KEN GUGGENHEIM, <a href=www.sfgate.com>Associated Press Writer Thursday, May 1, 2003
(05-01) 16:35 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Senate Republicans and Democrats charged the Bush administration Thursday with a failure to show leadership in Latin America at a time when the region is deep in crisis.
The handling of a free-trade agreement with Chile, immigration negotiations with Mexico and policy on Cuba all came under scrutiny at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee nomination hearing for Roger Noriega for the State Department's top post in the region.
"This administration's policy in regard to Latin America has been in drift for the last two years," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
President Bush's pledged during his campaign to make this the "century of the Americas," but the fighting against terrorism and the war on Iraq has diverted attention from the hemisphere.
Colombia's civil war continues, Argentina suffers from a deep recession and political crises continue in Haiti and Venezuela.
More than two years into the Bush administration, Noriega is seeking to become its first confirmed assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere affairs. Bush's original nominee, Otto Reich, was denied a hearing in 2001 because the committee, then led by Democrats, considered him unqualified.
Reich was given a recess appointment, but Bush declined to remove him as a nominee when his term ended last year -- especially after the new Republican Foreign Relations chairman, Richard Lugar, suggested that someone else be nominated.
Noriega, the current ambassador to the Organization of American States, had been a committee staff member under former Sen. Jesse Helms and is likely to be confirmed.
Lugar, R-Ind., and other committee members used the hearing as a forum on the administration's Latin American policies. When Noriega said the Sept. 11 attacks had derailed hopes for an immigration agreement with Mexico, Lugar wasn't satisfied.
"Life goes on, our government has a lot of priorities," Lugar said. "We ought to be capable of doing many things at the same time."
Lugar said he was bothered that the free-trade agreement with Chile would be delayed because of its opposition to the war in Iraq. He rejected suggestions that the Bush administration couldn't submit a treaty because of an anti-Chile sentiment in Congress -- and said the administration had to take charge of the issue.
Asked by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., whether Chile should "pay a price" for its anti-war stand in the U.N. Security Council, Noriega said the treaty should be considered on its own merits, regardless of the Iraq vote. Dodd was the strongest opponent to Reich's nomination.
Several *committee members, including Republicans, have been critical of Bush's support for the Cuba embargo, though they have become less vocal since Fidel Castro began his crackdown on dissidents last month.
Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., who this week sponsored a bill to lift the Cuban travel ban, questioned Noriega about encouraging Cuban democracy through "people-to-people" exchanges. The Bush administration in March limited these exchanges by tightening restrictions on educational travel.
Noriega said he favors the exchanges, if they are more than just tourism.
"It would be something that I hope we could do more of, as a matter of fact," he said.
By Christian Bourge
<a href=www.upi.com>UPI think tanks correspondent
From the Think Tanks & Research Desk
Published 5/1/2003 7:11 PM
WASHINGTON, May 1 (UPI) -- Washington has returned to its long-standing tradition of paying too little attention to the problems of Latin America, and this may work to the detriment of United States interests in the region, according to think tank policy analysts.
Ian Vasquez, director of the Project on Global Economic Liberty at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that the Bush administration's level of interest in Latin America has been disappointing, especially considering the high expectations for greater engagement with the region.
"I think basically the United States is not paying attention to Latin America," Vasquez told United Press International. "In a sense, policy is being conducted in an ad hoc manner, often in reaction to events in the region. It has been that way for a long time, this is not something new for Washington."
Marc Falcoff, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, writes in his recent paper, "The Return of the U.S. Attention Deficit toward Latin America," that the current treatment of Latin America by Washington policymakers is comparable to the U.S. response to the region in the early days of the cold war. Following the end of World War II, the focus of American foreign policy suddenly shifted away from war to European reconstruction, a move that took most Latin American countries by surprise.
With the exception of Argentina and Chile, most countries in the region had strongly supported America's wartime foreign policy and expected Washington's attention to swing back to the Western Hemisphere after the war, only to find themselves on the policy back burner. Although countries in the region received individual attention when crises erupted, the attention the United States gives to the nations below its southern border has never equaled the attention it gives to its post-war European allies.
When the cold war ended, many again assumed the United States would redirect attention to its own hemisphere. With the rise of the European Union and liberalization of economies across Latin America in the ensuing years, free trade between the countries of Latin America and the United States was seen as a natural course of action for American policymakers.
Today the only major example of this is the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA, whic is an agreement between Mexico, Canada and the United States, now almost 10 years old. The promise of economic and other types of cooperation between the United States and Latin American countries has yet to reach the level for which many have hoped.
