U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

55–397PDF 2010

U.S. POLICY TOWARD THE AMERICAS IN 2010

AND BEYOND

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 10, 2010

Serial No. 111–101

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

VACANT 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western 

Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................. 14

Mr. Peter Hakim, President, Inter-American Dialogue ........................................ 48

Riordan Roett, Ph.D., Sarita and Don Johnston Professor, Director, Western 

Hemisphere Studies and the Latin American Studies Program, The Paul 

H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), The Johns Hopkins University ..................................................................................................... 58

The Honorable Otto J. Reich, President, Otto Reich Associates, LLC (Former 

Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs) ........................ 73

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere: 

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 5

The Honorable Connie Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida: Prepared statement ........................................................................... 10

The Honorable Arturo Valenzuela: Prepared statement ...................................... 17

Mr. Peter Hakim: Prepared statement .................................................................. 51

Riordan Roett, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................ 61

The Honorable Otto J. Reich: Prepared statement ............................................... 75

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 100

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 101

The Honorable Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas: Prepared statement ............................................................................. 102

Written response and attachment from the Honorable Arturo Valenzuela 

to question submitted for the record by the Honorable Eliot L. Engel ........... 103

Written responses from the Honorable Arturo Valenzuela to questions submitted for the record by: 

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Texas ............................................................................................. 110

The Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 114

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Material submitted for the record ...................... 125

The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana: Material submitted for the record ................................................... 132

(1)

U.S. POLICY TOWARD THE AMERICAS IN 2010 

AND BEYOND 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:55 p.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eliot L. Engel 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ENGEL. The hearing will come to order. I am happy that we 

have so many people in the audience with interest, and Mr. Mack 

and I were just at a meeting with the President of Haiti, Mr. 

Preval, and that is why we are late. So we both apologize to our 

colleagues, Mr. Burton, and everybody else but Haiti is obviously, 

I am sure, Dr. Valenzuela will mention Haiti, I am sure, in his testimony. 

I just came back for Haiti on Friday, and obviously there is a lot 

of work to be done and the United States needs to play and will 

play an important role in helping to rebuild Haiti. I was at the 

White House this afternoon at the Rose Garden with President 

Obama and President Preval, and it was really heartwarming to 

hear both Presidents speak and talk about how we are going to 

work together to rebuild Haiti. 

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge several of our guests in the 

audience, several Ambassadors, and I welcome them all: Ambassador Barney Karran from Guyana; Ambassador Luis Gallegos 

from Ecuador; Ambassador Francisco Villagran from Guatemala; 

Ambassador Jaime Aleman from Panama; and Ambassador 

Valdivieso from Peru: And Ann Grut-Philips who is the Minister 

Plenipotentiary for the Netherlands Antilles, so welcome to everybody. I think I told the Minister Plenipotentiary that is where I 

went for my honeymoon 30 years ago, so something with the 

Netherland Antilles works, and welcome to all the distinguished 

people here today, and all the Ambassadors. 

So, the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere will come to 

order. Last April at the Summit of the Americas United StatesLatin American relations began to change for the better. I was in 

Trinidad as President Obama pledged an equal partnership and engagement based on mutual respect, common interests and shared 

values, and that was the President’s quote. 

In June, I saw a renewed U.S. commitment to multilateralism 

when I joined Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in San Pedro Sula, 

Honduras, for the General Assembly of the OAS. Secretary ClinVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:33 Aug 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031010\55397 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

ton’s trip to Latin America last week certainly is an excellent start 

to the year, and I hope in 2010 the Obama administration will 

build on the momentum from its first year in office. I would like 

to briefly share some thoughts on the direction that I think U.S. 

policy should take in a number of key areas. 

Firstly, we must work diligently to help Haiti from crisis to recovery. The Obama administration has so far done an outstanding 

job in responding to the catastrophic earthquake that hit Haiti on 

January 12th. I saw the devastation and our relief efforts firsthand 

when I visited the country on Friday. As we look ahead, we must 

assure the Haitian people that we will be there for the long term. 

The Donors Conference on March 31st in my home city of New 

York will be a key step in demonstrating the U.S. commitment to 

the Haitian people. 

Our hearts also go out to the people of Chile who suffered a tragic earthquake on February 27th. We in Congress stand ready to 

help our Chilean friends as they move toward reconstruction. 

Secondly, in 2010, I hope we can take a fresh look at our counternarcotics policies both here at home and throughout the region. I 

had a conference this afternoon and I spoke a little bit about that. 

Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been spent over the years in 

combating the drug trade. Unfortunately, the positive results are 

few and far between. 

In December, the House of Representatives unanimously passed 

the bipartisan Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act of 

2009. It is H.R. 2134, and I authored it with my good friend, the 

ranking member Connie Mack, and it was a pleasure working together with him in a bipartisan basis, and this bill would provide 

a long-needed assessment of our counternarcotics efforts, and 

Connie Mack as co-sponsor was also very essential in helping to 

move this bill forward. 

I am a strong supporter for security initiates in the hemisphere, 

but I believe we need to have a more holistic approach for our 

counternarcotics strategy and could withstand the so-called ‘‘balloon effect’’ that results from pressure in one region causing the 

drug trade to move to another region, so think about it. If we go 

to a region to try to prevent the drug trade, but we don’t do things 

to present it from moving, it will just take root in another region 

and obviously we don’t want that to happen. 

When I first became chairman of the subcommittee I traveled to 

Trinidad and Tobago where Prime Minister Manning told me that 

calls for just a small amount of security assistance were reportedly 

ignored. That was in the previous administration. I hope this is no 

longer the case. It seems to be no longer the case and I am pleased 

that the Obama administration if offering security assistance to the 

Caribbean, through the Caribbean Basic Security Initiate which is 

CBSI. 

This week I am sending a letter to the Appropriations Committee 

and again along with Ranking Member Mack and several members 

of the subcommittee urging full funding of President Obama’s $79 

million CBSI request. 

You know, these issues that we deal with on this subcommittee 

are really bipartisan, and we have very little difference between 

3

the parties. We understand that the United States needs to work 

with our friends and our partners in the hemisphere. 

Thirdly, I am increasingly concerned about the closing of democratic space in the Americas, and I know Mr. Mack will certainly 

agree with me again on this one. Just 2 weeks ago the OAS’s independent Inter-American Commission on Human Rights criticized 

Venezuela for its deteriorating human rights situation. In the coming year, I would like to see the OAS Permanent Council be more 

vocal in speaking out about the closing of democratic space in the 

region. 

On a more positive note, Colombia’s constitutional court recently 

voted to bar Colombians from voting on a referendum to lift the 

ban on third Presidential terms. This decision by the court and 

President Alvaro Uribe’s respect of the court’s ruling is proof of the 

country’s strong institutions and adherence to the rule of law, and 

it should serve as an example to all of us, and I admire President 

Uribe for his compliance and for his going along, and that has 

added to all the other things, frankly, that I admire him for. 

Fourth, I am pleased to see steps by the United States and several countries in the hemisphere to reach out to Honduran President Pepe Lobo; resuming our foreign assistance to Honduras and 

working closely with the Lobo administration is crucial. I know 

again our ranking member would agree. 

But the inter-American community must also ensure that steps 

are taken to implement key pieces of the Tegucigalpa/San Jose Accord. This includes the establishment of a robust truth commission 

to investigate events from last year; and finally, we must continue 

to closely monitor the increasingly worrisome human rights situations in Honduras. The recent murders of three Hondurans who 

were active in their resistance to the coup or related to activists 

must not go unnoticed. 

Fifth, we must continue to keep an eye on Iran’s expanded presence in the Western Hemisphere. I was deeply disappointed with 

Brazilian President Lula da Silva recently hosted Iranian President 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Brazil and I am concerned with Brazil’s 

lack of interest in new U.N. sanctions against Iran. Brazil is a rapidly modernizing country which wants to gain a permanent seat on 

the U.N. Security Council, but I believe its failure to take Iran’s 

nuclear program seriously is impeding its rise as a global leader. 

Sixth, I would urge the Obama administration to focus on El Salvador and Paraguay. It may seem odd that I single out these two 

small countries, but they are key partners who want to have strong 

relations with the United States. 

I attended the inauguration of Salvadoran President Mauricio 

Funes in June. He is the first President from the FMLN since the 

country’s peace accords in 1992. Funes, who was in Washington to 

meet with President Obama this week, faces opposition in his country from both the far right and the far left. 

In Paraguay, the second poorest country in South America, President Fernando Lula was the first President not elected from the 

Colorado party in 60 years. Both Presidents want to have ties with 

the U.S. and we must continue to nourish this important relationship. 

4

In the case of Paraguay, last year I introduced the U.S.-Paraguay 

Partnership Act, which is H.R. 1837, which would add the country 

to the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, or 

ATPDEA. 

On a more personal note, I am extremely concerned about the 

imprisonment of USAID contractor, Allan Gross in Cuba. I understand that Mr. Gross’s health has been on the decline while in detention and he has lost over 50 pounds. His release needs to be a 

top priority, and again the impression of the Castro Regime is 

something that concerns us all. 

President Obama, when he became our President, lifted the travel ban to Cuba for Cuban-Americans, and yet I think we have yet 

to see reciprocity from the regime in Havana. We need to see reciprocity. We need to see more, and we haven’t seen it yet. 

I hope that today’s hearing will help create a framework for the 

Obama administration to build on its successful first year on the 

Americas through a number of key concrete actions. We all look 

forward to the hearing of the testimony of our excellent new Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo 

Valenzuela, as well as our private witnesses. 

Just 2 months ago this subcommittee and other interested people 

went on a trip to the hemisphere where we visited, one of the 

places was Argentina. I want to state that I was particularly glad 

that Secretary of State Clinton decided to visit Buenos Aires and 

meet with President Fernandes de Kirchner. I thought that was a 

very, very important step. I think Argentina is an important country, and I think that the United States needs to work closely with 

Argentina. I think that we can talk about differences and accentuate the differences. That is a mistake. I think we should accentuate the similarities with Argentina, and I feel very, very strongly 

about doing that as well. 

So I am now pleased to call on Ranking Member Mack for his 

opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Engel follows:]

5


55397e-1.eps
6


55397e-2.eps
7


55397e-3.eps
8

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a pleasure working with you, and I think as you outline, there are many things 

that we can agree on and work together on, and I think it is our 

responsibility to find those areas of agreement and work toward an 

overall policy toward Latin America that ultimately will help the 

people of Latin America in their struggle for freedom, security and 

prosperity. 

Before I begin, I wanted to speak on the tragedies of both Haiti 

and Chile. Although these two earthquakes were very different, 

both ended the lives of so many, and I want the people of Chile and 

Haiti to know that our thoughts and prayers are with them. And 

Mr. Chairman, earlier today we had the opportunity to meet with 

the President of Haiti, and there are many challenges, and this is 

really going to take an effort, I think, not only from the United 

States but from other countries as well to come together to help the 

people of both Haiti and Chile recover and move forward. 

Ensuring the greatest freedom, security and prosperity for the 

people of Latin America is my ultimate goal as the ranking member of the subcommittee, and during this hearing I hope that we 

will hear the thoughts of our witnesses on how we can move toward a goal that does just that—ensure freedom, security and prosperity for Latin America. 

In Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, the struggle 

for freedom and democracy continues. In the past several years we 

have seen thugocrats in the hemisphere alter their constitutions so 

they can remain leaders for life. We have seen elections stolen in 

Nicaragua and Venezuela, and in the streets of Caracas we see democracy being stolen in plain daylight. I firmly believe that Hugo 

Chavez is turning Venezuela into a dictatorship and has made Venezuela a country who Samone Boulevard himself would be ashamed 

of. 

Whether it is squashing free and independent media outlets like 

RCTV or threatening his political opponents with violence and imprisonment, Hugo Chavez epitomizes what it means to be a 

thugocrat. His actions threaten the freedom, security and prosperity of the entire hemisphere and we cannot continue to let this 

stand. 

I also believe that populism is the worst enemy of prosperity in 

Latin America. Without fail every time one of these so-called revolutionaries or populists come to power the few generating industries or resources that the country has are targeted. They are either nationalized, confiscated, or stolen, and history proves that 

these populace leaders rarely, if ever, return any wealth to their 

people. 

Mr. Chairman, I have introduced legislation which supports 

President Obama and his agenda to strength U.S. trade relations 

with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. I cannot think of a better way to fight populism and to bring greater 

prosperity to these countries than by passing these three trade 

agreements. These trade agreements will create jobs, grow our 

economy, and level the playing field for American manufacturers 

and businesses. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, one cannot have prosperity without security. Hugo Chavez’s intent is making Venezuela the launching 

9

point for terrorism in the hemisphere. He has become Iran leader 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad his best friend, allowing terrorist organizations like Hezzollah and Hamas to enter the hemisphere and infiltrate the capital of the region. 

In the resolution which I introduced with my good friend Ron 

Kline, Venezuela would be designated as a state-sponsor of terrorism. This is a resolution which I hope this committee will consider this year. We all have seen the reports. Unchecked flights 

from Iran to Venezuela, easy access to Venezuelan passports, lack 

security at Venezuelan airports, and Iran banks working with Venezuelan banks to avoid sanctions and fund terrorists. 

I must ask, Mr. Secretary, what is the administration doing to 

curb the terrorism coming out of Venezuela which could eventually 

find its way to our very shores? 

As we address these very important issues, I look forward to 

hearing the testimony of our witnesses today and having an open 

conversation that, frankly, the people of Venezuela and Latin 

America are fighting for every day, it is their freedom to speech 

without being punished by its governments. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mack follows:]

10


55397f-1.eps
11


55397f-2.eps
12

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Mack. 

I am now pleased to introduce our distinguished Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo Valenzuela. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ENGEL. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Burton. I thought you were gone. 

Mr. BURTON. You know, I can understand why you had missed 

me. I was just chairman of this committee and ranking member of 

this committee for about 10 years. 

Mr. ENGEL. You are a good champion, Mr. Burton, but I liked 

you better when you were ranking member. 

Mr. BURTON. Did you really? Oh, you don’t like Mr. Mack now. 

No, I am just kidding. 

Well, first of all, let me just say real briefly that I share Mr. 

Mack’s concerns about Mr. Chavez. He is trying to cause his revolution to spread throughout Central and South America. He has 

put all kinds of money in Nicaragua and Bolivia, all over the place. 

And so I think one of the things that we ought to really address 

at the State Department level is the entire influence that his oil 

money is making on Central and South America, and we ought to 

realize that while we have problems in other parts of the world, in 

the Middle East, and I am the ranking member on the Middle East 

subcommittee, we still need to worry about our front yard and pay 

particular attention to what Mr. Chavez is doing, so I agree with 

everything you said, everything you said, Connie. 

I want to ask you a question. I am going to come back and ask 

these questions later, but I would like you to think about them 

while I am making my opening remarks. We have an awful lot of 

confiscation of property in Nicaragua when the communists and 

the Sandinistas took over in the eighties, and we were able to get 

the Government of Nicaragua to make good some of the losses that 

these people suffered. 

Now, in Honduras, we have one particular case that I have 

worked on for some time, it is called the Cemar case, C–E–M–A–

R case, and it is a company, a cement company down there, that 

was forced into selling their company by, in part, our State Department for something far, far less than what it was worth, and I 

want to read to you real quickly what was said. 

In 2008, more than 150 Members of Congress, including myself, 

wrote the Secretary of State about this case, and I quote from the 

letter, ‘‘Many, if not most, of the key facts in this case have already 

been established in various Honduras official findings of statements.’’

I would like to introduce for the record one of those official findings, a report issued by the Honduras attorney general in 2004, 

stating that the Cemar plant was eliminated from the market and 

bankrupted, bankrupted through illegal practice, and I have got a 

blue folder here I am going to give you so you can take a hard look 

at it. I think this is something that really needs to be looked into. 

It is probably not the only case. And I would like to know why the 

State Department forced one of our citizens to go through an expensive arbitration when the Honduras Government itself already 

ruled in favor of this company. 

I would also like to introduce for the record a letter to Secretary 

Clinton written by Mr. Conyers, which I quote, Mr. Conyers said, 

13

‘‘I am concerned that in this case the actions of the Honduras Government may have violated Article 3 of the BIT which prohibits expropriation,‘ and there is a letter attached. 

So, I would like you to take a look at that and if you have some 

current knowledge on it I would like you to comment when we get 

to the question and answer period, and this is something that is 

really a bad state of affairs. This company was forced to take $3 

million when the assets were worth probably tens of millions of dollars, and it was forced in part by our State Department after the 

attorney general of Honduras said that there was illegal activity in 

forcing the sale of this by the Government of Honduras. It is something that we should not allow to happen. 

