U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

65–849 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

CHALLENGES TO HEMISPHERIC DEMOCRACY:

ELECTIONS, COUPS AND INSTABILITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2000

Serial No. 106–127

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

VINCE MORELLI, Subcommittee Staff Director

DAVID ADAMS, Democratic Professional Staff Member

KELLY MCDONALD, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

WITNESSES

The Hon. John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Michigan ........................................................................................................... 5

Ambassador Lino Gutierrez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the

Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State; accompanied

by Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law

Enforcement Affairs ............................................................................................. 10

APPENDIX

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from California

and Chairman, on Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere ....................... 24

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from New

York and Chairman, Committee on International Relations ........................... 25

Mr. Robert Menendez .............................................................................................. 30

Mr. John Conyers, Jr., House International Relations Committee, .................... 32

Ambassador Lino Gutierrez .................................................................................... 35

(1)

CHALLENGES TO HEMISPHERIC DEMOCRACY:

ELECTIONS, COUPS AND INSTABILITY

Wednesday, June 14, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:13 p.m. in room

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elton Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. GALLEGLY. We will now go into the hearing. If the witnesses

would please come forward.

The purpose of our hearing today is to examine recent and forthcoming events in several Latin American and Caribbean nations to

analyze how these events have or could impact democratic gains

and the overall political stability in the region. For more than a

decade, Western Hemisphere political analysts and academic experts have pointed with optimism to the continued growth and

strengthening of democracy in Latin America and in the Caribbean. The focal point of the hemisphere’s success story thus far has

been the number of free, fair and transparent elections which have

taken place at all levels of government over this period. Up until

recently, most elections in the region have been very successful.

Yet, most know that elections alone do not make a strong democracy. Other elements such as well-organized civil societies, independent judiciaries, a free press, active political parties and militaries willing to subordinate themselves to the elected civilian authority, are all required before any nation can truly be defined as

a strong modern democracy.

Today, the glitter of progress is beginning to tarnish in some

parts of the region as electoral processes have broken down, such

as in Haiti and Peru, where new patterns of populist

authoritarianism seem to be emerging, such as in Venezuela and

Peru, and where restless militaries, twice in the past 6 months, in

Ecuador and Paraguay, have staged unsuccessful coups d’etat. This

is not to say that all parts of the hemisphere are taking steps backward. We hope these may be only one-time temporary setbacks.

But recent events in several countries in the region, coupled with

the inability of economic reforms initiated earlier in the decade to

adequately address pressing social problems, have cast a dark

cloud over the democratization of parts of the region.

Today, the Subcommittee has asked the Department of State to

review these particular issues with us and to assess whether these

events can justify criticism that Latin democracy is in decay. We

2

have also asked the Department to provide an update on the current counternarcotics situation in Colombia.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly appears in the appendix.]

Mr. GALLEGLY. Before we go to the witnesses, are there any

Members—I see the Chairman of our Full Committee, the gentleman from New York, who would like to make an opening statement.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you for allowing me to make a statement. I

want to thank you for scheduling this important hearing.

The wave of democracy in our hemisphere has crested. Now to

finish the metaphor, the breakers are starting to roll toward shore.

I am pleased that Ambassador Gutierrez is here to give us his insights. Attempted coups in Paraguay and political violence and manipulated elections in Haiti are recurring problems. Both countries

are emerging as major centers of narcotics-related criminal activity.

The Haitian government is becoming an increasingly repressive

narco-state.

The initial hopes that surrounded the May 21st elections in Haiti

sadly have been eclipsed. This flawed electoral process has seen

among other improprieties, political killings, the use of a politicized

Haitian national police force to arrest and intimidate opposition

politicians, the manipulation of supposedly independent electoral

council by the government and the ruling Lavalas Family Party

and falsification of election results.

The government of Haiti has been given massive resources and

every benefit of the doubt by the international community. It is

time to stop applying a double standard to Haiti.

Central America is also witnessing increasing tensions over border disputes that could yet break into open conflict. In Nicaragua,

there are persistent troubling reports of official political corruption

and abuses of authority.

The Andean region is in turmoil. The situation in Colombia is deteriorating by the minute. The production of illegal drugs in Colombia and the violence that these drugs fuel are out of control.

Just yesterday we learned that Colombian National Police director General Rosso Jose Serrano announced his retirement. We

know General Serrano has been a true Colombian patriot. Our Nation owes him a great debt of gratitude for the way he has been

fighting the narcotics problem. We must pay that debt by continuing to support the reforms and effective drug fighting capabilities that general Serrano instilled in his Colombian National Police.

I might add that 5,000 of his narcotics police have died in the

last 10 years trying to prevent the illicit narcotics from leaving that

country and going into our Nation and other nations.

In the wake of the collapse of Venezuela’s political system under

the weight of years of corruption, that strategic nation is now headed down an uncertain path. The situation in Ecuador, which experienced a coup earlier this year, remain extremely tenuous. Bolivia

has done a good job of eradicating coca, but it too is experiencing

recurring unrest.

Just last month, Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori conducted

an election that the Organization of American States, Election ObVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Aug 04, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 65849.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
3

servation Mission termed far from free and fair. The OAS Mission

carefully documented a number of key failings, including the government’s manipulation of key institutions, harassment of opposition candidates, a lack of balanced access to the media, illegal use

of state resources by the government, and the need for improved

election management.

I have been a strong supporter of our engagement with Peru on

counternarcotics matters. I will continue to support our counternarcotics cooperation with Peru. However, we cannot ignore the

fact that Peru’s increasingly authoritarian and repressive government has hollowed out that nation’s democratic institutions to perpetuate itself in power.

As a Nation, we must be prepared to respond to that challenge.

If elections in Peru and Haiti are not free and fair, we cannot pretend that they are. We must not allow ourselves to be lulled into

any sense of complacency. Undemocratic elements throughout the

hemisphere are carefully watching our Nation’s reaction to the manipulation of those recent elections.

In Mexico, National Democratic Institute for International Affairs election observers have pointed out that, ‘‘unfortunately, it is

widely believed that the closeness of the election has led to certain

practices, particularly by the ruling party, that are reminiscent of

past elections.’’ We should not ignore that kind of a warning about

a nation as important to us as Mexico, our next-door neighbor.

With a few notable exceptions, the response from our neighbors

in the hemisphere to recent threats to democracy has regrettably

been muted. Brazil, in particular, has not risen to provide sorely

needed leadership in the hemisphere. What we do here and now in

the face of what is happening in the Americas will define how we,

as a hemispheric community, will respond to the continued erosion

of democratic institutions and the other serious security and economic crises we that we are facing.

