.e-thepeople.org

First, I should state that I supported the war against Iraq. I am a unique creature--a Democrat with a neo-conservative foreign policy.

This neo-conservative foreign policy is based upon the notion that since we are vulnerable to terrorist attacks, we should use the overwhelming strength and superiorty of the our military in a preventive and preemptive way.

I was generally accepting of this notion, until I read an article in which the author explore the possible consequences of such action.

If we become the world's policemen or, as the author puts it...the world's guarantors, then no other nation, or its people, will take action in situations for which they are responsible.

For example, by guaranteeing the security of Israel, it ensures that no Israeli government will make a territorial settlement with the Palestinians. Therefore there will be no peace in the Middle East. I am as supportive of Israel as anyone, and even I recognize that Israel will have to make some concessions in order for there to be peace.

By supporting the Mubarak regime in Egypt of the Fayd kingdom in Saudi Arabia, the US removes the pressure for democratization. With an external power guaranteeing stability, the people of Egypt and Saudi Arabia will never revolt or at least take part in democratic reform. Terrorism against America is easier, because we ultimately are at fault for their predicament. I know that some will state that without these regimes in Egypt and SA, these countries will become theocracies like Iran. Well, as least then we will know where they stand. Right now, we are allies with Saudi Arabia even though their people hate and kill us at every opportunity. So, how about this?

What if we just allowed history to take its course, without American Intervention?

What if, in the past, we let Vietname go communist without losing 50,000 Americans to achieve the same result. What if we let Europe deal with Yugoslavia in the 1990's.

Let the Iranian people deal with the Ayatollahs until they finally revolt.

Let Mubarak and King Fayd fall to the Islamists. Let Victor Chavez take on Venezuela's capitalists and landowners.

Let these countries and their people take responsibility for and control of their own destiny, free to make their own revolutions, and fumble toward liberal democracy of their own accord. At least then, they would have no one to blame but themselves and their government. The point is they would not blame the United States.

The US rails against the irresponsibility of the European and Asian powers for their failure to manage even their own backyards, and despises the anger of the Arab masses at America. However, our foreign policy is responsible for such failure and anger. With the best of intentions, the US encourages the very behavior it works against. The more we dominate and intervene, the more terrorists created, the more unsupportive fellow allies and enemies become.

Therefore, now is the perfect time for the United States to withdraw from the Korean peninsula. To withdraw from the Middle East after we have restored order in Iraq.

The prospect of an American imperium is on people's minds. Having demonstrated its power in Iraq, the US can abdicate without revealing weakness. Finally we can worry about ourselves, and we can let the world survive on its own for awhile with no America to blame. Soon they will be begging for us to help them, and soon they will all love America again.

"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."- Mark Twain

The Herald Posted on Sun, May. 04, 2003 BY JANE BUSSEY jbussey@herald.com

With a wary eye on Argentina's experience, tiny Uruguay chose to forgo any celebratory default or even strong-arm tactics as it faced creditors last month and pleaded for forgiveness from its international debts.

Uruguay has become the latest Latin American government to join the list of deadbeats, or potential deadbeats, through a stealth default. Its request that bondholders swap their debt for new bonds is being carried out on gentlemanly terms and has the blessing of the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund.

There is a kinder and gentler tone in Washington toward Latin America these days, but the change is unlikely to stop countries from resorting to what some analysts have labeled ''elegant restructuring'' and ``liability management.''

''You've got Ecuador, Argentina and Uruguay, to some extent back-to-back defaults,'' said Christian Stracke, head of emerging-market research at CreditSights Inc., an independent Wall Street research firm. ``How far away is Brazil from having that happen?''

While Ecuador quietly defaulted in 1999, Argentina earned the enmity of international financiers when former President Adolfo Rodríguez Saá announced, in late December 2001, a default on the debt to a cheering congress.

Earlier in 2001, Argentina had swapped bonds for ones with lower interest rates but to little end. The reduction couldn't halt the economic implosion or persuade the IMF to disburse new loans.

Latin America is no stranger to debt default. These periodic bouts of sovereign bankruptcy have served to entrap the region in low economic growth and inflict severe disruption on trade and investment. The 1980s debt crisis was labeled the ''lost decade,'' and restructurings that took place around 1990 were originally viewed as a watershed moment in the region -- the end of debt forever.

In contrast to Argentina, Uruguay's quiet restructuring signals a new approach to the region. Washington has started to recognize that the debt burden is too high in many countries, a point made by U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow last Monday.

U.S. officials, working with the IMF, are trying to stage preemptive debt restructurings with small losses to bondholders and avoid the panic of such ''messy defaults'' as the events in Argentina.