It happened in Nicaragua. We have helped some of the people get 

their money back and get restitution in Nicaragua. But this is one 

case I think really should be looked into, and with that I will yield 

back my time and I will wait until we get to the questions and answers, and thank you for remembering me, Mr. Chairman, I really 

appreciate it. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Burton. 

Before I call on the Secretary, I just want everyone to know, before you leave, Dan, I agree with everything you said about the 

plant in Honduras, and I was also one of the 150 members who 

signed that letter, and it is a bipartisan letter, and certainly the 

new Government of Honduras, in my opinion, because they are new 

and they are looking at us for support, and I think we should support them, but I think responsibility comes with support. And when 

our American citizens are not being treated properly, that is something with which we all have concern, and I would hope that that 

would be one of the things that the Honduran Government would 

look at quickly and respond to it quickly because it is intolerable 

that this American citizen is being treated the way he was treated 

and continues to be treated. 

So I wanted to say that I do agree with that, and the last thing 

I want to say before I call on you, I mentioned the trip we took just 

about 2 months ago, it was to Argentina. We also went to Colombia 

and Panama, and I cannot think of better friends that we have in 

this hemisphere than Panama and Colombia. We meet with the 

Presidents of both countries, President Martinelli of Panama and 

President Uribe of Colombia, and it just warms my heart to feel 

the good feelings in both countries, and in Argentina as well, President Fernandez de Kirchner. We had a wonderful meeting for 2 

hours and the friendship was there as well. 

But I know the Ambassador, as I said before, of Panama is here 

and he was with us when we were in Panama City, and everyone 

in the delegation just felt really a good feeling of warmth. We have 

had a long relationship with Panama, some of it good and some of 

it not so good, and the fact of the matter is there is a government 

there and a people there who feel kindly disposed to us. I think it 

is something that I appreciate very much, and as I mentioned before, I think that Colombia has done everything that we have 

asked of them and is a good ally. 

And finally, I want to mention something about Mexico since it 

shares a border with us and it is a very important border, bilateral 

relations with that country are so important, and I admire PresiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:33 Aug 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031010\55397 HFA PsN: SHIRL
14

dent Calderon for his war against the drug lords and for his courage to take them on, and he and his country are suffering for it, 

but he has courage in taking them on, and we need to do everything we can to support him. 

So I am going to stop. Mr. Sires, I don’t know if you want to 

make an opening statement. 

Mr. SIRES. I will be very brief. Shall I say welcome, and I want 

to thank the chairman for holding this meeting, and I have the 

same concerns along the way as the chairman has. I am very concerned about Colombian, the fact that we cut some money to Colombia. I am also concerned about the Panama treaty, the agreement. Hopefully, we can vote on those soon, and I am also concerned about the migration to Cuba, and if you could expand on 

that a little bit, that would be great. Very brief. 

Mr. ENGEL. That was very brief. Thank you. 

I am now pleased to introduce our distinguished Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo 

Valenzuela. It is a real delight for me to welcome Secretary 

Valenzuela to the subcommittee, particularly after a confirmation 

process that took far, far too long. I was delighted when the President nominated him, and know that he will do and is doing a fine 

job in his office. 

Secretary Valenzuela comes from Georgetown University School 

of Foreign Service, where he was professor of government and director of the Center for Latin American Studies. During the Clinton administration, he served as Senior Director for Inter-American 

Affairs of the National Security Council, and was Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Inter-American Affairs. 

So, Mr. Secretary, you have had to listen to all of us, and that 

is probably the worst thing about testifying, but finally the floor is 

now yours and I am eagerly awaiting what you have to say. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ARTURO VALENZUELA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

words. I appreciate your travel to the region. I appreciate the comments of the members of the committee, and I very much look forward to exchanging views today, and also as we move forward in 

the relationship with the Americas. I very much value this conversation that we have had, and I have been pleased at the exchange of views that we have had before you trip and afterwards. 

I just returned myself now from a lengthy trip to the Americas 

with Secretary Clinton. In 5 days she went to six countries. We 

met with a dozen heads of state, as many foreign ministers, attended a Presidential inauguration, attended aids to Chile and 

promised more. She attended the Pathways to Prosperity Ministerial and a gathering of Central American Presidents, met with civil 

society and private sector leaders, reached out to hundreds of students at large Afro-Brazilian University. The trip was what you 

might call intensive engagement. 

I would add it continued here this week in meeting with President Preval of Haiti and President Funes of El Salvador, and as 

the President and Secretary have said, United States is committed 

15

to Haiti, and as you have said, Mr. Chairman, after speaking with 

them today, committed to Haiti and its long-term recovery and development efforts. 

On that trip we were particularly moved, Mr. Chairman, by the 

eloquent words of President-elect Mujica of Uruguay in his inaugural address. He outlined a bold vision of progress for his nation. 

It was a powerful, powerful defense of democratic values and institutions, including respect for our position parties and the value of 

dialogue and compromise and public affairs. 

In Chile, of course, we saw firsthand the efforts of the Chilean 

people to cope and recover from another catastrophic earthquake. 

The Secretary was able to express her condolences and that of the 

American people to the Chilean people and extend, of course, our 

disposition to assist Chile, as we have done. 

Everywhere we felt a dynamic agenda as animating democratic 

governments and societies in the region. It is an agenda we share. 

It is based on opportunity, effective democratic institutions, and 

the need to ensure our peoples’ safety. The Secretary sent a clear 

message of U.S. commitment to practical partnership to advance 

this shared agenda, and a clear message that this had to be based 

on two-way responsibility. 

That partnership is alive and well and growing in the Americas. 

I tried in my written testimony to capture its scope and ambition. 

To summary, we face very serious challenges, including assisting 

poverty and equality, transnational crime, democratic reversals, as 

so many of you have mentioned this morning in a few countries, 

the effects of the global economic crisis, and the effects of climate 

change. 

To address these challenges, the policy of the United States to 

help catalyze networks of practical partnerships among all capable 

stakeholders in the Americas focused on three priorities critical to 

people in every country: One, promoting a social and economic opportunity for everyone; two, ensuring the safety of all of our citizens; and three, strengthening effective institutions of democratic 

governments, respect for human rights and accountability. An important element across all of these efforts is advancing the goal of 

a secure and clean energy future, a matter that the President himself raised at the Summit of the Americas. 

Examples of this approach includes such initiatives, Mr. Chairman, as pathways to prosperity, the economic and climate partnership of the Americas, the inter-American social network, the joint 

action plan to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination and promote equality. On the citizens’ safety side, we are partnering with 

countries in the Americas in the Merida Initiative, Central American Regional Initiative, the Colombian Strategic Development Initiative, and the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative. 

I think the Secretary was struck by the pragmatic understanding 

in the region that our success is linked, and that it hinges on our 

societies’ ability to meet challenges and to compete and win in an 

integrated world. We have done so much to open our economies to 

trade and investment, but being successful and competitive takes 

a lot more. It requires investment and infrastructure and then people, and most of all it requires effective institutions that are governed by the rule of law. The quality and integrity of institutions 

16

is perhaps the most critical determinant of a nation’s success. This 

is why so much of our partnership in the region is focused on institution building and the need to fight for impunity and other 

threats to the rule of law. 

By every measure we are more engaged in Latin America than 

ever with the governments, with the private sector, with civil society, between all three in ways that highlight shared values and 

common hopes, and in ways that broker opportunity on a scale that 

perhaps was once unimaginable. Bit by bit it is defining the community that is greater than the sum of the parts. It is a community 

were, as Secretary Clinton said in Costa Rica last week, ‘‘We all 

want the same things, the chance to live safe and healthy lives, to 

see our families productive and moving forward, a better future, to 

participate fully in our communities, and to do all that we can to 

extend those opportunities to others.’’

The Obama administration’s approach in this hemisphere is that 

we are prepared to establish partnerships for joint action based on 

best practices. This is about the U.S. as ‘‘indispensable partners.’’ 

This is no longer about a hegemonic presumption, but about engagement based on shared interests driven by mutual respect, and 

based on common values. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support, for your leadership 

and that of the members of the committee, you show on so many 

key hemispheric issues. I appreciate the candid dialogue that we 

have had and I wish to have with this committee, and look forward 

to addressing the points that you might raise. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Valenzuela follows:]

17


55397a-1.eps
18


55397a-2.eps
19


55397a-3.eps
20


55397a-4.eps
21


55397a-5.eps
22


55397a-6.eps
23


55397a-7.eps
24


55397a-8.eps
25


55397a-9.eps
26


55397a-10.eps
27


55397a-11.eps
28


55397a-12.eps
29

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, and we 

appreciate it. I know we are going to have some really important 

questions. 

Let me start off by mentioning that last year at the Summit of 

the Americas the President spoke, President Obama, and I refer to 

him as a rock star. Everybody hung on every word he said, and he 

spoke about engaging the hemisphere, and we have worked with 

the OAS. 

There was a recent summit in Cancun. Heads of state of Latin 

America and the Caribbean agreed to form a new organization provisionally know as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. This organization includes every country in the hemisphere with the exception of the United States and Canada. 

Some have said that this new organization could replace the 

OAS. What does the exclusion of the United States and Canada 

from this new organization say about the current state of hemispheric affairs, and are you concerned that the Community of Latin 

America and Caribbean States will replace the OAS? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is 

a very valid question because there has been a lot of attention paid 

to this. Let me answer it this way. There have been a whole host 

of initiatives in Latin America over the years going way back that 

are regional initiatives to integrate the countries. There was at one 

point the Andean Pact. We know about Miracle Seur. There have 

been initiatives in Central America and others like that, and as we 

know our European friends and allies have their own organizations 

as well that we are not necessarily a part of. 

So, in principle, it is not a problem for the United States. If these 

countries set up mechanisms in order to dialogue with one another, 

to seek to create better understanding, to perhaps build better and 

sort of mutual confidence, confidence-building measures, for example in the case of differences that exist within countries, or opening 

markets, and that kind of thing, we encourage that. We welcome 

that. 

And I guess the question I would raise, Mr. Chairman, is will 

this be a really effective organization? I don’t know. In some ways 

there have been so many organizations formed and so many of 

them have not been that effective. They certainly would not, and 

I would end with this comment, they certainly would not replace 

the Organization of American States, and it is our assumption, except for maybe one or two voices out there that have said something like that, that all of the countries in the Western Hemisphere 

are committed to the Organization of American States and it is 

their fundamental regional institution. After all, it is the oldest regional institution in the world. It is one based on treaty. It is one 

that has notable institutions such as the Inter-American Human 

Rights Commission that you referred to earlier, and I see a strong 

commitment, and this was reiterated on this trip that we took in 

Central America where we met with all the Presidents, to not only 

value the Organization of American States but to look for ways to 

try to strengthen the Organization of American States, and that is 

where I think we would be on this. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I support the OAS and I think that it is very 

important for the United States to take a very active role in the 

30

OAS, but sometimes the OAS disappoints. We have seen a closing 

of democratic space in the Americas, and the OAS’s own independent Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recently 

criticized Venezuela for its deteriorating human rights situation. It 

follows similar statements regarding the closure of RCTV and Venezuelan TV stations. 

How are we, how is the administration dealing with the closing 

of democratic space in the Americas, and what will it take for the 

OAS Permanent Council to be more vocal in speaking out about the 

closing out of democratic space in the region? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Well, this is a matter of big concern, Mr. 

Chairman, and it is something that we want to work on much 

more. As you pointed out, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission did come out with a very forthright, very strong report on 

the situation in Venezuela. 

The commission has a long history of strong support for human 

rights going back even to the years where most of the countries in 

the Western Hemisphere were dictatorship. We need to strengthen 

that commission, and we need to make it more effective. 

But beyond that, and this is a fundamental point to leave you 

with, after the countries of the Western Hemisphere signed the 

Inter-American Democratic Charter, this took place on the fateful 

day of 9/11, and it was a commitment that arises also out of the 

adoption of the Resolution 1080 in 1991, when countries that were 

coming out of dictatorship asserted strongly and forcefully that the 

commitment of the hemisphere was to be representative of democracy. 

That, in turn, means that we need to move forward within the 

OAS to strengthen the institutions in the OAS, not just to the 

Inter-American Human Rights Commission, but also within the political secretariat to do several things perhaps; to have an early 

warning system that could help to understand better what is happening within particular countries in order to avoid a problem that 

might lead to a disruption or interruption of the political order, the 

democratic order, and to be much more forceful in raising issues 

where there are violations of the democratic—there is a history in 

the OAS of that. 

We will remember, for example, in 2000 when there was a contested election where the OAS took significant action. We need to 

return to that notion that it is not just a coup, it requires the OAS 

to intervene. It is also violations of the fundamental tenets of 

democratic process—freedom of the press, ability to assemble and 

that kind of thing. 

And so we are encouraging the OAS to go in that direction. To 

do so, and I will just end with this one thought, Mr. Chairman, to 

do so it really does mean forging a strong partnership with other 

countries to achieve those same objectives. We can’t do this alone. 

We have to do it with others, and that is why our effort at engagement and dialogue, communication with others is so important as 

we move forward. 

Mr. ENGEL. I couldn’t agree more about the engagement. I think 

that that is absolutely key, and if we do not engage we do so at 

our own peril. You know, if we are going to complain that others 

are going to step into the void, you know, whether it is China, RusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:33 Aug 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031010\55397 HFA PsN: SHIRL
31

sia, Iran, or whatever, if we do not engage others will step into the 

void. I couldn’t agree more. 

I want to ask you one last question, at least for now, and then 

I will turn it over to Mr. Mack, on Haiti. Obviously the earthquake 

in Haiti has highlighted the need for more coordination from donors in order to better channel assistance to those that need it. 

There is no doubt that donor coordination is hard. As you know, 

we have a donor conference in New York on the 31st of this month, 

but when donation coordination is done well it can have a much 

bigger difference on the ground. 

The region as a whole receives assistance from us, from EU, 

Spain, China and Canada, national financial institutions like the 

IDB, and wealthy countries in the region also provide assistance. 

If more was done to coordinate U.S. assistance with other international donors, I believe it could have a much bigger impact in the 

region, and I am especially cognizant of that after listening to 

President Preval today twice. 

Outside of Haiti, do any current assistance programs attempt 

this sort of coordination and are there plans to engage other international donors moving forward, and how are we coordinating our 

donations with international community vis-a`-vis Haiti? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Thank you for your question because this is 

something, of course, all of us have been working so hard on since 

the earthquake in Haiti with respect specifically to Haiti. This is 

an enormous challenge. I think we can be proud, the United States 

stood up the way it did at the moment of the greatest need. We 

had to react fast and we did so. 

But this, as you pointed out, is a long-term effort and as President Preval made very clear, this is something about a development strategy moving ahead to reconstruction, but also to build 

Haiti and this is where these efforts at coordination with other donors and other countries is very important. 

Let me just emphasize how pleased we have been that the countries of the Western Hemisphere have been very much at the top 

of the list of those who have been working. They may not be able 

to come up with the largest amount of funding at a certain particular point, but the Brazilian-led manusta in Haiti has played a 

very important part. The contributions of countries like Uruguay, 

for example, Uruguay is the second largest peacekeeper anywhere 

in the world per capita, and it has forces not only in the Western 

Hemisphere but other places in the world. But the Peruvians have 

also been there, The chileans have been there, the Argentines have 

been there as well. There has been collaboration with Haiti. 

The Dominican Republic, a neighbor, where there have been 

some difficulties over the years for complex reasons, has really 

stood up at this particular occasion, and I cannot let this opportunity go by without mentioning the fact that Canada, another 

countries in the Western Hemisphere that we work with so closely, 

has indeed taken a very important leadership role on this. It is 

very, very important. 

So, I think that with respect to Haiti we are coordinating these 

things, and this is indispensable as we go forward. But your question is a larger one and it is extremely valid, and one of the things 

that we have really been working on very hard is to see how our 

32

assistance can also be coordinated better with other players on the 

international stage, and in fact the main purpose of my own trip 

to Spain and to France recently was to talk not only about Haiti 

but also to speak with the Spanish, with the European Union and 

with the French, but particularly with the Spanish and the European Union, about how we might be able to coordinate our assistance say in an area like Central America, and we discussed very 

specifically support of CECA, for this Central American immigration process whereby we would coordinate our efforts. The Spanish, 

for example, are helping and the EU is helping to improve the customs systems in Central America. 

What we would like to do is go beyond assistance here and there 

but have a broader paradigm about how this assistance should be 

done, and let me conclude by emphasizing something that the Secretary spoke with all of the Central American Presidents, including 

Central America, if the assistance of the United States could be coordinated well with the assistance of the European Union, with the 

Spanish, with the Canadians, and with others, but with a notion 

of co-responsibility where the countries also have to come to the 

table. 