Leaders in countries who not long ago looked to our Nation to

help them recover their own nations’ democracy need to think hard

about this critical juncture in our history. They should join with

our Nation in defending democracy. By the same token, our own

administration cannot afford to coast until November. The wake-up

call is well upon us. I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for taking

a hard look at these hemispheric problems.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilman appears in the appendix.]

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Ambassador Gutierrez for agreeing to come speak with us on a very

important topic, which is, I believe, very timely: The challenges to

hemispheric democracy. The fact that we have a lot to talk about

today is both discouraging and telling. Of the fact that democracy

is threatened, let there be no doubt. What I hope we can begin to

do is twofold: First, I hope we can stop measuring democracy by

elections alone. We all have said it and heard it before, elections

alone do not a democracy make.

But we continue to measure democratic advance by the number

of free and fair elections held. We should measure instead the reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Aug 04, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 65849.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
4

sponsiveness and accountability of executives and legislatures, the

independence and fairness of judiciaries, the strength and representative nature of political parties, the freedom of expression in

the media, and the public at large, the level of real civilian control

over the military, and the organizational strength of and level of

participation allowed civil society. Most important, these democratic institutions and processions must be supported through continued and enhanced technical support programs.

Second, we must recognize that the underlying threats to democracy—poverty, injustice, lack of universal education, lack of access

to land and corruption—remain constant, not having improved

measurably in the last 20 years. Unless and until these factors are

addressed, and at the same time that weak democratic institutions

are strengthened, there can be no lasting democracy.

We should also remember that Latin Americans recognize the

threats, too. We are not alone in raising this red flag. Shortly after

Secretary Albright’s tough speech at the Council of America’s annual conference on May 1st, commentators throughout the hemisphere raised their voices in agreement. Writing in newspapers

from Santo Domingo to Santiago, Caracas to Quito, observers expressed a collective sense of doom. Alarmed over a general ‘‘democratic deficit,’’ ‘‘lack of strong parties,’’ ‘‘outdated oligarchies,’’ and

conditions ripe with ‘‘totalitarian temptations,’’ recent commentary

has reflected an awareness of the public’s growing dissatisfaction

with ‘‘low-quality democracy.’’ At the same time, comments from

our south also show a certain resentment toward the United

States, with many observers offended by the only passing reference

Latin America seems to be getting in the U.S. Presidential campaign; and by the lack of a clear policy toward the region.

In their own recognition of the challenges they face, Latin Americans are clearly reacting to the fact that, while electoral democracy

in Latin America has advanced in the past 20 years, reductions in

poverty and corruption have not. Two decades ago, more than half

of the countries in the region were under authoritarian rule including all but four outside of the non-English speaking Caribbean.

Today, only one country has not had even one democratic election.

At the same time, however, poverty has remained constant, even

gotten slightly worse. This year, more than 36 percent of households in Latin America are living in poverty. In 1980, the figure

was 35 percent.

There does seem to be some correlation between economic

progress and democratic progress. Certainly Argentina, Chile, and

Uruguay have recently consolidated their relatively strong democracies with elections that are beginning to be called, as was the

case recently in Argentina, ‘‘boring.’’ This is good news and it corresponds to the southern cone region’s relative prosperity. In these

three countries, fewer than 20 percent of households live in poverty, and this compares favorably to the rest of the region where

an average of more than 40 percent of the population is poor.

There is not always a direct correlation though between riches

and democracy. Venezuela with its oil and Colombia with its abundant natural resources, should be relatively wealthy and should

have built up a middle class over the years. Corruption, bankrupt

judicial systems and the history of power by oligarchy have preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Aug 04, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 65849.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
5

vented this. Meanwhile, poor central American countries have

faired relatively well lately on the democratic scale.

Let me close by saying that I believe that poverty does not, in

and of itself, prevent the establishment and strengthening of democratic institutions. However, we are seeing a situation where any

progress that has been made in the past 20 years on the democratic front is threatened by the lack of movement on the economic

front. People are discouraged because greater electoral democracy

has not given them a greater say in the political process, or a fair

hearing in the courts or an end to corruption—the necessary ingredients for a more just economic pie. In turn, democracy’s promise

becomes disillusionment.

Recent polls conducted throughout the hemisphere are particularly disheartening and should be heeded. One poll showed that in

no Latin American country do the majority of citizens feel they live

in a true democracy. In Mexico, according to this poll, over 10 percent of Mexicans believe they live in a democratic system. The

opinion research shows a ‘‘worrisome indifference’’ to democracy.

So I hope to hear from you, Mr. Ambassador, what the United

States is doing and will continue to do, working with Democrats in

Latin America to combat this worrisome indifference. If we have

spent a fortune during the 1980’s in promoting democracy—particularly in areas that you have been privileged to represent this

country in—it is amazing to me that we would not take the necessary steps to cement the democratic underpinnings that we have

first created and that now could flourish in this new century of opportunity. It is a great challenge to us, and we need to pay a lot

of attention to our neighbors to the south because the only time we

pay attention is when we have problems. Then it is too late. We

need to pay attention now when we can create an opportunity of

hope and prosperity for the entire region.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. Next we will turn to

our colleague and good friend from the State of Michigan, Mr. John

Conyers who was part of a congressional observation team that just

recently attended the elections in Haiti. Welcome, Mr. Conyers.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Chairman Gallegly. As a

neighbor of mine in the building and as a colleague on Judiciary,

I have appreciated working with you across the years. It is my

honor to testify before your Subcommittee in this particular important Committee. I was deeply impressed by the statement of our

colleague, Mr. Menendez, who I think has described a much larger

circumstance that is still an ongoing challenge in trying to bring

constitutional government to other nations. We have to observe

that even in our process, we are working on improving that same

objective in our own country. Of course, my friend, Mr. Bill

Delahunt, who was one of the designated international observers

from the Congress to go on May 21, Sunday, for the first and very

important elections there, I am happy to make a brief report. I

have a statement that I would like to have included in the record.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection.

6

Mr. CONYERS. I would also like to make sure that everyone has

a copy of it. Because I am going to merely summarize from this

statement, because when I know that Ambassador Gutierrez is

coming up and has been waiting and we have our good friend Ambassador Steinberg here also in the room, I want to be available

for any comments or questions that the Committee may have. I

want to observe in the beginning that I have enjoyed the good relationships with Chairman Ben Gilman of this Committee on the

subject of Haiti who, when I first began going there, he was already a frequent visitor to this small, beleaguered, struggling nation, trying to make things work. I believe that he still is.

On May 21st, the Haitian people showed their strong desire for

democracy. It was clear in the early hours of the morning, 5:30

a.m., that dozens of voters were waiting at the first sight we had

been assigned to attend, waiting to cast their ballot at a polling

station that wasn’t going to open until 7 a.m. So we were very

pleased about this being the general circumstance across the country and across certainly the half dozen or more polling sights that

our congressional CODEL and staff had been assigned to visit.

