<a href=www.latintrade.com>LatinTrade June, 2003 Saddam today, Fidel tomorrow. Sound far-fetched? I wish it were. In a policy document produced in September 2000 by conservatives close to U.S. President George Bush, called the “Project for the New American Century,” the United States is urged to increase its permanent military presence beyond the 130 countries where Washington already has troops. It argues that the state of the world demands “American political leadership” rather than that of the United Nations. The paper’s authors—who include Paul Wolfowitz, No. 2 at the Pentagon, and John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state—suggest that the United States “utilize airfields ranging from Puerto Rico to Ecuador” for these ends.

The United States will likely cite the war on terrorism as justification for increasing its forces in Latin America. Washington has already shifted its focus away from the drug war in Colombia by sending more soldiers to help the government in its four-decade-old civil war with leftist guerrillas, primarily the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

U.S. troops could also be sent to the tri-border frontiers of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, where some 20,000 Arabs have settled. In January, Gen. James T. Hill, commander of the U.S. Southern Command in Miami and charged with military relations in Latin America, warned that Middle Eastern terrorist groups operate in the border area. Under “Operation New Horizons,” U.S. soldiers are scheduled to train Paraguayan forces in anti-terrorism tactics.

I am worried, as are major Latin American political leaders. What, asks Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, “gives the United States the right to decide unilaterally what is good and what is bad for the world?”

Good question. Giddy over his victory in Iraq, Bush now could easily expand his “axis of evil” to include not only the hard-line ayatollahs in Iran and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il but also Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and the FARC, which already appears on the State Department’s list of terror groups. He has baldly threatened Syria, Iraq’s neighbor, although talk of war is premature, Britain says. “Tomorrow it could be Andean narco-terrorists,” says Lima daily Correo.

The Castro regime, which the administration has accused—without showing any evidence—of developing biological weapons (sound familiar?), has recently heightened tensions by cracking down on democracy activists, including reported executions of three men who hijacked a ferry to reach the United States. The charge? Terrorism, said Cuban state TV (now does it sound familiar?). Caracas daily El Nuevo País, meanwhile, warns that “North American opinion, especially in the upper echelons in Washington, takes it for granted that Hugo Chávez will be the next objective” after Saddam Hussein.

History repeats. Latin Americans understand better than anyone that pre-emptive military action to force regime change isn’t a Bush invention. Regional commentators recall CIA-orchestrated coups against democratically elected governments in Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973), and the hundreds of civilians who died the last time Washington removed a brutal despot by force, Panama’s Manuel Noriega, in 1989.

Yet this administration’s hawks are especially dangerous. They distrust the United Nations and multilateralism. They are eager to realign the Middle East, politically. And once they turn their attention away from Iraq, there are signs that it will re-focus on Latin America. Deploying U.S. soldiers on Latin American soil will revive anti-Americanism and undermine economic reforms associated with the United States. Public opinion is boiling over.

In Bogota’s El Tiempo, columnist Luis Noe Ochoa called Bush “perhaps the most hated man in the world today.” Rafael Fernández de Castro, in Mexican daily Reforma, writes that “the United States is willing to intervene in any part of the world, at any moment, to destroy anticipated threats. We are facing the emergence of a new era of global U.S. hegemony and an unknown stage in the history of the international order.”

I hope these predictions are proved wrong. I hope we aren’t headed toward the Bush administration’s dangerous new version of the old gunboat diplomacy: Forget talking softly, just swing a big stick.