We need to make very, very clear, and I want to make this very 

important point in my testimony, I want to make very, very clear 

that when we go and work with other countries to assist them we 

also expect to have co-responsibility. This means that they also 

need to reform some of their institutions. And these, for example, 

in the case of Central America, they have to be willing to tax, you 

know, their own societies more than they have. 

In the case of Guatemala, for example, less than 12 percent of 

GDP is represented by taxes. That is simply not sustainable in 

terms of the infrastructure and development kinds of investments 

that Guatemala has to do. 

So, yes, let us coordinate better with our partners, but let us also 

have better partnerships with the countries that we are working 

with. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Sires reminded me that we were all watching 

with amazement with what Israel did in terms of its efforts in 

Haiti to try to get people out. 

Before I call on Mr. Mack I just wanted to mention, and if you 

want to comment on any of this we would appreciate it, Mr. Mack 

and I were just as a meeting with President Preval. I want to just 

read to you a little bit from my notes some of the things that President Preval said, and if you could comment on anything that you 

feel is relevant. 

He said that 1.5 million Haitians need to go to sustainable shelters because the rainy season is coming and their lives are in jeopardy if they just stay in tents or makeshift shelters because of the 

rainy season. He said they need agriculture, they need seeds to 

plant because if we don’t have aid for agriculture more people will 

just migrate to Port-a-Prince. They will leave the rural areas and 

come to Port-a-Prince which would not be helpful. 

He said revenues are decreasing and so budgetary support is 

needed. He quoted a figure of $350 million needed until the end of 

the fiscal year. He said that the trust fund is needed. There is a 

donors’ conference, help with the World Bank, and the IDB, but he 

33

also needed $1–2 million for tents, He said $36 million for seeds 

and agriculture. He said 250,000 home were destroyed, and that is 

essentially some of the hard—his point to us was Haiti needs assistance and needs it immediately. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Yes, and we have discussed that with him. The 

Secretary met with him yesterday morning, but we have been 

meeting with him and with his government over various different 

venues starting right after the earthquake itself. Indeed, on all of 

these particular points we are prepared to move and to assist very 

specifically to help them out on that. They have done their homework. We are there, Mr. Chairman, to work with the Government 

of Haiti, in support of the Government of Haiti, mindful of the fact 

that this is a sovereign country that needs our support and is welcoming our support, and it is in that spirit that we are going to 

be working with them. 

Mr. ENGEL. Because you know that the devastation, I saw it with 

my own eyes, it is never the same when you see it on television, 

when you are actually there and you see the devastation with your 

own eyes, and then you see so many people out in the street, as 

I mentioned, with nothing to do, no homes, no jobs, it is just a tragedy of absolute proportion, not to mention the estimated 230,000 

people that have lost their lives. 

Mr. Mack. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Exactly. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you being 

here and this opportunity to talk to you and ask you some questions, and really try to get an understanding of what your perspective is in the hemisphere and maybe an insight on to how you 

think some of the challenges can be overcome, but I have to start 

off—earlier in response to a question from the chairman you talked 

about the OAS, and I believe that the OAS, there might be one 

thing that myself and Hugo Chavez agree on, and that is that the 

OAS is ineffective, and the OAS has been a deterrent to freedom, 

security and prosperity in Latin America. 

I think that one of the things the United States must do is also 

lead in the hemisphere on principle, and when you have an organization like the OAS who the leadership of the OAS conducts themselves in a way that seems to be more supportive of governments 

and ideas that are in the process of destroying democracy, I don’t 

know how we can align ourselves with that kind of leadership. 

I do agree with you that the relationships, that we need to continue relationships in Latin America, direct one-on-one relationships, and that is why I support the free trade agreements, and I 

believe that when the President in the State of the Union called 

for the free trade agreements in Panama, and Colombia, and South 

Korea, that I stand ready to help the President on that, and would 

like to hear your comments about the free trade agreements. 

So, on the one hand we are saying—someone could get the impression that on one hand when you have a country like Honduras 

who stood up for the rule of law and the quality institution, government institutions that you mentioned, they look at how we respond 

to these things, and if on the one hand we respond to the Honduras 

events as a coup, which I completely disagree with, but if you respond to it as a coup, but at the same time look like you are supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:33 Aug 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031010\55397 HFA PsN: SHIRL
34

porting the actions of let us say Bolivia or Cuba, it sends a mixed 

message. Honduras did everything by their constitution, and for 

anyone to call it a coup it is irresponsible and misguided. 

So, I think that we need to show Panama and Colombia that we 

support them, that they are our friends, our allies. We need to 

move the free trade agreements. Not doing so sends the message 

to the rest of the hemisphere that the friendship of the United 

States doesn’t matter that much, so I would like to get your 

thoughts on that and then I have a couple of follow-up questions. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Okay. Congressman Mack, I will agree with 

you 95 percent on this. With regard to the OAS, there is just no 

question that we need to work to make it a more effective organization. As you pointed out, what we saw as an effective response from 

the Inter-American Human Rights Commission we need to see also 

within the organization itself, and I think that that requires some 

changes within the organization. It requires better management. I 

requires strengthening of the management. It requires also what I 

outlined earlier when I responded to Chairman Engel, and that 

was that we need to encourage the OAS to have better sort of early 

warning system, but they also need better follow through on these 

things. 

But let me just add an element that I didn’t mention earlier, and 

that is the OAS really is an organization that has in some ways, 

you know, a board of directors with all the countries on it, and in 

my experience and what we can also find in the academic literature 

is that it will only work when there are key countries that take a 

leadership position to move the organization. If there isn’t a consensus among key countries to move the organization, I refer to 

2000, for example, with the crisis in Peru, there was a consensus, 

in the Caribbean there was a consensus, among countries in South 

America, there were dissident voices then. Venezuela was a dissident voice then. Brazil, Mexico were a dissident voice then because they didn’t want necessarily a robust organization raising 

issues about an election that was in that particular case not handled well. 

We need to get around that, but the way to get around that is 

to establish a stronger leadership among countries, so this is where 

we want to go, and this is why this engagement is so important. 

It is not about the organization alone; it is about the leadership of 

the organization and its board of directors, and we need to take 

strong effort in that regard. 

Now with regard to your second question or comment, the free 

trade agreement with Panama and Colombia, yes, you know, we 

are supportive of that. Both Panama and Colombia, you know, have 

done what they needed to do in order to get these. In my estimation, it is a matter of—the President, of course, in the State of 

the Union said that he wanted to have this done, and we stand 

ready to work with USTR and also with Members of Congress. I 

defer to USTR on this, of course, but this is something that I think 

we really ought to do. 

Then the 5 percent disagreement, Congressman, I am afraid that 

what happened in Honduras, in my estimation and in our estimation, and we voted in the Organization of American States, and 

I think it has been the unanimous opinion of all countries really 

35

in the world, I cannot think of any country that did not judge the 

expulsion by force of President Zelaya is an interruption of the constitutional order. 

Why? For a very simple reason. He was not given the most elementary due process of law. 

Mr. MACK. Well, I would suggest then Honduras and the Government of Honduras are the most courageous on the planet because 

they stood up against, as you would say which I don’t necessary 

agree with, but they stood up against all or most and said that the 

rule of law, our constitution, our freedom and democracy is more 

important than the pressure that is going to come from the United 

States or other countries. 

In fact, when I went there and met with them, it was remarkable 

because you would have thought that the Honduran people and the 

government would have been very angry but instead they were in 

disbelief. They couldn’t believe that their friend and their ally, the 

United States, when we always trumpet, as you said earlier, that 

equality, public institutions, and the rule of law, that here you 

have a country who did nothing but defend its constitution and 

honor its constitution and the rule of law, and for us to turn 

around and call it a coup when if you just look at the facts on the 

ground you have the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, the 

Congress, all saying that Zelaya must be removed, and it was the 

government institutions that did the right thing to remove Zelaya. 

The military never took over that country, so I think it is a little—

you are right, we are going to disagree on that and we are probably 

going to disagree on that forever, and I am so proud of the people 

of Honduras for not only standing up, doing what they did, but also 

then having an election and showing the world that when you stick 

to your principles freedom and democracy will prevail. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Could I follow up very briefly? 

Mr. MACK. Sure. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Because what I want to do is agree with you, 

and I think what I want to agree with you is moving forward because I think that, and this was very much a part of our conversation with the Central American Presidents, it is time for Honduras 

to be brought back into the international community, and President 

Lula has taken all of the necessary steps in that direction. He has 

configured a government of national unity. He has made an extraordinary effort to set up a truth commission. We met with him, 

as I said, with the other Central American Presidents. They have 

taken a leadership, Congressman Mack, to tell the other countries 

in Latin America it is time for Honduras to be welcomed back into 

the inter-American community. We are strongly supportive of that. 

And the reason why we also want to move, not only because it 

is right, but because the Honduran people deserve better at this 

particular point. They have suffered enormously. It is one of the 

poorest countries in the region. We need to sort of reestablish our 

assistance with them to try and strengthen their institutions. So 

moving forward let us see how we can work on a bipartisan basis 

so that we can continue to work with Honduras and other countries 

in the region. 

Mr. MACK. Mr. Secretary, I do want to look forward but part of 

looking forward is recognizing the past, and having a clear picture 

36

of the past, and so I will let this be for now, but hopefully we will 

have an opportunity to have, and Mr. Chairman, if I may, I want 

to touch on Venezuela real quick. 

First of all, do you believe that the FARC is a terrorist organization? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. The FARC is a terrorist organization. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you. And do you believe that Venezuela and 

Hugo Chavez have assisted or in any way worked with the FARC 

or supported the FARC? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. I think there is some indications that there has 

been some assistance, but with all due respect, Congressman, and 

we are concerned about the FARC and the various different kinds 

of support that they have been getting from different kinds of organization, and we could talk about. I would prefer to talk about that 

in closed session rather than in an open session, but it is something that we are very concerned about, extremely concerned 

about, and as you know the news recently also links the FARC to 

some other organization. I won’t say anymore in open session, but 

let us have a conversation where I can have my staff come up and 

talk to you about this. 

Mr. MACK. I would appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Mack. Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to talk a little bit about the OAS since it is such an old 

organization. I think that they have been very weak in the past 

with human rights, and they are made up of a board of whatever 

you call—excuse me? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. It is a permanent council, it is a board. 

Mr. SIRES. It is a board. They must be the same board that Toyota is made out of. They just don’t admit what is wrong. But I wish 

that the organization would be stronger on human rights, and I 

think that is something that we should insist upon in the future. 

I was happy to see 2 weeks ago they spoke up on Venezuela 

which I think is a step in the right direction. And talking about 

Venezuela, I just had a meeting with a group of people in Florida, 

and one of the things they said to me about Venezuela in connection with Iran is that the diplomacy, the Ambassador and the 

members of the Embassy of Iran and Venezuela, that the amount 

of personnel they have there makes it one of the largest Embassies 

in the world. Is that correct? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. I don’t know for a fact whether that is the 

case, Congressman, but we are certainly concerned about Iran’s intents in Latin America. As the chairman indicated earlier, it is our 

concern as well. We are very concerned about the fact that Iran 

may be trying to establish networks in Latin America. 

Mr. SIRES. And they seem to be getting more and more aggressive in destabilizing their neighbors. We saw the judge, the decision that the judge handed out regarding the fact that they were 

corroborating with FARC and trying to kill Uribe, and I also have 

heard were they were trying to destabilize the peasants in Panama, 

where they would try to stir up trouble in Panama also. I just wonder if you heard anything like that. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Well, as I responded to Congressman Mack, I 

would be happy to talk with you in a closed session about some of 

37

the information that we may have on that score. I prefer not to do 

it in open session. 

But let me just for the record say that we are extremely concerned about Iran’s intents in Latin America. Its attempt is not 

commercial like perhaps China’s is. I think it is openly political 

and in that sense it is reaching out to countries like Venezuela or 

even Ecuador are of significant concerns for us and we are tracking 

it as closely as we can, but it is something we take very seriously. 

Mr. SIRES. The other issue that I wanted to raise is Colombia. 

I don’t think we have had a better friend than Colombia in the last 

few years. I was just wondering if the cuts that were made, how 

is that going to hurt, and why were the cuts made? Can you just 

expand a little bit on that regarding the efforts to cut the drugs 

into this country? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Congressman, I couldn’t agree with you more 

than the fact that our collaboration with Colombia going back to, 

in fact, the Clinton administration. I was at the NSE in 1991 when 

we first worked on trying to come up with a plan with Colombia. 

In fact, Congressman, it was a bipartisan policy, it was an extremely important part of the success of Colombia, and we continue 

to work with the Colombian authorities over the years to help them 

face these extraordinary challenges which in some ways are also 

part, as the Secretary of State said when she went to Mexico, it is 

partly our responsibility too because of the fact that so much of the 

cocaine that is produced out of Colombia does wind up in the 

United States, and so we continue to be committed to working with 

Colombia. 

But let me say this; that if there is a decline in some of the assistance to Colombia it is not because we are not concerned or because we are walking away from our partnership with Colombia. 

Quite the contrary. Because the decline in some of the assistance, 

it is precisely because our efforts to Colombia have been successful 

because we have been able to move to a separate level in terms of 

our concerns and our assistance in Colombia. 

The security situation is so much better in Colombia now that 

this is a chance for us to move away from some of the investment 

on the security side to investments in other areas that both the Colombian Government and the United States agree are very important, and that has to do with sustainable development, that has to 

do with addressing some of the economic problems, that it has to 

do with, for example, also alternative development. Alternative development efforts are very important. They may not be as expensive, and this is where our decline in Colombia, the amount of 

money that has gone down is about 10 percent, but we are convinced, Congressman, that even with a lower budget, because we 

are spending it in different ares, we would be as effective in moving forward in our assistance and our work together with Colombia. 

Mr. SIRES. I have a question about China and South America. 

Are you concerned that the China is going to supplant the influence of the United States in South America, in Central America? 

The reason I say this is I Had dinner with one of the presidents 

of a university in Bogota, Colombia, and he told me that now in 

Colombia the second most studied language in the university is 

38

Mandarin, which to me that was pretty striking. So are you concerned at all that we are going to be supplanted as far as influence 

in South and Central America by the Chinese? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. No, Congressman, I am not. In fact, my answer 

to that would be, the impression I have is that much of the work 

that China is doing in Latin America, unlike the reference I made 

earlier to Iran, or perhaps some of the efforts that Russia may 

have, those are driven more by a perhaps political calculation. China’s effort is driven at this particular point by an economic calculation, and if China invests, if China develops partnerships, and if 

Colombians at universities study Mandarin and so on and so forth 

and succeed in having Colombian exports export more effectively to 

China, more power to Colombia, and more power to the countries 

in Latin America. 

It is in our interest, Congressman, for these countries to grow 

economically, to become more successful competitively at the international level, and they are also looking to China, as we are, you 

know, as sort of an engine of world economic grown, and so I would 

encourage that and welcome that obviously so long as it doesn’t affect our own fundamental security interests, and at this particular 

point that is not an issue. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Sires. Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. You know, years ago we started the maquiladora 

program down in Mexico and a number of other countries joined in, 

and the reason that was done was to try to stabilize Mexico and 

deal with the immigration problem that has grown, grown, grown, 

and American companies and investors have been encouraged to invest in Central America and South America to try to help those 

economies and to stabilize the region. 

Ever since the Reagan doctrine took place where we changed totalitarian governments into democracies, we have been trying to do 

what we can to help those countries by creating free enterprise 

areas down there where people can invest and create jobs. The 

thing that bothers me is that in addition to having the competition 

from what I consider to be a communist regime, Mr. Chavez in 

Venezuela, so eloquently described by Mr. Mack, we also have corruption in an awful lot of these government. 

In Nicaragua, as I told you awhile ago, mentioned awhile ago, 

back in the early eighties they confiscated properly, the communists, the Sandinistas did, and it took a long, long time for anybody to get any restitution for that. We were able to help some 

businesses and some individuals to get some of their money back. 

Some never did. Some only got pennies on the dollar. 

Now, in Honduras, and I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but 

I want to talk about this again, there is at least 14 companies that 

have had their businesses exappropriated by the—with the help of 

the Honduran Government, and all of these companies have contacted our Government, and many of my colleagues and I have contacted the State Department saying, you know, you guys really 

ought to try and do something about that; otherwise people in the 

United States aren’t going to want to invest and risk their money 

if they think that we are not going to stand up for them in accordVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:33 Aug 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031010\55397 HFA PsN: SHIRL
39

ance with these agreements if they try to have their property taken 

away from them through exappropriation tactics. 