Some of our teams had been assigned to distances so far away

that we didn’t see them until we were getting ready to depart. The

afternoon that they left, they finally showed up in a very timely

fashion, I would say. Of course, we would have waited for them.

But the fact of the matter is that people were dispersed to work

with OAS and other delegations, the Caribbean, CARICOM had

people there, the European community had representatives there,

and other countries had independent observers there. So it is my

view that we were literally flooding the country with outside independent eyes and ears to help determine whether or not these elections would and could come off in a manner that would attain a

level of credibility.

With me was Mrs. Corrine Brown of Florida, and Mr. Bill

Delahunt of Massachusetts and a number of our staff. We witnessed dedicated poll workers, we witnessed party observers, we

witnessed the opening and counting of ballots. We visited the provisional electoral counsel which administered the election process a

number of times. Its president, Mr. Manus and our group got to

know each other on a first-name basis. It seemed to me that what

we saw was very refreshing, with the exception of one possibly election related death, outside of some pushing and shoving at the polling stations, there was a very low level of disorderly conduct and

no violence.

We all had met and we were briefed very expertly by our embassy who themselves were working with other organizations, but

most particularly the OAS to make sure that what we all saw and

heard could be compared. There was a tremendous turnout on Election Day. It is calculated, as the results have not been concluded,

still somewhere between 50 to 60 percent is the repeated estimation of voter turnout. I think that the registration rates were

cards, registration cards, and with laminated photographs were

issued in color, went up to somewhere about 80 percent. What determined for me was that the getting of the cards for registration

was not just to be the proud possessor of a color ID, which for

7

many was their first, but they really, as we saw on Election Day,

really wanted to participate.

It was wonderful to visit some polling places that were crowded,

people were standing in line close together, in the hot sun, and

then in the evening when we came back, there were children playing in this school yard, there were a few elders standing around,

and they were getting ready to count the votes. Everybody had

been taken care of. That was not the case, of course, in all the voting regions. In Grandanse they just had an election last week that

had, by decree of the CEP, been put off until a later date. Those

elections are still being counted.

So what we have here is I think a very important turning point

in which the election procedures and constitutional issues involved

have been and are still being approached in a very intelligent way.

29,000 candidates, Mr. Chairman, competed for 11,000 local regional and parliamentary offices. So this was a very important

milestone. We now are confronted with the circumstance in which

there was a difficulty about the count which took place after we

left.

We have been receiving reports that the method of calculation,

the one that we would traditionally use, is different from the one

they have customarily used in the preceding elections. We have a

letter that went to the OAS explaining that, that has been translated for us. We feel that the Haitian National Police deserve a

great deal of credit along with the Election Commission for making

sure that the election itself ran as fairly as it could.

I do appreciate that there have been arrests for gun law violations and other activities that followed, that occurred to political

leaders, including some members of Famni Lavalos. But we want

to remember that during that period, motorcycle use was prevented, the carrying of gun permits was revoked, and other safety

precautions were enacted merely to make sure that had as a nonviolent, nondisruptive election as possible.

So we are still awaiting the results. We are hopeful that the CEP

will consider the criticisms of the OAS and that they will reach

some harmonious point of conciliation so that they can both move

into a position for the announcement of the results of the election,

and then the passing of judgment on the elections in terms of

whether they have reached a sufficient level of credibility. All that

I can attest to you is that from what we saw on the day before the

election, the day of the election, and the day after the election, we

were very satisfied that both the police, the Electoral Commission,

and most of all, the citizens of Haiti, were very much concerned

about restoring constitutional government to their land.

I would merely conclude by pointing out that your colleague on

the Committee, Don Payne, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Africa, has been enormously helpful with us in dealing with this subject matter with this almost small bipartisan Haiti

caucus that has been formed in the Congress we wish to be of any

assistance to your Subcommittee and the larger Committee of

which you are a part. Thank you for allowing me to make these remarks before Ambassador Gutierrez.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers appears in the appendix.]

8

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you for your testimony. It appears that

you certainly have been impressed, and as you said, satisfied that

it looks as though we are making progress there. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, it is. Because you know, we are making

progress, I am also disturbed about things that could have happened that didn’t happen. We were disturbed about ballots that

were late and were found strewn around after the vote. We didn’t

know whether they had been counted or not. There were a number

of things that are important, but the overall thing to me, Chairman

Gallegly, is that Haiti is at a very critical point. They are moving

toward restoring—being restored to the family of nations and operating under constitutional governance. This election is very critical

to move on to the runoffs which, as you know, are less than 2

weeks away. They are likely to go much more smoothly because the

mass of thousands of pieces of candidates and hundreds of pieces

of paper which was pretty daunting since the great majority of the

population, the citizenry is not literate, that we would be moving

into a much easier circumstance. In that sense, we feel that the

May 21st elections were absolutely critical to any movement toward reaching the goal of constitutional governance.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much. Does anyone else have a

question or comment for Mr. Conyers?

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may, Mr. Chairman. Not being a Member of

this particular Subcommittee, I want to thank you for allowing me

to speak.

Mr. GALLEGLY. You are among friends.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you very much. It is my understanding,

and I know that it is the understanding of Mr. Conyers, that the

most recent election that was held this past Sunday, in the department of the Giandance was also held without any violence, a large

turn-out, and seemed to be successful which I think underscores

the observations that have been made by Mr. Conyers as to the

overall success with some exceptions in terms of the May 21st elections.

Mr. CONYERS. You are absolutely right, Bill. That election was

postponed by mutual consent and has taken place without any violence at all that has been reported, at least since we have been

back. It is consistent with the overall trends and the effort on everyone’s part. I think Pierre Denize, the national police chief, with

no military and whose forces were being retrained by the Department of Justice specialists, and who has gone through tremendous

challenge in terms of maintaining law and order nationally as well

as conducting an election at the same time, needs to have a word

of compliment lifted up for him as well.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can make one additional observation, Mr.

Chairman. I think what was, particularly for Mr. Conyers and myself, a rather poignant and symbolic experience, was that he and

I observed at a particular polling place that earlier in this decade

was a polling place where a massacre of some 30-odd Haitian citizens who went to vote were assassinated by members of the Haitian military, which no longer exists since it has been abolished. I

think we were both euphoric that our observation indicated that

the elections were free, they were without any undue influence,

9

and they clearly were well monitored by the Haitian National Police, and there was not any indication of any violence or any duress

whatsoever.

So while there is much to do in Haiti and I don’t mean to overstate the case, it clearly stood in stark contrast to what occurred

earlier in this decade.