''The U.S. Treasury is out in front, organizing crisis prevention,'' Miami bond trader Martin Schubert said. ``The U.S. Treasury is playing a more important role than it would appear.''

Treasury spokesman Tony Fratto insisted that officials had not encouraged Uruguayan authorities to do anything specific. But Uruguay, in asking creditors to swap old bonds for new ones that mature at a later date, has added some insurance clauses that have received Treasury's endorsement.

`COLLECTIVE ACTION'

These clauses, known as ''collective-action clauses,'' set out rules for future restructuring deals should the country later default. Now all creditors must agree to take a hit; under the new clauses, only two-thirds to three-quarters are required to agree, preventing one bondholder from holding up a deal.

''We do think that using collective-action clauses is wise,'' Fratto said.

Also playing a role is William Rhodes, the Citigroup veteran who directed the 1980s negotiations between commercial banks and their Latin American borrowers. Today's incipient problems do not yet resemble the nearly universal regional default on debt to commercial banks that took place in Latin America in the '80s.

Another difference is that today's creditors are international bondholders instead of the commercial banks.

There are also other countries that could join the default trend, but no one seems to be paying attention. Paraguay owes money to the World Bank, Venezuela is talking with creditors about stretching out its debt payments, and no one rules out another round of rescheduling in Ecuador.

The main concern is Brazil, which inched toward a default last year as interest rates soared on billions of dollars of debt. An IMF loan package to give Brazil up to $30 billion helped tide it over.

The largest South American country still faces the unsustainable odds of having to raise $1 billion a week to cover its debt payments and current account deficit. Much of Brazil's debt is held by local investors, and some economists have suggested that the government ''inflate'' the debt away, as Latin American countries have in the past. By printing money, the old debt goes down as the value of the currency is diluted. The downside is a rise in inflation.

But, after just a few months in office, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has enchanted Wall Street with his moderate tone. Not only does default seem far away, but creditors are anxious for more exposure in Brazil.

Last Tuesday, investors offered to buy $6 billion in new government bonds but the new government only needed $1 billion. Brazil's new bond included the ''collective-action clause'' as the latest bonds issued by Mexico. Except for Chile and Mexico, all other bonds in Latin America are speculative, the elegant term for junk bonds.

Schubert, president of the European Inter-American Finance Corp. in Miami, said the appeal of Brazilian bonds and some other recent issues in the region lay in the higher returns investors can get south of the border compared to the low interest rates in the United States. The Brazilian bonds will earn 8 percent over the Federal Reserve's interest rate.

KEY ELEMENT

The debt is one of the most crucial factors affecting Latin American economic growth and stability. Unlike their counterparts in Asia, Latin American countries do not generate sufficient savings to fund their own development.

After Argentina's financial crisis spilled over to Uruguay, the Bush administration stepped in to give its support, throwing its weight behind what would eventually become about $4 billion in loans from official lenders.

But as Uruguay's debt burden shot up to 90 percent of the gross domestic product, it became clear that, even with new loans, Uruguay could not make it. Hence a debt swap that would carve some 15 percent off what Uruguay has to pay. Bondholders have until May 15 to accept the Uruguayan offer.

''If the Uruguay exchange goes forward, it will result in economic losses to bondholders for the present value,'' said Morgan Harting, a director in Fitch Rating's Sovereign Ratings Group. ``We will take Uruguay into default if the exchange is completed, even if the government calls it voluntary.''

Despite the U.S. backing, this cut for Uruguay may not be sufficient.

''A debt write-down of 10 percent or 15 percent, it's kind of hard for me to believe that is enough,'' said Michael Mussa, the former chief economist at the IMF.

If all goes according to plan, Brazil will grow again and have no need to default. But best-laid plans often go awry in the region, Mussa noted.

''It has been a continuing series,'' he said of the defaults. ``I don't think it's going to end.''

<a href=biz.thestar.com.my>thestar.com.my By HAH FOONG LIAN

THE United States has predominantly been a big market for Canada, but the latter is now looking at other countries especially in South-East Asia, including Malaysia, to export their agri-food products. In their effort, some Canadian producers are even exploring the Muslim food market, a venture that will inevitably raise the matter of halal certification.  

Some of the producers are confident that they will be able to meet that expectation, though. John Ross, assistant director of red meat section (marketing and industry services branch of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), said Canadian producers were now learning to better segment the market place, including ensuring that beef exported to Muslim countries are certified as halal. 