And here in Honduras they have a new government, they have 

at least 14 cases that I know of, including the one I talked to you 

about, this cement company, and we are not doing anything about 

it. Now, if I am a businessman and I say, okay, I know that Chavez 

is pouring our money, our money, 25 percent of the oil we buy in 

the world I am told comes from Venezuela, so we are giving him 

our money instead of drilling here—that is another subject—instead of becoming energy independent we are still giving it to a 

communist dictator down in South America, all the leftist groups. 

But we are giving our money and our support to some of these 

countries down there, and we are also encouraging American investment wherever possible. 

I don’t know why anybody is going to want to invest in these 

countries in Central and South America if the United States Government doesn’t back them up, and this company here, this is just 

one example, and there are 14 others, this one example in Honduras lost tens of millions of dollars because they were forced, 

forced to settle for $3 million in order to get anything out of it. 

And when we wrote to the State Department, the chairman of 

the Judiciary Committee, the chairman of this committee, myself, 

hundreds of us have contacted the State Department and they 

don’t do anything. So what are you guys good for over there if you 

are not going to at least back up some of the American business 

people who have made investments down there? And how are we 

going to help Central and South America to continue to be democracies if the people that would invest in there are scared to death 

to do so because they will have their property exappropriated by 

some entity, the government or somebody else? 

So, I would like you to answer that question for me. Why would 

anybody in this country want to invest in Central and South American unless they knew that you and the State Department and our 

Government was going to back up these people in the event they 

had to have their property taken away from them with the coercion 

and the help of the governments involved? So why would we do 

that, and why aren’t we doing something about it? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Thank you, Congressman. 

Let me agree with you, with all your premises. 

Mr. BURTON. But I don’t want you to agree with me, I want you 

to do something about it. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. I will tell you what I will do. Since I don’t really know the particulars of the Cemar case that you mentioned earlier, I will look into it and get back to you on it because I don’t 

have the specifics on that particular case. 

Mr. BURTON. Let me just interrupt quickly, and then I will let 

you answer any way you want to. 

It is not just this case. In Honduras alone there is at least 14 

others, and if you go through Central and South America you are 

going to find tons of companies that have had this same kind of 

problem, and this is our front yard, and when these companies go, 

are forced out by the government or by some entity working with 

a corrupt government down there, the people in many cases lose 

their jobs, and they end up coming north into the United States. 

40

The only way to stabilize Central and South America is to create 

economies where people want to stay home instead of coming up 

here to the golden country, and in order to do that they get investment from the United States and businessmen. We are going to 

have to let them know that we are going to stand by them, so go 

ahead. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. I agree with you completely. Congressman, I 

said in my oral remarks, it is in my testimony too, that I think the 

single most important thing that could be done as we move forward 

with all these various different kinds of initiatives is to pay attention to the fundamental role of institutions and the rule of law, and 

that means that you need to have—if Latin America is going to be 

competitive in the world stage it has to have transparent procedures, it has to have rule of law, and this is not the case in a lot 

of countries. 

You know, there is what is called judicial insecurity in many different countries where the laws are bend to favor certain kinds of 

private interests, and unfortunately that has been the case in Honduras, so we have been worried about the fact in Honduras there 

has not been that strong a tradition of the rule of law. 

So two answers to your question. One is, our policy has to be and 

is indeed to work with these countries in order to strengthen institutions and the rule of law. When I referred to the conversations 

that we had with the Secretary in Central America with all the 

Central American Presidents, this was one of the single most important things that the Secretary said when she said there has to 

be co-responsibility on your side as well. This is not just about the 

United States providing assistance to particular countries; this is 

about the United States working with countries that are serious 

enough to get their rules and procedures right so that in fact people can invest with assurance. 

Mr. ENGEL. Now——

Mr. VALENZUELA. On the second point. 

Mr. ENGEL. Okay. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. I agree with you. We, as the U.S. Government, 

should support our businesses if they run into difficulties, and I 

will look into these cases for you. 

Mr. ENGEL. One more, I will let you talk, I want to just jump 

in and help you a little bit——

Mr. VALENZUELA. Sure. 

Mr. ENGEL [continuing]. Because I do agree. I think the point 

that Mr. Burton is making, and by the way, there wasn’t much 

progress made on these cases in the Bush administration, I think 

we have to be fair and say that as well, but Mr. Burton’s premise 

is absolutely right. Honduras is rebuilding, and they need the 

United States’ assistance at this very important time to help them, 

to support them, and that we should give it, but at the same time 

we would be fools if we gave the assistance without saying, you 

know what, we are very concerned about these American companies and these American citizens, and if you are expecting help 

from us, we expect you to take care of the things that we are concerned with. 

So, I just want to make that point, and I think that is the point 

Mr. Burton was making, and I also want to say that next week, 

41

on March 18, this subcommittee will be holding a hearing on Honduras, your Principal Deputy Craig Kelly is coming, and I am sure 

we will be able to explore a lot of those things, but if you could 

comment on that point, that, you know, they need our help now but 

there is reciprocity, we need their help in doing something with 

these cases. 

Mr. BURTON. The chairman just made my point, and that is 

there are a number of these countries, including Honduras, that 

get Federal aid, get government aid from the United States, and 

if there are Americans who are suffering because of the policies 

that I talked about in this particular case, then it seems to me that 

we ought to say to them through the State Department, if you 

want our help then you had better solve these cases; otherwise, 

when you need the help that is obvious we are not going to be able 

to help you because we don’t want American citizens who come 

down there to try to invest in your company to get the shaft. Okay? 

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your comments. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I am just going to tell you, and as others, I am 

just passionate about the Western Hemisphere, and when I think 

about the people from visiting down there where you are dealing 

with the Caribbean, Central America or South America, they are 

magnificent, and I am so pleased that I believe we are moving forward from what had been a Cold War mentality in dealing with 

Central, South America and the Caribbean, to a post-Cold War 

type of deal, and I just think that is so important. 

When I look at individuals like those that are in this room from 

a good friend, the Ambassador from Ecuador, and Guatemala, the 

Bahamas and Panama, you know, in talking with them and working with them I am reminded all the time of the great people that 

we have as our neighbors to the South. 

You said you agreed with Mr. Mack 95 percent of the time. I 

don’t think I would ever say that, but this 5 percent or a major 

part that I do agree with Mr. Mack on, and I will be willing to 

work with him and with you tooth and nail. Our friends in Panama 

and Colombia need that CAFTA, and I think that that is significant. And when we look at, I think, the results of CAFTA, if anybody really take a deep look at it, it is specifically because of some 

capacity building clauses that we had in the CAFTA amendment 

which I think that if we go forward even in Honduras and try to 

make sure that we then through capacity building build the judicial system that had heretofore had not been there, then we are in 

fact also helping our American companies. 

So, one of the things that we have to do, and I think focus and 

target our dollars, when we are working whether it is trade agreements or others, is capacity building because that had not been 

there, and I have yet to go to someone who said they would not 

take help and capacity building, whether it was institutions and/

or the workforce because what happens in many of the countries 

that we are talking about that have problems, the major problem 

is poverty, and we have got to figure out how we reduce poverty, 

and what individuals are looking for in a lot of these countries is 

show me how having a democracy means to me that I am going to 

42

be able to feed my family and live like other people, because until 

they have food on their table then no matter what form of government they have it doesn’t mean anything to them. It is not relevant 

to them. 

One of the things I hear, whether it is in Central or South America or in Africa, why China and others we are concerned about, 

when they go in they are developing infrastructure and roads that 

can help people get jobs, and we do a great job, the United States, 

especially the humanitarian aid. I think we do that better than 

anyone else, but we do have to look at some of these other capacity 

building aspects that is going to help people sustain themselves by 

creating those jobs and opportunities within their own countries. I 

think that is so important. 

I know, for example, Secretary Clinton went down, and one of 

the questions I had in regards to, and she was the keynote speaker 

at the Americas for Pathways for Prosperity, and that is an area 

in which I know is focusing on reduction of poverty, and so I was 

wondering if you can tell us in regards are you focused on addressing those key problems in the region? And I will add all my questions at one time. 

The other issue that I am passionate about in the area because 

when you talk about the poorest of the poor, they are more often 

than not those who are African Latinos an indigenous individuals 

of the various countries. They are the ones that get the least and 

suffering the most of anyone in a number of these countries. And 

so as we have passed the Joint Action Plan with Brazil, and I know 

we have recently done a Joint Action Plan with Colombia, and I 

have asked and put in an amendment that I believe that the government—that the State Department should give us a report back 

on the progress of these joint actions. 

I am pleased with what I see has been the progress of Brazil, 

and I would like to see the same thing in regard to Colombia, so 

I hope that you can also tell me about your plans to address the 

plight of African Latino and the indigenous populations, and 

whether or not they have been prioritized at all in the plans from 

a budgetary concept because sometimes it is about money. 

Then, you know, I do believe in how you join countries together 

in some regional development, regional planning, et cetera, so I 

was wondering if you could tell me what you see as the biggest priorities or development in the Caribbean, because too often we leave 

them out when we are talking about the Western Hemisphere, but 

they are a part of it, but also Central and South America because 

they are our neighbors, they are great people, and they love Americans to a great degree no matter where you go, and that is even 

to some places where we have a doubt. 

Then just finally, I am getting ready to travel to Bolivia, and so 

I was wondering if you could tell me where we are with the Bolivia 

bilateral dialogue. Are the talks stalled? Do we expect to exchange 

ambassadors between our two countries? Are they coming here? 

Where are we with that? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Thank you so much, Congressman, and thank 

you particularly also for your passion and your concern for this 

hemisphere. I will start out with a few of your concluding points 

and then go back to your earlier point. 

43

The Joint Action Plan, which I know you have been very close 

to, I think is a terrific initiative. There was a meeting in Salvador 

between—this is a joint action plan to eliminate racism and ethnic 

discrimination and promote equality known as JAPR, and we had 

a great meeting in Salvador and Brazil, and there is going to be 

a subsequent meeting now in May in Atlanta, so it is Brazilian and 

U.S. counterparts meeting to discussion how we can address issues 

of racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination. And as you say, 

Congressman, we are also developing that program with the Colombians, to address the issues of African Colombians. It is a great 

program. 

The passion and commitment of the Secretary to this program 

was indicated by the fact that one public occasion on her entire trip 

that was not something that had to do with official meeting was 

when she went to the leading—first Afro-Brazilian university in 

Sao Paolo, Zumi dos Myras Permados, to interact with the students. It was a great occasion, she was very happy. This is an initiative that we want to continue to work on. It is very important. 

Number two real quickly because I know we are running out of 

time, we are committed to the free trade agreements with Colombia 

and Panama, as I said earlier. This is a very important——

Mr. MEEKS. I know Panama, the new administration, they would 

love to get it done. President Uribe, the time that he has been 

President, the improvements in that country it is almost—and I am 

going to say to the President also—it is a shame that we don’t get 

something done while he is still the President. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Yes, I would agree with you. Let us work on 

it and see if we can get it done. 

And then finally on some of your specifics, the Caribbean, met 

yesterday for lunch with the Caribbean Ambassador. He is here in 

Washington along with Carmen Lomellin, U.S. Ambassador to the 

OAS. Many of the ambassadors are duel hatted. They are before 

the White House as well as the OAS. We had a great discussion, 

and this is a very, very important commitment. 

When Secretary Clinton first asked me if I would be willing to 

take this position she underscored for me her commitment, her personal commitment to the Caribbeans, something we are working on 

very significantly, and in the spirit, Mr. Chairman, of your own 

concern over addressing issues such as security in a holistic fashion, not just focusing on one country but looking at it more broadly 

at the regional implications of this, you know, we are working both 

in Central America and through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative. 

We are very exciting about this because this would be the first 

time that we have been working closely with the countries of the 

Caribbean on something as important as their security challenges 

right now, and we are pleased, for example, that the budget for 

that has gone up, in 2011, by 50 percent, so there are resources 

there. We want to move forward very, very strongly to try to train, 

to partner, and to work together on the security side, but also on 

broader initiatives in order to better the peoples of the Caribbean. 

We are committed to that. 

On Bolivia, I should confess that it is slow. We continue to try 

to work with them on this framework agreement that we wish to 

44

pursue. We have had dialogue with them. It is slow in coming. You 

know, this is a President who was elected with 62 percent of the 

vote. He had strong support among the Bolivian people, but it 

hasn’t been easy to engage, and of course we are concerned about 

their lack of cooperation, for example, on such an important issue 

as counternarcotics cooperation. So we have some real issues there, 

but we continue to work on it, so I appreciate your going down 

there. Maybe when you come back you can give us a readout of 

your trip there. 

Finally, if I might, Mr. Chairman, the broad point that you 

raised at the beginning, and that is, you know, the challenge is 

that if democracy doesn’t deliver, if representative institutions 

don’t address the fundamental problems that ordinary people 

have—poverty, inequality and things like that—people get frustrated, and institutions begin to wane, they become less popular, 

political parties become less popular, and this is what fuels the rise 

in populist leaders. So there is a direct relationship between that. 

If countries can be effective in addressing the problems of people, 

then the challenges to democratic governments become greater and 

we wind up in a vicious circle. So our commandment then is to 

strengthen institutions as a fundamental part of this whole process. You know, it is only with strong institutions, with the rule of 

law, with genuine representative governments that speak to the 

people and address their real issues that we are going to be able 

to move forward and be able to be adequate partners, and this is 

what we are trying to do, Mr. Meeks. We are really committed to 

this. 

It is a dialogue that is going to be long in coming but actually 

we are very optimistic about this. I must say we are very optimistic. This is where we want to look and see that the glass is half 

full, and we see countries throughout the hemisphere coming to us 

and saying, yes, we do want to have this dialogue. The dissidents 

are very few. Those that are coming to the table are very, very 

many, and we are really quite enthused and in that sense optimistic about our prospects. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I should probably let that 

be the last word except we have talked among ourselves and we 

have a couple more questions we would like to ask. We will start 

with Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; thanks the members. 

Dr. Valenzuela, can you just give me an update on the negotiations with migrations in terms of Cuba, and if you know what is 

going on with Alan Gross, the situation there? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Well, first of all, let me say that we express 

our sympathy with Mr. Gross and his family. At the migration 

meetings, Craig Kelly, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

was there heading up these migration talks. He made it very clear 

at the highest level of the Cuban Government that we wanted the 

immediate release of Mr. Gross; that we find it untenable that they 

should keep them. 

The conversations on migration issues went fairly well in the 

sense that we were able to exchange views on things that concern 

us and concern them, but these are very small steps so far, Congressman, and our concern is—you know, the fundamental policy 

45

of the United States Government is that we see a vision of an open 

and free democratic Cuba with respect to human rights, with a 

competitive democracy, you know, with a vibrant society that can 

rejoin the inter-American system. Is that sense our policy is oriented toward engaging directly as much as possible with the Cuban 

people. 

But on Mr. Gross, there is no question this is the highest priority 

for the government and we are working hard to try to get him released. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Secretary, I want to briefly talk to you about 

Mexico because we haven’t touched on it in this hearing and it is 

so important. Obviously with the long border that we share with 

Mexico, as I said in my opening statement that what goes on over 

there affects us and vice-versa. As you know, I have a bill which 

has just passed the House which would set up a commission to look 

at drug policy in the region, in the Western Hemisphere, and I 

have long believed that we need to address the consumption side 

as well as the supply side. All these are intertwined with Mexico. 

Just last month 16 teenagers were killed in Juarez, right across 

the United States-Mexican border. They were killed by a group of 

masked gunmen, and Mexican journalists are being abducted in 

the Reynosa area, which is across from McAllen, Texas. What can 

you tell us? I have been a very strong supporter of Merida. I noticed that in the proposed budget Merida funds have been cut. Can 

you just talk to me a little bit about Mexico and what our progress 

has been there? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Sure, I am delighted to do so. Again, Mexico 

is at the highest priority. There is no question about it. If you push 

me as to where I would put things, I would put it very much at 

the top. 

Mr. ENGEL. As would I. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. And this is of fundamental interest to the 

United States. You know, a prosperous Mexico is of fundamental 

interest. There is just no question about that. And Mexico is facing 

some significant challenges. 

Let me say right at the outset, Congressmen, that the reduction 

in some of the expenditures, as with my earlier discussion with the 

reductions to Colombia, means simply the fact that now we can recalibrate some of the assistance. The earlier assistance went to 

some of the really expensive sort of items that you have to use, 

such as equipment for combatting the drug trafficking directly, helicopters and that sort of thing. Now we are actually funding other 

areas that are equally as important now that those other expenditures have been made, and that would include working very closely 

with what the Mexican Government has determined to be fundamental priority in this, and that is, again, what is needed is a 

strengthening of the institutions of the state, particularly local government and low enforcement operations. 