Mr. CONYERS. You are certainly correct, it was very moving, that

one particular polling place itself a school and you know we

couldn’t help but think that there were many people voting there

who knew exactly what we knew that this had been the site of an

Election Day massacre by the Haitian military. It was now perfectly peaceful all-day long; it was crowded, and when we returned,

people were preparing the ballots, the various political parties were

there, the parties had their observers witnesses and each ballot

was opened up, and the numbers called off and the recording of the

balloting went on.

There were spirited challenges from time to time, but it was a

very encouraging process. I think we are taking this first giant

wobbly step forward. I want to thank, from the bottom of my heart,

all the Members of the International Relations Committee for the

concern and cooperation they visited on us as CODEL after

CODEL, including members of the Committee, and others not on

the Committee, were permitted to go back to Haiti to work and

struggle for this common objective.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be incumbent on us, and we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge,

that members of our staffs volunteered to come and to accept what

was a dangerous challenge, and I would specifically point out, Ms.

Cynthia Martin from Mr. Conyers’ staff, and Charisse, from Don

Payne’s office, and my own Cliff Stammerman as well as Sean Carroll. They were extraordinary in terms of their commitment, they

worked hard, it was 18-hour days, and there was much concern

about their safety, but the end result was a very positive one.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Bill. The gentleman from

New Jersey, Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and I will be

very brief. I am not a Member of the Committee. I appreciate the

opportunity to say a word or two. Primarily I want to compliment

Mr. Conyers on the continued respect that he has in Haiti, and in

other areas, but he is very well respected there. There is always

an out pouring of people to visit with him. Also, I would like to indicate what a great addition to the House Mr. Delahunt is, especially his interest in Haiti and his going down there several times

with Mr. Conyers. I was on one trip with him. I was unable to get

there the week of the election but I went the previous week, wanted to make sure that everything was taken care of everything was

in hand. We didn’t want them to run into any kind of trouble.

Mr. DELAHUNT. It was John the Baptist leading the way.

Mr. PAYNE. But I did have a chance to meet with the President

and former President Aristide and the Election Commission and

OAS representatives, and the opposition party people. We did feel

some apprehension about whether all those ballots were going to

get there in time and all those photo ID’s were right. As Mr. Conyers said, there were, of course, enough errors to go around, but if

10

you take a look at the overall election, I think that it was a step

in the right direction, moving toward democracy, any kind of impediment did not necessarily impact the overall outcome, and I

think that is what we looked for.

I also would like to compliment Ambassador Steinberg, who really kept us very prepared and briefed. Having worked in Angola,

Haiti is easy for him in comparison. But finally, as you know, the

police department for of all of Haiti, 8 million people or more, is

about 4,000 people. The same population of New York City, has 10

times as many policemen. They have 40,000 policemen in New

York City. We saw recently in Central Park, a few people got out

of hand with large numbers of policemen being unable to prevent

this from happening.

When we do look at that, and we hear the criticism of, I think

Mr. Conyers made it clear, this was not the greatest election in the

world, but it was certainly, I think, a very great step in the right

direction. When you look at 4,000 policemen for the entire country

of Haiti, like I said, as opposed to 40,000 in New York alone, I

think when we keep things in its proper perspective, we can be appreciative.

Finally, Mr. Menendez, as you note, was a Ranking Member of

this Committee during the last session, and much of what we see

happening and moving forward at this time certainly did not just

happen over night, and that his shepherdship of the Committee

and what was going on in Haiti during the previous Congress, I

would like to also thank him for the interest that he has shown in

the area.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Thank you, John, for your

testimony, and we appreciate your being here this afternoon.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir, very much.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Secretary. We welcome Ambassador Gutierrez here this afternoon, and with that, we would welcome your testimony.

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR LINO GUTIERREZ, PRINCIPAL

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE BUREAU OF

WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE;

ACCOMPANIED BY RAND BEERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

AFFAIRS

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, it is a

pleasure to be here. In the interest of time and brevity and to allow

for your questions, I would like to touch briefly upon the seven

areas you asked me to address in my testimony. I have prepared

a comprehensive written statement that I have submitted to the

Subcommittee for its consideration.

Mr. GALLEGLY. It will be made a part of the record of the hearing

in its entirety without objection.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, recent events show

that democracy remains vulnerable in some countries in the hemisphere. It is important to remember, however, that democracy is a

continuing process, not a final achievement. I would argue that despite some setbacks, democracy in the hemisphere continues to

11

flourish. Thirty-four of the 35 governments in the region came to

power through the ballot box. Our relationship with our neighbors

is excellent. Regional integration and interdependence are strong

and continuing to increase. As a result, our interests in the Western Hemisphere are vitally important to the United States, vitally

important to our security, to our economic well-being and to the future of our children. It is essential that the Administration and

Congress continue to work together actively to manage and resolve

challenges and to take advantage of opportunities in the Hemisphere.

Turning to the situation in the seven countries, the Subcommittee has asked me to address, Peru’s experience with democracy is checkered. Despite requests from the Organization of American States, the U.S. Government and the national community to

postpone the second round of presidential, elections in order to

verify conditions for a fair contest, President Fujimori chose to go

ahead with a contest on May 28th. Opposition candidate Alejandro

Toledo decided not to participate in the elections and called on supporters to boycott or to cast null votes. Domestic and international

observers, including the OAS, did not monitor the contest.

President Fujimori won the May 28th election with 51 percent of

the votes cast, but the results underlined the country’s political polarization. About half either cast votes in favor of Toledo, about 17

percent, or deliberately spoiled, their ballots, 32 percent. Tens of

thousands protested the contest across Peru with minimal violence.

The OAS Electoral Observation Mission called the electoral process flawed. We support their findings. The elections were not free

and fair. The resolution approved by the OAS General Assembly

last week reflects our concerns regarding the credibility of the electoral process and represents an important building block for restoring democratic institutions in Peru. It asks that OAS Secretary

General Gaviria and Canadian Foreign Minister Axworthy go immediately to Peru to develop recommendations and an action plan

to reform the judiciary and electoral systems and to strengthen

press freedom. The Mission will report back to the OAS Foreign

Ministers for endorsement of the plan and to ensure active OAS

followup.

We support this OAS Mission. It is in the U.S. Government’s interest to give this initiative time to prove itself. Yet we have specifically warned that the U.S. reserves the right to respond appropriately to the progress made by the Government of Peru. We also

share the concern expressed by Congress in Senate Joint Resolution 43 and are preparing to review our bilateral programs. Any

eventual decision on sanctions will be influenced by Peru’s response

to the OAS Mission and the reforms undertaken.

Haiti is the second country that faces a challenge to democracy.