Author: Jack Epstein

06/09/2003 - <a href=www.latintrade.com>Source: BNamericas US-based regional telecoms holding SkyOnline will decide in about six months whether to hold a financing round with new investors, CEO Claude Burgio told BNamericas. SkyOnline raised US$50mn in its last financing round in April 2001, is debt free, and still has some of that capital on hand for further acquisition opportunities, but as ever will be very cautious in its acquisitions, Burgio said. In general the company aims to increase its portion of revenues from voice this year, up from 10% in 2002, he said. Data service accounted for two-thirds of revenues and the remaining 23% came from leased carrier traffic, both of which are also expected to grow this year, but not as much as voice. To that end SkyOnline is seeking voice-licensed partners in areas where it can't get the necessary license, particularly Montevideo in Uruguay. Contrary to recent reports that the company will invest US$4mn to start wireless local loop operations in Uruguay, Burgio said the company already offers WLL using LMDS infrastructure it inherited from Diveo (bought late 2002), and in general the company serves some 50 businesses in Uruguay. The extra investment has more to do with adding MMDS infrastructure, which allows better pricing for an additional client niche, and building fiber connectivity to interconnect with SkyOnline's other markets, again most likely by working with operators that already have the license. The company is already working with one such partner, by the name of Dedicado. Burgio's team is still reviewing the potential of the former Diveo assets and deciding which services should be migrated into Uruguay from the other markets. The senior management will be advising sales staff in the next few weeks on which products to push, and Burgio expects to have an idea of growth prospects in Uruguay by year-end. In each market SkyOnline's goal is to perfect the one-stop-shop idea for voice, data and Internet, by providing SMEs with a full range of solutions such as data storage, ADSL, cable modem, LMDS and MMDS. In Brazil the missing link in this scheme is local loop access, to build on the Internet access it can provide through its recent acquisition of Osite and the international big-pipe connectivity obtained through the July 2002 acquisition of Teleglobe's Latin American contracts. SkyOnline's investors include French water, energy and services conglomerate Suez (30%), Luxembourg-based private equity funds NIT (45%) and US-based Pequot Capital investment group (15%). The company also has a presence in Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama and Mexico, and has a total client base of almost 201,000, including some 800 large businesses.

Reuters, 06.09.03, 12:46 PM ET

CARACAS, Venezuela, June 9 (Reuters) - Venezuela's unemployment rate rose to 19.1 percent in April compared with 15.9 percent a year earlier, the government said on Monday.

April's unemployment remained almost steady with 19.8 percent registered in March this year, a spokeswoman for the National Statistics Institute said. Venezuela, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, is mired in its worst recession in recent history after a two-month strike battered its economy.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Monday, June 09, 2003 By: Luis Zuleta

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:35:59 -0300 From: Luis Zuleta luiszuleta@hotmail.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: The constitution DOES NOT state

Dear Editor: I'm reading Mr. Roy S. Carson's article "Come in Houston ... opposition PR has a problem understanding democracy" and two things stand out.

1 - He claims that the Venezuelan opposition is paranoid by making certain assumptions about the government's willingness to allow (or not to block) a referendum on Mr. Chavez' mandate. As much as I agree that the opposition (and anyone for that matter) would be wrong to ignore the constitution or even think about going over it in order to remove Mr. Chavez, I'm wondering why he thinks the "Venezuelan Community Abroad" goes into an "extraterrestrial trajectory" in their statement. When reading the statement by the VCA, even those paragraphs carefully chosen by Mr. Carson to distort the meaning and context of it, it seems to me that the VCA is expressing concerns based on the fact that, as of today, the mechanism to allow the referendum is not in place. By this I mean, there is no electoral council (CNE) and the existence of that CNE depends largely (make that fully) on the willingness of the still government-controlled National Assembly to DO THEIR JOBS and select one. Those concerns seem well founded since Mr. Ameliach continues to call on permanent or urgent sessions to discuss anything the Chavez' faction can come up with or put on a public spectacle like it happened last Friday except to determine the members of the new CNE.

The concerns of the VCA about the impossibility to have an early Presidential election, if the recall doesn't succeed before Mr. Chavez enters the last two years of his mandate, is actually founded in the fact that the recall could be affected by the government's intent through the National Assembly to delay it as much as possible (based on their actions) by not designating a CNE in time to make it happen. If this is the case, and evidence points in that direction, then there is a big problem, since the constitution would not allow taking this into account and making the necessary adjustments. If the recall does not take place in time because the government blocks the election of the CNE, denies funding, or any other maneuver, then it should be the Supreme Court's job to intervene ... but wait there is a law being pushed by the government to increase the number of justices by 10 and therefore regain control of the TSJ.  See a trend here?

The constitution DOES NOT state that a recall referendum's process begins after August 19 ... it was the TSJ. The constitution states that a recall can take place at the midpoint of the term, but it is the TSJ who determines that midpoint. See the concern now? The VCA does not seem to be calling on the international community to punish Mr. Chavez for something he might do or might not do ... they seem to be calling on the international community to continue their role as an impartial arbitrator to guarantee BOTH SIDES that the agreement will be fulfilled.

That to me IS understanding democracy.