So we are working with them on different levels. We are working 

with them to strengthen, you know, these institutions and other institutions as I say, but also working with them in a far better way 

than we have ever worked before. 

46

I have some experience with this, Mr. Chairman, because I was 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary in the first Clinton administration 

in charge of Mexico, and I see now an quantum leap in the kind 

of cooperation that we have with Mexico today than what we had 

at that particular time. 

So I am encouraged about this, but that does not mean that I 

want to be Polly-Annish about the challenges that Mexico faces. 

These are significant challenges that I, again, am optimistic that 

we are working well together; that Mexico has things in hand; and 

that in fact we are moving a head to make some progress on it. 

The violence that you referred to in some ways is almost the inevitable result also of some of the success because as you bring 

down certain kinds of criminal organizations you incur a certain 

degree of conflict between them. But we are here for the long haul 

there as well, I think, because this is such fundamental interest of 

the United States to make sure that we get this right. Appreciate 

your help on all of this. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I want to just finally comment on a few 

things and you could comment on any or all of the things I mention 

now. 

Mr. Meeks mentioned the Caribbean, and I think it is important 

to state that I think it is very, very important for us not to neglect 

our friends in the Caribbean and the West Indies and other places 

in the Caribbean. I think they are very close in geography to the 

United States. There are close ties. There are hyphenated Americans in all the Caribbean nations, in my City of New York, and in 

the country, and I think those communities are really a treasure 

of linkage between the United States and those Caribbean nations, 

and we talk about the Caribbean Basin Initiative and things like 

that. I hope that we make that a priority. 

I want to mention Iran. We spoke a lot about Iran and this subcommittee has held a hearing on Iran and the penetration into the 

hemisphere, and it is clear to all of us that Hugo Chavez is facilitating Iranian influence in this hemisphere, but I must say that I 

was very, very disappointed recently when President Ahmadinejad 

came to South America. I would expect him to speak in Venezuela 

and Bolivia. I was very disappointed that he was welcomed with 

open arms by President Lula in Brazil, and it is very disconcerting 

when you look at Brazil and how they voted in the IAEA. You 

know, when we voted to criticize Iran, Brazil I believe abstained, 

didn’t vote for it. Argentina voted yes, and other countries voted 

yes, but Brazil did not. He was welcomed with open arms and 

given a platform to spew his hate, and we are told that President 

Lula is going or has gone, I think is going to Iran. He welcomed 

Ahmadinejad with open arms after the dispute over the election 

that was stolen, and I know Brazil wants to be a player on the 

world scene and maybe get a permanent seat in the Security Council, but this is a heck of a way to do it, and I wonder if you can 

mention that. 

And finally let me say, you know, we contrast that vote with the 

vote of Argentina who voted against Iran having a nuclear weapon 

and voted for sanctions, and I know that President Fernandez de 

Kirchner of Argentina is going to be in Washington next month 

when they have discussions of the IAEA and nuclear discussions, 

47

and I would just say publicly that I hope that President Obama can 

find time to meet with them. I think a meeting between the two 

of them is long overdue and I hope we can facilitate that. 

So if you can comment on any of these thing, I would be very 

grateful. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On the Caribbean, again I would reiterate how much this one is 

going to be a priority of this administration. The Secretary is very, 

very committed to that. And I might add, too, your remark about 

how in some ways, you know, many of these societies are blending 

in with our society, and it is part of the strength of our society too 

that we have been able to welcome so many of peoples from these 

various places, so there is a special bond that is there, Mr. Chairman, and that we need to as we move forward cultivate more in 

terms of our work in the Western Hemisphere as a whole. 

When we talk about partners and friendships we are talking in 

some cases of a family, you know, in the case of many people in 

certain constituencies, and so I really want to reiterate our commitment to the Caribbean, to the countries of Central America in that 

sense too as we move forward. 

Iran is a very, very serious problem. In my earlier testimony I 

underscored how serious we see their influence in the region. Let 

me say that this was, of course, a major item on the agenda of the 

Secretary’s trip. She raised this issue with both President 

Fernandez de Kirchner in Argentina and reiterated that the United 

States kind of gratitude and pleasure that they agreed with us on 

this particular thing, and at the same time very forcefully indicated 

in Brazil too to Foreign Minister Amorim and to President Lula the 

United States’ position that Iran is in violation of its international 

obligations, that it is in violation of IAEA, but also of United Nations Security Council resolution, and that in fact it is the responsibility of countries to abide by those particular resolutions. She did 

not mince any words on that and was very forceful in stating our 

concerns in that regard, and, you know, we are going to have to 

continue to move forward on this because it really is a very important element. 

So, I would agree, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot sit back on this 

issue, and you know very specifically she also raised the discomfort 

over the sort of communications with Mr. Ahmadinejad. We agree 

on this. 

With regard to the meeting on nuclear nonproliferation issues, I 

will defer to the White House in terms of scheduling meetings. 

They know what they are going to be doing, but we will certainly 

raise this as an issue of concern for us as well. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know my colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle appreciate your testimony and thoroughness. 

I am going to tell you, as I told your predecessor, Tom Shannon, 

we had him back to the subcommittee many, many times, and I 

look forward to your coming again and our exchanges of views, and 

we are going to take you up on some of the private discussions you 

offered to have with members of the subcommittee. 

So I thank you. I will call a brief recess for 2 or 3 minutes to 

have our second panel seated. Thank you. 

48

Mr. VALENZUELA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Brief recess.] 

Mr. ENGEL. The subcommittee will come to order and our second 

panel is here, and I am very pleased to introduce our distinguished 

private witnesses, and sorry that they had to wait so long, but the 

testimony of the Secretary was very enlightening, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of these three gentlemen who have 

many, many, many years of expertise in the area. 

Peter Hakim is president of the Inter-American Dialogue and no 

stranger to this subcommittee. Today will mark Peter’s last time 

testifying as dialogue president as he will be handing over the 

reins to Michael Shifter and becoming president emeritus. Peter, 

congratulations. I want to tell you that in honor of your outstanding work and your outstanding service Ranking Member 

Mack and Congressman Meeks and I have inserted statements into 

the official Congressional Record commending your excellent work 

at the Inter-American Dialogue, and when you finish your testimony and we put you through the mill and the grill I will give you 

these three Congressional Records and statements from myself, Mr. 

Mack and Mr. Meeks. So congratulations to you. 

Riordan Roett, I hope I am not botching your name, is a Sarita 

and Don Johnston professor and director of Western Hemisphere 

Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International 

Studies. I generally don’t read these things, but they did not put 

the ‘‘s’’ on Johns, I am sure that is done a lot of times, but I knew 

to put the ‘‘s’’ on. 

I notice on your CV that you testified before the Subcommittee 

of Inter-American Affairs in 1982, well before we came to Congress 

although I came 6 years later so it wasn’t much before, at a hearing entitled ‘‘U.S. Relations with Latin American after the Falklands Crisis,’’ so perhaps you will have some insight to provide our 

subcommittee on recent developments involving that issue as well. 

And last but certainly not least I am pleased to welcome Otto 

Reich back to the subcommittee. Ambassador Reich is a friend and 

served as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs during the administration of President George W. Bush. He 

also served as U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela from 1986 to 1989, 

and I am sure you have some very interesting comments on your 

service in Venezuela as we look at it today. 

So let me stop and let me ask you all to give us your testimony 

in 5 minutes. No need to read your testimony if you don’t want to. 

So moved to insert your testimony into the record as if you had testified and read it all, and if you want to add anything without 

reading your testimony, we will put them both into the record. So 

let me start with you, Mr. Hakim. 

STATEMENT OF MR. PETER HAKIM, PRESIDENT, INTERAMERICAN DIALOGUE 

Mr. HAKIM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mack, and 

of course greatly appreciate the honor of being written into the 

record. I presume it is an honor, and it is also an honor to be here 

today. I am hoping your questions are softer for a lame duck, but 

anyway it is a great pleasure to be back, and let me say my own 

view, my conclusion is the past year has not been a very good year 

49

for U.S.-Latin American relations. It is very clear that U.S.-Latin 

American relations remain unsatisfactory, as unsatisfactory as they 

were under President Bush, and there is no real clear course for 

getting them back on track. 

Let me just say this is not mainly, primarily the responsibility, 

it is not mainly a failure of the Obama administration, either its 

concept of policy or in its implementation. What it really demonstrates is how difficult, how complicated, it is to make U.S.-Latin 

America relations more productive, to improve the quality of those 

relations. This is not a simple task, and what are the obstacles that 

make it so difficult? 

First, and I won’t even say one more than a sentence: The U.S. 

has an overcrowded agenda, and Latin America has a great deal 

of difficulty finding its way onto that agenda except when there is 

a crisis here or an emergency there. 

Secondly, the politics of Washington are very difficult. I think we 

saw the Assistant Secretary Valenzuela whose appointment was 

delayed for at least 6 months because of Washington politics. It is 

also true that there is a range of policy issues that politics makes 

it very hard to act on. All of the people on the panel suggested they 

supported the free trade agreement with Colombia and Panama. It 

is clearly the politics of Washington that is holding that up. There 

are a number of other issues that are blocked in the same way. Politics made dealing with the Honduras issue very difficult as well, 

and that is just part of Washington. 

And last, the Latin American countries themselves have not been 

particularly cooperative over the past year. On some issues they 

really pushed the United States further than it wanted to go. We 

could talk about bringing Cuba back to the OAS. We could talk 

about the pressure on the United States to act in certain ways on 

Honduras. Several countries were very critical of the United States, 

and now we are talking about the Venezuelans and company, but 

almost all of South America was very, very critical of the security 

arrangement between the United States and Colombia, and I 

thought that maybe the United States didn’t handle it well, but at 

the same time I think there was an exaggerated response from the 

countries of Latin America. Some countries blatantly pursued policies they recognize fly in the face of U.S. interests, and really didn’t 

want to negotiate them. 

The most important one of those and it is not the only one is the 

Iran issue with Brazil, Brazil’s relations with Iran. I think that 

Brazil has a perfect right to establish its own relationship, but it 

seems to me that they ought to be more willing to sit down and 

really discuss that and deal with that with the United States. I 

don’t have to go into Chavez. 

What is going to be the U.S. agenda in the coming period? Let 

me say I think that Honduras is almost solved. I think we are on 

the right track there. Haiti is going to be a long-term issue. It is 

not going to be an immediate issue. I think that we are working 

together with other countries in the hemisphere. We ought to keep 

it that way. I think it is just very long term, very difficult. 

The big issues immediately are getting the United States-Brazil 

relationship back on track. Brazil is just too important in South 

America and globally. We have to find a way to manage our difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:33 Aug 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031010\55397 HFA PsN: SHIRL
50

ferences there, managing our disagreement and find ways to cooperate where we need to. 

We have to reassure Colombia. I think that has been talked 

about. Colombia is getting uneasy about the U.S. relationship and 

it is an important ally and we really do have to find the best way 

to do that is to pass the FTA agreement, I think, and I think we 

should also pass it with Panama as well. 

Mexico, I think we have surprising good relations, but there are 

a number of long-term issues that remain unresolved and are difficult to resolve. You go to Mexico and these emerge very quickly 

on the agenda. Immigration being the essential issue, on which we 

seem unable to make progress on, and I am not very hopeful that 

we are going to in the short term, but I hope we can find some path 

toward managing that better. I would like to see the United States 

find a way to repair or allow Mexican trucks to use U.S. highways 

as we agreed to in NAFTA some 15 years ago. I think that is an 

important issue, and it is another irritant. And I think that we 

really do have to keep finding ways to work with Mexico. I think 

we are doing better than we have at anytime in the past, but it 

is still not enough on that issue, and that is an issue that really 

has to go beyond Mexico into Central America, and the Caribbean. 

If we are successful in Mexico and we don’t really have a major effort in Central America and the Caribbean, it is just going to spill 

out into 15 countries instead of Mexico. 

Lastly, and with this I will close, I think we do need to spend 

more attention, more effort on the economic dimensions of our relationship with Latin America. What Latin America most needs from 

the United States, I believe, are our capital investment. It needs 

access to our markets. It needs access to our science and technology. That is where if we could find ways to move toward a 

greater integration on the economic front that would really create 

the core. That is the core of the European Union, it is the core of 

almost any integration, and I don’t think we are giving enough attention to that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hakim follows:]

51


55397b-1.eps
52


55397b-2.eps
53


55397b-3.eps
54


55397b-4.eps
55


55397b-5.eps
56


55397b-6.eps
57


55397b-7.eps
58

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Hakim. Dr. Roett. If you could pull 

the microphone a little closer, there is a button. 

STATEMENT OF RIORDAN ROETT, PH.D., SARITA AND DON 

JOHNSTON PROFESSOR, DIRECTOR, WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

STUDIES AND THE LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES PROGRAM, 

THE PAUL H. NITZE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (SAIS), THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 

Mr. ROETT. Let me take a different tack. I think it is very important to look at the bilateral problems we have with Latin America 

and they need to be resolved and they need to be addressed. I 

would argue that the old Latin America that we all knew and 

sometimes loved has literally disappeared. Beginning with the Chavez election in 1998, the region has, frankly, divided between the 

good countries and those countries that Secretary Clinton visited 

recently that are democratically consolidated countries, and those 

are the people with which we should be working. 

Broader framework, there are three or four major issues in a 

multilateral nature that require U.S. assistance but in cooperation 

with our neighbors in Latin America. The first, of course, is climate 

change. The Copenhagen Conference was not particularly good and 

we can’t leave it there, and the three important players at the table 

with President Obama that last night—Brazil, China, and India. 

One, climate change would include Brazil, and multilateralize it. 

Two, trade, we must move to restore negotiations around the Doha 

round. If we go back to August 1998 in Geneva when it collapsed, 

who were the three protagonists that were most important to not 

wanting to agree, one supporting it? Brazil, China and India. 

The last time I did testify before the subcommittee, it was on 

China and Latin America based on a book I had just published. 

Third, financial architecture. We must strongly support, and you 

have a very important role here, Mr. Congressmen and your colleagues, the new financial architecture. We have had three meetings of the G–20. The old G–7, G–8 is dead. Who are the most important members of that? Once again, China, India, Brazil. There 

are three Latin American members of the G–20—Mexico, Argentina and Brazil. 

Those are three multilateral issues in which the Congress must 

take leadership and support the administration. Copenhagen, climate, trade, Doha, financial architecture, G–20. Those are the new 

changing realities in which our colleagues in the hemisphere are 

very much interested and which I think this country under your 

leadership and the White House supporting you can really begin to 

talk about a broader multilateral agenda. 


55397b-8.eps
59

Sure, we need to resolve these. Very important to try to resolve 

some of the issue surrounding the presence of our troops in Colombia. The Brazil U.N. sanctions issues is certainly one very, very 

complicated; more complicated now with the cotton subsidies issue. 

We had administration people in Brazil trying to resolve that. That 

could become a trade war if we don’t deal with it very, very carefully. 

My suggestions, and as I was asked to do, for the Congress and 

for the administration in the coming year, first and foremost, I am 

delighted that the President is going to Australia and Indonesia 

next week. Why isn’t he going to Brazil? There is nothing more important that President Obama and Mrs. Obama appearing in 

Brazil. It would be an extraordinary diplomatic move and one that 

would be widely supported throughout the hemisphere. Mr. Obama 

is extremely popular all through the hemisphere, a lovely counterbalance to the Chavez and other people who would rather not have 

take up so much newspaper space. 

The interchange of the President of the inter-society group could 

be extraordinary. I mentioned the G–20, I mentioned the Doha 

rounds and I mentioned the Copenhagen round. These are all very 

important issues for Latin American countries. You mentioned before, Mr. Chairman, the Merida Initiative. I don’t understand why 

there is less money and not more money for the Merida Initiative, 

and that should be redefined and expanded in scope to include 

greater social and economic development goals. As you have said 

before, Mexico is a critical ally of the United States. The Merida 

Initiative is one way to give President Calderon strong support that 

he deserves and that he very much so need, as a matter of fact. 

Focus on relations, as I just said, in the hemisphere of like-minded democratic states like Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru, 

Uruguay, among others. These are the countries that we can work 

with. These are the countries that understand and share our values. The other ALBA countries led by Venezuela do not, and I do 

not think there is much progress to be made in the short term in 

trying to work or reach out or cooperate with the ALBA. We can 

with the countries the Secretary has just visited. 

