www.washingtonpost.com Send your comments, questions, and tips to Marcela Sanchez. Envie sus comentarios, preguntas e ideas a Marcela Sanchez. Special to washingtonpost.com Thursday, January 9, 2003; 12:15 PM

After receiving a travel permit "inexplicably," Cuban dissident Oswaldo Payá arrived in Washington this week. He came by way of Europe determined to continue spreading the word about the difficulties of life on an island where, he said, one can feel imprisoned without being in prison. He had an audience with no less than the U.S. secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, among others. Score one--a big one--for the Cuban opposition, many would say.

Yet even before Payá could set foot on the sidewalk at the State Department's headquarters, his Varela Project that collects signatures in favor of a peaceful and democratic transition on the island was under criticism from a familiar stronghold of Cuban diplomacy--Miami's Little Havana.

A group of Cuban American organizations cast doubt on the value of Paya's meeting, asserting over the weekend that the Varela Project "would legitimize the absolute powers and abuses" by the Castro government and "undermine" the work of other democracy groups.

Not everyone in Little Havana agreed with that view, yet the message seemed to strike the same tone critical of the Bush administration that came this week from the traditional Cuban American leadership voices in this capital. In numerous interviews, they complained anew of the lack of a clear White House policy for the hemisphere-including, of course, Cuba.

Much of Latin America looks to the beginning of Bush's third year with skepticism. It is understandable that Mexicans and Argentines speak of White House neglect. It is rather startling that Cuban Americans do so, too.

Bush, after all, began his term expressing gratitude for the Cuban American support that helped put him there, particularly that from South Florida. He made Mel R. Martinez the first Cuban American named to a Cabinet-level position and selected another, Otto J. Reich, to direct U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. He ignored criticism that he was paying a political debt by handing the Latin America portfolio to Cuban exiles.

The verbal dustup over the last several days here was further proof to some that U.S. policymakers are distancing themselves from Little Havana. It was also a sign that U.S. economic interests seeking to end the trade embargo are having more influence on U.S. Cuba policy. This explains why Cuban-American leaders once thought to have ample influence at the White House are becoming more openly dissatisfied with Bush, even as he pursues an international campaign against terrorism.

Cuba is the only country in the hemisphere on the U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism, they argue, and also has some capability to develop biological weapons. It spies on the United States and offers refuge to terrorists, they add. Doesn't that justify a more aggressive policy toward the Castro regime?

Yet the fact is that the Bush administration has arguably been no tougher on Cuba than its predecessors were. And Reich's appointment, forced to be temporary because of congressional opposition, has lapsed. On Thursday, the White House appointed him to a new post in the National Security Council not requiring congressional confirmation.

In response to the criticism of the meeting with Payá, a State Department spokesman said the session provided a rare opportunity to become familiar with the efforts of one very well-known leader of the freedom movement in Cuba, and added that Cuba now has a "constellation" of such activists worthy of recognition.

Another official acknowledged that the Cuban American community expects Bush to do more. But he insisted that Bush would continue to keep tough trade restrictions on the island, even though the official agreed with Payá that the solution for Cuba needs to become "de-Americanized." Neither the embargo, nor more tourists, investors or trade will be factors for change, said Payá, if Cubans continue living in fear and exclusion.

More than 40 years should have been enough to make it clear that the hard-line U.S. anti-Castro policy has not resulted in the hoped-for democratic changes on the island. And it is precisely for that reason that some here suspect that the real aim of the Cuban American community, and its emphasis on Castro as a terrorist threat, is to assure that these very policies will not be softened, even as more voices, especially in Congress, are calling for just that.

The real problem here may be one of expectations, of those looking to Washington to deliver more than it really can. The Cuban American community, as well as those from other Latin American countries in crisis, must accept a difficult reality: Often true change comes only from within, from initiatives like those of Payá, no matter how modest they may seem.

www.washingtonpost.com A pedestrian passes by graffiti that reads "Chavez won't leave," referring to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

By Scott Wilson Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, January 15, 2003; Page A10

CARACAS, Venezuela, Jan. 14 -- The opposition movement seeking to push President Hugo Chavez from office has scaled back its demands for lifting a 44-day-old general strike while quietly signaling to some hard-hit Venezuelan businessmen that they should reopen their doors.