2 - Every time someone writes about Mr. Chavez and his little coup in 1992, everyone supporting this man (or "objective" writers simply telling it like it is) go crazy and complain about how that cannot justify what happened in April, which is true. But, I'm wondering why Mr. Carson and everyone else writing about the Venezuelan situation continuously feels the need to "remind" anyone not supporting Mr. Chavez about "Dictator for a day" Mr. Carmona, basically assuming that everyone opposing Mr. Chavez back then supported him in his attempt to undermine democracy, or that anyone opposing Mr. Chavez today still does support what this man did.

Over one year after those unfortunate events (those of Mr. Carmona, not of the people fighting for their cause) I think is time to drop that once and for all, and to stop assuming that ANYONE opposing Mr. Chavez was supporting that monumental violation of democratic principles.

Best Regards, Luis Zuleta luiszuleta@hotmail.com

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Monday, June 09, 2003 By: Juan C. Nagel

VHeadline.com guest commentarist Juan C. Nagel writes: Wait until August. Be patient. For more than a year, the Venezuelan opposition has been hearing this self-righteous nonsense from President Hugo Chavez and from elements of the foreign media charmed by his revolutionary rhetoric and horrified at the opposition's haste in calling for the resignation of a "democratically-elected" leader. After all, the Venezuelan Constitution allows for a Recall Referendum on the President to take place after the mid-point of his or her term (in Mr. Chavez' case, August 19). All the opposition needs to do is collect the signatures and make sure more people vote to recall Chavez than those that put him in power in the first place.

Simple, right?

Not quite. The opposition has agreed to go down this route, only to see a myriad of booby traps in the road ahead. These tricks (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) make it very difficult for the referendum to take place under fair conditions. First of all, the Chavez government decided that the current Electoral Council was no good, so no elections could be held. Fine, they weren't geniuses, but they were good enough for Chavez when he named them in his typical, autocratic fashion. The opposition agreed to help name a new electoral body that everyone can trust, and who is the main chavista candidate? The only member of the current disqualified Electoral Council who still votes with Chavez. Congress is now indefinitely deadlocked on the election of a new electoral body.

Next up are the signatures.

The opposition, in a remarkable show of force, organized a petition drive that compiled more signatures than those needed to petition the referendum to take place. Now the government is saying these signatures are false, are insufficient, were collected extemporarily, and were cloned. Never mind that no one in the government has seen them; never mind that the Constitution does not limit the periods during which one can collect signatures; never mind that a respected NGO is guarding, counting and verifying the signatures. The new "thug-with-oil" has decided they are no good.

Other tricks include the government's failure to provide funds needed to hold the referendum, the use of government moneys for campaigning, and whether Chavez can participate in an election that will follow once his mandate is recalled (the Constitutional Court, under Chavez' control, will surely say he can). However, one of the most appalling ones is the strategy announced by this great democrat and his party: that they will actively campaign for their followers to abstain from voting.

The desired effect of this is clear. If the only people going to vote are opposed to Mr. Chavez, people in poorer districts, where the rule of law is a mirage and armed, pro-government gangs (modeled on Saddam Hussein's fedayeen) roam unchallenged, will be too scared to go vote. If turnout is low, the opposition will lose the referendum.

The picture this paints is a clear one: it is nearly impossible for a majority of Venezuelans to exercise their constitutional right to choose their own leader, and to do so in a safe and fair environment. Institutions are practically non-existent, and the government ... with its enormous oil wealth and its legal and illegal weaponry ... is bent on intimidating and breaking the opposition using any means necessary. The international community can help keep the government in check, but so far they have achieved next to nothing, in spite of the moral obligation they have towards a country that supported the region's democratic struggles when it was under military rule.

These "tricks" are not democratic.

It is shameful for a political party that exercises power thanks to the will of the people to make those same voters afraid to go cast their vote now that the tides have clearly turned against them. Chavez' tricks are preventing Venezuelans from exercising their constitutional rights. Venezuelans and the international community cannot stand for these shenanigans. Chavez is clearly in Mugabe territory now, which shouldn't be surprising. After all, Mugabe is still in power, so his tricks are worth a try.

Juan C Nagel is an economist with a degree from UCAB, and a Ph.D. Candidate in Economics at the University of Michigan. He is also a Senior Economist at ApplEcon, LLC, a small economics consulting firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.  You may email him at jnagel@umich.edu