The key challenges in 2010–2011, Brazil, as my colleague Peter 

Hakim mentioned, I spent 45 years studying Brazil. These elections 

are critical, they are crucial and the United States cannot allow 

any one issue, whether it is Iran or trade or whether it is other 

questions on the table that may appear bilateral, we need to work 

through those issues to make sure that Brazil is recognized as an 

important regional leader and selectively and increasingly global 

leader. The BRIC concept, Brazil, Russia, India, China, is here to 

say, and the United States must understand that and the way in 

which we can work best, I think, within that context is with Brazil. 

Two, the organization that was created or we think it was created, we are not quite sure, in Mexico a few weeks ago, what is 

it? That has been raised in the testimony here this afternoon by 

Mr. Valenzuela, questions from you and your colleagues as well. 

Does it make a difference? We need to clarify that. If the OAS is 

to continue, are we going to re-elect Mr. Insulza as the secretary 

general in a few days? What is the significance of that? That needs 

to be clarified and do so very, very quickly. 

60

Finally, I think it is very important that, again, we focus on global issues in which the Latin American countries are very interested 

in and increasingly concerned. To allow small issues, and some of 

these are not small issues, to allow small issues such as cotton subsidies to stop our dialogue with Brazil makes absolutely no sense. 

They understand and I understand and you understand the Farm 

Bill which the Congress has passed cannot be changed. We therefore need to work around the Farm Bill and find a diplomatic way 

in which we can continue our dialogue with Brazil on a very wide 

range on very important policy initiatives. 

No question the Iran question is tremendously irritating, but I 

point out—I am not defending the position of Brazil, I will not do 

that—but Brazil has had a very long diplomatic and trade relationship with Iran, and Brazil will be in 3–5 years a major oil export, 

as is Iran. Brazil may joint OPEC. There are diplomatic, political 

and economic reasons for Brazil for its own independent foreign 

policy to begin looking at those broader global issues that we have 

never really thought Brazil should or could engage. They are not 

beginning to engage them. My sense is after the election in October 

there will be a democratic, transparent election, no matter who 

wins, will be in a position to further the consolidation of democracy 

in Brazil and build a very important economic underpinnings of 

that economy, and that, it seems to me, needs very, very important 

attention by the United States. 

Finally, again, the bilateral questions are very important. My 

sense is in the twenty-first century that this committee should 

really be looking at the broader multilateral context into which we 

put the three members of the G–20, other countries that have similar concerns of a social and economic sense, don’t go back to the 

nineteenth or the twentieth century. The Monroe Doctrine is dead 

and buried finally. 

But the last time I did testify someone asked me about the Monroe Doctrine, and I explained that would have been a good question 

in the nineteenth century but in the twenty-first century we probably don’t want to go there, don’t touch that. 

So, in closing, I appreciate this opportunity. I urge you to look 

at the hemisphere in a broader global context, a twenty-first century context; not to get caught up on small issues although small 

issues need to be resolved; and address those larger questions in 

which our neighbors are very deeply interested. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roett follows:]

61


55397c-1.eps
62


55397c-2.eps
63


55397c-3.eps
64


55397c-4.eps
65


55397c-5.eps
66


55397c-6.eps
67


55397c-7.eps
68


55397c-8.eps
69


55397c-9.eps
70


55397c-10.eps
71


55397c-11.eps
72


55397c-12.eps
73

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Dr. Roett. Mr. Reich. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE OTTO J. REICH, PRESIDENT, 

OTTO REICH ASSOCIATES, LLC (FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS) 

Ambassador REICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Mack, for 

this opportunity to address the U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere. 

The overriding objective of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America 

and elsewhere should be to advance U.S. national interests, not to 

win international popularity contests. If we can be liked while we 

are advancing our interests, so much the better. But when we try 

to befriend undemocratic leaders and ignore their belligerence, we 

are neither liked nor do we advance our interests. 

Some of the people to whom the Obama administration extended 

an open hand, only to encounter a closed fist, include the rulers of 

Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, ecuador and Honduras’ 

former President Zelaya. 

Foremost as among our national interest is security. Without security we cannot promote other goals such as democracy, human 

rights, and economic development. I believe the U.S. Government 

today is underestimating the security threats in the Western Hemisphere, rather we seem to be fighting the ghosts of dictatorships 

past, and trying too hard to be liked. 

The main threat to the peace, freedom, prosperity and security 

of the United States in the hemisphere does not come from military 

coups, but from a from a form of free-thinking totalitarianism selfdescribed as twenty-first century socialism, and allied with some of 

the most virulent forms of tyranny and anti-Western ideology in 

the world. 

Today, Latin American is being undermined by autocrats who 

gain power through elections and then dismantle democracy from 

within. This has already happened in Venezuela and Bolivia. It is 

happening in Nicaragua and Ecuador, almost happened in Honduras, and could happen in any other nation that falls within the 

grasp of something called ALBA—my colleague Dr. Roett has mentioned—or the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. 

ALBA’s takeover pattern is clear. After gaining power democratically, they use force to intimidate political adversaries and the 

media, politicize the police and the miliary, and place them at the 

orders of the ruling party, pack the judiciary with compliant 

judges, rewrite electoral laws to eliminate opposition candidates 

and parties, seize private property or force businesses to close 

using bogus charges, incite mob violence to force potential opponents into silence or exile, and attack the churches, civil associations, the press, labor unions, and any other similar institutions 

that dares to challenge the government. Again, this has already 

happened in Venezuela and Bolivia, and it is happening in other 

countries. 

Their stated model is Cuba, and the result will be the same, a 

willing dictatorship, a pauperized prison nation whose citizens risk 

everything to flee. This is what U.S. policy must prevent. ALBA is 

actually the revival of Fidel Castro’s half-century goal of uniting 

international radical and terrorist movements of the developing 

74

world under his leadership; a movement he organized in the 1960s 

and called it the Tri-Continental. The first country Fidel Castro 

ever visited after the overthrow of the Batista dictatorship in 1959 

was Venezuela. Castro secretly asked Venezuelan President 

Romulo Betancourt for $300 million, about $3 billion, more than $3 

billion today, to underline the Yankees, as he put it, meaning us, 

in Latin America. Castro was rebuffed then but thanks to Hugo 

Chavez he has finally achieved his goal. 

Castro also targeted Bolivia in the 1960s because of its strategic 

location. Bolivia’s land borders with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, 

Peru and Chile, more than two-thirds of South America. In 1967, 

when Che Guevara selected Bolivia to begin his communist takeover of the continent, Guevara failed miserably but today a Castro 

disciple, Evo Morales is turning Bolivia into a twenty-first century 

socialist dictatorship. 

U.S. policy cannot be solely focused on ALBA, but neither can we 

ignore it because the Havana, Caracas, LaPaz acts is undermining 

the peace and prosperity of the rest of the hemisphere. Our most 

sensitive relationships are those with Mexico, Brazil and Colombia. 

I contend that these nations are confused with the signals being 

sent by the Obama administration, or at least in the first year. 

Those nations’ foreign policies, some of them, Brazil and Mexico in 

particular, seem oddly antagonistic to the United States and even 

self-defeating. 

Mr. Chairman, my testimony is quite lengthy. I will submit it for 

the record. It includes some of the activities of ALBA and particularly Chavez, some of which have already been discussed here 

today—the introduction of Iran and Russia and even Belarus and 

other undemocratic nations into the hemisphere by Mr. Chavez; the 

facilitation of Ahmadinejad’s visits to Nicaragua, Bolivia, possibly 

even Brazil, and other actions which I think are undermining the 

United States’ interest in the hemisphere. 

I would like to stop and during the question and answer period 

perhaps answer some of the questions that were addressed to my 

friend Arturo Venezuela that he couldn’t answer because, of course, 

the Assistant Secretary can’t answer some questions on the record 

about intelligence activities. However, there is plenty of open 

source documentation, for example, of Venezuela’s support for terrorism. That would make it very easy for the United States Government if it so desired to include Venezuela in a list of state sponsors of terrorism, and other questions that were asked that I would 

like to express my own opinion about. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Reich follows:]

75


55397d-1.eps
76


55397d-2.eps
77


55397d-3.eps
78


55397d-4.eps
79


55397d-5.eps
80


55397d-6.eps
81


55397d-7.eps
82

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Reich, and without objection your entire written testimony will be inserted into the record. 

Let me ask you a couple of questions and I will be happy to turn 

to Mr. Mack. I mentioned before that Mr. Mack and I have a bill 

which passed the House unanimously, I believe, which would establish a panel to look at drug policy in the Americas. The panel 

would be bipartisan. It would be modeled after the 9/11 Commission, and it would look at the supply side as well as the consumption side, and see what really needs to be done, and they would be 

appointees by the President, the majority and minority leaders of 

both the House and the Senate. 

Hillary Clinton said when she talked about U.S. counternarcotic 

efforts, she said, ‘‘Clearly what we have been doing does not work,’’ 

and I would say the same thing. 

So if anyone would like to take a stab at it, have you looked at 

Mr. Mack’s and my Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission 

bill? What do you think of it? What more should be done in 2010 

in our counternarcotics efforts in the Americas to increase our efforts in the demand side of the drug war? Would anyone like to 

tackle that? Mr. Hakim? 

Mr. HAKIM. You participated, Mr. Chair, in a meeting of the 

Inter-American Dialogue with a group of 25–30 experts on drugs, 

and you spent a good deal of time explaining the commission, and 

maybe you don’t know this but after you left I asked the group a 

question. I said: ‘‘Well, is this commission, if you had a grade or 

a scale, would you say this is a very important initiative, or would 

you say that it is not bad, it is a modest step forward, or would 

you say it is really not going to help very much?’’

And I think that everyone that spoke up at least thought that 

this was a terribly important initiative because the most important 

thing on the drug issue now is to begin to get some kind of discussion and debate that is sustained over some time and not simply 

keep repeating what we have been doing for the past 20 years 

when everyone seems to come to the same conclusion that it is not 

working very well. It seems to me the only way to get at whether 

our policy is working, and how it is working, and what could be 

done better, is to open this up to real debate. We have not seen a 

debate on the drug issue. Just for example, it never became part 

of the electoral campaign of 2008, it was absent from the campaign, 

and so I vote very strongly for the commission. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Dr. Roett. 

Mr. ROETT. You mentioned again Mexico as being terribly important, the Merida Initiative. The Attorney General has said a number of times in the meetings that I have attended, the Mexican Attorney General, there are three key issues that the United States 

could help Mexico fight this war: Arms, the total arms across our 

border from the United States into Mexico; second, a flow of chemicals from American companies, often using third companies to get 

chemical into South America to process this garbage, which is then 

brought back across the Mexican border; and third, money laundering. Do we know where the money is going? Whose money is it? 

What banks are holding it? That is the critical issue for these guys 

to buy the arms and now buy the submarines and the other armaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:33 Aug 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031010\55397 HFA PsN: SHIRL
83

ments they are using to kill thousands of people each year throughout the hemisphere. Those three critical issues are very important. 

And finally, your comment on consumption and demand is marvelous. It is exactly where we need to go and I am delighted as a 

bipartisan position on this subcommittee. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I appreciate that and let me also say 

that it is so clear to me that the illegal guns that are going from 

the United States south of the border into Mexico that are involved 

in committing crime, not only in Mexico but Jamaica and other 

places as well, that we really need to do something to stop this. 

There is a law on the books, it just needs to be implemented and 

enforced. It was enforced by every President until the last administration. 

The first President Bush, it is a 1968 law, the first President 

Bush enforced it, President Clinton enforced it, and it sort of went 

by the wayside during the George W. Bush administration, and it 

is still by the wayside during the Obama administration, and I 

think that that is something that we need to implement, and no 

one is talking about it. They are treading on their Second Amendment rights. These are illegal guns. Everybody knows they are illegal guns, and they come into this country for the sole purpose of 

going to south of the border to aid and abet the cartels. They are 

modified just a little bit so they kind of skirt our laws, and they 

illegally go there and I think that is something we need to deal 

with. 

I want to ask a Cuba question and I want to start with Mr. 

Reich. What is your assessment? You know, it was very interesting. 

Fidel Castro stepped down after all those years and turned the 

reins of power over to his brother Raul. Everyone suspected that 

he was terminally ill and that he would be gone from the scene in 

a matter of weeks or months or maybe a year or so. It is several 

years and he is still around, and I think increasingly the policies 

that are coming forward from Raul Castro’s administration seem 

more and more like they are directed and designed by Fidel. He 

writes opinions in newspapers. He speaks out vocally. 

What is your assessment of all of this? Why did he turn over the 

reins of power and has anything really changed? 

Ambassador REICH. My information, Mr. Chairman, talking to a 

lot of recent defectors. I spend a lot of time in Miami and there is 

a treasure trove of information, you have to filter it, but you talk 

to several people until you pretty much get the same story, then 

I thin it is believable. 

Castro was on the verge of dying. That is why he turned over 

power. But it is interesting, the people I spoke to. There is one position he didn’t turn over even when he thought it was on his 

deathbed, and that was Secretary General of the Communist Party, 

and in a communist dictatorship that is the most important position. He kept that. I guess he was going to take it to the grave, 

god forbid, and then come back. I don’t know what he was going 

to do with it, but since he came back he has really returned to control in Cuba. I would say he is in control. He doesn’t manage the 

day-to-day like he did before. He made all the decisions which, of 

course, were all the wrong decisions which is why Cuba is absolutely bankrupt. People literally don’t have enough to eat. But he 

84

doesn’t make t hose decisions anymore. To him those are insignificant. 

The most important thing for him is the relationships with the 

United States; how to, frankly, win the war as he called it back in 

a letter he wrote in 1956, the war against the United States, and 

the hard line that you see being followed is, I think, due to two 

things. 

One is that Raul is not the reformer that a lot of people thought 

he was going to be. Raul owes everything he has to his brother and 

to the communist dictatorship. The second is that Fidel is alive and 

making the important decisions in Cuba today. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Let me ask, Mr. Meeks in the first panel 

talked about Bolivia and obviously we have no diplomatic relations 

with Bolivia. Bolivia relations with the United States took a turn 

for the worst when Morales expelled the U.S. Ambassador, kicked 

out the drug agents, and things seem to have taken an up-tick with 

the United States-Bolivia bilateral dialogue, but now seems that 

those talks are stalled. Bolivia was dropped form the Andean Trade 

Preferences. 

How would any of you gentlemen advise the Obama administration moving forward with Bolivia in the coming years? 

Mr. ROETT. I think this is a very interesting and important question. I and my colleagues agree, differentiate Bolivia and Morales 

from Chavez, Venezuela, Correa, Ecuador, the crazy in Nicaragua. 

Mr. Morales is an authentic indigenous political leader that represents a new wave of democracy defined in Bolivian terms. So 

what we should be doing is working as well as we can diplomatically and perhaps through the Brazilians who have very good relations with Bolivia, to try to find out exactly what is the crux of the 

issue for not having formal diplomatic relations. But I think it is 

important for this subcommittee and for all of us in Washington to 

differentiate among these different ALBA people. 

When you look at Morales, he actually knows how to manage an 

economy. Chavez does not, Correa does not, Nicaragua does not, 

Ortega doesn’t even know what the economy means. Morales has 

good people working with him to manage that economy. The economy is growing and they are trying to resolve their differences with 

the Brazilians over natural gas. They are trying to find ways to develop natural gas. So I would put Morales in a different category. 

He himself as I understand it doesn’t want to be tossed into the 

Chavista bucket. He understands that is no way to go. 

But if you look at what the Bolivians have done and the way in 

which they manage their economy, then I think there is a basis for 

a conversation and a dialogue with Mr. Morales, which we will 

never have with Ortega, Chavez or Correa. 

Mr. ENGEL. Anyone else care to comment? 

Mr. HAKIM. I tend to agree with Riordan on that. Bolivia is a 

small, poor country that has a history of unstable government; has 

a history of huge differences between the poor and the people who 

were running the country, and the poor are mainly indigenous, and 

it just seems very unfortunate that the very important benefit that 

the U.S. was providing, the trade preferences was cut. This really 

hasn’t hurt the government very much. They have access to the oil 

fields and all. It is not doing anything to improve relations cerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:33 Aug 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031010\55397 HFA PsN: SHIRL
85

tainly, and it is costing poor people jobs in Bolivia. We ought to be 

working harder to try and figure out a way to restore that and 

begin gradually to bring back that relationship. 

The cost is so little to the United States, even if we make a mistake. In fact, Bolivia is worse than it is, I think this is worth a try, 

this is not a sort of major challenge to the United States the way 

Venezuela is. 

