America's policies in Latin America are of tremendous importance to the strength of the economy and security of our borders. Heritage policy research explores avenues of expanding political and trade relationships with our neighbors to the south.
www.heritage.org by Otto Reich WebMemo #173 October 31, 2002 |
Speech by Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Ambassador Otto J. Reich to The Heritage Foundation, October 31, 2002, Washington, D.C. Introduction My message is that the United States is engaged in Latin America per force of our historical circumstances and by design. We are connected to Latin America, necessarily and happily so. We share historical, cultural, commercial, even familial ties. Most importantly, we are bound together by shared values. Today, there is a consensus in the Americas in favor of democracy. Elected leaders throughout the Americas, except Cuba—today, 98 percent vs. 25 percent 25 years ago. The Inter-American Democratic Charter makes the nations of this hemisphere and the Organization of American States (OAS) unique in the world because of our commitment to democracy. Geography and commerce also create a bond between the United States and the region. The U.S. sells more to Latin America and the Caribbean than to the European Union; Trade with our NAFTA partners is greater than our trade with the EU and Japan combined; We sell more to the Southern Cone, to Mercosur, than to China; and Latin America and the Caribbean comprise our fastest-growing export market. During the Cold War, American statesmen used to say of Europe and NATO, “We are there and we are committed.” One might say of the United States and Latin America today, “We are here and we are committed.” President Bush believes in the future of the Americas, and our policy reflects his confidence and his vision. This is a very exciting time in the history of the Western Hemisphere. We have challenges. But there are also many opportunities. While we’re optimistic, we’re not naive. Leadership will be critical to overcoming the obstacles to progress. The Bush Administration’s agenda for our Hemisphere has four goals:
Security Security, it is often said, is the first function of a state. To make any meaningful progress, people require safety and the assurance that their work to build a better future will not be maliciously destroyed. In the United States, we also know that we will not be safe at home unless our neighborhood is safe, so promoting security in the region is our first priority. The War on Terrorism Led by Brazil and Argentina, our Rio Treaty partners stated that the attacks on the United States were attacks against all the American states. Thirty-two of the 34 OAS member states have also signed a hemispheric convention against terrorism to enhance regional cooperation in the fight against this scourge. We have been working diligently with Canada and Mexico both to secure our borders and facilitate the movement of goods and services on which our economies depend. Colombia We know that some countries in the region have suffered terrorism for far longer. Colombia faces three terrorist groups supported by the profits of narcotics trafficking. These terrorist groups run the ideological gamut from unreconstructed Marxists to the far right, but the FARC, ELN, and AUC are not popular movements. They are after power, control over territory, and the dollars of the drug trade that comes with it. President Bush has enhanced and expanded our military and intelligence assistance to the Colombian government. Colombia can defeat this combination of narcotics traffickers and terrorists, but it needs help from its friends to do it. They need training, arms, equipment, and intelligence to implement a successful military strategy. Our national security and the safety and health of our people depend on their success. Cuba Any discussion of security in the Hemisphere would be incomplete without mentioning the abiding hostility of the Castro regime toward democracy. Castro’s dictatorship is one of the last unreconstructed totalitarian regimes in the world, and his brutal repression of dissent continues unabated.
Historically, the Cuban government has sought to subvert its neighbors, and even today, Castro supports the foes of freedom and menaces the security of the United States at every opportunity.
President Bush believes that the policy of the United States toward Cuba must be guided by our strategic interests and moral principle. In his mind, the issue is clear. The Cuban government must end its hostility, honor the rights of its citizens, and make basic political reforms before the United States resumes normal relations with Cuba.
Democracy and Good Governance After security, our second priority in the region is promoting democracy and good governance. Democracy is more than a periodic election. It is a civic culture. Public integrity, equality before the law, respect for individual rights, economic opportunity, and healthy political institutions are indispensable. Anti-Corruption The challenge in Latin America is for the leadership class to overcome the inertia of “old think,” as the Russians called it during the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are still too many in elite positions who are addicted to power or believe that recycled rhetoric and discredited ideology will solve the problems of their country. There are far too many in elite positions who have not learned that government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. The World Bank correctly identifies corruption “as the single greatest obstacle to economic and social development.” Many countries in the Western Hemisphere exemplify the connection between responsible leadership and progress.
Democracies in Crisis As you know, there are democracies in crisis in our region as well. In Venezuela and Haiti, the failure of leaders to maintain the confidence of their people has led to violence and instability. The solution in both cases lies in strengthening democratic institutions. Venezuela Now is the time for Venezuela’s true democrats—in both the government and the opposition—to demonstrate leadership. As the Head of State, President Chavez has a special obligation to ensure the proper conditions for dialogue and should avail himself of the opportunity presented by Secretary General Gaviria’s mission to defuse political tensions by lowering the level of his rhetoric, disarming irregular armed groups including the Bolivarian Circles, and providing a safe environment for dialogue free of harassment, intimidation, and violence. As Secretary General Gaviria has noted, the direct involvement of active duty military officers in a public political debate is a disturbing development, not only for Venezuela, but also for the hemisphere, and is not consistent with the OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter. The tripartite facilitation effort of the OAS, the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), and the Carter Center to foster dialogue is the best opportunity to achieve national reconciliation. This is a timely opportunity to resolve Venezuela’s political difficulties peacefully, democratically, and constitutionally through an election. Whatever electoral solutions Venezuelans arrive at during dialogue must be free, fair, transparent, and agreed upon by both the government and the opposition. We are encouraged that the government and the opposition will begin constructive talks next week and that OAS Secretary General Gaviria will facilitate those talks. We welcome the efforts of a group of Venezuela National Assembly deputies that support and oppose the government, known as the Boston Group, to seek a peaceful, democratic, and constitutional solution to Venezuela’s political impasse. Haiti In Haiti, the Aristide government faces the prospect of forfeiting its credibility and legitimacy. The government must comply with OAS resolutions and its commitments to its own people. On virtually all fronts—from a timely accounting of its actions taken with respect to the political violence of last December, to ending impunity, to disarmament, to reparations, to counternarcotics, to election security—the government has simply not moved with enough purpose or effectiveness. We are concerned about the well-being of the Haitian people. We are concerned about the strength and legitimacy of institutions that bear the stigma of the flawed elections of 2000. The primary responsibility for addressing Haiti’s political and economic problems rests with the government of Haiti. It is time for that government to live up to its commitments to the Haitian people, who have as much claim to democracy and economic opportunity as any in the Americas. Argentina Argentina is going through one of the worst economic periods in its history. But we have seen that, despite their real suffering, the Argentine people remain committed to democracy. Argentina is a close friend and ally of the United States and an important partner on issues ranging from regional security to counter terrorism, from the Middle East to free markets and trade. We have seen some encouraging signs of macroeconomic stabilization recently and look forward to Argentina, in cooperation with international financial institutions, setting a course that will lead to sustainable economic growth, an outcome all its friends wish for. Development All of the people of the Americas want the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their children. It is clearly in the interest of the United States to see that our neighbors have that opportunity. Our prosperity is tied to the prosperity of the region. That is why President Bush is committed to creating the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Trade is the most effective and rapid means to economic development. Only by taking advantage of the efficiencies offered by the global market can the nations of the Western Hemisphere reduce poverty and accumulate the capital they require to invest in their people and their industries for long-term economic growth. The FTAA will create the largest free market in the world, stretching from Canada to Argentina, including every one of the 800 million people in the Western Hemisphere. As you know, we intend to complete negotiations by January 2005 and bring the agreement into force by the end of that year. The United States looks forward to co-chairing the negotiations, together with our partners in Brazil, beginning next month. Brazilian Foreign Minister Lafer, in a recent editorial, eloquently argued that Brazil had nothing to fear from trade negotiations with the United States and everything to gain. Brazil should be confident of its proven ability to compete in the world market. The principal export of Brazil today is aircraft. The United States is its largest market. I believe we can work together to achieve an agreement that serves the interests of all the people of the Americas. Brazil I would like to take this opportunity to echo President Bush’s congratulations to President-Elect da Silva. Brazil’s recent presidential election has been portrayed by some as a repudiation of liberalizing reform on the part of Latin America’s largest country. I believe that is a misinterpretation. There is a justified frustration on the part of people throughout the Americas with the governments that use the rhetoric of reform but fail to deliver the benefits of reform. However, it is important to remember that vigorous private enterprise, encouraged by open, market-based policies, is the best path toward economic growth and alleviating poverty. President-Elect da Silva is not alone in his commitment to ease the hardships that afflict too many citizens of this hemisphere. The United States wants to work with Brazil and our neighbors to create a prosperous and peaceful future for the people of the Americas. We believe that the greater economic integration of the Americas will have an overwhelmingly positive affect. The FTAA will give a powerful impetus to economic and political progress in Latin America, as NAFTA did in Mexico. There is a virtuous dynamic between free economies and free societies. Increased growth from trade generates more revenues for governments to address the problems of unequal access to education and health services, to protect the environment, and to improve law enforcement and security services. By encouraging market-based reforms and greater transparency in economic decision-making, free trade agreements advance political openness and democracy as well. Millennium Challenge Account Our commitment to promoting prosperity is not limited to trade policy. President Bush has announced an initiative to provide more, and more effective foreign aid that is aimed to promote good governance, education, and reduce poverty. The Millennium Challenge Account is a change from our traditional approach to aid. Our goal is to provide incentives for governments to pursue constructive social and economic policies. We will increase our core development assistance by 50 percent over the next three years, resulting in a $5 billion annual increase over current levels by fiscal year 2006 and beyond. These monies will be directed to those countries that govern justly and honestly, uphold the rule of law, fight corruption, invest in the health and education of their people, and promote economic freedom. I believe that many nations in the Western Hemisphere will benefit from this new initiative. Conclusion If we can provide a secure and liberal political environment with economic incentives and opportunities, the creative power of the people of the Americas will be unleashed. The Bush Administration has a comprehensive policy to do just that—promoting security, democracy, good governance, and prosperity. These are ambitious goals, and I am well aware of the challenges we face. But I pursue them with confidence because I know that we have many millions of partners in our efforts to make this hemisphere free, prosperous, and democratic. As President Bush said, the people of the Americas have “a dream of free markets and free people, in a hemisphere free from war and tyranny. That dream has sometimes been frustrated—but it must never be abandoned.”
www.heritage.org by Stephen Johnson Executive Memorandum #841
November 20, 2002 | |
On December 10, President George W. Bush will meet with the president-elect of Brazil, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, a populist who has professed admiration for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and Venezuela's authoritarian president Hugo Chávez. During his campaign, Lula blamed free-market reforms for Brazil's economic slump, condemned the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) as a plan to annex Latin America to the United States, and suggested that Brazil might abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it signed in 1998. After his landslide win on October 26, however, Lula backed off on reviving Brazil's nuclear weapons program and said he would work with the United States on trade. These contradictions in Lula's post-electoral conciliatory stance and his anti-American and anti-free market campaign rhetoric suggest the need to engage him with caution.
President Bush's agenda for the upcoming meeting with Lula should focus on what would be considered an unwarranted return to nuclear weapons development, Brazil's potential support for non-democratic regimes in the region, the need to continue internal reforms, its needed participation in counterterrorism and counterdrug operations, and mutual efforts to lower barriers to bilateral and hemispheric trade.
A Nation at a Crossroads. Brazil, which rivals the United States in geographic size, has Latin America's largest economy, with a gross domestic product (GDP) of $800 billion. After ending military rule 17 years ago, Brazil began opening its markets and expanded its exports from primarily coffee to cars and aircraft. However, it also shielded businesses from competition and created a large public sector, which in 2001 consumed 20 percent of GDP.
Brazil aspires to be a regional power but is suffering from slow growth and mounting debt that now approximates one-third of GDP. It has received three loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the past four years, including a $30 billion bailout approved last September 9. By comparison, Mexico grew out of its last debt crisis in 1995 through trade, even paying off loans early. Its economy--half as big as Brazil's--now exports twice as much as Brazil's does. Lula must make similar pro-market choices to secure Brazil's footing as an economic leader in the 21st century.
Lula's Appeal. The former union organizer, who tried three times to win Brazil's presidency, finally did so this year by appealing to growing numbers of poor (46 million out of 170 million Brazilians) and blaming economic stagnation on outgoing President Fernando Henrique Cardoso's tentative steps to embrace capitalism. Lula promised to create 10 million new jobs through public-private partnerships and to double the minimum wage of $53 a month. To appeal to the armed forces and to restore Brazil's flagging self-esteem, he also suggested that abandoning Brazil's secret nuclear weapons development program in the mid-1990s was a mistake and promised to build up Brazil's military and technological prowess.
Lula favors strengthening the four-country Southern Cone Common Market known as MERCOSUR (MERCOSUL in Portuguese)--which Brazil dominates--through a subregional parliament and common monetary policies, rather than pursuing the U.S.-backed hemispheric FTAA. But if his approach is enacted, it would pile on more debt, divert attention from the real threats of crime and terrorism, and discourage trade with external markets, not just for Brazil but for MERCOSUR members Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay as well.
Rays of Hope. Current economic and political realities leave Lula little room to impose a radical agenda. Lula had to choose a moderate running mate and tone down his anti-free market campaign rhetoric after it caused Brazil's currency to devalue by some 30 percent. The other MERCOSUR partners, with their own economic troubles, are not likely to agree to a regional parliament run by Brazil. Nor would an alliance of all of Brazil's leftist parties provide enough votes to pass huge public spending programs in either house of congress.
Despite its roots on the left, the Workers' Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores, or PT) that Lula helped found 22 years ago has pursued a reform agenda of its own. In the states and municipalities where the PT has been in control, it has combined a concern for the poor with grassroots decision-making, leading to more open, accountable, and democratic governance.
Toward Commonsense Relations. Although Lula's campaign rhetoric may be part bluster, he should still be engaged with caution. He is untested in high office, and his lingering admiration for Castro and Chávez could portend aid to those regimes. To keep Brazil's ship of state afloat, he should be encouraged to continue his predecessor's market-oriented reforms. In his upcoming meeting with Lula, President Bush should promote U.S. interests and good relations with Brazil by making clear that the United States will:
Conclusion. "Order and Progress" has been Brazil's motto since 1889. Order is helpful only when it promotes free choice, and progress is possible only when opportunity is available to all. President Bush should encourage President-elect Lula to uplift Brazilians and make Brazil a hemispheric power through free markets and less burdensome government while working with other nations in the region to defeat their common threats.
--Stephen Johnson is Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
www.heritage.org by Stephen Johnson WebMemo #181
December 20, 2002 | WebMemo |
Two neighbors in Latin America are on the brink of implosion. Government collapse in Haiti could unleash a flood of refugees on American and Caribbean shores, while crumbling democracy in Venezuela is already threatening oil supplies at a moment when Washington contemplates military action in the Middle East.
In both countries, powerful populist presidents have stoked class warfare, creating deep divisions between regime supporters and opponents instead of promoting consensus and equality before the law. Efforts to expand their own authority have weakened legislative and judicial institutions to the point that they no longer function. Corruption has spread, their economies have faltered, and opponents have taken to the streets to force their resignation.
In one of the largest demonstrations in Haitian history, 15,000 protesters gathered in the city of Cap Haïtien on November 17 to demand President Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s resignation. Elected in 1990 and then ousted by a military takeover when he failed to organize a functional government, he was restored to power in 1994 by a U.S.-led multi-national invasion force. Since then, Haiti has had a make-believe democracy.
After the end of his first term in 1995, Aristide ruled through President René Préval, a submissive proxy, until he could be elected again in 2000 through a vote boycotted by opponents. Since 1997, the country has been without a legitimately elected parliament. Hundreds of millions of aid dollars were wasted on projects Aristide failed to support, prompting donors like the United States to suspend direct assistance. Now pro-Aristide gangs with names like “Cannibal Army” and “Asleep in the Woods” roam the streets to suppress dissent.
Meanwhile in Venezuela, some 2 million citizens marched on December 14 to urge the resignation of President Hugo Chávez, fearing that he would use emergency powers to establish a Castro-style dictatorship. The one-time coup plotter and cashiered army officer was elected in 1998 promising to help Venezuela’s 80 percent poor majority and clean up corruption. Riding a wave of popular support, he rewrote the constitution to expand presidential powers and extend his term in office.
But instead of helping the downtrodden, he diverted government funds to military cronies to buy loyalty and to organize armed, partisan street gangs called “Bolivarian Circles.” Unconstitutional decrees to curb property rights and hobble private enterprise led to a rebellion last April, temporarily toppling him from power. Since then, the breech between Chávez and opponents has widened with a series of national strikes, one of which paralyzed the government’s cash cow—the state-owned petroleum industry—in turn affecting oil exports to the United States and other neighboring countries. On December 15, Chávez claimed his orders could not be overriden by the courts.