Interviewed during the recent Sial Montreal, the second North American Edition of the International Food, Beverage, Wine and Spirits Exhibition, Ross said Canada was beginning to look at the production of halal beef due to its immigrant population and the Islamic Society of North America would look into the certification. 

Canada, he said, had a track record of producing halal beef for Toronto. It later expanded its market to New York to serve the large Muslim community there. 

Ross said about 20% of Canadian beef exported to other countries were halal, and it is also being exported to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia and even Malaysia, which was Canada’s 24th largest export market for agri-food products. 

As different countries may have their individual requirements, the importing countries will determine the halal certification, Ross said. 

On Canada’s beef production, Ross said there were 100,000 producers in the country, with the top 20% accounting for some 80% of production. Sixty per cent of the beef produced are exported in the form of fresh and frozen meat. The US takes up 75% of the exported products. 

Canadian cattle, said Ross, are fed on grains for 120 days, which results in high quality grain-fed beef which were a little lighter, sweeter and more tender. 

The Sial Montreal saw the attendance of 686 exhibitors from 37 countries during the exhibition held from April 2 to April 4. 

Over 12,000 visitors, who included professionals from the food sector and buyers from 80 countries, attended the fair to engage in networking activities and enter into profitable trade negotiations. 

Apart from exporting halal beef, Canadian producers are also looking at international markets for halal French fries. 

One company that is confident of meeting the halal certification for this product is French fries producer St-Michel Arneault Inc. 

The company is looking at selling its halal French fries in Malaysia by starting a halal certification, said its export director, Bruno Lanoie. “We can get the Islamic authorities from importing countries to come and certify our production,” he said, adding that the company preferred to work on a bigger consumer base where it would accept orders of one or two containers. One container can accommodate between 20,000kg and 22,000kg of French fries.  

“Our selling point is that we are a small company and one of our specialties is to make labelling. We also cater to retailers who cannot get their supply (of French fries) from the bigger boys,” Lanoie said. 

Between 6% and 65% of the company’s products are for the export market, which comprises French Polynesia, Mexico, Caribbean Island, Venezuela, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Thailand, and Hong Kong.  

Established 30 years ago, the company hires between 60 and 65 workers and makes about US$30mil (RM115mil) year in sales. 

Halal lamb is another product that Canadian producers are keen to sell. 

Dave Fiddler, marketing manager of Canadian Prairie Lamb, said the company had sold halal lamb to Eastern Canada. It began selling processed lamb products last June to restaurants and hotels. 

Fiddler said the company’s processed products consisted of the legs and shoulders of lamb. Partly processed, the lamb products were convenient since they just needed to be heated up, he said. 

The two-year-old company has a slaughter facility, which has the capacity to slaughter 2,000 lambs a week, in Alberta while its manufacturing plant is in Saskatchewan. 

With the producers brimming with optimism, it might not be long before we see the produce section of our supermarkets filled with halal products from Canada.  

washingtonpost.com Friday, May 2, 2003; 2:40 PM

If the United States has had reasons to be "disappointed" in the failures of Chile, Mexico and others in Latin America to understand how significantly its priorities changed 20 months ago and how neatly the war against Iraq fit into them, Latin America has reason to be "disappointed" too.

Latin America has been frustrated with the U.S. inability to clearly explain how after Sept. 11, 2001, the rules of engagement in the hemisphere changed so drastically. Since that day, Washington has come to expect that every country would intuitively know how to adapt to the new world environment of security-first, even if the threat of terrorism that created it seemed distant and intractable to most of them.

Latin Americans are entitled to a clearer explanation. After all, even U.S. observers acknowledge that the frequent clash of wills inside the Bush administration has left the world mostly confused and often suspicious of Washington's vision after Sept. 11. For its harshest critics, the U.S. diplomatic establishment failed to comprehend, let alone articulate, that vision to hemispheric allies.

At a State Department conference on the Western Hemisphere this week, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell offered a chance for a new beginning and welcomed the prodigal nations back into the fold, declaring "disagreements come and ... disagreements go." Yet curiously enough, it was not a diplomat who offered the most concrete example of how Washington's security imperative should shape everyday thinking, actions and decisions in Latin America.

Gordon England, second in command at the new Department of Homeland Security, described a hemisphere where some day cargo containers arriving at U.S. shores would not need to be inspected. From their point of departure, whether at a Latin American or Caribbean port, such containers would have been checked, sealed and tracked to U.S. satisfaction.

Governments and industries that fail to understand the need for such a level of security and the work needed to get there will be doomed to irrelevancy, England insisted. In his mind, this logic was not a threat, but a statement of fact.