Indeed, since the January 1999 dissolution of Haiti’s parliament,

most of the country’s local and national governmental bodies have

either been absent or unable to fulfill their critical role in helping

Haiti address its most severe challenges. To end this irregular situation, the United States—including many dedicated Members of

this Subcommittee—has devoted considerable effort to bringing

about a free, fair and transparent election.

12

On May 21st, the first round of the long overdue local and parliamentary elections was held. Voter turnout was high as Haitians

from all walks of life embraced this democratic exercise.

The post election period has been beset with serious problems,

however. The most prominent problem thus far is the possible use

by the Provisional Electoral Council of a methodology that fails to

tabulate all ballot votes cast in the Senate races, as prescribed in

the election law. This alternative methodology would seriously distort the outcome of those races. The Organization of American

States Electoral Observation Mission has requested a retabulation

of votes fully consistent when the guidelines. We support the OAS

position.

The stakes in Haiti’s electoral process are high. This process,

which anticipates a runoff election on June 25th, the seating of a

parliament in mid July, and Presidential elections in November is

the means through which democratic and fully responsible government can be restored and empowered. The expectations of Haitians

must be validated by a process that is fully credible, free, fair and

transparent from its start on the day of the vote to its end when

the votes are tabulated and the newly elected officials are installed

into office.

Let me turn to Venezuela where a lengthy political transition

continues. The Supreme Tribunal, Venezuela’s Supreme Court,

postponed the country’s Presidential legislative, state and municipal elections scheduled for May 28th. It did so in acknowledgment

of continued serious technical problems in the automated voting

system. It was the right decision.

The Tribunal acted in response to a petition from concerned

NGO’s, a positive sign in our opinion. The engagement of civil society in highlighting the need for postponement was a sign of mature

democratic process. So was the decision of the Venezuelan authorities to support their request before the Tribunal.

The election officials responsible for the problems have now been

replaced by well-respected, apolitical individuals nominated by a

variety of nongovernmental institutions and vetted by a roundtable

of representatives of civil society. The interim legislature has not

yet set a new date, but July elections are still possible. The U.S.

Government provided financial support for both an OAS election

monitoring mission and a Carter Center mission, which played constructive roles during the campaign. We anticipate providing the

same level of support in the upcoming elections as well.

In Mexico, voters will go to the polls on July 2nd to elect a new

President and new Congress. It is not an exaggeration to say that

these elections are a potential watershed in Mexico’s democratic

evolution. The campaign has been the most open in Mexico’s history and we expect the vote itself will be too.

There has been public speculation in Mexico and elsewhere about

the possibility of electoral fraud. Frankly, I would be surprised if

there were no allegations of irregularities after the vote. But a vast

and impressive array of safeguards has been created over the past

6 years to prevent systemic fraud and to guarantee the integrity

of the Mexican vote.

We have confidence in Mexico’s independent Federal Electoral

Institute, the IFE, which is charged with organizing and managing

13

the elections. It has done a great deal already to level the political

playing field and set the stage for free and fair elections.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. [Continuing.] I saw this firsthand during a recent trip to Mexico. Since 1994, in midterm congressional and local

elections the opposition has made unprecedented inroads. Over a

third of all Mexicans live in states run by opposition Governors,

and the PRI no longer has a majority in the Mexican Chamber of

Deputies.

We expect there will be a number of international observers in

Mexico for the election. The Mexican government, the IFE and the

political parties themselves have welcomed this. The U.S. is funding an electoral observation mission organized by the International

Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, and

various other U.S. NGO’s are also sending observers.

Ecuador is another country that faces threats to its democracy.

The situation, however, has improved dramatically since January,

when field-grade Ecuadorian military officers and indigenous leaders attempted to install a new government. As this revolt developed

and both the military and police declined to enforce public order,

the United States, Ecuador’s neighbors, and the OAS Permanent

Council immediately issued strong statements rejecting any interruption in the democratic, constitutional order. Facing the prospect

of political and economic isolation, on January 22nd President

Mahuad urged the country to support Vice President Gustavo

Noboa as his constitutional successor and Congress confirmed

Noboa that day.

Ecuador is not out of the woods, but it is making progress. The

Noboa government has been able to pass through Congress badly

needed economic reforms and to begin the process of implementing

those changes. The Noboa Administration has met with indigenous

communities and sought to initiate social programs targeting the

poor. Military leadership has been changed, removing those who

did not act in support of Ecuador’s constitution or its leaders. An

amnesty to those who were involved in the coup has created the

possibility of reconciliation and has helped defuse a potentially explosive situation while allowing military authorities to impose administrative sanctions against participants.

On May 25th, the Noboa Administration announced fiscal reforms. Protests have so far been muted. An IMF team is currently

in Ecuador to examine the fiscal implications of these measures, as

well as banking sector developments, and other issues in the context of its first bimonthly review of Ecuador’s IMF Standby Program.

The next few months will be critical to the success of Ecuador’s

economic reforms. President Noboa has been making the right political and economic moves and recognizes that these strict reforms

are necessary to improve economic conditions and opportunities for

all of Ecuador’s citizens.

Turning to Paraguay, where the unsuccessful coup attempt of

last May 18th and 19th demonstrates that Paraguayan democracy

continues to face serious challenges. These include corruption, economic stagnation, rural discontent and some anti-democratic elements among the middle and lower ranks of the military. There are

significant factional divisions within both parties in the governing

14

coalition as well as within the opposition. These challenges have

complicated the government’s ability to govern effectively.

It is important to note the lack of military, political, or popular

support for the unsuccessful uprising, which was led by supporters

of former general and convicted coup plotter Lino Oviedo. The military leadership and the vast majority of military units demonstrated their commitment to democracy, civilian control and the

constitutional order. Since the assanation of Vice President Argana

in March of last year, Oviedo appears to have lost much of his public support, and he remained a fugitive from Paraguayan justice

until his recent detention in Brazil.

Nonetheless, much of the population lacks hope and few see the

current situation as acceptable. We continue to urge Paraguay’s

leaders to agree on a vision for the country, to take sustained action against criminal activity and corruption and to implement economic reform. These steps are necessary if Paraguay’s democracy

is to be secure.

Finally, let me also comment briefly on events in Colombia. In

the Pastrana Administration, the U.S. has a full and committed

partner that shares our counternarcotics goals. Delays in implementing the U.S. assistance package for Colombia will not only adversely affect the counternarcotics efforts made by the government

of Colombia but also our own efforts to upgrade the government’s

ability to counter this threat. Ninety percent of the world’s supply

of cocaine is grown, processed or transported through Colombia.

Because of this, we appreciate the House’s rapid action in response

to the Administration’s supplemental request for Colombia.