Since the strike began Dec. 2, a diverse opposition, emboldened by large street demonstrations and key industry support, has called on Chavez to resign or hold new elections within months as conditions for lifting the protest. Both demands have been ruled out by the twice-elected president. But the opposition has held firm since the oil industry, which provides the government with almost half of its $20 billion annual budget, joined the strike in its early days and gave Chavez's opponents their strongest weapon.

In recent weeks, however, Chavez has cobbled together a temporary supply system that has kept this country of 23 million in gasoline and food, albeit at enormous inconvenience to the public and a high financial cost to the government. Now confident he has bested his opponents, Chavez has little incentive to compromise and end a standoff that has thrown the third-largest U.S. oil supplier into political unrest, according to several of the president's adversaries and allies.

The hardening government position was reflected in comments today by Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel, who ruled out compromise proposals in a meeting with foreign reporters. This has prompted many businesses sympathetic to the opposition to question whether Chavez is suffering the greater financial hardship.

In response to mounting frustration, opposition negotiators have softened their position in talks being mediated by Cesar Gaviria, secretary general of the Organization of American States, in hopes ending the strike. Opposition negotiators have dropped their demand that Chavez resign before new elections can be held; they are now focusing on whether a nonbinding referendum scheduled for Feb. 2 could be used to set an early election date.

But the government has refused to give ground, and Rangel today dismissed the opposition as being led by "fascists" and "coup mongers." He said a nonbinding referendum, which must pass high-court review, was unconstitutional and that he would urge government supporters to boycott the vote. He also suggested that it would be hard to pay the roughly $30 million cost of holding the referendum, given economic damage done by the opposition strike.

"We do not recognize it," Rangel said of the referendum. "This strike is a fiction, an obsession by people who want to remove Chavez."

Those comments came as opposition marchers demonstrated in favor of the referendum, which would be the first official public sounding on Chavez's four-year-old administration. Meanwhile, government troops seized weapons and riot gear from Caracas police stations, prompting a fresh fight between the president and the opposition mayor for control of the 8,000-member force.

The mayor, Alfredo Peña, warned in response that he would pull patrols out of the city's most dangerous neighborhoods, where Chavez supporters live. Elected in 1998 on a platform to lift Venezuela's poor majority, Chavez has antagonized the economic elite and many of his middle-class supporters with his authoritarian style and a populist program that his opponents compare to Cuban-style communism.

U.S. diplomats arrived in Ecuador today to begin working with their counterparts from Latin America and Europe to form a "friends of Venezuela" advisory group. The delegation would join Gaviria at the negotiating table, and perhaps offer its own proposal to end the political crisis that has consumed the country for the past year.

The United States has taken a leading role in lobbying for the group, concerned about its oil supply as it prepares for a possible war with Iraq that could strain Middle East oil shipments. Before the strike, Venezuela supplied the United States with 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, about 15 percent of its imports. That has since slowed to a trickle.

But U.S. credibility here is suspect after the White House recognized the interim government that replaced Chavez in a short-lived military coup in April, and more recently endorsed early presidential elections to resolve the crisis even though they are not allowed by the constitution. Washington backed away from that position a few days later, endorsing a less specific "electoral solution" instead.

Chavez has embraced the "friends of Venezuela" proposal in the belief that foreign governments will endorse his legitimacy. But the idea is drawing criticism from opposition negotiators, who have already ruled out Brazil and Colombia as members because they border Venezuela.

"We think it's a mistake," said Rafael Alfonzo, an opposition negotiator. "There is enough on the table right now for a solution if the government wants one. This group is going to comprise equal parts for him and against him. For what? It's not going to change anything."

Despite the government's confidence, the strike has been punishing for a country whose $100 billion economy shrank 7 percent last year. Rafael Ramirez, the minister of energy and mines, announced that the oil strike alone has cost the country $ 4 billion. That includes $105 million that the government has spent to import gasoline, keeping most filling stations open but with lines lasting hours.