Although President George W. Bush made it clear that he planned to make Latin America a high priority for his administration, Falcoff and other analysts say the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it clear that this is not the case.
Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development at the liberal-centrist Brookings Institution and a nonresident senior fellow in economics there, said that before Sept. 11, there were growing signs of hope for increased American interest and involvement. The Clinton administration paid some attention to democracy-building and the liberalization of the economies in the region and President Bush promised a strengthening of ties, especially with Mexico.
"Post Sept. 11, I think their was a big shift away (from Latin America)," Birdsall told United Press International. "There has been a return to a U.S. attention deficit."
Latin American countries are facing a roster of difficult challenges. In the oil-rich nation of Venezuela, an acute political crisis has surrounded president Hugo Chávez. Argentina's economic collapse has reduced the region's richest nation to an economic shambles and resulted in the destruction, at least in the short term, of its once-solid middle class. Brazil, the largest economy in the region, faces massive international financial obligations that it will not be able to meet without international assistance.
Although Colombia has a strong commitment from the United States to help fight the country's ongoing problem with opposition guerrillas and drug trafficking, the country's handling of the war is a cause for some concern. Falcoff said in his brief that the only reason critics are not raising a bigger fuss about America's involvement in Colombia as "another Vietnam" is because they are preoccupied with attacking the administration on matters related to the Middle East.
However, not all the news on Latin America is bad. For instance, Mexico is expected to have economic growth of 3 percent in 2003. Although a much higher growth is needed for the country to ensure it economic vitality, this is high for the region.
The analysts said various dangers may arise from the American attention deficit toward the difficult challenges faced by Latin America. One fear is that the regional feeling that Latin America will always remain an afterthought for Washington policymakers may develop into a deep resentment of the United States and undermine U.S. goals for trade and economic development.
Birdsall said that during the 1990s, many people in the region came to see the United States as a beacon of political reform and economic liberalization. But the failure of Argentina's economy -- which was a poster child for economic liberalization -- and widespread opposition to the war in Iraq have had a chilling effect on that view of the United States in the Latin America.
"For political as well as economic reasons, that is now not true anymore," she said. "I think the most important implications are that we are neglecting the potential dangers associated with a rise in anti-Americanism in Latin America. That is going to make the lives of the reform politicians in the region more difficult than they would otherwise be."
Riordan Roett, director of Western Hemisphere studies at the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, known as SAIS, said Treasury Secretary John Snow's recent trip to Brazil, Ecuador and Colombia indicated some hope for greater interest in Latin America by U.S. policymakers. In addition, the trip was well received in the economic community, a good sign for investment in the region.
At the annual Council of the Americas conference on Monday, Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged that despite the promises by the United States that embracing democracy would better Latin American nations, many citizens there felt that had not come to pass. Powell's comments represented the first time in months that a ranking Bush administration official had publicly focused on Latin America. In addition, Snow said at the conference that it is necessary to speed up the slowed effort to enact a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005.
The Bush administration has made some efforts to bring free trade to the region, including the development of a bilateral free-trade agreement with Chile. However, some analysts questioned the administration's overall commitment to free trade there.
"I thought that (trade) policy was starting to get back on track with Chile and I think that is a really good sign of what can come out of Washington," said Vasquez. "But it is not clear how much the (Bush) administration is going to push for ratification in Congress now that it seems to be upset with Chile over its behavior regarding Iraq."
He added that it is a "tremendous mistake" to mix economic policy and the issue of free trade in the hemisphere with disagreements over Iraq. Vasquez said that tactics like punishing Chile for its opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq paves the way for dangerous and heavy-handed policies, such as ignoring countries that do not adhere to the U.S. foreign policy line.
Although there are clear economic issues at risk in the region, Birdsall said the lack of a clear security component to the problems in the region helps explain why the United States seems to be marginalizing Latin America.
"I think the costs of this for the United States have more to do with lost opportunities," she said. "The 21st century could really be the century of the Americas in terms of growing (social and economic) prosperity, growing stability, open market economies and democracy. That opportunity could be lost."
EVERYTHING YOU’VE ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT “THE GUARIMBATION” BUT WERE AFFRAID TO ASK
(Todo lo que usted siempre quiso saber acerca de “La Guarimba” pero tenía miedo de preguntar)
Son muchas las cartas que he recibido con respecto a “La Guarimba”, gran parte de las preguntas son similares. He aquí las que más se repitieron:
1. ¿Cuándo llamará el M.D.R. a “La Guarimba”?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – Nuestro “Movimiento de Defensa Radical” (M.D.R.) no es quien llamará a “La Guarimba”. Nuestra labor, por ahora, es simplemente sugerirla y explicar el plan. Será la propia sociedad quien decidiría – en todo caso -- cuándo llega la hora de llamar a “La Guarimba”.
