined today’s borders with Greece’s neighbors, there were no representatives of any “Macedonian Nation”. The 1914 Carnegie Report (Report of the International Commission to Report on the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars) not only did not record the existence of a “Macedonian” army, but neither did it record the existence of any “ethnic Macedonian” civilians.

The Slavs did not arrive in the region until the sixth century AD. Until 1944, the area that is now legally referred to as the FYROM was called "Vardarska Banovina" until the Hellenic name of Macedonia was usurped by Marshall Broz Tito. According to Interim Accord (Sept. 13, 1995) and under the aegis of UN (UN Resolutions #817 of April 7 and #845 of June 18) of the year 1993, the temporary name until both countries, Greece and the aforementioned state, reach a permanent solution about this issue, is “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, or simply The FYROM. The Interim Accord was signed by BOTH Greece and The FYROM, and its purpose was to find a name for the aforementioned country.

“…Greece labeled any use of Alexander the Great’s name by Macedonia as hostile propaganda…it was the Macedonian forces of Alexander the Great, led by his father King Philip II of Macedon, that beat the entire Greek army at Chaeronia in B.C. and conquered the modern Greeks’ ancestors,” writes Mr. Kovach. The author however, plunged into oblivion that the FYROM propaganda machination has provided for him, does not understand that his government’s actions over the years, such as distortions of geographic maps, revision of textbooks in their schoolbooks, renaming of their airport “Alexander the Great,” create hostility and animosity among their youth which is lacking knowledge to mainstream history. These actions and not Greece’s are the true threats to stability and have become the obstacle to their accession into EU and NATO.

The FYROM is a small country in the southern Balkans with very serious external and internal problems. It is the only country in Europe that succeeded in having open serious conflicts, with no prospect of resolution, with each of its four neighbors. Incredibly however, they have an entirely different type of conflict with each one of these neighbors.

In the north with Serbia who is a member State with The Partnership for Peace and an aspiring new NATO member, they have an open conflict with their schismatic illegal church, the so-called “Macedonian Orthodox Church” and this fact has angered their Serbian northern neighbor.

On the eastern side Bulgaria, a NATO member, does not recognize the so-called “Macedonians” as a distinct nation, nor a “Macedonian” language and accuses the FYROM of stealing its history. Amazingly enough The FYROM currently seems to have claims either linguistically or ethnologically to approximately 20% of the territory of this NATO ally of ours, Bulgaria.

On the west side the citizens of Albania clearly do not consider, and rightfully so, that 25% of the population of The FYROM should be called “Macedonians.” They consider them their Albanian brethren.

In the south they succeeded in angering Greece, and especially us, the true Macedonians, by using our identity and stealing our glorious history. After all Alexander the Great the Macedonian, spoke Greek, used the Hellenic alphabet, carried Homer’s works with him and spread the Hellenic language and civilization throughout the then known world. He did not speak the Bulgarian dialect that The FYROM people speak; he did not use the Cyrillic alphabet, which had not even appeared till about one thousand years after his death. Alexander the Great is our Abraham Lincoln, as he united the North and the South of the Hellenic World under Hellas.

Mr. Kovach seems to forget something very important. The Greek businesses that exist in his country right now have created over 30.000 jobs in FYROM’s depleted economy. Greece actually is helping its neighboring country to prosper economically and is guiding the FYROM on its way to EU and NATO, under one condition: the Slavs cannot be ethnically, linguistically or culturally Macedonians simply because they did not exist in this area until the 6^th century AD, when they descended from Siberia and settled there. The Hellenic name Macedonia, which had always identified the northern area of Greece, preceded the introduction of the majority Slavic population of The FYROM in the Balkans by well over 2000 years. It is therefore of utmost importance that their nationality and language does not include the term “Macedonian.”

The author continuing the myth which he learned in the schooling he received, writes: “Greece is administratively divided into thirteen regions, three of which include the word Macedonia: "Region of Western Macedonia", "Region of Central Macedonia" and "Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace", but take notice that none of the regions are named simply "Macedonia." The liberation of present day Greece

from the Ottomans did not happen simultaneously in all former Greek territories, but it happened in different stages. In 1912-13, parts of Macedonia and Epirus were liberated. Since then Macedonia has been called as such. In fact, the first administrator in Thessaloniki in 1913 was called “Governor of Macedonia”. The term Northern Greece was ONLY for the Greek Ministry in Thessaloniki, because it included the region of Thrace as well. The Minister of this part of the Greek mainland is therefore called, the Minister of Macedonia and Thrace.

We agree that every country has the right to exist and find a proper name for itself, as long as no other ethnic group had previously rights to the same name. No German would allow a non-German ethnicity to call itself Bavarian. Therefore it is impossible for Greece to allow any non-Greek people identified as Macedonian, because the name implies Greek identity. The same would be true for Peloponnesus/Peloponnesians, Thessaly/Thessalians, etc., all being parts of the Hellenic world and identity for thousands of years. The name Macedonia/Macedonian has been copyrighted by Greece for thousands of years. Greece used the self-determination right first and she named one of her provinces Macedonia, first.

The analysis was prepared by Professor Nina Gatzoulis, President of the Pan-Macedonian Association and edited by Dr. Antonios Papadopoulos, Vice-President of the Pan-Macedonian Association.

Regarding "Macedonia: Reaching Out To Win Latin American Hearts and Minds"

2008-03-24T08:54:00.000-07:00

The points made by Zlatko Kovach in Op-Ed piece, Macedonia: Reaching Out to Win Latin American Hearts and Minds, have been responded to by the Ambassador of Greece to the United States of America, Alexandros P. Mallias, in the following letter.

March 19, 2008

I must admit that Zlatko Kovach’s article entitled “Macedonia: Reaching out to win Latin American Hearts and Minds,” published on February 25, 2008, left me with a strong sense of surprise and amazement.

Aside from questioning Mr. Kovach’s dubious historical references regarding Greece as well as his own country, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), the article fails to acknowledge Greece’s significant role in the political and economic stability of FYROM and gives, I am afraid, COHA readers the wrong impression about Greece’s true role in the Balkan region.

As a longstanding EU and NATO member, Greece is a strong advocate of these organizations’ perspective as well as a supporter of the FYROM’s political, social and economic stability. In fact, Greece is currently the largest investor in FYROM, with over $1 billion of its capital invested there, translating to more than 30,000 jobs. Moreover, through the Hellenic Plan for the Economic Reconstruction of the Balkans (HiPERB), Greece has pledged the amount of approximately $112,260,000 of development aid for FYROM.

FYROM joined the United Nations and all relevant UN Agencies and Bodies under this official international name. UN Security Council Resolution 817 (1993) specifically provides that “the difference over the name of the state (i.e. FYROM) needs to be resolved in the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good neighborly relations in the region.”

FYROM, therefore, participates in all international organizations and conferences under this official name. Indeed, it is under that name that it established relations with the European Union and NATO, and gained membership to the Organization for the Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In fact, no single regional or international organization refers to FYROM by any other name. Greece does abide with UN Resolutions 817 and 845 and seeks a solution to the name issue within the United Nations framework.

Your article also fails to recognize that Greece’s stance has very strong support in the United States Congress, which can be no mere coincidence. Senate Resolution 300, introduced by Senator Robert Menendez, and co-sponsored by Senators Barack Obama and Olympia Snowe, urges FYROM to cease hostile activities and propaganda against Greece, and reach a mutually acceptable solution. In addition, over 115 Congressmen have thus far co-sponsored House Resolution 356 on the same topic in the House of Representatives.

Crucial and delicate negotiations are currently in progress under the United Nations auspices, and intensive diplomatic efforts are required on both sides to reach a mutually acceptable solution prior to the upcoming NATO Summit in April 2008. The Greek government has taken a significant step towards that direction by announcing Greece’s readiness to accept a composite name for the FYROM with a geographic qualifier.

It is now time for FYROM and its leadership to reach out and demonstrate the political maturity, which will bring an end to the name issue, and clear the path to its European and NATO perspective. Mr. Kovach may still argue that the current United Nations process, as provided for by the UN Security Council Resolutions 817(1993) and 845(1993), is unfair to his country. But he will once again have forgotten that, as an aspiring EU and NATO member, FYROM needs, first of all, to realize that abiding with international law obligations is not an “artificial dispute” imposed by Greece, but rather a fundamental code of conduct, which applies to all.

Jorge Luis Borges once said: “For the longest time, my contemporaries are the Greeks”, which in itself sums up the profound cultural, intellectual and spiritual bonds between Greece and Latin America. Greece’s longstanding relationship with Latin American countries is furthermore characterized by strong historic ties of friendship, solidarity and cooperation. Despite the geographical distance, Greece and Latin American countries have forged a close bond between their peoples by sharing and defending precious common values, such as security, democracy and peace, concepts enshrined in the UN and OAS Charters.

I am confident that the friendly Latin American countries understand that Greece greatly respects the identity and culture of others. I am also confident that they also understand the importance for countries, which claim to abide by the rules of international law, to also act so, in order to respect the historic and cultural heritage of their neighbors, and not systematically engage in provocative propaganda prejudicial to the fundamental principle of good neighborliness. I am afraid that at this time, this is the case with FYROM’s policies vis-a-vis Greece.

*******

COHA's response to commentary on the FTAs piece

2007-12-10T13:58:00.000-08:00

COHA would like to thank its readers for their contribution to the debate on Free Trade Agreements.

(See COHA press release Peru, Yes; Colombia? Free Trade Agreements: Lessons from Latin America’s Recent Past)

--------------------------------------

Regarding Hugo Fitch’s comments:

“LatAm is better educated than you think. It’s not just economists like Rafael Correa, but the Argentinian government, and the bitter experience of the poor of the whole continent that can demonstrate what these deals really mean - more inequality. Please don’t be so dismissive of those who oppose FTAs. If the US wants favourable deals it must concede rights to nations who cannot afford to subsidise their own markets on the US/EU models, namely the chance to protect them with specific tariffs. But such deals are never put on the table, because FTAs are not about fairness but profit and buying influence to stop LatAm working together for itself.”

Of course Mr. Fitch is correct.

COHA was not trying to be dismissive of those who oppose FTAs with the U.S. Actually, the piece describes the viewpoints of those who oppose U.S.-backed FTAs: the "TLC: Así No" movement in Peru, the opposition by Colombian leaders, the comments by an economist in Chile who opposes the current U.S.-Chile FTA, among others.

There are many well-prepared economists in the region who deserve credit. Unfortunately, those Latin American economists and leaders who disagree with the conditions of U.S.-backed FTAs usually do not get to sit at the negotiation table.

--------------------------------------

Regarding Richard Vizor’s comments:

“But to categorically state that there were massive human rights violations during Garcia’s first term is nonsense and totally incorrect. If they want to find massive, tell them to look up Fujimorii’s tenure and, the actions of Montesino. In fact, this is what Fujimori’s is most favorably known for in Peru … he stopped the Sendero. It certainly was not Garcia who had already vacated power BEFORE the most gruesome of the Sendero’s actions (and, the Government’s reactions to them). Get your facts straightened out, Messrs. COHA!!!”

Of course, he is right in saying that Fujimori was far more guilty than Garcia in sanctioning the murder of thousands of members of Sendero and those thought to be their sympathizers. But here are some facts that suggest that Garcia was guilty of rights violations during his first term in office and never had to answer them.

-According to the U.N., in 1987 there were 559 forced disappearances worldwide, of which 133 (nearly one fourth), occurred in Peru. During Garcia’s term, Peru had the highest number of forced disappearances in the world.

-Human Rights Watch says in a report: “García first served as president from 1985 to 1990, at the height of a bloody civil conflict in which an estimated 69,000 people lost their lives, many of them victims of atrocities committed by irregular armed groups and by government forces.”

-Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported that the armed forces were responsible for 28 percent of the 69,280 who were killed or disappeared.

-Salomon Lerner, president of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, said “We have reconstructed history and we have reached the conclusion that it would not have been so grave if it were not for the indifference, passivity, and simple ineptness of those who held the highest political office at the time.”

For all of his bluster, President Garcia’s record deserves close examination and not plaudits.

--------------------------------------

Regarding jb’s comments:

“This FTA request was initiated by the Toledo administration. Had Congress not played politics and delayed this approval (only to rub it in Bush’s nose) it would have been approved while Alejandro Toledo was still in office. Toledo was never a part of any dirty war.”

Toledo was never a part of any dirty war and he did initiate the FTA request. But Toledo introduced the FTA with the U.S. to the legislature during his final months in office. Peru’s push for the deal has taken place mostly during Garcia’s second term. Therefore, Garcia will be willing to interpret the approval of the trade deal as his own political success.