The cost to the private sector has also been severe. Opposition leaders have begun telling some businesses privately to do what they need to in order to save themselves while maintaining the public position that the strike is still in place.

"We feel that the right decision is not one that kills the private sector," said Alfonzo, the opposition negotiator who represents Fedecamaras, the national umbrella group of business organizations. "It's pretty much at the individual level now."

More and more businesses have opened in recent weeks, including the Italian restaurant Limoncello. Jose Ornelas, the managing partner, kept the restaurant closed from Dec. 2 until the day after Christmas while continuing to pay employee salaries. He said he lost $100,000.

Ornelas is part of a restaurant federation that belongs to Fedecamaras and that initially supported the strike. After three weeks, however, the restaurant association voted to allow members to reopen on Dec. 26. Ornelas said Fedecamaras approved the move, although it has not announced it.

www.voanews.com James Donahower New York 14 Jan 2003, 19:05 UTC

Listen to James Donahower's report (RealAudio)   Donahower report - Download 436k (RealAudio)  

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton led a day-long conference at New York University on the impact of globalization on the world economy.

In a room filled will foreign dignitaries, policy makers, students and journalists, former President Clinton set the day's agenda with an overview of how the peoples of the world are faring in the era of globalization. In the last 20 years, he said, the global economy has lifted more people out of poverty than ever before, but more than a billion people still go to bed hungry every night.

"We have here a classic good news, bad news story. We couldn't reverse globalization if we wanted to, and it's simply not true that it is the source of all the problems in the world. But it is absolutely true that economics alone will not come close to solving the problems of the world, and that global interdependence means far more than just an increase in trade," Mr. Clinton said.

One of the central questions of the conference is, why has globalization benefited some countries and not others? The discrepancy between how East Asian economies have flourished over the past decade, versus how Latin American economies have struggled, quickly emerged as a paradigm.

Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore's Ambassador to the United Nations, said East Asia's absolute commitment to globalization, and its peoples' enormous appetite for education, has seen it through hard times, and are at the root of its success.

"The economic meltdown in East Asia between 1997 and 2000 was (massive). Despite that, not a single East Asian country has turned its back on globalization. The doors remain open. To keep the doors open after such an economic storm indicates the level of commitment that they have," he said.

Mr. Mahbubani said East Asians feel they have wasted centuries falling behind Europe, and that globalization is their opportunity to catch up.

Plagued by political upheaval and economic chaos, Latin America has not proven so adept at capitalizing on globalization. The economies of Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina, for example, have grown by less than three percent since the early 1990s.

Jorge Castaneda, who just stepped down as Mexico's Foreign Secretary, cites the current crisis in Venezuela which drafted and ratified its constitution just three years ago as representative of what ails Latin American societies as a whole.

"Whatever else one can say about Venezuela today, it would seem that those spanking new institutions do not seem to be particularly helpful or appropriate in solving the very sever social and political divisions that affect Venezuelan society today," he said.

Mr. Castaneda said that until the political institutions in Latin America are altered to better reflect the Latin American people today, it will be difficult to build the kind of consensus that bear effective economic policies.

Panelists agreed, however, that a better system to guide the global economic community in its entirety is required before all countries can find equal footing. The fragile set of international institutions, including the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, may not be enough.

The day-long event also included panels on challenges facing Africa and the Middle East, and the responsibilities of the United States as a globalization leader.

www.upi.com By William M. Reilly From the International Desk Published 1/14/2003 7:46 PM

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 14 (UPI) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, despite threats of famine, conflicts and nuclear proliferation, was optimistic Tuesday at his first 2003 news conference, saying, "We should not see this as an age of threats, but as one of many new opportunities."

In his opening remarks Annan expressed the belief "peace is possible -- in Iraq, in Korea, and even between Israel and Palestine -- if states work together on all these problems, with patience and firmness." He added, "terror can be defeated, too -- if 191 member states of the United Nations pull together to deny terrorists refuge and cut off their funding."