With the delay in funding, Colombia’s drug production can be expected to continue its massive expansion. In 1999, the U.S. sprayed

over 42,000 hectares of coca and over 8,000 hectares of poppy. Despite this, coca cultivation in Colombia reportedly increased by over

20,000 hectares during the same year. Yet we now actually have

had to cut back our aerial fumigation operations by 50 percent and

lay off spray pilots because of funding shortfalls. This means nearly

5,400 acres per month are today not being taken out of cultivation

that would have been if the cutbacks were not required. We also

have been unable to begin a significant planned expansion of eradication capability. Left unchecked, skyrocketing trends in Colombian production will also reverse impressive progress in Bolivia and

Peru where coca cultivation has gone down 55 percent and 66 percent respectively since 1995.

We have also had to suspend forward deployment of the UH–1N

helicopters intended to provide air mobility to the first counternarcotics battalion because of the lack of funding for additional

flight hours, training, repair parts, fuel and other logistic support.

Without these helicopters, the Colombian army’s first counternarcotics battalion—specifically created with U.S. funds to go after

drug targets—has not been able to complete its training to be fully

prepared to conduct effective operations.

In the field of drug interdiction, the delay will result in no upgrades for detection and monitoring aircraft before January, 2001,

derailing a project that promises to have immediate results. The

Colombia national police will also be denied critical force protection

15

improvements to its existing forward bases, secure communications

and an additional air mobile unit.

Other important interrelated programs to be funded by the Colombia emergency supplemental package are also on hold, including those that would strengthen the justice system, local government and civil society, as well as increasing our assistance to internally displaced persons.

Mr. Chairman, let me close by acknowledging the tremendous

challenges faced by the countries of the region. The roots of democracy in our hemisphere, while widespread, are still shallow. Events

in Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador and elsewhere reflect the vulnerability

of democracy in some countries. However, the overall democratic

trend is positive. Never have as many citizens of the Hemisphere

freely elected their leaders, been able to read free newspapers, join

nongovernmental organizations and freely express their views

without fear of persecution. Nations today cooperate with each

other as never before to address threats such as narcotics and arms

trafficking, corruption, and money laundering—issues which respect no borders. Those who would attempt to subvert the democratic process in the Americas will face a united hemisphere opposing them.

This is not to say that democracy in the region is home free, far

from it. There will be occasional setbacks, and there is no question

that we must remain engaged. But I am convinced that the citizens

of Latin America and the Caribbean will fight to preserve the freedom that took so long to achieve. The Administration looks forward

to working with the Congress to do our very best to help them.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gutierrez appears in the appendix.]

Mr. GALLEGLY. I just have a couple things that I want to go over

before I defer to Mr. Menendez.

With respect to the election in Peru, the coup in Ecuador and the

attempted coup in Paraguay, can you tell me what these say about

the depth of the democratic values in Latin America and the stability of the region? Do you see it as a systemic problem or is it

an Andean situation?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I think the conditions vary throughout the Hemisphere. As I said, the roots of democracy are not as deep in every

country; and recent events have shown that.

I also agree with statements made here before me that democracy is more than holding free elections. Institutions have to be

strengthened, we have a long way to go in achieving that. But I

would not say this is a systemic problem throughout the Hemisphere. It differs from country to country.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would you say that we are slipping back a little

bit, or do you think this is just an ongoing issue, for which we have

to continue to be vigilant?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I think democracy in the Hemisphere is a process, and there will be some setbacks, but I think the overall trends

remain very positive. I think the Hemisphere is better prepared to

deal with events like we have witnessed before.

16

For example, had the Paraguayan coup attempt taken place 10

years ago, you might have a military government now in place. But

the fact that the Hemisphere stands united and ready to react to

these interruptions of constitutional order I think is a very positive

development.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ambassador, I have the greatest deal of respect for you, having had some time with you when you served a fellowship in my

office. However, you know that when it comes to questions, I don’t

restrict myself, even though I have a great deal of respect for you.

So let me start off by noting that, in your statement you say 34

of the 35 governments in the region came to power through the ballot box. But would we not eliminate from those 34, at least for now,

Paraguay, Ecuador, and Peru? The present governments came in

through some unconstitutional process; and, in the case of Peru,

while there was an election, we, from your own statements, question that election.

So it seems to me that the numbers of democracies are in flux,

and we need to recognize that. We may have at some time seen

elections, but in the present set of circumstances those countries in

my mind cannot fall within the context of saying that they have

achieved democracy at the ballot box; and we know that even that,

in and of itself, is not the true test of democracy.

My second point is, you state at page 12 something that I thoroughly agree with. You say that the stabilizing threats posed by income inequality and poverty must be addressed. You say that,

through improving basic social services, health care and education,

governments can help to broaden the reach of economic opportunity

by providing opportunities and incentives. Many elements of society can be pulled into the political and economic mainstream and

thereby strengthen democracy. I agree with that fully.

But what I cannot understand, when we have you and we have

Ambassador Romero and so many others from the State Department come before the Committee and speak in such terms that

you—you meaning the Department—oppose the Latin American

Development Fund. Every time that we in fact seek to promote efforts for a Latin American Development Fund, which aims, in essence, to create a funding floor and to ensure that regional funds

for developmental purposes don’t get stolen whenever there is a

global emergency, we have opposition from the State Department.

Trade alone cannot possibly deal with the 40 percent or so of those

people who are below the poverty level in the Southern Hemisphere; you cannot tell a Brazilian child that trade is going to lift

his or her future.

We need to have the State Department begin to engage with us

in understanding that some of the development issues that we have

within the Hemisphere need to get better attention or we will continue to find ourselves in this discussion of democracy without the

underpinnings necessary for that democracy to fully flourish. Your

statements are right on the mark, but your Department continues

to oppose us in developing a Latin American Development Fund.

We need such a fund so that we can begin to move forward.

17

The Chairman of the Subommittee has expressed in the past

very sincere interest on illegal immigration, but we are not going

to stop illegal immigration coming through the borders of the

Southern Hemisphere unless we change the quality of lives in the

Southern Hemisphere and the economic realities that they face. We

are not going to stop the flow of drugs into the United States until

we have sustainable developments that sustain a family growing

crops in Colombia that are not coca crops, because that is the most

available and the most worthy economically for them to sustain

their families. Yet we are going to do this all through trade?

So my second point to you is, why do we not have the Department being supportive of development assistance that is enhanced

and that is particularly focused on Latin America?

The third point that I would like your remarks on is the election

in Peru, which I think is a real concern. The Clinton Administration first called Mr. Fujimori’s victory a threat, and then I have

sensed a back-pedaling from that. We are seeking a strong, collective response, which is fine, at the OAS, but my sense is that there

is little sign of the members from those respective states who want

tough sanctions on Mr. Fujimori’s Peru, much less a new election.