2. ¿Dónde está el líder que convocará a “La Guarimba”?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – El M.D.R. no cree en la necesidad de un líder específico. De hecho no estamos contando con la aparición espontánea de un líder que nos guíe hacia la defensa radical de nuestra patria. Creemos que la sociedad toda tiene capacidad de liderazgo. En la medida en que nuestros “líderes naturales” sigan “poniendo la torta”, como la que acaba de poner Salas Römer -- lanzándose como candidato para unas elecciones que ni existen ni existirán -- la sociedad civil como un ente vivo, asumirá con mayor fuerza ese liderazgo colectivo.
3. ¿Cuánto debe durar “La Guarimba”?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – El tiempo que sea necesario para sacudirnos de un gobierno anticonstitucional. Ese es otro de los problemas. Una vez convocada “La Guarimba”, no debe suspenderse hasta que se logre el sagrado objetivo de recuperar la patria y nuestra dignidad nacional.
4. ¿Cómo “guarimbeamos” aquellos que vivimos en urbanizaciones como Prados del Este, es decir, apartadas del casco de la ciudad?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – “Guarimbear” en urbanizaciones apartadas del casco de la ciudad no tiene tanto sentido como en sectores céntricos, sin embargo, se pueden tomar las vías principales más cercanas a nuestras “guarimbas”, la autopista de Prados del Este, por ejemplo.
5. ¿Qué debemos entender por “defensa radical”?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – El radicalismo tiene tantas interpretaciones como intérpretes haya. Para muchos la desobediencia cívica a ultranza es una forma de radicalismo. Otros entienden la “defensa radical” de manera más radical, es decir empleando la violencia si fuese necesario. Cuando nuestro Libertador Simón Bolívar llamó a la guerra a muerte, estaba asumiendo una postura radical.
6. ¿Se debe aplicar “La Guarimba” conjuntamente con una acción militar?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – El M.D.R. no condiciona “La Guarimba” a una acción cívico-militar, aunque les da la bienvenida a los militares que se sientan inclinados a defender la patria de la agresión extranjera del CASTRO-COMUNISMO INTERNACIONAL. Creemos, eso sí, que “La Guarimba” propiciará la definición en cada cuartel. Allá el militar que decida cuadrarse con Castro en contra de sus hermanos venezolanos... su conciencia y la patria le terminarán reclamando la abominable traición.
7. ¿Y después de “La Guarimba”, qué?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – Después debemos estar alertas sobre a quién nos pongan al frente del Estado. Lo mejor que le pueda pasar a Venezuela es sacar a un gobernante ilegítimo por la vía de “La Guarimba” ya que todo aquel que en un futuro intente desviar su gobierno por la vía anticonstitucional podría ser igualmente “guarimbeado” de su cargo.
8. ¿Hay algún apoyo externo a “La Guarimba”?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – No que sepamos. Sabemos de personajes de mucho prestigio en el exterior que apoyan “La Guarimba” y que llegado el momento estarían dispuestos a presionar a los organismos internacionales (ONU – OEA) para que intervengan directamente si fuese necesario.
9. ¿Tendrá “La Guarimba” cobertura de los medios?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – Si para cuando comience el “guarimbeo” todavía están vivos y activos los medios de comunicación social, suponemos que le darían cobertura nacional a “La Guarimba”.
10. ¿Cómo piensa el M.D.R. divulgar “La Guarimba” en todos los niveles de nuestra sociedad?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – En primer lugar, pidiéndole apoyo a las redes cibernéticas de oposición. Es importante que divulguemos “La Guarimba” hasta la saciedad. Luego sería muy interesante si los personajes públicos que generan opinión – así como los comunicadores sociales dignos -- se sumaran a la divulgación masiva del plan de defensa radical y por último, que los medios de comunicación social se sumen a la campaña de divulgación.
11. ¿Se ha aplicado “La Guarimba” en otros países, en casos similares?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – No que nosotros sepamos. Sí ha habido acciones anárquicas que han brindado frutos, pero lo que hace “La Guarimba” especial y muy de nosotros, es el hecho de tomar posición en nuestro propio territorio, frente a nuestras viviendas. Al hacer esto no tenemos que movilizarnos a sitios lejanos. Si nos dan ganas de ir al baño, entramos en nuestras propias viviendas y ya... Podemos turnarnos en las calles y descansar en nuestras propias camas. “La Guarimba” podría durar varios días, así que la logística no sería problema alguno, siempre que el momento de la verdad nos agarre preparados.