According to security-first thinking, Washington expects that governments all over the hemisphere will do much more to control their borders. Concerns about third-country nationals sneaking into the United States across those borders are not new, but the potential that these individuals may now mean harm to others must be promptly recognized and addressed. In addition, old transborder crimes of weapons and drug trafficking as well as money laundering must be regarded now as activities that may benefit terrorists.

In today's environment, Washington considers itself to be as vulnerable as the most vulnerable of its partners or neighbors. For that reason, it can no longer wait for new governments to come along and build new agendas of cooperation. It needs leaders who see here and now what must be done and who have the will to do it.

Those Latin American leaders outside the select seven (Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama) that Powell publicly recognized Monday "for their courageous stand for what is right, what is necessary and what is just," have another chance.

They have a new opportunity to show the kind of leadership they lacked before the Iraq war, when, U.S. officials say, they let popular opinion in their countries dictate their opposition to the conflict.

The expectation here is that leaders will cast off the old habit of pandering to anti-Americanism that makes the United States a scapegoat and blames it for all manner of ills. Rather, Washington says, it is time for leaders to fearlessly take on the new tasks and rally support among their people for NOTHING LESS THAN the future of Western civilization.

There is a demand here for leadership in Latin America that will look beyond national boundaries and dare to challenge long-held principles of noninterference in other country's affairs.

This is not just about offering support to help reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Powell pointed to other areas in which Latin American leaders could take even more significant action, like vigorous multilateral assistance to Colombia to confront its terrorist and drug trafficking threats, renewed engagement to help Venezuela resolve ITS internal political upheaval, and aid to Cubans working for a democratic, free COUNTRY and condemnation of its leader who stands in their way.

That is Latin America's onus and Washington's expectation. It is now up to Latin America to respond. If the response is inadequate, will Washington again be "disappointed," or offer some understanding of its own?

Stay tuned.

Marcela Sanchez's e-mail address is desdewash@washpost.com.

By Diane Lindquist UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER May 2, 2003

Jeffrey Davidow, former U.S. ambassador to Mexico, has been selected to lead the Institute of the Americas, an independent institution at UCSD that promotes relations among the United States, Canada and Latin America.

The selection was confirmed yesterday by institute founder and board member Theodore E. Gildred.

"He's going to take the institute to a new level," Gildred said. "He wants to bring some new programs that will broaden the scope. He's going to bring a fresh overview."

Davidow, who will become the institute's president in June, succeeds Paul H. Boeker, a former ambassador to Jordan and Bolivia who directed the institute for 14 years. Boeker had announced his retirement before his unexpected death in late March of a brain tumor.

Davidow often visited San Diego when he was ambassador to Mexico and has already met many of the cross-border region's leaders.

"He's an incredible choice," said James Clark, director of the Mexico Business Center at the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. "I think he sees San Diego as the gateway or linchpin to all of Latin America. I can't imagine that they could have chosen anyone better qualified."

Davidow, one of only three people designated as "career ambassadors," will leave the Foreign Service after 35 years in international diplomacy.

He currently is a visiting fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard. He served as U.S. ambassador to Mexico for four years under former President Bill Clinton and 11/2 years under President George W. Bush before leaving in September 2002.

Davidow also was assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs and U.S. ambassador to Zambia and Venezuela. Over the course of his career, he was posted to South Africa, Zimbabwe, Guatemala and Chile.

"I hope to bring to the institute 35 years of experience in government, most of that dedicated to improving relations between the United States and Latin America," Davidow said yesterday by telephone from Harvard.

He said looks forward to continuing that effort as president of the Institute of the Americas and to promoting greater ties and a synergy with the University of California San Diego and its Latin American studies programs.

"Obviously, quality of life in San Diego was an important factor, too," he said.

The Chamber's Clark predicted Davidow will be a major figure on the scene, especially since his duties include fund raising.

The nonprofit institute serves as a catalyst for promoting development and cooperation, especially through the private sector, to improve the economic and social well-being of the people of the Americas.

It has a modest endowment of $7 million, Gildred said, mostly supplied by such corporate members as BP International, Grupo Inversión, McKinsey & Co. and Sempra Energy International.

Gastón Luken Sr. of GE Capital Mexico, the Institute of the Americas' board chairman, predicted that Davidow's familiarity with current events and political and business leaders in the Americas will prove invaluable to the organization.

"The situation in Latin America right now is going through a transition, and Latin America will come back on scene very soon," Luken said. "(Davidow) has a very valuable background, but more importantly, he has a vision of the future."

Diane Lindquist: (619) 293-1812; diane.lindquist@uniontrib.com