Years ago, U.S. officials could have nudged events in a different direction. In Haiti, they might have planned for an extended international presence until it became truly self-governing. And over the years, they could have made effective democratic governance an engagement priority in Venezuela. Now, it has fallen to the Organization of American States (OAS) to resolve these crises with meager tools.
A deliberative body, the OAS has no aid to offer as a lever. And its one-year-old Inter-American Democratic Charter can only be used to promote mediation or suspend the membership of non-democratic states. Without a two-thirds vote among members, suspension can’t be approved and, even if applied, suspended states can turn around and kick out the mediators. Nonetheless, it is a starting point.
Indeed, the United States and other member states should invoke the charter to recognize the political breakdown in each country. In Haiti, President Aristide has violated the letter and spirit of the 1987 constitution by manipulating the electoral process and failing to protect human rights. President Chávez has subverted his charter through arbitrary decrees, by usurping the authority of local officials, and actions to block the courts and National Assembly.
With respect to Haiti, the United States and other international parties could leverage aid. Because of Haiti’s faltering economy, Aristide has been lobbying for a bailout. The Bush Administration, in coordination with other donors should offer to restore direct assistance, but only if Haitian leaders accept a U.S.-led donor oversight commission to provide for supervised elections and long-term direction in salvaging and rebuilding democratic institutions.
Venezuela is more complicated. Since the government controls the lucrative state petroleum industry, aid is not a factor. Many in the opposition want new elections as a way of replacing the entire administration. But that would require an extraconstitutional deal between contentious elites or an unlikely and cumbersome change to the national charter.
Chávez could also be removed by a referendum halfway through his term—next August. But, Vice-President José Vicente Rangel—the brains behind him—would become president, posing new problems. Although the National Assembly has the power to impeach Chávez at any time and schedule new elections, half of the Assembly is out on strike and Chávez could declare marshal law and suspend the body before they act.
While the Bush Administration might favor an electoral solution in principle—it should refrain from a specific proposal that, absent a Venezuelan consensus, could lead all sides to blame the United States for any failure. It should bring pressure to bear on Chávez and his opponents to allow a constitutional solution and once agreed, press for international supervision of the process to guarantee the rights and free expression of all participants. In the meantime, U.S. and allied diplomats might encourage opposition parties to develop a plan for how they would govern in case Chávez leaves or is recalled from office.
In the interests of regional stability and security, the United States should redouble lagging efforts to back those struggling for democracy and help guarantee space for its practice to flourish. Diplomacy and coordinated action with hemispheric allies is a good place to start.
Stephen Johnson is Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
www.heritage.org by Stephen Johnson WebMemo #205 February 10, 2003 | |
On February 11, Ecuadoran President Lucio Gutierrez will visit with President George W. Bush in Washington. While the newly installed Ecuadoran leader will likely ask his counterpart to support continued multilateral loans and development aid to his nation, President Bush should use the opportunity to cement U.S.-Ecuadoran security ties, to encourage deeper democratic and market reforms to enhance Ecuadoran stability, and say no to excessive dependence on international assistance.
Fractious nation President Gutierrez leads a country with a history of power struggles between contentious interest groups and on-again/off-again democracy. Ecuador has had 17 constitutions since independence and a divided oligarchy controls most of the commodity-based economy. In the last seven years, Ecuador has had six presidents—two of whom, Abdala Bucarám and Jamil Mahuad, lasted a year or less before their ouster. In January 2000, it was army colonel Lucio Gutierrez who led indigenous protesters in marches that forced out Mahuad, considered ineffective in fighting corruption and who proposed dollarizing an economy plagued by runaway inflation. His vice-president and successor, Gustavo Noboa, dollarized it anyway.
Now in Carondelet Palace himself, Gutierrez will face an assembly representing the highland elites, coastal landowners, and Ecuador’s indigenous population. Just 17 percent of the 100-seat unicameral body is loyal to his Patriotic Society Party coalition. Although democratic and market-based reforms are ongoing, elites have resisted opening the economy to competitive enterprise. Instead, social spending, subsidies, and price controls were meant to help Ecuador’s 50 percent poor compensate for restricted access. Over-reliance on commodity exports such as petroleum and bananas has limited growth to pay back loans that support such programs.