Ambassador REICH. I am happy to finally be able to disagree 

with my colleagues. I don’t think that Morales—first of all, he certainly is not democratic. My Bolivian friends tell me he doesn’t 

speak any indigenous languages, for example, so he is not a genuine indigenous leader. What he is is a leader of the coca growers 

union. This is his power base in Bolivia for the last 20 years has 

been as the person who has been promoting the increased cultivation of coca, coca leaves, he claims, for traditional use, but the fact 

is this is the basis for cocaine. We are talking about a drug policy 

in the United States, and Bolivia is one of the major coca growing, 

coca producing areas of the entire world. Most of that, by the way, 

doesn’t come to the United States, it goes to Brazil and Europe, but 

still the fact is that Morales has kept three titles. He is President 

of the country, he is head of the political party, which by the way 

is a totally undemocratic party and has used all the ALBA elements that I mentioned—the mob violence, the packing of the 

courts, all these undemocratic tactics; and third, he is still the head 

of the cocoa growers union, and it was that coca growers union that 

created the riots, according to two former Presidents of Bolivia—

Gonzalo Sanchez and Tuto Quiroga—they publicly said that the 

coca growers union were the ones that created the violence that 

brought down to consecutive governments in Bolivia, and then created the conditions of violence that led to the election of Morales 

because he did win. As Secretary Valenzuela mentioned he won an 

election. So did Chavez, so did Juan Peron at one point, so did a 

lot of other undemocratic people who having gotten to power undermine the institutions of democracy and try to stay in power forever 

and it is going to be very bad for the people of Bolivia. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Dr. Roett, you had mentioned the reaction of the other nations in South America with the U.S.-Colombia 

Defense Corporation agreement, I have taken the position and said 

publicly and privately in meetings with heads of states of the region that I believe that this agreement simply codifies an already 

existing defense cooperation between the United States and Colombia, but yet, as you pointed out, its negotiation set of a chain reaction of anger of several leaders in South America. 

Can you go into a little more detail about your evaluation of this 

U.S.-Colombia DCA, and the reaction of South American leaders 

because, frankly, I don’t understand it? We are kicked out of the 

Manta base in Ecuador, and we have not said that these bases are 

substitutes. There are not supposed to be anymore American troops 

on the ground than we currently have, and that this is important 

in fighting against drug trafficking and crime, and we obviously 

have a stake it, and we are not increasing the personnel nor are 

there permanent base. So what is all the fuss about? 

Mr. ROETT. Very good question, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to referred to American troops, not American bases. Ultimately in 

86

Washington or in New York you hear we are building American 

bases in Colombia. We are not. We have transferred a small number of troops from Ecuador to Colombia bases in a negotiated 

agreement with the Colombian Government. 

The bases are really an excuse by—we are now using the ALBA 

acronym for the bad countries in the region—as a way of beating 

up on Mr. Uribe in the Colombian Government. It is very clear it 

is all propaganda, and Mr. Chavez is pushing this, no question. 

The Ecuadorians have come in because of the very unfortunate 

issue of the movement of Colombian troops into Ecuadorian territory. So I think this has become one of those very, very small and 

short-lived mini-crises in the Andean Region that appear constantly. We would hope that with the election of Mr. Uribe’s successor, and thank you for pointing out that he has agreed to step 

down. He agreed in the constitutional court. He is acting constitutionally that a new democratically elected—he will be a democratically elected President of Colombia, will be able to move beyond 

this issue as well. But as long a Chavez is in power, Colombia and 

Venezuela have a common border and Chavez is involved as we 

know with the FARC in Colombia. The policies are excellent and 

United States should stand tall and work with the Colombian Government, no matter who is the President, with the Colombian Government to really characterize what Chavez is doing is not only illegal, as immoral, and not to provide any kind of diplomatic or 

legal support. 

Mr. ENGEL. Anyone else care to comment? 

Mr. HAKIM. Just a little bit, that even the U.S. Ambassador to 

Colombia now recognizes that this was going on. The treaty was 

being signed, and that there wasn’t a lot of information being provided. I agree with you that in fact this didn’t mean a whole lot. 

The fact that the Latin American countries exaggerated their protest and used it in ways that were weirdly suggested. On the other 

hand there is a sensitivity, and the U.S. knows about the sensitivity, and this was well communicated, what the U.S. was doing. 

That was, I think, the main problem, that countries that we were 

trying to sort of work closely with just felt that they were not 

being, and this was universally felt in Chile, in Brazil, countries 

that we got along with very, very well, as you well, know, and like 

I said, I think the incident was blown out of proportion and all, but 

I think we could have done a little better as well. 

Mr. ENGEL. I want to finish my questioning and then turn it over 

to Mr. Mack, about Brazil. Dr. Roett, again I want to comment on 

something that you said. You said that President Obama should be 

visiting Brazil, and I think that is a good idea actually. I think he 

should visit Argentina as well because I think that while there may 

be some disagreements with policies from the Argentine Government, I think Argentina is a very important country, and I think 

that we should not push them away. I know they had good relations with Chavez but I don’t think we ought to have a litmus test 

with countries and say, if you have good relations with Chavez, we 

are your enemy. I think that we have a lot in common with Argentina, and I would hope we would work very, very hard to nurture 

that relationship, and as I said, I was glad that Secretary Clinton 

traveled to Argentina last week, and I think it is important that 

87

Argentina gets the high level attention that it deserves. So I would 

be interested in hearing you talk about Argentina, and also about 

Brazil, because I think that it is important for us to engage, and 

one of the ways we engage is if the President visits or at least 

meets with the leaders of those countries. I think it is very, very 

important. 

I co-chair the Brazil Caucus. You have caucuses here, Mr. Mack 

can attest to it, for everything, and you generally have a Democrat 

and a Republican that co-chairs the caucuses. Well, I agreed to cochair the Brazil Caucus because I am very bullish on Brazil. I 

think Brazil is an important country, that we have a lot in common 

with them. They are the most populous country in South American. 

We have the most populous country in the Americas, in North 

America. Their land mass is the size of ours. They are a diverse 

country racially, ethnically, religious as we are, and we can learn 

a lot from them. I am in awe of what they did with biofuels and 

making themselves energy independent. I realize it is not exactly 

what we could do here but I have argued long and hard that we 

should take a page out of Brazil’s book and try to wean ourselves 

off of foreign oil because now we are at the mercy, whether it is 

Chavez or the Saudi, the royal family, or whatever. We are at their 

mercy because we need their oil and that is why we have this symbiotic relationship with Chavez. He needs us to buy his oil and we 

need him for the oil. I would rather tell him that we don’t need his 

oil. If we have biofuels—you know, ethanol, methanol—and we 

have other ways of getting our energy needs like Brazil did, we 

would be much more free and more independent. 

So I admire Brazil, but I am very, as I mentioned before, disappointed, unhappy, perplexed by President Lula’s policies. Again, 

it is not only Iran although Iran is very important. You know, 

Ahmadinejad was supposed to come to Iran before the Iranian elections, and I argued that would be tantamount to endorsing 

Ahmadinejad for re-election, so they listened. Other people said it 

too. They postponed it and they said he would come after the election. Of course, they were tainted fraudulent elections in Iran. You 

have people in Iran who are being killed by their own government 

in demonstrating for democracy and freedom, and then Lula welcomes Ahmadinejad with open arms, rubber stamping and giving 

credence to the election which we all know was a phony election. 

And then the group that was put together without Canada and 

the United States, Brazil seems to be an important force in that, 

and it seems to go out of its way under Mr. Lula’s leadership to 

try to tweak the United States at every turn. So I would like to 

hear some comments from all three of you on Brazil and Argentina, 

if you care, and we will start with you, Dr. Roett, because you had 

mentioned Brazil, so I would like to hear what you have to say. 

Mr. ROETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My new book will be out in August. It is called ‘‘The New Brazil’’ 

being published by the Brookings Institution, in which I make the 

argument that the United States needs to be extraordinarily sensitive to the new Brazil. This is a new country. For the first time 

since Brazil was founded poverty has been reduced by a BolsaFamilia Program that President Lula has made a very strong point 

88

of his presidency and is the Afro-Brazilian population that benefits 

the most from Bolsa-Familia. 

Second, energy is a very important question. You are absolutely 

right. We need to get away from Venezuela as quickly as possible. 

Brazil will pose within 5 years an interesting alternative for supplying us with petroleum. Makes every sense in the world to try 

to find ways in which we can accommodate our interests and their 

interests. 

This cotton issue, we have people in Brazil right now. We have 

got to find a way to get around this cotton issue, and the Congress 

has got to play a role in that and working with the administration 

so that we remove that irritant. The irritants should not matter. 

The big question should. Who was the third world country that 

worked with the United States and the European Union in Geneva 

2 years ago at the Doha Round? The Brazilians, to find a diplomatic solution. The Chinese and Indians did not. Brazil broke with 

them. 

So if we look at the overall set of issues, I beg us not to take Iran 

as the way in which Brazil operates. I would never defend the Iranian policy. I would try to interpret it. As I mentioned, there is a 

long tradition of trade and diplomatic ties with Iran. Good people 

make bad mistakes, and President Lula’s comments and policies on 

Iran are bad, but if you look at the broader picture this has got to 

be a very important dynamic bilateral relationship. The way South 

American goes it will go the way Brazil goes. 

Argentina, I never disagree with the chairman of committees, but 

I disagree with the chairman of the subcommittee on Argentina. I 

follow that fairly closely, and you were unkind enough to point out 

that I testified here in 1982 when you were probably still in high 

school. 

I think we have to be very careful with our relationship with Argentina. The Kirchners, and there are two of them as you know, 

we are not quite sure who is the President from day to day, the 

current President or the old President, are really weakening institutions. Look at what they are doing with the Central Bank. Look 

at what they are doing with a number of other decision, ruling by 

decree, trying to buy off members of the opposition in Congress. 

That is not the kind of country I want the United States to be identified with. I wish the Secretary had not gone to Argentina, and 

had stayed in Montevideo, and had made good comments, democracy consolidated Uruguay, social peace, Uruguay, political stability, Uruguay, and then just pointed her finger across the river, 

and those three things are not present in Argentina. 

Finally, on the Falklands, this is a political gambit for the elections next year. They did this in 1982, Margaret Thatcher took care 

of that. They are now trying the same thing to build up national 

support among the paradists and independents in Argentina. I 

hope it is not going to work. I hope she is defeated or her husband 

is defeated. It is time we end petty dynasties in the region. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Reich. 

Ambassador REICH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. On Brazil, I happen to 

have been the Assistant Secretary of State in the Bush administration, the much maligned Bush administration, when Lula was 

elected. We made a conscious decision to work with Lula. Even 

89

though he had a very—as you know, has a very left wing background, Marxist. I am not talking liberal Democrat. I am talking—

this guy was in jail for supporting violent revolution. He was fighting against the military dictatorship. You know, I think probably 

both sides were at fault. 

However, we should differentiate between Lula and Brazil. Lula 

is going to be President of Brazil only until next January 1. To the 

extent, in fact, that he has followed centrist economic policies that 

have resulted in this unprecedented development in Brazil, not just 

growth because they have had growth for many decades, but development, and social economic development in Brazil which the 

United States supported. The Bush administration established 

right at the beginning of the Lula government bilateral working 

groups at the ministerial level, at the cabinet level. 

I was present at the White House when President Lula came 

right after being inaugurated, and President Bush established 

working groups on things like energy and education, and poverty 

reduction, and we helped and we should be very glad that we did. 

We didn’t do it just to help Brazil, we did it because it is in the 

interest of the United States to reduce poverty in this hemisphere, 

our best allies are the countries that are making progress and that 

provide the basic human needs for their people. 

But we should be careful, and I agree with my colleague on Argentina, also to differentiate between Argentina, which is a friend 

and will be again, and the Kirchner government. There are a lot 

of violations of Argentine law taking place with the perhaps participation of the President of Argentina and her husband, and it is 

not clear, by the way, who is running the country. They are both 

very unpopular. As you know, Mr. Kirchner ran for Congress and 

he lost after leaving the presidency. There are a lot of things that 

will come out when they leave office that we don’t want to be associated with. 

I mean, there was a trial in Miami where it has been documented that Hugo Chavez sent money illegally to her campaign for 

election, that has been established. So there are a lot of things that 

are taking place in Argentina that we should, as I said, be very, 

very careful about. 

But as far as foreign policy issues, like Brazil getting close to 

Ahmadinejad, I think it is a terrible mistake, I agree with Riordan. 

It is a terrible mistake on the part of Lula, but it is very similar 

to what Mexico’s policy always has been. Mexico’s foreign policy 

has always been way to the left of its domestic policy. It is almost 

like these countries that are ruled by left of center politicians give 

the foreign ministry to the left sort of to play with, to keep them 

occupied so they don’t fool around with the really important things 

like fiscal policy, and national security, and other matters. 

This was explained to me, by the way, by a Mexican many, many 

years ago because I said, how do you explain the fact that Mexico 

is so anti-American, pro-Castro, you know, pro-Sandinista, et 

cetera. And he said it is because the foreign policy is run by the 

left. The important issues are run by the center. I am not denigrating foreign policy. I have spent my entire life in foreign policy, 

but that is the way they see it, and we should establish those relaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:33 Aug 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031010\55397 HFA PsN: SHIRL
90

tionship with the countries, with the honest politicians because the 

other politicians are going to be history before too long, I hope. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Hakim, I will give you the last word on this before I turn it over to Mr. Mack. 

Mr. HAKIM. Well, let me just say it seems to me we have to continually ask the question, not only whether a leader or a country 

is good or bad, ethical or unethical, but what the U.S. is going to 

do about it in ways that sort of serve U.S. interests best. Brazil is 

just too important a country in South America. Simply, they have 

a presence that is often an influence that is greater than our own 

in South America. We have to work to advance our agenda in 

South America, we cannot do it without the cooperation of Brazil. 

We have to accept that. 

And, similarly, internationally, Brazil has become just very, very 

important on all of these global issues. They are now in the U.N., 

a temporary member of the Security Council, and the vote on Iran 

is not—you know, hasn’t been taken yet. We can still influence 

Brazil. Brazil could vote in favor of Iran, it could abstain, it could 

vote with the United States, but the wrong thing is to simply sort 

of challenge Brazil on this or make it the fulcrum of our relationship. It seems to me we really have to figure out how to find more 

areas of cooperation with Brazil as we have with regard to Haiti, 

as we have with regard to Doha. There are lots of other areas. It 

is the best way to deal with Brazil, and it is probably the best way 

to deal with Argentina as well. 

I am not a great fan of the Kirchner government, I think they 

are very irresponsible, but, frankly, I still think that it doesn’t 

make any sense for us to try to isolate or alienate them. The question is to continue to work and try to move them through diplomacy and directions that we find more beneficial to our interests. 

And let me end by saying Lula was never jailed for violent revolutions at all. He was a labor leader. Secondly, he has been the 

most successful leader Brazil has ever had, politically, economically, and internationally. I don’t think he leaves foreign policy to 

anybody but himself and it is treated very, very importantly in 

Brazil. I don’t think that you can explain it that way. I think there 

is other explanations but I do think that Lula has been a first-rate 

leader. He would be a candidate for lots of international positions. 

We talked about secretary general and all. Lula is a very special 

person. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to kind of pose this question to all of you. In the last 

let us say 4 or 5 years, and I think it began before that, there has 

been—it started with this idea, you know, Hugo Chavez gets elected. He then begins to dismantle democracy, if you will, in Venezuela, and as he is doing that he is reaching out to other countries 

that may want to follow in the same steps, creating a playbook that 

then gets passed on to different countries, and it seemed, and I 

mean, this is fact, we have just seen this happen, and all through 

that time we have had conversations on this committee and all 

over the place about what is the right approach. Do you isolate 

him? Do you go meet him? You know, what do you do? And there 

is always this—you know, at some point I think you have to recogVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:33 Aug 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031010\55397 HFA PsN: SHIRL
91

nize that if someone is against you, there is nothing you can do. 

I mean, I don’t know that another meeting with Hugo Chavez, you 

know, at some point there is nothing you can do. 

So the question then becomes what is U.S. policy? What should 

we do? What should our policy be to Latin America, and what is 

the best way to implement it? 

So I would like to get from each one of you, if you agree with 

kind of what I have outlined, if you have any thoughts of—well, I 

don’t want to go there. Moving forward what do you think the policy of the U.S. should be in the current environment that we find 

ourselves in? Some of the countries out there that just—it appears 

that they have no intentions in wanting a positive relationship 

with the U.S. In fact, I think that Chavez believes that being antagonistic to the U.S. helps him. So what should some of our policy 

positions should be, and what do you think we should do moving 

forward to strengthen those relationship with the countries that 

are our friends, and what to do about some of those countries that 

appear to be kind of on the fence? So that is kind of a big question. 

It gives you a lot of room to work with. 