What is at risk here? I mean, if all we are going to do is rattle

our sabres about democracy, permit what is even a questionable

election, what message are we sending in the hemisphere? I would

like to hear whether the State Department considers that a constitutional validly third term?

We will rattle our sabres about democracy, but if you have an

unconstitutional third term, if you have a lack of the type of elections that are fair and free, if you permit a process to take place

that doesn’t provide for truly representative democracy at least in

the first instance, then where are we going?

If you read the Senate resolution which calls on the Administration to review and modify, as appropriate, its political, economic

and military relations with Peru, presuming that the OAS mission

doesn’t come back and really give us a sense that there is a meaningful response, are we talking about an action that some would

consider a sanction?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Congressman, let me just reciprocate and say I

have the upmost respect for you. As a matter of fact, when I was

a fellow in your office, I worked on the predecessor of the Latin

American Development Fund. I understand the concept. I believe

on that issue the objection of the State Department is to any

earmarkings of that type. But let me just say that we agree with

the spirit of what the Latin American Development Fund is trying

to accomplish in the region, and we are certainly willing to work

with you on those objectives.

Mr. MENENDEZ. We hope the spirit will move you and the Department.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. On the 34 out of the 35 elected governments in

the Hemisphere, your point is well taken. One would argue semantically that the Vice Presidents of Ecuador and Paraguay were

elected freely to their previous positions—which put them in line

for the presidency, and Mr. Fujimori has not yet been inaugurated

for a third term, but we may have to adjust those numbers in the

future. We take that point.

18

On Peru, I would say that, in general, I think that the Hemisphere has reacted well to Peru. We went up to the Windsor OAS

General Assembly with three objectives. We sought an endorsement of the Stein report. Mr. Stein was the former Foreign Minister of Guatemala who went to Peru and uncovered all the irregularities. We wanted some sort of followup mechanism, some highlevel delegation to go to Peru and facilitate a dialogue between government and opposition.

We did not want this report buried in the way many actions get

buried in some of these organizations, so we wanted the Commission to report back to foreign ministers. I would argue we got all

three objectives—the Hemisphere spoke with a united voice, they

sent Mr. Axworthy in his capacity of Chairman of the General Assembly, and Mr. Gaviria. They gave them a mandate to go to Peru

and talk with the government about much-needed democratic reforms—reforming the judiciary, reforming the electoral system,

maybe reforming the way deputies are elected, et cetera. They will

carry that mandate to Peru, and we support that mission. They

will come back and report to the foreign ministers of the Hemisphere.

Now we have not ruled out taking some unilateral actions on our

own should we not be satisfied with the report of this Commission,

and we are beginning to look at some possible unilateral actions

should they be called for. But at this time we support the OAS Mission. We would like to give the OAS Mission a chance to see what

it can accomplish in Lima.

At the same time, I would point out that the opposition—the Peruvian opposition—supported the findings in Windsor and are very

much supportive of this process. So I think we ought to let this

process play out before deciding on what the next step should be.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Two last questions, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Number one is, does the Department, since it doesn’t support earmarks, not support the Development Fund for Africa?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I will have to get back to you on that, Congressman. That is—my Bureau was not, as you know, involved in those

decisions, but I will I think——

Mr. MENENDEZ. Please get back to me. Because we have a Development Fund for Africa. We seek to fund it annually, and we do

fund it annually, and I think it is important. As the former Ranking Member of the African Subcommittee I support it.

But I do not see how you can say that an African fund is supported by the Department, which I believe it does, and then say the

Latin American Development Fund—for development here at the

doorstep, at the front porch, at the very entrance to the United

States, with direct relationships on questions of biodiversity, questions of immigration, questions of drug interdiction, questions

about developing greater markets, questions of movement of health

problems across borders—makes less sense.

My second question is maybe a point more than a question. Not

only am I concerned about this election in Peru and what has happened—I didn’t hear you answer me on whether or not the Administration believes that this is a valid third constitutional period;

that is a period of three consecutive elections is valid under the PeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Aug 04, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 65849.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
19

ruvian constitution. I would like to hear the Administration’s answer to that.

I am also concerned by several examples of the authoritarianism

I have seen happening in Peru over the last several months leading

up to this election. American companies working in Peru are finding themselves increasingly with rather authoritarian nontransparent decisions being rendered against them. We have an airline

whose existing licenses are potentially being arbitrarily withheld.

We have another American company that legitimately exported a

product out of Peru and now finds itself with literally millions of

dollars being held arbitrarily by the Peruvian government as it relates to certain taxes that are normally refundable, but that now

they don’t wish to refund.

I think there are some serious concerns about what is going on

in Peru, both in the context of its electoral process—whether or not

this is a valid third term that anyone could have had under the

constitution—how American companies—and, therefore, I would assume other companies as well—but at least American companies,

are having difficulties in dealing in Peru while obeying all of the

laws and arbitrarily being treated in ways that would defy a series

of both countries’ treaties as well as GATT provisions as well as

other international norms.

My sense in this is that we are dealing rather gingerly with

them; and my question is, for how long are we going to take that

approach? I hope that we are just not going to acquiesce in the

process to an election that is highly questionable, a third term that

is really in doubt, and ultimately for American companies to be

treated through such an authoritarian manner which violates their

very rights.

This is where we need to speak up, and I hope we will do so. I

understand the desire to have collective speaking on behalf of the

hemisphere’s nations, and I hope they will do it strongly, but if not

there are American interests that sometimes have to be promoted

and that we have to stand, if necessary, unilaterally to do so.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. We have spoken out quite a bit on the Peruvian

elections. We stand by every statement we have made throughout

this process. The OAS found that this election was a flawed election, and we agree with that assessment. So it is critical that this

mission succeed and come back with measures that will enhance

democracy in Peru, and we support this mission going down there.

On American companies, we stand ready to aggressively support

them in any problems they might have with the Peruvian government. I am not aware of these instances that you have mentioned,

but I would be glad to look into them. Certainly we stand ready

to support American companies with any problems they might have

in Peru.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Is this a constitutional third term?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Not being a Peruvian legal expert, let’s say that

many observers have questioned whether, in fact, Mr. Fujimori legally could run for a third term. For whatever reason, Peruvian

legal authorities decided that he could. I think right now the focus

must be, however, on supporting the OAS mission going down

there and seeing what they can accomplish and facilitating a dialogue between the government and the opposition.

20

Mr. MENENDEZ. Considering that he fired the three judges that

were in opposition to the third term, I don’t know how it is valid.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you Mr. Menendez.