Continuing his optimism, the secretary-general said, "We are within striking distance of reuniting Cyprus, ending the long civil war in Sudan, and pacifying the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- the battleground of what some have called Africa's world war."

However, he admitted the year began with anxiety, "anxiety over the prospect of war in Iraq, over nuclear proliferation in the Korean peninsula, and over what seems like violence without end in the Middle East."

The Secretary-General also pointed to the threat of famine in Africa and the crisis in Venezuela as two issues that needed urgent worldwide attention.

"At the heart of the problem (in Africa) is the crisis in Zimbabwe -- a country which used to be the region's breadbasket, but is now wracked by hunger and HIV/AIDS," he said. "This tragic situation is caused partly by the forces of nature, and partly by mismanagement. The challenge now is for all Zimbabweans to work with each other, and with the international community, to find solutions before it's too late."

Noting his meeting Thursday with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Annan said that for the past 20 years, Latin America had been embracing democracy and turning its back on autocratic forms of government.

"I hope to discuss with him the developments in Venezuela and how one can intensify the mediation efforts to calm the situation and bring it to normalcy," the secretary-general said. "I've spoken to him on the phone, and he knows one should use constitutional and democratic means and that's my message to resolve the crisis, also my message to the opposition." He reminded reporters of the deadly toll from the AIDS epidemic and consequences of climate change.

"And yet, I am still an optimist," Annan said, pointing out the threats were not the first to face the globe. "I believe in the last 10 years or so we have been learning how to cope with them better."

While he did not think, despite the rhetoric, war was imminent in Iraq, he said there were still reports to be had from inspectors and for the council to decide on any possible further action.

"I think that Security Council Resolution 1441 is quite clear that the council will have to meet based on reports from the inspectors to determine what action the council should take," he said. "I would expect that if the inspectors find anything, they will report to the council and the council will take a decision. And depending on that decision, we will all see where we go from there."

However, the secretary-general said the world organization was going ahead with contingency planning in case of a military conflict.

"We are extremely worried about the humanitarian fallout and consequences of any such military action," he said. "Obviously we do not want to be caught unprepared. So we have gone ahead and made contingency plans, and we are in touch with governments that can provide some financial assistance for us to move our preparedness to the next level. But we are worried."

Asked about Iraqi cooperation with inspectors, the secretary-general replied, "in their own analysis of the Iraqi declaration, they have determined that there are major gaps which need to be filled. They have indicated that they would prefer -- and they would expect -- Iraq to be proactive in its cooperation."

He expected that to be at the top of the agenda when chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency Executive chairman Mohammed ElBaradei visit Baghdad next week, prior to the Jan. 27 update to the council.

"They will press for the gaps to be filled in; they will press for Iraq to be more proactive in its cooperation; and they will do whatever needs to be done for them to fulfill their mandate," said Annan.

On the Middle East, he said "I think it is a tragedy that the bloodshed is continuing. That is why the Quartet (of the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States) has been very active in trying to work out a road map," which he expected to be put on the table "as soon as possible -- perhaps in the next month or so."

He did not think the Iraqi problem undermined efforts for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement but "underscored" the need for one.

"I think it is even more important today than ever that the international community energetically tackle the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And that is what I hope the Quartet will do in the coming months." Annan said.

He also said "the Israeli decision was unfortunate" to bar Palestinian delegates from a London conference on Palestinian reform.

"I believe the Palestinian delegates should have been allowed to attend the conference to hear from others what is expected of them and to be given support for the reform of the Palestinian Authority, which the international community has been working with them for a while to assure," said Annan. "So I personally wish they had been allowed to go."

The secretary-general called North Korea's withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty a grave threat to international peace and security.

"North Korea is the first country ever to withdraw from the treaty, and I hope that it will come back into compliance," he said. "The IAEA Board has met to discuss it, and they have given it a bit more time to come into compliance before they decide what the next step should be, including bringing it to the (Security) Council. But they are not going to bring it to the Council immediately. They have given it time to come into compliance."

The secretary-general noted that his envoy Maurice Strong was in North Korea.