I will say this, that earlier my friend Congressman Meek said 

that he wouldn’t agree with the Secretary, to agree with me 95 percent of the time, he gave me 5 percent, and then another year from 

now if we can get to 10 percent, I would be happy with that. But 

of the 5 percent I think that he is talking about is the idea that 

poverty—when you talk about the people in Latin America and you 

talk about the governments, a lot of times they are two different 

things, and the idea of a foreign policy that deals with the people 

of Latin America, that gains—you know, the strength of America 

can be in our relationship with the people of Latin America, so it 

is almost two—you almost have to go at this in two ways: One, 

what to do with the governments, if you will, and then what the 

policy should be from the United States for the people of Latin 

America, so big question and I will let you go down the line and 

love to hear your thoughts. 

Mr. HAKIM. Let me go first. Let me say first is that I do believe 

that almost every country wants reasonable relations with the 

United States, with the possible exception of Venezuela. I think 

Venezuela is really, and even if you want to argue that maybe Ortega in Nicaragua or Morales doesn’t want good relation, they are 

not very threatening to the United States. These are sort of very 

small, poor countries that we should continue to try through diplomacy. 

Venezuela is really the big issue. That is the country that has 

resources, is disruptive. It has a leader that really sort of reaches 

beyond the borders and all, and how you deal with it becomes very, 

very important. And you know, we have tried confrontation. That 

seems to strengthen him the more he had traction from our confrontation. We tried ignoring, that doesn’t seem to do very much. 

He continues on his way. 

There is no—I mean, this is one of those problem countries that 

I think we are going to have to live with for sometime, at least 

until Chavez—if things get worse in the country, if depression really does get much worse, we may be faced with a real challenge. But 

the fact is I don’t think any policy is going to work with Venezuela 

92

that doesn’t have minimal support from Brazil, Argentina, and 

other countries. 

In other words, for any policy to the United States makes sense 

unless on one count, that is, are we willing to sort of interrupt our 

oil commerce and trade with Venezuela? That is really in some 

ways, to use a common term, the nuclear option. Venezuela depends more on our imports of oil than we depend on their oil. We 

have never been willing to really go there. We hardly ever discussion this. Once in awhile Senator Lugar wrote a report on this, but 

the question is, I think, that unless we are willing to sort of think 

of that as an option, which I don’t think we should because I think 

it really is dangerous, I think that we really have to find other allies in Latin America and sort of work with them. 

It is very interesting, just one anecdote: You know the mayor of 

Caracas who lost his office? Basically he won the election and Chavez pushed him out of office. He went to Argentina to ask the countries of MEROSUR—Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay—to 

admit Venezuela because they thought that by being part of that 

group would have a moderating influence. 

So there are different ways to approach this. I don’t think there 

is any perfect way. I mean, I don’t think there is any really magic 

wand that is going to solve that problem. 

Mr. ROETT. That is an important question, but if you look at the 

electoral results recently in Latin America, nobody has fallen into 

the ALBA family. El Salvador, democratic elections; Honduras, we 

can discuss the past but the present and future is more important, 

there were democratic elections in Honduras; Colombia, there will 

be democratic elections in Colombia. Now, there were in Uruguay, 

there were in Chile, there will be in Brazil. Those are the countries 

the United States needs to work with. We have got to find small 

and big ways to work with those countries. 

I agree with Mr. Hakim. There is nothing we can do with Venezuela unless we can find an alternative source of energy. We cannot do that overnight, although we should begin working on it, and 

I think the issue here is to let the other countries in the region look 

at our policies that work well with the democratic countries, and 

we need not push it in their face, but they will get the message 

very quickly that Washington works with democratic, consolidated, 

socially peaceful countries, not with countries in upheaval. That is 

the kind of message Correa needs to hear in Ecuador particularly. 

You cannot do a thing with Ortega in Nicaragua. He is off his 

meds. And Venezuela is just not going to be a serious contender for 

any kind of collaboration with the United States. 

So, the Secretary’s trip, as I said before, was excellent and it 

went to the democratic consolidated countries. That is the message 

we need to put out day by day, and if the President goes, he should 

repeat that itinerary and go to those countries as well, and he will 

be wildly received. 

Ambassador REICH. I have had to make basically those decisions. 

What do you do when you, like the Assistant Secretary of State, 

you don’t have all the resources you want. Our time is limited, our 

money is limited, our energy, resources, the time of our policymakers is limited. What I would do, frankly, is look at the hemisphere and do a triage, do what they do in a military hospital. 

93

They bring in the patients. Those that are going to survive no matter what—they are only going to survive if they get medical intervention, and then the rest. 

We should actively work with our friends, support our friends. 

We know who they are. We talked about Colombia. We have not 

talked about Peru but Peru today is a friend, at least a friendly 

government. Panama, Honduras, we owe Honduras because, frankly, this administration made a terrible mistake last year, which has 

been corrected by the Secretary of State, against the advice of some 

of the people in her State Department, but it has been corrected. 

It has been reversed, but we owe Honduras. Most of the Caribbean 

are our friends. We need to work with them. 

Then you take the hostile countries, and the most hostile is Venezuela, and you actively oppose those hostile countries that are 

hurting our national interests, and I mentioned in my testimony 

what Chavez is doing. Chavez and Castro, because they have an 

alliance. 

What would I do? Three things right now. I would put Venezuela 

on the list of state-sponsored of terrorism. You don’t have to go into 

executive session. There is plenty of evidence that Venezuela is 

supporting terrorism. 

Two, I would announce that we are stopping our purchases of oil 

from Venezuela. We buy 8 percent of our consumption from Venezuela, about 15 percent of our imports, but it is 72 percent of what 

Chavez exports. We are going to replace that 8 percent a lot faster 

than he is going to replace 72 percent, I guarantee you. In fact, 

what it may do is reduce the price of oil in the market. He is going 

to have to dump that 72 percent because most of the oil is already 

committed. People have contracts for the purchase of oil. His contracts are with us. We can replace that oil from Canada, from Mexico, from a lot of other places; from Colombia, perhaps. 

Third, I would cancel the visas of the private sector people who 

are becoming multi-millionaires and billionaires doing business 

with Chavez, most of which is illicit or at least unethical. There are 

billionaires now in Venezuela, they called the ‘‘Boligueses’’ or 

‘‘Bolivarian Bourgeoisie.’’ If we revoke those visas instead of the 70 

visas we revoked in Honduras from the people—frankly, in a very 

vindictive action by our State Department from the people who 

supported Michelletti. 

No matter what you think of Michelletti the fact is I agree with 

you, Mr. Mack, that his actions—he was named by the Congress 

as the President of Honduras. We canceled visas in Honduras for 

political reason, and by the way just to—I am sorry Mr. Burton is 

not here, but there is a very powerful family that is responsible for 

the bankruptcy of that company that he mentioned. Our Embassy 

knows who they are, and those visas haven’t been canceled either, 

and they are in violation of our laws. Section 221(f) of the Immigration and Nationalities Act, if anybody want to look it up. 

But going back to Venezuela, that is what I would do, and I disagree with Peter Hakim. We never confronted Chavez. There was 

no confrontation. We have always extended a hand. Certainly the 

Clinton administration did. Chavez brushed it away. Clinton tried 

to send the CBs, U.S. Navy personnel to help with a natural disaster. Chavez said, oh, no, just give us the equipment, but we don’t 

94

want your navy forces. Well, that was against our laws so we had 

to withdraw the navy. That was the very beginning, the first year 

of Chavez, and we know the history since then. 

And the other countries, the rest of the hemisphere, if they don’t 

want to be our friends, and they are not our enemies, well, we will 

just work with them. You can be neutral. I disagree with former 

President Bush. He said, you know, if you are not with us you are 

against us. There is a place for neutrals. I don’t have a lot of respect for neutrals, but w e will work with them. That is what I 

would do. 

Mr. ROETT. May I mention four words? Fulbright Program expand it; Peace Corps expand it; consulates, open more, we have 

closed many, many consulates, make it easier for Latin American 

students to get visas to come to the United States, they are not terrorists; and we are losing Latin American students in our universities because of the terrible problem of either finding a consulate 

and/or getting a visa. Those four things. They are small, but symbols are important and those are symbols. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, and I know time is running out and I 

want to make sure that Congressman Meeks has a chance, but I 

just wanted to leave this last thought. I think whatever policy that 

we move forward in the U.S., it needs to be consistent, and I think 

that for having one policy for one country and another policy for 

another country creates an environment that Hugo Chavez and 

others can use, feed on to pit us against others, and you don’t need 

to respond to that. I just wanted to put that out on the record, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you, Mr. Mack. As you probably can 

hear, we are in the middle of a series of three votes and we have 

about 8 minutes to vote, and of course they don’t bang the gavel 

right away, so let me turn this over to Mr. Meeks for about 5 or 

6 minutes. Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I didn’t get a chance, I wanted to come back down here to 

first congratulate Mr. Hakim for his being moved to the emeritus 

status. He has done a great job and I appreciate the work that you 

have done and look forward to continuing to work with you on a 

continuous basis. 

Let me say to Dr. Roett that I want your book. I am been impressed listening. I definitely want to read your book when it 

comes out, so please make sure I know how much it costs, where 

I can get it, I want to buy your book, and I very much appreciate 

what I have heard you say this afternoon. 

Before I ask my question the one thing that I think we have to, 

at least the way I look at making statements myself from within, 

so we should focus on governments and that there are free and fair 

elections as opposed to saying after the free and fair elections, 

whether we like this President or that President, because can you 

imagine—you know, they would do the same thing here. You know, 

we have different Presidents that come from different parties, and 

we don’t want them to say that we don’t want to work with our 

Government based upon who that President is. Those governments 

have to shift to make sure that they work with us. There is a difference in President Bush and President Obama, so some people, 

95

you know, they shift. That doesn’t mean they should not work with 

us because we have a shift in our presidency. So we shouldn’t be 

focusing and saying that, well, because this person is President, 

without looking at the institutions and the fact that it was a democracy and the people had spoken, that we are going to deal because we don’t like this President. 

The other piece that we have got to be aware of, for example, in 

Bolivia where for the first time you have a person who was elected, 

who is an indigenous person from the community, where the indigenous people are speaking and voting in a democratic manner to 

forget that perspective, and say that because he is—the same thing 

with President Lula, who is indigenous, a different—you know, the 

people came out in record numbers to vote for him, and we can’t 

say because we don’t like—you now, he is a left-winger or he is a 

this or that we don’t like him. It is, I think, a compliment to the 

country that the people who may be historically under other governments didn’t even have the right to vote before. 

So that is progress, and what we have got to talk about is the 

long-term relationship building, and in those relationships, depending upon the President sometimes, you are going to have a better 

relationship with a country than you did before, but the main thing 

is to keep those contacts and to open those doors so that you can 

deal with the people who really needs the kind of relationship that 

we have. 

With that being said in the little time that we have, there is so 

much still to be done and so I try to focus on what we can do from 

our perspective in our country. Where do we start? I mean, I don’t 

know, we talk about drugs, we have got that issue. We talk about 

poverty, we talk about government and I have talked essentially 

about capacity building. Is there any organizational structure or 

how do we do those kinds of things that we know needs to be done, 

how do we prioritize them? Let me ask that. What do you think 

our priorities should be as we deal with Central America and South 

American specifically, I leave the Caribbean out a little bit because 

of the size of the country, what do you think our priorities should 

be moving forward? 

Ambassador REICH. I was asked that question when I was, again 

when I was Assistant Secretary, and my answer was—it actually 

may surprise you—what Latin America needs is decent jobs for its 

people. I mean the problem is how do you create those decent jobs, 

and the answer is freedom. The system that provides individual 

initiative, that provides the necessary role of government, the right 

role of government, not necessarily one where the government stifles enterprise, is the kind of government that we should work 

with, and by the way, we made—as I say, we made a conscious decision to work with Lula. We actually make that decision with almost anybody, with everybody. 

When Morales was elected, President Bush called him to congratulate him. We sent our Assistant Secretary, Tom Shannon 

went down to talk to him. Actually, I was the one who went to talk 

to Lula. I was the first Washington official to talk to Lula. It was 

November 2002. Actually he didn’t win the first time around. He 

had to go to a run-off election, so he did win but it was after a runoff, and right after the run-off I went to see him and I took a mesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:33 Aug 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031010\55397 HFA PsN: SHIRL
96

sage from President Bush, and it was inviting him to the White 

House. By the way, he was the first President in Latin America to 

be invited to the Oval Office before he took office. He came on December 10, 2002. He took office January 1, 2003. President Bush 

received him in the Oval Office to show we wanted to work with 

Brazil and to end, in spite of his leftist background, his radical 

background, radical labor leader, he is missing a finger because he 

was actually—he worked with lathes and he lost a finger in one. 

I gave him, by the way, a Jefferson cup thinking that would be 

nice, and he appreciate it, a pewter cup that was designed by President Jefferson a long time ago. I also gave him a pen, a Ronald 

Reagan pen. I couldn’t help but, I had to give him something Republican. But we had a very good conversation, and I spent 21⁄2

hours with his top three advisors who went into the government 

with him, and we had heated discussions about some issues, but 

we founded the basis for the relationship that lasts until today. 

Lula is an example of the left of center leader the United States 

can work with. We are going to have differences of opinion, and we 

do on things like Iran and Cuba and Honduras and perhaps other 

things. 

Morales, on the other hand, having gained power democratically 

has begun to dismantle the institutions of democracy, and I don’t 

want to spend too much time, I would be happy to come in and tell 

you what he has done, and that is an example of the kind of leader 

that we cannot—I don’t think the United States can work with 

him. That is why the Obama administration is having so much 

trouble restoring relations to the ambassadorial level. 

But as far as priorities and what do we do, we should work with 

the leaders who want to work with us to create the conditions for 

economic development in the hemisphere based on freedom, on free 

enterprise, and frankly, the kind of freedoms that we enjoy in the 

United States. 

Mr. ENGEL. I am going to let that be the last word unless Mr. 

Hakim wants—we have about 30 seconds left. You can each give 

us perhaps 30 seconds if you have a burning desire. 

Mr. ROETT. I would first work at the micro level. Let us get the 

cross-border trucking issue with Mexico resolved; second, let us get 

the cotton subsidy with Brazil resolved; third, let us get the outstanding bilateral trade deals resolved and voted on by the Congress. 

The macro level, I have already explained. Let us work in a bigger multilateral framework on things like Doha, energy, climate, 

very important, and trade. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Hakim, you will be the last word if you can do 

it in 30 seconds. 

Mr. HAKIM. I think that Riordan is right. I would go after those 

issues, but I think you have to take Mexico and Brazil as rather 

special countries in the region. Building good, strong relations with 

those two countries would allow us to reach out to a whole lot of 

other countries. They are really the two pivotal countries, and I 

agree that you have to deal with all those sub-issues to get there. 

You have to deal with immigration and you have to deal with 

trucking, or you are not going to get there. With Brazil, you have 

to deal with a whole lot of issues as well. 

97

But if the U.S. can begin to think even in terms of almost a G–

3, that that would be a very sort of useful, or at least a beginning, 

framework for moving forward. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. We are going to go because we missed 

a vote. I want to thank the three of you for excellent testimony. 

This entire hearing lasted over 3 hours, and I was really intrigued 

with every minute of it, and I really appreciate the work that you 

gentlemen have done, and obviously helped to enlighten us, and I 

know we will have you all back here in the future. 

And Mr. Hakim, please pick up your citations and thank you all 

three of you for excellent testimony. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(99)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

100


55397n.eps
101


55397m.eps
102


55397g.eps
103


55397h-1.eps
104


55397h-2.eps
105


55397i-1.eps
106


55397i-2.eps
107


55397i-3.eps
108


55397i-4.eps
109


55397i-5.eps
110


55397j-1.eps
111


55397j-2.eps
112


55397j-3.eps
113


55397j-4.eps
114


55397k-1.eps
115


55397k-2.eps
116


55397k-3.eps
117


55397k-4.eps
118


55397k-5.eps
119


55397k-6.eps
120


55397k-7.eps
121


55397k-8.eps
122


55397k-9.eps
123


55397k-10.eps
124


55397k-11.eps
125


55397l-1.eps
126


55397l-2.eps
127


55397l-3.eps
128


55397l-4.eps
129


55397l-5.eps
130


55397l-6.eps
131


55397l-7.eps
132


55397o-1.eps
133


55397o-2.eps
134


55397p-1.eps
135


55397p-2.eps
136


55397q-1.eps
137


55397q-2.eps
138


55397q-3.eps
139


55397q-4.eps
140


55397q-5.eps
141


55397q-6.eps
142

Æ


55397q-7.eps