Troubled neighborhood Potential civil war in Venezuela, drug trafficking, and terrorist groups operating in Colombia and in the confluence of the Argentine, Brazilian, and Paraguayan borders threaten trade and impact neighbors with refugees. Narcoterrorists such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) still operate in 70 percent of Colombia’s territory and have infested Ecuador’s northern Sucumbíos department. Peru also faces a resurgence of drug trafficking and terrorism. Two weeks after Gutierrez was inaugurated, a group called the Peoples Revolutionary Militia took responsibility for a bomb that exploded at an American Airlines office in Quito.
Good intentions A political novice, Gutierrez was elected with 54 percent of the vote in a runoff election on November 24, 2002. Although he once led a coup and counts radical Indians as his base of support, Gutierrez said he wants to be president of all Ecuadorans, and promises to fight poverty and corruption while preserving dollarization and allowing continued use of Ecuador’s Manta air base for the U.S.-backed Andean counternarcotics effort.
On the domestic front, he supports decentralizing the Ecuadoran state, devolving authority over local affairs to local jurisdictions. He would like legislative bodies to more effectively represent their constituents. And he has proposed creating a fourth branch of government to audit public spending and the banking sector. Regarding foreign affairs he shuns taking part in any “triangle” or “axis” involving Cuba’s Fidel Castro or Venezuela’s leftist president Hugo Chávez. Yet, he said he would help Colombia solve its narcoterrorism threat by opening Ecuador’s borders and pursuing peace with its Marxist guerrillas. “Guerrillas are human beings too,” he said in Washington last November.
Some of these ideas are clearly impractical. In October, Ecuadoran voters approved a measure to eliminate 23 at-large congressional seats, reducing the national assembly to 100 members. Gutierrez would like to chop that number to 60. Without changes to make assembly members stand for actual districts, another reduction would decrease representation, not enhance it. A fourth branch of government to audit accounts unnecessarily duplicates functions normally carried out by the legislative and judicial branches. And easing border controls with Colombia would invite more border incursions by violent guerrillas in Ecuador’s poorly patrolled northern provinces. Ecuador’s 35,000 police and small, 600-member counternarcotics unit would be quickly overwhelmed.
Tough love The United States needs stable allies in troubled South America. Despite inexperience and concerns over his past, Lucio Gutierrez appears to understand that Ecuador’s future depends on accountable governance and open markets. That should be enough of a start for President Bush to forge friendly working realtions with him. But for collaboration to be fruitful, President Bush should:
Encourage Ecuador’s support for U.S.-aided regional counternarcotics and counterterrorism efforts by its securing borders and helping Colombia pressure its narcoterrorists into laying down arms. Appeasing such groups will only prolong the violence and invalidate the $22 million President Bush has requested in FY 2003 security assistance for Ecuador in his Andean Regional Initiative. *
Advocate strengthening representative government. Washington should tailor existing U.S. assistance to leverage changes allowing legislators to stand for districts within their departments and municipalities. Such aid should also support tax reforms allowing localities to collect revenue to fund programs administered under their own authority. *
Urge less dependency on multilateral credit such as recently announced $200 million standby loan being negotiated with the International Monetary Fund, in favor of measures that promote diversified exports, small and medium-sized business creation, ongoing judicial reforms, and stronger protection of private property. *
Enlist Ecuador’s backing for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Through the FTAA, Ecuador would gain greater access to developed markets and foreign investment, helping to further stabilize its economy.
Conclusion Ecuador may only have 12 million citizens and do $3.4 billion worth of trade with the United States, but it is an important supplier of petroleum (100,000 barrels per day) and has worked hard to keep itself relatively free of the kind of coca production, trafficking, and money laundering that has plagued its northern neighbor. Despite a past that suggests military rigidity, President Gutierrez appears open to ideas, has selected several experienced cabinet members, and generally favors a democratic, pro-market agenda. President Bush should encourage his counterpart to help defeat the twin scourges of drug trafficking and terrorism in the Andean region, and offer support for strengthening Ecuador’s democracy and market economy—a work still in progress.
Stephen Johnson is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The author wishes to thank intern Raymundo Morales for his contribution to this Web Memo.