12. ¿Se trata de un plan ilegal, anticonstitucional?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – Nada de eso. La propia constitución bolivariana de Venezuela NOS OBLIGA a defenderla de verse comprometida y violada por un gobierno forajido. Entendemos que burlarse del referendo revocatorio sería una violación flagrante de la constitución y una justificación al llamado de la sociedad civil organizada. Regalar nuestro petróleo podría considerarse una violación a la constitución, por ejemplo.
13. ¿Se trata de un plan terrorista?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – Los únicos que sentirían terror serían los militares que intenten darle la espalda al pueblo y a la constitución para ponerse al lado del CASTRO-COMUNISMO INTERNACIONAL. Suponemos que también se aterrorizarían el señor presidente y sus acólitos.
14. ¿Cuáles organizaciones apoyan “La Guarimba”?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – Hasta donde sepamos, “Tierra de Gracia” apoya “La Guarimba”. De hecho fueron ellos quienes comenzaron a hablar del plan hace ya un tiempo. Hay otras organizaciones cibernéticas que entendemos apoyan el plan, pero preferimos que sean ellos quienes lo anuncien y se comprometan con su divulgación.
15. ¿Cree el M.D.R. en un “Día D” para aplicar “La Guarimba”?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – Nosotros no estamos muy seguros de que se pueda establecer un “Día D” para la aplicación de “La Guarimba”. El “Día D” podría perfectamente ser el 19 de agosto si para entonces corroboramos – más allá de toda duda -- que este incipiente régimen CASTRO-COMUNISTA no tiene intenciones de acudir al referendo revocatorio. Sin embargo, por ahí podría salir una que otra organización “opositora” con un invento de “auto-guaraleo” como sugerir una constituyente, por ejemplo… o comenzar a decir que habrá elecciones generales dentro de varios meses, etc. Eso le daría oxígeno al régimen CASTRO-COMUNISTA y eliminaría la posibilidad de un “Día D”.
16. ¿Debemos entender “La Guarimba” como un “Plan B”?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – No. Nosotros no creemos en planes “B”. Solamente aquellos que creen en que Chávez irá a un referendo tienen en mente un “Plan B”. Nosotros ESTAMOS SEGUROS de que no habrá referendo. El “Plan B” podría ser coger el monte o abandonar el país rumbo al exilio, con la cabeza baja y en total derrota para jamás regresar a Venezuela y morir en tierra extranjera.
17. ¿Podría “La Guarimba” producir muertos?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – Toda acción radical podría producir muertos, sin embargo, las bajas se reducirían al mínimo en la medida en que “La Guarimba” se ejerza al UNÍSONO y a nivel nacional. Mientras más seamos los “guarimberos”, menos serán los muertos. Debemos convencer al régimen – y a las Fuerzas Armadas -- de lo innecesario que sería producir muertes, sobre todo cuando el país entero está “guarimbeando”.
¿Cómo llevar el concepto de “La Guarimba” a aquellos que no tienen acceso a la Internet?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – Si cada cibernauta se propusiera sacar al menos CINCO COPIAS a nuestro “alerta” titulado “La Guarimba” (abajo incluido) y repartirlo entre aquellos amigos que no tienen acceso a la red, estaríamos propagando la voz. Tal vez se pudieran pegar algunos ejemplares en las bodegas, farmacias, etc. Hay que contar con que no tenemos mucho tiempo. En cualquier momento este régimen pudiera “darle el palo a la lata” e intentar dejarnos como pajarito en grama. Debemos esperar “algún invento” por parte del régimen antes de agosto de este año, cuando se tendría que definir el referendo. Ya sabemos – sin embargo -- que el régimen ha dicho que es A PARTIR del 19 de agosto de 2003 cuando se pudiera convocar al referendo revocatorio. Eso podría significar que será dentro de 99 años A PARTIR de esa fecha, no antes... por supuesto.
¿Qué pasaría si “La Guarimba” fracasa y el régimen aprovecha para declara un estado de excepción o de emergencia… o de sitio y se produce un “auto golpe”?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – He ahí un grave peligro. De hecho, el mayor peligro que correríamos de fracasar “La Guarimba”. Es por esa razón – entre otras – por la que la respuesta de la sociedad civil organizada tiene que ser masiva, al UNÍSONO y A NIVEL NACIONAL, de lo contrario podríamos perder no solo la batalla: ¡la guerra!