If we could move over to Colombia just for a second, Mr. Ambassador. You commented that the situation in Colombia it looks fairly

bleak and that the situation is likely to get worse rather than better. I guess that confuses a little bit about the impact of our supplemental.

You also mentioned that the fumigation flights have been cut

back 50 percent, but weren’t these flights fully funded or are they

appropriations in the supplemental budgeted for fiscal year 2000?

If that is the case, why are we running out of money already?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. With your permission, I have asked Assistant

Secretary Rand Beers from the Bureau of International Narcotics

and Law Enforcement to assist me in some of these questions.

Mr. GALLEGLY. That is fine.

Mr. BEERS. Thank you, sir.

With respect to the second half of your question, first let me

speak specifically—if you will recall, sir, with respect to fiscal year

1999 and the funds available to the State Department, the Western

Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, in addition to regular funding,

had been made available to the Department at that particular

point in time. With those funds we were able to mount in fiscal

year 1999 a very robust program. When we came upon fiscal year

2000, we were faced with the funds allowed being lower or less

than the funds that were available in fiscal year 1999, but we were

moving in the direction of requesting supplemental funds, and then

we finally did request those funds.

In that context, I know the Front Office, together with the members of the Country Team, made a strategic decision to try to sustain the level of effort that had been mounted in fiscal year 1999

into year 2000 with the expectation that we would be receiving

supplemental funds for Plan Colombia in a timeframe of May or

June. As it became apparent in the discussions and deliberations

between the two Houses earlier this spring that that assumption

was no longer valid, we chose to pull back to a funding level that

would allow us a level amount of funds remaining available until

the end of the fiscal year.

What that essentially amounted to was a 50 percent reduction

from the time it began, which was the beginning of May, until such

time as funds from Plan Colombia are available, a 50 percent reduction in the amount of eradication effort that we were able to

mount and a pullback from the UH–1N in air mobility components

of the counternarcotics battalion that we were prepared to support,

fund and put in the field. Those two principal elements represent

the core of our inability to move forward at previous levels with existing funds. In short, we had more money in fiscal year 1999 than

we had in fiscal year 2000 without Plan Colombia supplemental

funds.

With respect to the first question, it is our strong belief that the

funds that could be made available under Plan Colombia represent

the single most important investment that Congress, and the

United States has the opportunity to make on behalf of our citizens

21

in the struggle against drugs in this Hemisphere, certainly during

my entire tenure as a counternarcotics official which stretches back

over 12 years and three administrations.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much.

As you have heard, there is a vote on the Floor, a conference report.

So, Bill, did you have anything you wanted to add quickly? Or,

Mr. Menendez, would you like to come back or do you want to try

to wrap this up?

Mr. DELAHUNT. I will be real brief, Mr. Chairman. I just want

to echo some of the observations by Mr. Menendez in terms of dealing in the long term with Latin America and Central America.

When I hear the Ambassador speak to the issue of earmarks,

that really doesn’t address the need. I mean, we earmark in a variety of ways. Significant amounts of assistance go to Egypt and

Israel. I think it has been very clear that our level of engagement—

and I am not speaking of you and those that are in attendance

here, because I know of your commitment to Latin America and

what is occurring in this hemisphere. But I have to say that the

engagement with this hemisphere really doesn’t pass muster. It

really doesn’t. We have to make an effort, for the reasons enumerated by Mr. Menendez, to reengage with Latin America.

We are missing opportunities, and the advances that have been

made in terms of democracies I think I would suggest are at risk.

It can’t be simply by trade. I really do support his concept of a

Latin American Development Bank; and we can’t, simply accept

the fact that the administration doesn’t, believe or embrace earmarks. We have got to talk about substantial investment as well

as trade.

It is just my observation that, the idea of nurturing democratic

institutions and independent judiciary and legislative bodies in

terms of increasing their capacity to deal, because the democracies

that exist have very significant executive authority. We are discussing democracies today that are elected, but some have expressed concerns, whether it be Venezuela, whether it be any of the

democracies, there seems to be an imbalance between the traditional branches or components of democratic institutions. I really

believe we have got to make a substantial investment in terms of

assisting these nations as far as their judicial systems, as far as

their legislative assemblies, as well as the executive.

While I have an opportunity to just address one question I would

address it to Ambassador Beers. Do you have any reports for us in

terms of the status of the peace process in Colombia or in terms

of discussions that I understand are just under way with the ELN

and any reports in terms of the peace process as it relates to it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. If I may, Congressman, make a quick couple of

points. I just returned as Ambassador to Nicaragua for 3 years. I

can tell you we do have significant programs in the region in helping judicial sectors, Administration of justice programs, police

training programs, institution building programs, helping legislatures, helping corruption watchdogs, et cetera. So we are engaged

in the Hemisphere; and, not only that, we are also poised to respond in times of emergency. I was in Nicaragua when Hurricane

Mitch struck, and the response from the American Congress and

22

the American public was indeed generous. It was timely. Our

money got there more quickly than any other.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I don’t dispute that, and I know that the American people and this Congress and this Administration respond in

terms of emergency. But what I am talking about is really the nurturing and development in the long-term basis of democratic institutions because I believe, that that is the intelligent investment so

that we don’t have these crises and that we continue with what I

agree with is a trend in the right direction.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I can assure you we are doing it, and in

Haiti——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is a question of degree, Ambassador.

We can’t do this on the cheap. We just can’t do it on the cheap.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. We can always do more, Congressman. You are right. But in Haiti, for example, we spent $16 million in ensuring

that these elections take place, which is quite a significant achievement.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, I want to be clear I want to compliment.

But some suggested in Haiti, for example, that we have poured billions of dollars into Haiti. The reality is that we have poured—a

great substantial piece of that billions of dollars was to—was in the

aftermath of the coup, was to house people in Guantanamo, was to

pick up refugees, the sending of some 20,000 American troops to

Haiti.

So when we talk about building institutions I dare say it is a

more intelligent investment to do that rather than to be responding

to crises such as occurred in Haiti in the aftermath of the coup and

prior to the return of Aristide and democracy to Haiti. Because that

cost us a lot of money. That was a billion plus.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. We are doing quite a lot, but I think we can always do more.

Mr. BEERS. Sir, with respect to your question, the peace process—the ELN portion of the peace process is still not settled. Discussions continue. The FARC on-again, off-again peace process I

guess you could say is on again. There is not much different from

what you are seeing in the public domain. But if you would like

to have a more detailed discussion of that in private we would certainly be happy to have someone come up and sit down with you

and good over that in detail. I know your strong interest in that

subject.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much for your attention today.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for your testimony; and, Secretary

Beers, thank you for being here.

With that, we will adjourn the Subcommittee.

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(23)

A P P E N D I X

JUNE 14, 2000

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48