"He will be there for a few days having discussions with the leaders," said Annan. "He will focus mainly on the humanitarian issues, but of course he is also available and prepared to listen to any other issues they may want to discuss with him."

usinfo.state.gov Washington File 14 January 2003 State Department Briefing Transcript

................ QUESTION: Can we jump to Venezuela?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. There was a meeting yesterday and today between some opposition leaders and some members of the State Department. I just want to know, there was any agreement on the issues concerning the role of Brazil, the end of the strike, or the electoral solution? And can we expect any announcement in Ecuador concerning the club of "Friends of Gaviria" and the way out to the Venezuelan crisis?

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, that's about five questions. I'll try to remember most of them. First of all, there was a meeting. Our Deputy Assistant Secretary in Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon met with the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers' President Carlos Ortega and the opposition dialogue participant Timoteo Zambrano.

At that -- in that meeting, we reviewed the current state of the dialogue, made clear our point of view, which is to emphasize the efforts of the OAS Secretary General, made clear we were looking for his efforts to result in a peaceful, constitutional, democratic and electoral resolution of the issues and we urged them to remain engaged in the dialogue.

We're not here to substitute ourselves for anyone in the negotiation. The results that you're imagining or hoping for need to be achieved through the parties. And we've urged both parties, both in our contacts with the government, but also in our contacts with the opposition, to cooperate, to work in that process to achieve a peaceful result that benefits the people of Venezuela.

In terms of what may be discussed, may be announced in Quito, no particular prediction right now, but we are working with Brazil, we're working with other hemispheric partners to establish a "Friends of the Secretary General" group that can support the organization's mission to try to achieve resolution of the crisis. That's something we have worked on .

The Secretary has discussed that with various people in his conversations and we'll continue to work on it to try to make sure that the international community, and particularly the people in this hemisphere, are doing everything they can to support the efforts of the OAS Secretary General.

QUESTION: This is now the name of it? It's going to be called, "The Friends of the Secretary General," not "The Friends of Venezuela?" Doesn't the Secretary General have his own friends that he doesn't really need to have a new group of them?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, this is --

QUESTION: Is that -- I mean, is this --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I wouldn't settle any name in stone until it's --

QUESTION: All right. And you're saying you have no --

MR. BOUCHER: -- until it's announced.

QUESTION: And you have no position on opposition to Brazil being a member of the group? Is that what you're saying?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we've pointed out before that Brazil has been one of the participants in this discussion. Certainly the Secretary has discussed this idea with the Brazilian foreign minister when he talked to him a week or so ago, and this -- the earlier idea that did come out of meetings in Brazil was not one we supported because it wasn't directed at supporting the Secretary General, and this one is.

QUESTION: But you think that the inclusion of Brazil would be a good idea?

MR. BOUCHER: We would expect that anybody who would participate in a group designed to support the Secretary General would be there to support the Secretary General. So --

QUESTION: Yeah. That didn't answer the question. You, you think that Brazil should be a member of --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not naming any particular country. I'm just saying who we're working with. I'm trying to avoid endorsing any particular country for the group.

QUESTION: And one more thing on this. These two opposition guys were also -- they either have or are about to meet with Kofi Annan at the UN. President Chavez is going to be up there this week meeting with Secretary General Annan. Are there any plans for any US officials to see President Chavez?

MR. BOUCHER: No. He's -- it's a multilateral meeting in New York to transfer the Presidency of the G77 from Venezuela to Morocco, and we have no bilateral activities scheduled.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. None at all?

MR. BOUCHER: Nor have we had any requests.

Okay.

Sir.

QUESTION: Going back to Venezuela for a second, what were the conclusions of the meeting between Mr. Shannon and representatives?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- as I described the meeting, I described the things that were discussed. I don't think that this kind of meeting is designed to have a particular conclusion. It's a chance for us to hear from them on the state of affairs, on their views of the situation and a chance for us to encourage them to participate fully in the discussions with the Secretary General and try to achieve a resolution.

QUESTION: And what was their main input?

MR. BOUCHER: What was their main input? They're telling us what's going on down there in their view.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Thank you.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)