20. ¿Por qué creen ustedes que “La Guarimba” podría tumbar un gobierno forajido?
RESPUESTA DEL M.D.R. – Porque fomentaría un caos anárquico impresionante y materialmente imposible de controlar. El generalato se vería en la obligación de ordenar el “Plan Ávila” u otro parecido tan criminal como el primero. Estamos seguros que un plan de asesinar a la mayoría del pueblo no va a ser acatado por nuestros oficiales, como no fue acatado el 11 de abril de 2002. La desobediencia a masacrar al pueblo significaría una insubordinación militar la cual crearía un caos aún mayor. No debemos olvidar, también, que quienes conducen las tanquetas son los tenientes de nuestro Ejército, los oficiales más puros de nuestras Fuerzas Armadas… unos jóvenes recién graduados sin vocación de sangrientos asesinos.
En el caso de no ordenarse el “Plan Ávila” entonces el generalato al servicio del CASTRO-COMUNISMO INTERNACIONAL perdería “el cartel” y cualquier soldado le tocaría las nalgas. Eso crearía todavía un CAOS PEOR que invitaría a los oficiales dignos – AL SERVICIO DE VENEZUELA, DEL PUEBLO Y DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN -- a tomar el control de la situación de inmediato y con la ayuda de Dios y DEL PUEBLO EN GENERAL se generaría un movimiento cívico-militar que se adueñaría de la situación en cuestión de horas.
Justamente era exactamente eso lo que supuestamente se buscaba con el llamado al paro general, pero nuestros líderes no fueron capaces de radicalizarlo y terminó siendo un “garabato” que perjudicó profundamente la economía nacional y benefició inmensamente al incipiente régimen CASTRO-COMUNISTA de Hugo Chávez y Fidel Castro. De habernos parado como era debido -- sin agua, sin luz, sin gasolina, sin comida, sin “na” -- posiblemente ya estuviéramos hace rato camino hacia una Venezuela productiva y feliz.
Un fuerte abrazo solidario, radical y “guarimboso”
WASHINGTON (<a href=asia.reuters.com>Reuters) - The United States on Thursday issued its annual list of countries with the worst record of protecting copyright material and other intellectual property, again identifying Ukraine as the worst culprit.
The U.S. Trade Representative's Office said $75 million in U.S. sanctions on Ukraine would remain in effect because of that country's failure to adopt and enforce adequate protections against the illegal copying of optical media products such as music CDs, movie DVDs and computer software.
The sanctions were first imposed in January 2002.
Protection of intellectual property rights is an increasingly important component of U.S. trade policy.
The International Intellectual Property Alliance, a consortium of publishing, film, software and recording industry groups, estimates that global piracy costs U.S. copyright industries more than $22 billion annually.
The 50 countries listed in the USTR annual report accounted for $9.8 billion of those annual losses, the group said.
"Open markets and rules that guarantee the protection of intellectual property are critical to the continued health of the creative sectors of our economy," U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said in a statement.
The report noted that ongoing implementation of an World Trade Organization agreement on intellectual property rights had helped to improved protection worldwide.
It gave the following examples:
-- Egypt has passed a comprehensive intellectual property rights law that represents an improvement in all major facets of Egypt's intellectual property regime.
-- Colombia and Hungary are now protecting confidential medical test data in line with their WTO obligations.
-- Many countries, such as Israel, are making the necessary investments in education, police and judicial resources to improve enforcement to protect U.S. right holders.
But ineffective enforcement of intellectual property rights, commercial piracy and counterfeiting of consumer products remained a global threat, the USTR said.
Counterfeit products, from shampoo to auto brakes, harmed not only trademark owners but could also cause serious health and safety problems for consumers, the report said.
Rampant piracy and lack of enforcement were problems in Russia, Taiwan, Poland, Brazil and elsewhere, the USTR said.
Ukraine was the only country put on the Priority Foreign Country list, the most serious designation.
China and Paraguay remain subject to special monitoring under U.S. trade laws.
Both countries have negotiated bilateral agreements with the United States to address long-standing piracy concerns, and failure to comply with those commitments could lead to U.S. sanctions.
Placed on the Priority Watch List, the next highest category of concern, were Argentina, the Bahamas, Brazil, the 15-nation European Union, India, Indonesia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, and Taiwan.
Among countries placed on the Watch List were Belarus, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Israel, South Korea, Kuwait, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam.