 |
 |
 |
||||
|
|
||||||
 |
International Negotiations Project Scenario
|
|||||
|
Why Latin America? 5 The U.S. will do anything for Latin America, except read about it," according to James Reston, for many years the dean of U.S. political commentators. Is there any reason why we should try to prove him wrong? There are several. First, our nation’s economic interests are deeply involved in the region. We also have political links. Revolutionary upheavals and repressive responses in Latin America directly challenge U.S. foreign policy. There is another important consideration closer to home. Large sections of our country have become Latinized by the influence of migrants from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Central America, the Caribbean, and even Brazil. This is in addition to the Hispanic descendants of the original Spanish-speaking population of the formerly Mexican Southwest. Most U.S. citizens know little about our neighboring societies to the south. Latin America is not an easy place to understand. The term Latin America covers a vast variety of people and places. Geographically, Latin America includes the land mass extending from the Rio Grande border between Texas and Mexico to the southern tip of South America, plus some Caribbean islands: a total area two and one-half times the size of the United States. Brazil itself is larger than the United States. Latin America displays startling contrasts – between rich and poor, between city and country, between learned and illiterate, between the powerful lord of the hacienda and the deferential peasant, between wealthy entrepreneurs and desperate street urchins. Politically, Latin America belongs to the "developing" world, beset by historical and contemporary obstacles to rapid economic growth, but here too there is diversity - from the one crop dependency of tiny Honduras to the industrial promise of dynamic Brazil. |
Latin America, one of the world's three major developing regions, is making rapid economic progress. Foreign investments in mining and manufacturing have greatly stimulated development. The region is a major world supplier of tropical agricultural commodities, such as coffee, sugar, and bananas. Wheat, soybeans, wool, and meat come from its cooler temperate regions. Rich deposits of important minerals are found throughout Latin America.
Although Latin America is a developing region, it has advanced further economically than has either Africa or Asia. It is more highly urbanized and industrialized, and the well-being of its people, as measured by the per capita distribution of the gross national product, is far greater than that existing in other developing areas of Africa and Asia.
Through the centuries, income from the export of a succession of agricultural products has supported the economic development of Latin American nations. However, governments have become increasingly aware of the need to diversify exports and, where possible, to convert raw commodities into finished products. Such products include meal and oil made from fish and soybeans, fabrics and finished clothing manufactured from raw wool and cotton, and instant and freeze-dried coffee produced from coffee beans.
The explosive growth of Latin American cities and improvements in the economic well being of their inhabitants are changing the people's diets. In future years, these changes will probably be reflected by decreasing demands for the types of commodities traditionally produced and consumed by peasant farmers, and by increasing reliance on fruits, vegetables, meat, and dairy products.
The nations of Latin America share a common heritage that influences the nature of their relationships with other countries. For example, their policies toward European states tend to be the products of long colonial associations with Spain and Portugal, and more recent commercial contacts with Great Britain, France, and Germany. International relations within the Americas are influenced by the powerful presence of the United States. As early as 1821, the Monroe Doctrine established the self-proclaimed right of the United States to protect all Latin American nations from foreign intervention.
The southernmost nations of Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay remain primarily European in outlook. After independence, strong cultural ties with Europe were reinforced by the arrival in those countries of about 4 million European immigrants. Investments, especially from Great Britain, flowed into the region. Economic bonds as well as cultural ties, particularly with Spain and Italy, have been powerful factors in fostering close relationships with Europe.
Within Latin America, peace has frequently been hampered since World War II by internal conflicts. In 1969 the so-called "soccer war" broke out between El Salvador and Honduras when a soccer match between the two nations resulted in violence and, eventually, armed conflict. Since 1980, Argentina and Chile as well as Peru and Ecuador have approached war over boundary disputes. Bolivia continues to seek an outlet to the sea as the result of its war with Chile between 1879 and 1883. Venezuela and Guatemala persist in their attempts to reacquire territory from neighboring Guyana and Belize.
On the other hand, international and regional organizations have been established to promote political harmony and economic well being in Latin America. The Organization of American States has been an instrumental force in working for peace and economic cooperation.
Country Profiles (Excerpted from Compton’s Encyclopedia Online © 1998 The Learning Company, Inc., and its subsidiaries. Maps © 1998 GeoSystems Global Corporation. Portions of this software © 1994 Pegasus Imaging Corporation. © 1998 Interactive Pictures Corporation. Portions of this software © 1998 Personal Library Software, Inc.)
Argentina
Within Latin America the nation of Argentina is second in area only to Brazil and fourth in population only to Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia. This large land covers more than 1 million square miles (2.7 million square kilometers), in the southern part of South America east of the Andes Mountains. It extends from the Tropic of Capricorn south to the tip of the continent--within about 700 miles (1,100 kilometers) of Antarctica. Argentina claims a portion of that continent as well as the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) and several other islands of the South Atlantic Ocean. The country is bounded by Chile on the west and south, Bolivia and Paraguay on the north, and Brazil, Uruguay, and the Atlantic Ocean on the east.
The first people to live in what is now Argentina were American Indians. The most important groups belonged to the Guaraní tribes in the Northeast. Today only 3 percent of the people of Argentina are Indians and mestizos (mixed). The rest of the people are of European descent.
Modern Argentina is inhabited by many people of European descent and by a few American Indians. Although various estimates have been made for the Indian population before the Spanish conquest, a conservative number might be 300,000 for the present national area.
As European settlers arrived, a white population soon became dominant. By the time Argentina achieved its independence in 1824, the vast majority of the populace had been born in South America.
After independence was gained, political chaos prevented unification of the country. However, the idea of planned pioneer settlement for the purpose of inhabiting the country's vast empty spaces was carried forward from time to time.
Argentina has traditionally been one of the more prosperous Latin American countries. Unlike many of its neighbors, the country has developed a strong manufacturing industry and has become less dependent on agriculture. Today the country is largely self-sufficient in consumer goods. However, the Argentine economy in the late 20th century, like that of many countries, suffered from severe inflation. An unstable government and continuing domestic and international political problems complicated this condition.
Brazil
Stretching 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers) from east to west and 2,700 miles (4,300 kilometers) from north to south in South America, Brazil is the world's largest tropical country. The only nations that are larger are the Temperate Zone lands of Russia, Canada, China, and the United States. Brazil has more than 150 million people spread unevenly over its huge land area, making it the fifth most populous country in the world.
More than two thirds of Brazil's people live in cities and towns, and more than 29 percent of them are in its ten cities with more than a million inhabitants. These include the metropolitan areas of São Paulo with more than 15 million people and Rio de Janeiro with more than 9 million people. The rural population is concentrated either on the ribbon of fertile lowland along the East Coast or in the highlands of the more southerly states. Elsewhere, settlement is sparse. There are widely scattered small subsistence farms that feed the miners of the Eastern Highlands, the cowboys of the western savannas, and those who gather forest products in the northern jungles.
Since 1960 when Brasília, the new national capital in the interior, was inaugurated, great changes have taken place in Brazilian society and in its economy. Schools and medical care have come to distant villages; a network of highways has been built across the interior; new industries have grown up; and television has made countless communities feel less isolated. Modernization has also introduced its less enviable by-products: urban blight, pollution, and an increasing crime rate. But, because of its vast size and low overall population density, Brazil remains a hospitable land of great beauty.
Before the Portuguese discovered Brazil, it was the home of 4 million or more native peoples. They were divided into two fairly distinct racial and cultural groups. The thinly scattered Paleo-Americans, who were similar in many respects to the North American Plains Indians, occupied the colder and drier lands. They lived mostly by hunting and gathering. The tropical forest tribes were located in the jungles of the Amazon and along the Atlantic coast. Living in villages of as many as 3,000 people, they were expert fishermen and farmers who also manufactured hammocks, canoes and balsa rafts, blowguns for hunting and warfare, and exquisite pottery. Their staple food was cassava, or manioc, which is still an important part of the Brazilian diet.
Because they occupied the most accessible and fertile lands, the tropical forest Indians bore the brunt of early European settlement. War, disease, and enslavement soon exterminated them. The more isolated and warlike Paleo-Americans survived for several more centuries, and today a few bands still live near remote parts of the Amazon. Although Indians have almost disappeared from Brazil, many of its inhabitants, especially those in the interior, have some Indian heritage.
During the 1960s and 1970s Brazil was not only able to absorb its high population increase but also to raise its people's standard of living. This happened because its economy was growing by about 7 percent a year, one of the highest growth rates in the world. Industrialization, the mechanization of agriculture, and the building of highways, power plants, and cities were all taking place simultaneously. The worldwide recession and the high price of oil slowed this growth during the late 1970s and early 1980s. High inflation and large budget deficits plagued the Brazilian economy throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. This trend was reversed when economic reforms instituted in the mid-1990s succeeded in bringing inflation under control and increasing economic growth.
The government of Brazil has been replaced many times. Nevertheless, the basic system for organizing the country has been retained. The orderly succession of Brazil's presidents was interrupted three times between 1930 and 1964.
Under a new 1967 constitution and the amended constitution of 1969, the government continued to be led by the military. Some semblance of democracy was retained even though the political parties were abolished and the powers of Congress curtailed.
Unlike many other military regimes in Latin America, Brazil's had not attempted to take over every aspect of the day-to-day running of the country. In the late 1970s the government began to put into place policies that would gradually return Brazil to a more democratic system. Political rights were restored to some of those who had lost them, provision was made for the establishment of new political parties, and press censorship was relaxed.
Canada
Stretching westward from the Atlantic Ocean to the shores of the Pacific Ocean, and northward from its border with the United States to the icy waters of the Arctic Ocean, Canada is a huge and fascinating land of contrasts. Although its area of nearly 4 million square miles (10 million square kilometers) makes it the second largest nation on Earth, after Russia, it has a population of only 8.3 persons per square mile (3.2 persons per square kilometer). By contrast, the population of China, a nation slightly smaller than Canada in area, is 40 times greater. Although from north to south Canada measures nearly 3,000 miles (4,800 kilometers), more than two thirds of its nearly 27,500,000 residents live within 190 miles (300 kilometers) of its southern border with 12 states of the United States.
Canada is an independent parliamentary democracy. Once a colony of Great Britain, it became independent in 1867 through the British North America Act.
The complete history of neither Canada nor the United States can be studied without reference to the history of the other. Each is today an independent nation. Each, however, achieved its independence by a completely different path-- by gradual constitutional change spread over many years, the United States by a single great War of Independence.
In Canada today the Indian, Inuit, and métis (mixed Indian and French ancestry) peoples are referred to as native peoples. When the first Europeans reached North America, there probably were not more than 200,000 Indians and Inuit in what is now . The population of native peoples in the mid-1990s was more than double that number.
During a very rapid expansion of Canadian industry and a massive movement of people from rural to urban centers following World War II, there was another great influx of immigrants--particularly from Italy--to meet the demand for workers in the building trades. As a result, Italian is now the third most important first language spoken in Canada, next to English and French, the two official languages according to 's constitution.
Upheavals in Africa and Asia, and the changing of restrictive regulations concerning immigration to Canada from the Far East, have caused an inflow of people of Asian origin. These included Indian and Pakistani refugees from East Africa, Vietnamese "boat people," Chinese from Hong Kong, and many more.
Because Canada has such a small population in relation to its landmass, it is the second leading exporter of grain in the world even though it is not the second largest producer. Only approximately 5 percent, or 180,000 square miles (466,000 square kilometers), of the nation's land surface is cultivated, and fewer than 1 million Canadians actually are employed on farms. Nevertheless, agriculture is the country's most important economic activity.
In spite of the fact that the total number of farms and farmers has been in steady decline since World War II, the average size of farms has increased, and the total area in production has changed little. More and better farm machinery, better use of fertilizers, and more efficient farming methods combined to more than double agricultural production between 1941 and 1995. Farm implement manufacturing, food processing, and transportation industries are important related economic activities.
Beginning in the 1960s Quebec was the center of militant agitation to separate it from Canada and establish a French-speaking nation. In 1969 French and English were both declared the official languages of Canada. In 1970 the kidnapping and murder of Quebec’s minister of labor and immigration, Pierre Laporte, climaxed terrorist acts by alleged separatists. The federal government sent in troops and temporarily suspended civil liberties. In 1974 French became the official language of the province. Although the separatist party retained power, a referendum to make the province an independent country was rejected by the Quebec voters in 1980. The Quebec government opposed the 1982 constitution, which included a provision for freedom of language in education, and unsuccessfully sought a veto over constitutional change. In 1984 the Supreme Court ruled against Quebec's schooling restrictions.
In 1987 the Meech Lake constitutional accord recognized Quebec as a "distinct society" and transferred extensive new powers to all the provinces. Quebec promised that it would accept the 1982 constitution if all the rest of the provinces approved the accord. The House of Commons ratified the Meech Lake accord on June 22, 1988, but the accord died on June 23, 1990, after Newfoundland and Manitoba withheld their support. A new set of constitutional proposals hammered out by a parliamentary committee was agreed upon in 1992. They called for decentralization of federal powers, an elected Senate, and special recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. In a referendum held in October 1992, Canadians decisively turned down the constitutional changes. Quebec voters narrowly rejected secession from Canada in a 1995 referendum.
In a dramatic effort to address honestly its centuries-old legacy of mistreating Canada's indigenous peoples, the government of Canada issued in January 1998 an unprecedented apology to Canada's indigenous population for 150 years of government-sponsored "residential school" programs. The residential programs involved the forced relocation and assimilation of many of Canada's indigenous peoples. The government also indicated that it would begin to consider other social and economic programs designed to help reduce the problems of poverty, poor health, and unemployment that continued to plague many of Canada's 1.3 million indigenous peoples.
Colombia
The fourth largest country in South America, the Republic of Colombia has coasts on both the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. Lying next to the Isthmus of Panama, which until 1903 was a part of its territory, Colombia is a strategic crossroads in the network of communication between North, Central, and South America.
Colombia has an area of about 440,000 square miles (1,140,000 square kilometers), extending for more than 1,100 miles (1,800 kilometers) from north to south and for more than 850 miles (1,370 kilometers) from west to east. It is bounded by the Caribbean on the north, Venezuela and Brazil on the east, Peru and Ecuador on the south, the Pacific on the west, and Panama on the northwest.
Colombia's total population was just over 20 million at the 1973 census. In a 1995 estimate it was thought to have reached more than 35 million. Ninety percent of the people live in the western half of the country, where the most densely settled valleys and tablelands reach as high as 300 persons per square mile (117 persons per square kilometer).
Traditionally Colombia was a rural nation of landlords and peasants, villages, and small towns. Cities were small and provincial. Since the late 1940s, however, a major shift in population from the countryside to urban centers has been taking place. As cities grow, more rural dwellers move in. The greatest urban growth has been in the country's capital, Bogotá, a city that grew from 660,000 inhabitants in 1951 to more than five million in the 1990s. Other thriving centers with more than one million people are Medellín, Cali, Barranquilla, Bucaramanga, Cartagena, and Cúcuta. Altogether half of the Colombians live in 17 cities of more than 150,000 population.
Colombians are of Spanish, Indian, and, to a lesser degree, African black ancestry. An accurate ethnic division is difficult to establish after nearly four centuries of intensive racial blending. An educated guess is that about 60 percent of the people are mestizo, or a mixture of Europeans and Indians. Mulattos and blacks may represent 18 percent and whites about the same percentage. Pure or nearly pure Indians make up less than 2 percent.
Although Colombia is often included in the group of less developed nations of the world, its traditional dependence on agriculture, mining, and other extractive activities is being changed by a steady industrializing trend and technological modernization. The world financial crisis of the 1980s hit Colombia, but its economy is less troubled than some in Latin America that are on the verge of bankruptcy from recession and high foreign debts.
Illiteracy is one of Colombia's most serious problems. Although elementary schooling is compulsory, the government has been unable to provide education to many Colombians over 7 years of age. It is estimated that about 13 percent, or nearly 5 million, of the people cannot read and write. In the 1980s 86 percent of the children of primary school age attended public institutions, and 58 percent of the eligible students were in secondary school systems. Only 40 percent of college-age students attended officially recognized universities. There is a relatively large number of institutions of higher learning, led by the public National University and the private University of the Andes, both in Bogotá.
In 1989 the government cracked down on the local drug traffickers, who in August assassinated the Liberal party's presidential candidate, Luis Carlos Galán. A state of emergency was declared, and the government attempted to seize the assets of the drug cartels and extradite traffickers to the United States. In response the traffickers began a series of bombings and killings. In February 1990 the presidents of Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia--the world's three main cocaine-producing countries--met in Cartagena with the president of the United States--the world's top cocaine-consuming country. They agreed to exchange United States economic and military aid for increased Latin efforts to combat the drug trade.
Colombia has a democratic form of government. Its current constitution dates from 1886, though it has been amended. Civil rights, social guarantees and private property rights are foremost provisions of the constitution and laws of the country.
Guatemala
Of the seven nations in Central America, Guatemala is by most measures the most important. It contains one third of the region's population and surpasses other Central American countries in commerce and manufacturing. With more than 1 million inhabitants, its capital city--also called Guatemala--is by far the largest urban center in Central America. That Guatemala was equally distinguished before the arrival of the Spanish is revealed by the widespread distribution of major Mayan archaeological sites.
Bordering on Mexico, Guatemala is the westernmost nation in Central America. When the Spanish arrived in Guatemala in 1524, they found a dense population organized into a number of small kingdoms. Within a century after the Spanish conquest, the population declined from about 2 million to 300,000, where it remained until the late 1700s. Thereafter the population grew slowly, finally returning to 2 million during the early 1930s.
Of the 10.6 million people in Guatemala today, nearly two thirds live in rural areas. With the current high birthrate, the population will more than double by the year 2020. Guatemalans are flooding into cities. Nearly 1.5 million dwell in the metropolitan area of the modern and bustling capital, Guatemala City.
Throughout the country there is a strong contrast between old and new. In Guatemala City there are skyscrapers, supermarkets, and streets crowded with cars and buses. In nearby Antigua, a favorite attraction for tourists, its past is reflected in cobblestone streets, colonial churches, and one-story buildings with white walls and red tile roofs. In Los Altos the city of Totonicapán was constructed according to Spanish colonial city plans, but crude whitewashed adobe huts, colorful costumes, and an open-air market where Indians speak in a Mayan dialect are reminders of the contributions of an older Indian culture.
More than half of all workers are employed in farming, but agriculture only contributes 25 percent to the nation's income. This is explained by the fact that many farmers practice subsistence agriculture--producing corn and beans for household use.
The creation of coffee and banana plantations between 1860 and 1918 was the first attempt to establish commercial agriculture in Guatemala on a large scale. After World War II commercial farming expanded into the raising of cotton, sugar, and livestock.
Guatemala has a relatively advanced manufacturing sector, one of the most developed in Central America. Industry and manufacturing involve a wide range of activities carried on in both modern and old ways.
During the 1970s Guatemala made significant economic progress. During the 1980s depressed prices for its exports, internal political struggles, and loss of tourism led to increased unemployment, inflation, and a decline in the value of goods and services produced within the country. The economy rebounded in the 1990s, expanding by more than 4.5 percent per year.
Guatemala is made up of 22 departments divided into municipios, or townships. The president and vice-president are directly elected for a single five-year term, and the president is responsible for appointing departmental governors. Leaders of military revolts are prohibited from holding office.
In 1985, after nearly 30 years of military rule, a civilian government was formed. On Sept. 19, 1996, government and rebel leaders signed an accord aimed at bringing peace to the nation, which had endured 35 years of warfare at a cost of 100,000 lives.
Mexico
Southward from its 1,500- mile- (2,400-kilometer-) long border with the United States lies the Estados Unidos Mexicanos. A country with slightly more than 750,000 square miles (1,940,000 square kilometers) in area, Mexico has a vast array of mineral resources, limited agricultural land, and a rapidly growing population. These factors are the basis for many of the country's present problems as well as opportunities for future development. The nation is struggling to modernize its economy. With more than 91 million people in the mid-1990s, Mexico's overall population density exceeds 110 per square mile (42 per square kilometer). More than half of its inhabitants live in the country's central core, while the arid north and the tropical south are sparsely settled.
The long-held stereotype of Mexico as a slow-paced country with a population consisting mainly of subsistence farmers has little validity. Petroleum and tourism dominate the economy, and industrialization is increasing in many parts of the nation. Internal migration from the countryside has caused urban centers to grow dramatically: more than two thirds of all Mexicans now live in cities. Mexico City, with a metropolitan area population of approximately 16 million people, is the largest city in the world. While still low by United States standards, the nation's gross national product per capita rose significantly during the 1970s. Despite impressive social and economic gains, since 1981 Mexico has been wracked by severe inflation and an enormous foreign debt brought on in large part by precipitous declines in the value of petroleum products.
Mexico's population comprises a wide variety of racial and ethnic groups. At the time of European arrival in the early 1500s, the country was inhabited by numerous Amerind civilizations. The "Indians" are thought to have migrated into the New World from Asia some 40,000 to 60,000 years earlier by crossing a former land bridge in what is now the Bering Straits.
Over the last four centuries descendants of Indians and Europeans, sometimes called mestizos, have become the dominant group in Mexico. Today they account for at least two thirds and perhaps three fourths of the total population.
One of the more dynamic aspects of Mexico's demography is its rapid rate of population increase. At present the nation's population is growing at a rate of 1.8 percent annually. This is about 20 percent higher than the world average and almost twice the rate of the United States. This growth rate, however, represents a recent slowing in natural increase.
Such rapid growth has severely taxed the ability of the Mexican Republic to provide basic social services and economic opportunities for its citizens. It is estimated that Mexico will have 98 million people by the year 2000. Traditionally the government has opposed limiting population growth. This position has been somewhat modified since the late 1970s with continuing high growth rates and recurring economic difficulties.
The movement of people within the nation's borders has drastically altered the distribution of Mexico's population. Massive migrations of peasants from rural areas and small towns to cities began in the 1950s, resulting in an estimated 70 percent of Mexicans now living in cities. This represents a substantial proportional decline in rural population, which accounted for 50 percent in 1960. In 1987 roughly half of the country's residents lived in cities with 50,000 inhabitants or more. As a group, Mexican cities have grown at a rate of more than 5 percent a year, since the 1960s.
A lack of agricultural land, limited job opportunities, and the availability of few social amenities push people from the rural areas. The perception of increased chances for social and economic mobility as well as the dynamic character of urban places pulls rural folk toward the cities. Many head for such large cities as Guadalajara, Puebla, and Monterrey, but Mexico City is the main destination. Because of the highly favorable employment prospects, increasing numbers of migrants have moved to cities on the United States border--in particular Ciudad Juárez, Mexicali, and Tijuana. As a result these are the fastest-growing cities in the nation.
In addition to internal migration, the number of individuals who have emigrated from Mexico to the United States illegally has grown sharply since the 1970s. Estimates are highly inaccurate and vary drastically, but it is believed that somewhere between 4 and 8 million Mexicans relocated illegally to the United States between 1970 and 1985. An increasing number of highly qualified technicians and professionals have found their way northward causing a "brain drain" for Mexico.
Mexico has made great efforts to improve educational and health opportunities for its people. Despite a rapidly growing population and an increasingly large number of school-age children, gains are being made in many areas. As in most Third World countries, social infrastructure is much more available in cities than in the countryside, but national programs have sought to provide primary schools and basic health-care centers to all rural areas.
It is the goal of the federal government to eradicate illiteracy and to assure at least a primary education to all of its citizens, and strides have been made to reach these goals. In addition to schools for younger children, adult illiteracy has been attacked vigorously
The overall quality of medical care in Mexico lags behind that available in the United States and in Europe. Many Mexicans therefore travel outside the country to have sophisticated surgical procedures and treatments performed.
In economic terms Mexico is a developing nation. With a 1993 gross domestic product (GDP) of approximately United States $3,750 per capita, the country has a long way to progress before it can provide its people with living standards similar to the more developed nations. But even this modest figure represents a major improvement in a relatively short period of time.
The United States is a major trade partner of Mexico. Almost two thirds of the nation's exports go to the United States--mostly petroleum and natural gas--while 67 percent of Mexico's imports are from the United States. The overwhelming majority of tourists who visit Mexico come from the United States, and they spend freely.
Mexico is the most industrialized country in Latin America after Brazil. A disproportionate share of manufacturing is located in the Mexico City metropolitan area largely because of its huge market and superior infrastructure. Its impressive array of manufacturing includes everything from agricultural processing to automotive assemblage and electronics to iron and steel production. Most of the country's industrial jobs are located in this urban area, acting as a magnet to migrants from throughout Mexico.
Economic expansion in the 1970s brought with it increased inflationary pressure. The Mexican economy improved in the late 1980s and early 1990s. A series of price and wage control agreements signed by the government, labor unions, and private sector businesses in 1987 helped cut the inflation rate from 51 percent in 1988 to a low of 7 percent in 1994. Increased foreign trade and investment and the large-scale privatization of the country's state-owned companies helped the economy expand at a robust rate of more than 2.5 percent annually in the early 1990s.
A severe financial crisis hit Mexico after the government mishandled a devaluation of the peso in December 1994. The crisis triggered the deepest recession in Mexican history, with the country's gross domestic product (GDP) falling nearly 7 percent in 1995. More than $50 billion in international loans and a government austerity plan announced in March 1995 combining spending cuts with tax increases were designed to help the economy out of recession
Relations between the United States and Mexico fluctuated in the 20th century. A long-standing border dispute was settled in 1963, and in 1992 the two countries, along with Canada, signed the broadest trade agreement ever reached between them. The continent-wide North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect in 1994. In addition, the United States and Mexico have worked cooperatively to deal with the flow of illegal narcotics traffic from Mexico to the United States. The question of illegal immigration and the treatment of illegals in the United States is also a source of irritation between the nations.
Tensions between pro-government paramilitary forces and the anti-government Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) exploded during the first two weeks of January in 1994, when EZLN guerrillas staged an uprising throughout Chiapas in protest against the Mexican government's treatment of Mexico's large but impoverished Indian community.
United States
The mainland United States is located between Mexico on the south and Canada on the north and between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Two of its 50 states, however, are far removed from the continental core: Hawaii lies in the Pacific Ocean, 2,400 miles (3,900 kilometers) from San Francisco; Alaska, in the northwestern corner of North America, is nearly 700 miles (1,100 kilometers) from Seattle, Wash. If the outlying states are included, the area is 3,618,770 square miles (9,372,571 square kilometers), making the United States the fourth largest country in the world. The United States also ranks fourth in population.
Immigrants from Asia first settled North America. The ancestors of the peoples who came to be termed American Indians crossed over land, sea, and ice bridges in the Bering Strait region between about 25,000 and 10,000 years ago.
These early inhabitants, or Paleo-Indians, continued to migrate from Asia, settling throughout the continent's temperate regions over the next several thousand years. The Indians became hunters on the Great Plains and hunters and gatherers in the Great Basin and nearby California. As fishermen they occupied the Columbia River Valley and the North Pacific Region. Farming was established in the Semiarid Southwest and diffused to the South, the Middle Atlantic Region, and New England. Maize, squash, and beans were the favored crops. By the 15th century, highly developed Native American cultures had taken root in every climatic region of the continent. At the time of the European discoveries, there were perhaps 2 million or more American Indians in what is now the coterminous United States.
Spanish settlements were established in Florida and in the Semiarid Southwest. The English settled in the South, the Middle Atlantic Region, and New England; the Dutch, Swedes, and Finns in the Middle Atlantic Region; the French on the Gulf coast and in the Mississippi Valley. The onslaught of Europeans brought chaos and devastation to the Indians. They succumbed to disease and warfare, their life patterns were changed, and most were driven west to the forests and prairies beyond the Appalachians.
Blacks from Africa were transported to Virginia as early as 1619. Portugal and Spain had been the first European nations to transport African slaves to the Americas, where they worked on sugar plantations. In the 1600s, England, the Netherlands, and France began the large-scale capturing and buying of Africans to labor in their colonies. Some estimates of the eventual total of Africans enslaved and brought to America range between 400,000 and 1,200,000. By 1790 slaves were a majority in the South and made up 20 percent of the American population. Their numbers continued to climb with the adoption of the cotton culture in the South.
Between 1830 and 1850 the population of the United States increased from 13 million to 23 million. Some 2.5 million immigrants--most from Great Britain and, after the potato famine, from Ireland--set sail for America during these years. The Irish provided much brawn for their adopted land. They helped dig the canals, prepare track for the new railroads, and run the steamboats. They settled in the manufacturing towns and worked in the factories. As many of them were Roman Catholics, they were much disliked by the majority Protestants of the time. They went into politics in New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Boston.
Meanwhile Germans moved into the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes areas. They published and read their own newspapers, met at the local beer gardens, fought the public school movement, and organized their own school system. French Canadians went south into the New England mills. Dutch farmers moved to Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin and Scandinavians to the upper Great Lakes.
Both immigrants and long-time Americans moved west. They carried with them the American traits of democracy, equality of opportunity, optimism, and individualism. There was low-cost land and abundant soil in the West. Separation of church and state had become a fixed principle. Education was something for which every American could work.
Following the Civil War the United States paused long enough to celebrate its centennial in Philadelphia (1876). There were 40 million Americans--many caught up in the country's material progress and with national pride.
In 1876 there were perhaps three Americas. One east of the Mississippi River--civilized and urbane--where most of the people lived; the frontier area west of the Mississippi, where relatively few people lived; and the large wilderness area in the remote West--still largely unsettled and untapped. Alaska had only recently been purchased from the Russians, and the Hawaiian Islands were still independent. For the Europeans all of America was a frontier--a new, sparkling, and teeming place where life would be better.
During the 1920s immigration was severely restricted. A Congressional act in 1921 introduced the quota system. Each year there was to be admitted of each nationality a number equal to 3 percent of those in the country in 1910. The act served to restrict immigration to about 350,000 each year. It favored immigrants from Northern Europe and discriminated against those from Eastern and Southern Europe
Not until 1965 did the United States abandon the discriminatory features of its national origins quota system. Legislation, however, restricted annual immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere to 170,000, of whom no more than 20,000 could come from any single country. Ceilings were also placed on immigrants from the Western Hemisphere--up to 120,000 (1968).
Of special concern is the lack of linguistic competence in the United States. Except for the foreign-born, few Americans have mastered a second language. School requirements have been dropped or lowered over the decades since 1945. This trend stands in stark contrast to students in Europe and the Far East, who struggle to master English and other languages. Another failure in the United States is the increasing number of those who cannot read or write, even among adults.
In a world much distressed by poverty and disease, the United States is a relatively wealthy and healthy land. The standard of living and the quality of life are high. In spite of the affluence, poverty and unemployment are well known--especially in urban areas.
Since World War II the United States has been one of the world's leading powers--in essence a superpower. It is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations.
The United States is also a member of the Organization of American States (OAS), formed to defend the sovereignty of the nations of the Western Hemisphere. It is much interested in the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), designed to promote unity in the Caribbean area.
As one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the United States administers aid to the world community through its Agency for International Development (AID). Most of this aid goes to the Near East, South and East Asia, and Europe with lesser amounts to Latin America and Africa.
The United States is among the leading trading nations in the world. The leading trading partners are Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Great Britain, and Germany. The United States has penetrated deeply into the Canadian economy. The relationship between the two countries is excellent, and many American multinational corporations have large investments in Canada.
Venezuela
When the explorer Alonso de Ojeda first saw the Indian villages built on stilts along the swampy shores of Lake Maracaibo in 1499, he named the site Venezuela (Little Venice). Today the country is known for its crude oil production--4 percent of the world's output. This is greater than that of any other Third World country outside the Middle East.
Venezuela is a coastal, mountain, and plains republic. Its 1,748-mile (2,813-kilometer) Caribbean coastline provides tourist beaches and connects the country to its island neighbors. Some of these--Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Puerto Rico--were the focus of economic assistance from Venezuela for industrial development projects in the 1960s and 1970s.
The Andean states of Venezuela account for some two thirds of the population, reflecting the original Spanish colonists' preference for the temperate uplands. Venezuela is a member of the Andean Pact, within which it supports its less economically advanced Andean neighbors.
Venezuela's 21.8 million people (1995 estimate) make it the sixth largest Latin American country in population. With an area of 352,144 square miles (912,050 square kilometers), its population density is 62 per square mile (24 per square kilometer). Its rate of natural increase (excess of births over deaths) was 2.7 percent in 1986, the highest of any Latin American country its size.
Venezuela before 1959 was governed by a string of military dictatorships. Although oil wealth from the 1920s onward provided capital for many government projects, economic development was strongly concentrated in the capital region, and most of the rural population lived in poverty. In 1959 Venezuela elected a civilian president and in succeeding years established a two-party system in which presidents are elected from each party in alternating five-year terms. This representative democratic system remains strong despite economic setbacks after 1978.
In racial composition 69 percent of the Venezuelan people are of mixed Indian and European descent, 20 percent are of European descent, 9 percent are of black descent, and 1 percent are Indian. Those of mixed Indian and European heritage are spread throughout the country, but the other groups tend to be more concentrated--the whites in the largest cities, the blacks along the Caribbean, and the Indians toward the farthest reaches of the Llanos, Guiana Plateau, and Maracaibo Basin.
Venezuela's high natural increase of population--2.3 percent per year--reflects a relatively progressive economy and a comparatively hands-off policy toward birth control by the government. This contrasts with the active family-planning programs in other countries of the region. Because of the large numbers of illegal Colombians who cross the western border for work, net immigration is about equal to natural increase, resulting in an overall population growth rate of more than 5 percent per year.
In 1995, 84.6 percent of the Venezuelan population were classified as urban--the highest such rate in all of tropical South America. In the period from 1960 to 1980, secondary urban areas--those with populations of between 250,000 and 1 million--were growing at faster rates than either Caracas or smaller cities. More than 90 percent of internal migration is now from one urban area to another, with only 10 percent from rural to urban areas.
Venezuela channels a higher portion of its budget into education than do other large Latin American countries such as Mexico and Brazil. As a result its literacy rate is considerably higher--92 percent. Primary and secondary education is free and compulsory. Higher education at state universities is tuition free, but places in the best institutions--such as the Central and Simón Bolívar universities in Caracas--are limited.
Venezuela also spends well above the Latin American average on health facilities and programs. The average life expectancy of 70 years is higher than in Mexico and Brazil, indicating the effectiveness of programs to control contagious diseases.
The recent history of the Venezuelan economy has been one of diversification. It has moved away from petroleum dominance toward food self-sufficiency and import-substituting industrialization.
Venezuela is a federal republic divided into 20 states and four federally controlled areas. The constitution of 1961 declares Venezuela a federal republic with "autonomous states," but in fact nearly all power is held by the national government. The president is elected by direct vote for a single five-year term.
For a few years Venezuela was part of the Republic of Gran Colombia, but it seceded and became an independent republic in 1830. After that the country was ruled by a series of military dictators, including Antonio Guzmán Blanco (1870-88), Cipriano Castro (1899-1908), and Juan Vicente Gómez (1909-35).
In November 1996 a Venezuelan general with ties to the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami, Florida. The charges were that he assisted Colombian drug cartels in their efforts to distribute more than 22 tons of cocaine internationally during the 1980s and early 1990s. General Ramón Guillen Davila was, according to the indictment, the head of a CIA-backed program that worked in conjunction with the Venezuela National Guard to infiltrate and gather information about Colombian drug trafficking operations. According to the findings of a five-year investigation, in order to gain the confidence of Colombian cartel leaders, General Guillen arranged for the shipment of at least one ton of pure cocaine to Miami International Airport in Miami, Florida. Apparently, the CIA, against the objections of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), approved. The total amount of cocaine smuggled into the United States through the efforts of the Venezuela National Guard was unknown, though one DEA official stated that the amount could have been considerably larger than the estimate of one ton.
Organization of American States
The Organization of American States (OAS) is playing a central role in working toward many of the goals that are shared by the countries of North, Central and South America and the Caribbean. The OAS Charter was reformed to reflect the hemisphere’s strengthened commitment to representative democracy.
Made up of 35 member states, the OAS is the region’s premier political forum for multilateral dialogue and action. The supreme authority of the OAS is the General Assembly. It meets annually to decide general policy, to consider matters dealing with relations among member republics, and to coordinate the work of the various bodies. Each state may send a delegation but is entitled to only one vote.
Through the Summit of the Americas process, the hemisphere heads of state and government have given the OAS important responsibilities and mandates.
The Issues
Hemispheric Security and Democratization
- What Is Democracy? - Is Neo-liberalism the right path for Latin America?
- Terrorism
- Drug Interdiction and Narcotics Control
Human Rights and Justice
- The Inter-American Convention Against Corruption
- Health and Welfare of Children
Environment
- Plant Biotechnology and Food Security
- Deforestation, Transboundary Industrial Pollution, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development
- International Property Rights
Economics
- The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas
- Democracy and Development in Latin America
Hemispheric Security and Democratization
What is Democracy? – Is Neo-Liberalism the Right Path for Latin America?
In Latin America, military dictatorships have been replaced almost everywhere by elected civilian leaders. Yet it may be too soon to announce the triumph of democracy. Serious questions remain as to how democratic these new systems are. Moreover, it must be remembered that an earlier wave of apparent world democratization after World War I was followed by the replacement of elected civilian governments by military dictatorships in Latin America. We may merely be at the democratic phase of what is a cyclical phenomenon.
There is a strong tendency for democratic governance and economic prosperity to coexist. Since it is clear that the new democracies of both the third world and the former communist world face severe economic difficulties, the stability of their new political systems is open to question. Furthermore, many of these new democracies are ethnically and/or religiously pluralistic, and that, too, seems to be an obstacle to democratic stability. Some experts insist, as well, on cultural requirements for successful democratization.
A glance at newspaper headlines and editorials on Latin America reveals disturbing trends: "Ecuador's coup alerts region to a resurgent military" says Larry Rohter of The New York Times (January 30, 2000); "Andean autocrats dig in for the long haul" writes The Economist (February 5, 2000); Carlos Alberto Montaner describes "Democracies held together by pins" in a pessimistic editorial in El Nuevo Heraldo (January 30, 2000); and Tina Rosenberg's editorial in The New York Times (February 27, 2000) portrays "The Precarious Nature of Latin Democracies." The events behind the somber mood are manifold and complex.
- The president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, is an enigmatic Lieutenant Colonel who failed to seize power in a military coup in 1992, and then successfully ran for election in December 1998.
- President Alberto Fujimori closed his congress in 1992 and re-wrote the constitution in order to be re-elected in 1995. In April he ran for an unconstitutional third term in office in elections that were determined to be neither free nor fair by all independent observers.
- In January 2000 President Jamil Mahuad of Ecuador was deposed by protesting indigenous leaders and junior military officers. They attempted to form a junta only to be swept from the scene in deference to the vice-president after senior army officers - under considerable pressure from within the military and the US - pulled the plug.
- A murderous conflict between rebels, paramilitary groups, the army and drug traffickers threatens to spill over Colombia's borders.
Are these trends a sign that the oscillation between democracy and authoritarianism that plagued the region for most of the 20th century will continue into the 21st century?
| Excerpted from, The
Search for a New World Order: Great Power Foreign Policy Choices
in the Post-Cold War Era, Salzburg Seminar's Special Session,
January 24-28, 1996
Today, with the Cold War just a little more than a half decade behind us, world leaders try to grapple with the consequences--political, economic, and military--of the Soviet collapse, and scholars and journalists indulge in extended analysis and speculation about the short- and long-term implications of the historic moment. The forces shaping this new world order remain uncertain: Have we entered an era of resurgent and belligerent nationalism, or an age of trading blocs in which economic imperatives play the dominant role? How will traditional security arrangements adapt to the new political and economic realities? Today, regional conflicts continue to claim lives. What is different is the way in which the world is dealing with them. It became clear in the course of our discussions that these current conflicts--whatever their causes--cannot be satisfactorily resolved on a regional or bilateral basis, first because the traditional spheres of superpower influence have disintegrated, and second because so many of the issues have trans-regional, and at times global, implications. At the same time, it has become clear that we lack the international institutions capable of dealing with these conflicts, and that brings us to the role of the United States in the post-Cold War world. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the concomitant dismantling of the bipolar balance of power, one must reconsider what constitutes "power" in the new world order. Previously, the two superpowers exercised not only military but also economic, political, and ideological power in their respective spheres of influence. At present, the United States is the only nation with superpower capability in all spheres, but the role it plays today differs significantly from the role it played during the Cold War. America no longer represents a hegemonic power that unilaterally dictates and implements global policies; rather it serves, or tries to serve, as a catalyst for multilateral action, as it did during the Gulf Crisis and more recently in Bosnia. Dominique Moïsi observed that during the Cold War, we had developed the "habit" of viewing the world in stark Manichean terms: we knew our enemies; we knew our allies. In the six years since the collapse of the Soviet empire, the distinctions that had been drawn along ideological lines fell into question. A recurring theme in these discussions was the dramatic impact domestic agendas now have on the foreign affair choices of all the great powers. This was identified as a new, pervasive, and still imperfectly studied or understood phenomenon. In the absence of the kind of threat typified by the East-West confrontation of the post-Second World War decades, domestic politics have become the driving force around world politics. Foreign policy choices now seem likely to be dictated to an ever -increasing degree by domestic concerns. Even though any attempt to build a new world order demands a proper understanding of the nature of power, contemporary definitions of power are elusive. Power today is diffuse and dependent on a number of factors including economic imperatives, transnational actors, and the new instruments of information technology. The certainties of the bipolar world of the Cold War have given way to the uncertainties of a unipolar world dominated, for the present, by the United States, or at least a world in which U.S. policy decisions provide a major reference point against which others measure their decisions. While everyone acknowledged America's paramount role, there is an ambivalent attitude towards the United States, and feelings sometimes close to embarrassment that even the major powers should have such dependence on the Americans. Europe and the South Pacific countries consider the U.S. engagement as a precondition to orderly existence; yet they are also convinced that in today's world the U.S. cannot act as a lone ranger but must operate in concert with others. "Nothing can be done without the U.S.; yet they cannot act without others," said one participant. |
With growing hemispheric support for democracy and development, strengthening non-governmental institutions has acquired in creased importance. Individuals and groups from all over the Americas want a more active role in public life. Countries of the hemisphere are increasingly aware of the importance of the role played by these "civil society" organizations and groups in policy-making.
The importance of civil society participation was firmly established at the first Summit of the Americas in 1994. The Miami Declaration highlighted the importance of civil society organizations in enhancing and preserving democratic institutions.
A wave of democratization has transformed the political landscape throughout the region. In the 1999 Official Work Agenda of the OAS, Toward the New Millennium, Secretary General Cesar Gaviria makes clear the primary importance of the democratic process to the progress and development of the Americas. He stated at the beginning of the Agenda, "The key policy priority of the OAS is the strengthening, effective exercise and consolidation of democracy, which is the cement needed for the construction of a peaceful, stable and economically developed Hemisphere. The Organization’s commitment comes at a time of virtual world consensus on the pre-eminence of the democratic system as the political system that best guarantees the fundamental rights of citizens."
The OAS provides long-term support for the strengthening of democracy in the Hemisphere through the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD), which focuses in three program areas:
- Democratic Institution Building: working with member states to strengthen democratic institutions and processes, and fostering democratic values and practices;
- Electoral Technical Assistance: providing aid to electoral institutions, and fostering exchange of experiences and knowledge among these, and related institutions in order to facilitate the modernization and improvement of electoral systems; and
- Information and Dialogue/Democratic Forum: supporting the information needs of member States and other interested parties through the collection, management, and dissemination of data on democracy and good governance in the Hemisphere.
A great diversity of points of view on international security coexists in Latin America and the Caribbean. This region is immersed in an interesting debate in which reticence and enthusiasm coexist and confront themselves in order to enlarge the function of regional mechanisms of security. The center of the debate is also found in the impossible role of the United States.
"The Charter of the OAS establishes that representative democracy is indispensable for the stability, peace and development of the region. It is the sole political system that guarantees respect for human rights and the rule of law; it safeguards cultural diversity, pluralism, respect for the rights of minorities, and peace within and among nations. Democracy is based, among other fundamentals, on free and transparent elections and includes the right of all citizens to participate in government. Democracy and development reinforce one another.
We reaffirm our commitment to preserve and strengthen our democratic systems for the benefit of all people of the Hemisphere. We will work through the appropriate bodies of the OAS to strengthen democratic institutions and promote and defend constitutional democratic rule, in accordance with the OAS Charter. We endorse OAS efforts to enhance peace and the democratic, social, and economic stability of the region." 6
Democracy may be threatened when power is centralized in the executive branch of government. Lawless executives, especially when they are popular and backed by the military, can destroy democratic institutions. Moreover, when the executive acts illegally it turns the military into a deliberative institution. This is the main source of impunity and the single greatest threat to the rule of law in Latin America.
Democracy may also be threatened when the rule of law is undermined. A critical element of democratic government is the ability of citizens to oversee political authorities. Social movements are beginning to emerge around the issues of police abuse (which in countries like Argentina has reached epidemic proportions) and crime.
Democracy requires respect for basic rights and freedoms, and is threatened whenever they are violated. In a number of Latin American countries the state is unable to provide protection for basic rights and freedoms including due process, access to justice, respect for religious freedom and tolerance, or even the minimal educational levels necessary to enjoy these rights and freedoms.
Modern democracies are systems of political representation and citizenship. Yet there has been an observable weakening of parties, legislatures, and other representative institutions in Latin America.
One of the biggest challenges facing new democracies is to include indigenous peoples. Yet we know little about indigenous community organizations and identities, and the relationship between these communities, the state and other social actors -- including, for example, non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
History has demonstrated that democracies contain multiple traditions and assume different forms in historically specific conditions. The prevailing question is whether liberal democracy is the right path for Latin America.
Issues for Negotiation
- Should existing mechanisms of collective security in the region be strengthened? Or should new alternatives be found?
- How far is a shared agenda for security, not only with the United States, but also between the countries in Latin America, itself possible or desirable?
- How acceptable are the new tendencies of the multilateral organizations in the field of security of the countries in the region? How might these be improved?
- Can/should indigenous communities achieve representation, political autonomy and recognition within the framework of the liberal rights, identities, and citizenship norms established by new democratic states?
Terrorism
The OAS member states have, on more than one occasion, emphatically condemned national and international terrorism as one of the most serious threats to societies in the region. In recent years, and as mandated by the Summits of the Americas, the community of the Americas has assumed an ambitious commitment to counteract this phenomenon. The member states expressed this in 1996 in the Lima Declaration to Prevent, Combat, and Eliminate Terrorism. They defined terrorism as a common offense and stated that terrorist violence undermines peaceful and civilized coexistence, affects the rule of law and exercise of democracy, and endangers the stability of national institutions and the socioeconomic development of our countries. This Declaration was complemented by a Plan of Action on Hemispheric Cooperation to Prevent, Combat, and Eliminate Terrorism, in which the member states agreed on guidelines for collaboration in fighting the problem.
Since then, OAS member states have held a meeting of governmental experts to identify ways of improving information sharing among member states. In 1998, the Second Specialized Conference on Terrorism was held, at which they approved the Mar del Plata Commitment whereby the countries agreed to intensify cooperation to combat terrorism, and issued a recommendation to the next General Assembly of the Organization to establish an Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism (CICTE).
Whether through high profile attacks on established governments or persistent low intensity action in the context of the breakdown of authority, terrorism threatens the public safety of civilians and the stability of their societies.
As stated in Initiative 7 of the Fourth Report Of The Special Committee On Inter-American Summits Management To Ministers Of Foreign Relations Pursuant To Resolutions Ag/Res. 1349 (XXV-O/95), Ag/Res. 1377 (XXVI-O/96), And Ag/Res. 1448 (XXVII-O/97), "National and international terrorism constitute a systematic and deliberate violation of the rights of individuals and an assault on democracy itself. Recent attacks that some of our countries have suffered have demonstrated the serious threat that terrorism poses to security in the Americas. Actions by governments to combat and eliminate this threat are essential elements in guaranteeing law and order and maintaining confidence in government, both nationally and internationally. Within this context, those who sponsor terrorist acts or assist in their planning or execution through the abuse of diplomatic privileges and immunities or other means will be held responsible by the international community."
The Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE), was established by the OAS in 1999. The Committee, comprised of counter-terrorism experts from throughout the region, meets annually to encourage, develop, coordinate, and evaluate implementation of the Lima Plan of Action and the Mar del Plata Commitment. CICTE facilitates the implementation of recommendations made during the Specialized Conferences concerning the cooperative efforts in judicial, police, legal, and intelligence matters. The Committee also assists with the strengthening of anti-terrorist laws, compiling a database on terrorism-related issues for use by member states, as well as conducting a study to identify mechanisms for increasing the effectiveness of international legislation in this area.
Although much of Latin America continued to be free from terrorist attacks, Colombia, Peru, and the tri-border region experienced terrorist activity. In Colombia, insurgent and paramilitary terrorist groups continued to pose a significant threat to the country's national security and to the security of innocent civilians caught up in the conflict. Despite the beginnings of a slow and sometimes unsure peace process, Colombia's two largest guerrilla groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), failed to moderate their terrorist attacks.
The FARC and ELN also generated income by kidnapping Colombians and foreigners for ransom and extorting money from businesses and individuals in the Colombian countryside. In addition, both insurgent groups attacked the nation's energy infrastructure--including US commercial interests--by bombing oil pipelines and destroying the electric power grid. U.S. citizens, who fell victim to guerrilla terrorism, including three Indian rights workers the FARC kidnapped in Colombia and murdered in Venezuela in March, were targeted because of wealth or opportunity rather than their nationality. The whereabouts of the three New Tribes missionaries kidnapped by the FARC in 1993 remain unknown.
In December, President Pastrana extended the FARC's demilitarized zone (DMZ) through 7 June 2000. Reports of FARC abuses inside the DMZ continued to reduce the FARC's popularity. Colombia's peace commissioner asserted that Bogota would not enter official peace talks or a "National Convention" with the ELN until all remaining hostages were released.
Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay consolidated efforts to stem the illicit activities of individuals linked to Islamic terrorist groups in the tri-border region and cooperated in promoting regional counter-terrorist efforts. Argentina led efforts to create the Inter-American Committee on Counter-terrorism within the Organization of American States (OAS).
Colombia is the strongest example of what is meant by the phrase "narco terrorism," and where the drug trade is a major factor. In the guerrilla and paramilitary controlled areas of Colombia, a cycle of terrorism and narco-trafficking has spiraled into a mutually dependent relationship. The terrorists and paramilitaries gain funding from the drug-traffickers that, in turn, look to these illegal armed groups for "protection."
Issues for Negotiation
- Terrorists have increasingly looked to other sources of funding -- such as narcotics production and trafficking -- as financing from traditional state sponsors of terrorism has tended to diminish. Is an integrated strategy of economic, social and legal assistance to countries, which face unstable political conditions and have severe economic problems, needed? If yes, what should be the principle tenets of this strategy? If no, how can/should existing regional and international measures and initiatives be strengthened to effectively counter the funding of terrorists?
- In what ways can the Lima Plan of Action and the Mar del Plata commitment be strengthened? What are the potential pitfalls and how might they be circumvented?
Drug Interdiction and Narcotics Control
Anti-drug policies have their origin in the desire to protect human welfare: The international community, concerned about the impact of drugs on public health, began to prohibit a series of substances and establish measures to suppress their production, distribution and abuse. Ever since, the illicit drug economy has grown exponentially, and the strategy for combating it has escalated to full-scale war.
In political and social terms, the collateral damage from drug trafficking and the drug war have become key factors in impeding the consolidation of democracy in the region. Moreover, in many countries, that damage has given rise to, or strengthened, countercurrents trying to create new authoritarian regimes.
Beyond widespread bribery -- the lowest level of corruption -- there is evidence of uniformed officers' involvement at higher levels, from the protection of illicit drug trafficking to direct participation in the logistics of the business. One factor that appears in all the studies is impunity, which perpetuates itself, as well as the mechanisms that permit this involvement.
In the Book, Democracies Under Fire, several key points, regional trends and more general conclusions are made:
- There is a trend toward militarization and transnationalization of anti-drug efforts in Latin America that tends to reinforce and relegitimize the domestic role of the military and militarized police forces. The "war" also produces a series of "collateral damages" that affect fragile (and in some countries virtually non-existent) efforts toward democratization and demilitarization in the region. Transnationalization of the drug war, which establishes co-operative structures beyond the control or knowledge of national democratic institutions, endangers countries' national sovereignty and democracy.
- The principal forces behind (trans)militarization in the region are the US's government, Congress and counternarcotics agencies, which use methods including pressure and blackmail aimed at involving "friendly" but not so docile countries in its war. There are well-founded doubts about the other, "real" US interests and motives behind this policy, especially its effect on decisions pertaining to domestic electoral interests; the self-defense of the giant drug war bureaucracy; economic interests tied to the establishment of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA); and legitimization of a policy that, besides promoting arms sales in the region, attempts to consolidate and increase the US military presence in Latin America by maintaining present bases and setting up new, long-term enclaves.
- The phenomenon of corruption, promoted by traffickers in order to guarantee their protection, is directed toward anti-drug forces and the judicial system, as well as the political arena. At this level, corruption may be of an individual, collective, systemic or institutional nature, depending on the monopoly that a particular counternarcotics force has over the drug war and the impunity system which protects those who are corrupted. As far as state "involvement" is concerned, there is a mixture of "criminal" and "official" structures in which high officials of security forces play a significant role in the logistical organization of drug trafficking and other crimes. The mechanisms of corruption and protection in these mixed structures penetrate the highest spheres of political and judicial power. The result is an endemic impunity that, almost without exception, allows these structures to continue operating.
- In countries that are presently in a phase of post-war reconstruction, demobilized armed groups and elements purged from former security forces merge easily into criminal organizations, providing arms, experience in running a dirty war, and impunity. The increasing social inequity, marginalization and unemployment promotes integration of the informal and illicit economies, leading to the criminalization of the social sectors involved. The combination of these phenomena produces an alarming level of civil insecurity, which appears to be worsening throughout Latin America.
- The destabilization resulting from the illicit economy itself and the remilitarization fuelled by the drug war -- the "drug factor" reinforces the trend toward new authoritarian models in Latin America
- In terms of concrete results, current anti-drug strategy is a total failure. Indicators such as the number of seizures, hectares eradicated or number of arrests merely reflect the energy being invested; they do not serve as a measure of the strategy's effectiveness. Drug trafficking has an enormous capacity for readapting after supposed "final blows," through changes in modus operandi: new routes, new cultivation areas, new contraband methods, replacement of organizational structures, etc. After various decades of repressive strategy, it is still impossible to speak of substantive change in the growing illicit economy. 7
International drug policy is shifting towards an aggressive strategy of reduction of supply of illicit drugs. Instead of emphasizing work to reduce demand, more and more efforts and resources are being allocated to forced eradication of drug producing crops. Tools favored by countries that promote eradication are chemical fumigation, which has recently intensified in several drug producing countries and, more recently, the introduction of biological eradication agents.
The United States is the political force behind the use of biological weapons to eradicate drug crops and has undertaken programs to identify, test and deploy microbial agents to kill marijuana, opium poppy and coca. Several candidate pathogens have identified and developed, including use of genetic engineering in laboratory work to create microbial strains with enhanced virulence. Part of the research and field testing in this program is being conducted, with US encouragement and financial support, through the United Nations Drug Control Program (UNDCP). Despite high-level attempts to further "internationalize" support for this research, only the United Kingdom has agreed to back the US biological eradication idea with money. While the US and UNDCP plan contemplates the use of biological weapons for eradication of narcotic crops globally, Colombia is currently the major focus of attention because of intense political pressure from the US for it to deploy the agents as part of President Pastrana’s "Plan Colombia". The US Congress conditioned a US 1.3 billion dollar package of mainly military aid on Colombia’s agreement to field test biological weapons for use in the counterinsurgency war, which is focused on the Putumayo region bordering Ecuador and upstream from Brazil and Peru.
Biological herbicides to destroy drug crops are seen as a promising tool in international drug control efforts. Chemical herbicides like glyphosate used in Colombia have proven to be not sufficiently effective, and new stronger herbicides like tebuthiuron (or Spike) meet with opposition, because they cause even more damage to people and the environment. Biological herbicides genetically engineered from natural fungi seem promising to find environmentally safe methods to fight coca and opium poppy crops.
In an Associated Press article on July 15, 2000, the Colombian government says it has no intention of testing or even further studying a fungus promoted by the United Nations and the United States as a potential "silver bullet" for killing coca plants. Colombians wonder why the U.S. government is so eager to use it in their country.
Issues for Negotiation
- How do repressive approaches to combating the illegal drugs trade impact on human and civil rights, efforts at democratization and demilitarization?
- What are the implications of increasing military, police and state bureaucracies’ involvement in the illicit drugs business and subsequent institutionalization of criminalized politics and economics?
- Should biological eradication agents be used to destroy drug cops? If so, what restrictions should govern their use? If not, what is the best approach to narcotics control and drug interdiction?
Environment
Deforestation, Transboundary Industrial Pollution, and Biodiversity
Biological Diversity, or Bio-diversity, refers to the variety of life forms present on the planet -- the different plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms, the genes they contain, and the ecosystems they form. This vast web of life is the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history. Scientists have identified approximately 1.7 million living species, each a unique and irreplaceable product of evolution. But many species-rich ecosystems, including tropical forests, coral reefs, and the deep ocean floor, have barely been explored, and the best estimates are that we share the planet with between 3 and 30 million other species. In fact, many previously unknown species, including new birds and mammals, continue to be discovered each year.
Evolution, thus biological diversity, is dynamic. As new genetic variations are produced, a new species is born, or a new ecosystem is formed biological diversity is increased. Conversely, when genetic variation within species decreases, a species becomes extinct, or an ecosystem is no longer able to support life or is destroyed, biological diversity decreases. Bio-diversity occurs at three levels: genetic diversity, species diversity, and ecosystem diversity.
Bio-diversity is important because species and ecosystems provide a wealth of essential goods and services upon which human's well-being fundamentally depends. Genetic variations constitute an intergenerational resource of vast social, economic, and environmental importance. Humanity derives most of its food and many medicines and industrial products from the wild and domesticated components of bio-diversity.
Essential goods come in the form of foods, fuels, fibers, and medicines. Of the top 150 prescription drugs in the United States, for example, 118 were originally derived from plants, fungi, and other species.
Biological resources also enhance recreation and tourism, and support the ecosystems that provide us with so many benefits. The value of biological diversity is inestimable because it provides a foundation for the continued existence of a healthy planet. When ecosystems are diverse, there is a range of opportunities for primary production and the maintenance of critical ecological processes. So, if an ecosystem is damaged or destroyed, an alternative pathway can be used and the ecosystem can continue functioning at normal levels. Perhaps the greatest value of bio-diversity is the tools it provides us for adapting to change. Many biologists assert that ecosystems rich in diversity possess greater resilience and are therefore able to recover more readily from stresses such as drought or human-induced habitat degradation.
Genetic diversity also, for example, will continue to enable breeders to tailor crops to new climatic conditions or to breed new strains of pest-resistant crops and livestock, and might very well be the key to undiscovered cures for known and yet-to-be discovered diseases. The vast majority of plants, fungi, and microorganisms have yet to be tested for potential medicinal properties, and the opportunities for doing so are being irreversibly diminished.
With nearly six million people inhabiting the earth and taxing its resources at alarming rates, hundreds, perhaps thousands of biological species are disappearing annually. The rapid expansion of human populations and economies in recent decades has placed tremendous stresses on natural ecosystems and the species within them. One-third to one-half of the world's terrestrial surface has now been substantially altered by human activity. Major threats to bio-diversity include habitat destruction and alteration, deforestation and changes in land use, atmospheric pollution, climate change, inappropriate forest harvesting practices, the introduction of non-native species into new areas, and the loss of locally adapted populations of species.
There is strong scientific evidence that we are now in the beginning stages of a massive extinction. Although extinction is indeed a "natural" phenomenon, the current and impending rate of human-caused extinction is conservatively estimated to be 100 to 1000 times the background extinction rate. The loss of plant and animal species eliminates potential sources of medicines, crops, and materials for housing and clothing. And unlike other kinds of environmental damage, the loss of a species is irreversible.
Bio-diversity also plays an important economic, social, and cultural role in the lives of many indigenous and local communities. According to the World Resources Institute, "Forest peoples originally discovered the medicinal uses of three-quarters of the plant-derived drugs currently in wide use. In the northwestern Amazon, indigenous people use at least 1300 plant species to create "wilderness drugs." In Southeast Asia, traditional healers use 6500 different plants to treat malaria, stomach ulcers, syphilis, and other disorders. The World Health Organization estimates that 80 percent of people in the developing world rely on traditional medicines based largely on the use of medicinal plants." The Convention on Biological Diversity's objectives are "the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources."
The Convention is the first global, comprehensive agreement covering all aspects of biological diversity: genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity. "Indigenous people and their communities have an historical relationship with their lands and are generally descendants of the original inhabitants of such lands. In the context of this chapter the term "lands" is understood to include the environment of the areas which the people concerned traditionally occupy.
Indigenous people and their communities represent a significant percentage of the global population. They have developed over many generations a holistic traditional scientific knowledge of their lands, natural resources and environment. Indigenous people and their communities shall enjoy the full measure of human rights and fundamental freedoms without hindrance or discrimination. Their ability to participate fully in sustainable development practices on their lands has tended to be limited as a result of factors of an economic, social and historical nature.
In view of the interrelationship between the natural environment and its sustainable development and the cultural, social, economic and physical well-being of indigenous people, national and international efforts to implement environmentally sound and sustainable development should recognize, accommodate, promote and strengthen the role of indigenous people and their communities (Agenda 21, Chapter 26, para. 1)."
International Property Rights and Just Compensation for Indigenous and Rural People
The pharmaceutical industry would be lost without Biodiversity. Malaria tablets are based on chemicals found in the bark of the cinchona tree and contraceptive pills contain compounds from a Mexican yam. Young leukemia sufferers are dosed with vincristine and vinblastine from Madagascar's rosy periwinkle. People with Parkinson's disease are treated with extracts from the velvet bean.
The industry's dependence on natural resources poses two problems. The first is that there is a risk of overexploiting them. For example, uncontrolled collection of another important contraceptive pill element (diosgenin), which is only found in the Himalayan foothills, has depleted stocks so seriously that the plant may disappear completely.The second problem is more complex. Many pharmaceuticals are only available to residents of industrialized nations because scientists have visited developing countries and brought back plants and animals to analyze in their laboratories. Their research and development programs are frequently influenced by knowledge they have collected about the ways in which people in less developed countries use these natural resources.
Pharmaceutical companies then patent and market products based on resources and knowledge that has effectively been stolen from local communities in developing countries. For the people who live in the countries where these treatments were discovered receive no compensation at all for passing on their knowledge.
Even more unjust is the fact that local people - forest dwellers, farmers, and traditional healers, for example - play a key role in creating, maintaining, and developing the genetic diversity of the plants and animals their livelihoods depend on.
But pharmaceutical companies are not the only ones at fault. The agricultural industry is equally dependent on developing countries' genetic resources. Many of the crops grown in the North could not be grown there without regular "injections" of fresh genes from the developing countries in which the crops originated. Most of the genetic resources used by Northern industrial breeders and seed companies have been developed and conserved by farming communities in the South. In crude financial terms, this results in the Third World boosting the income of US wheat farmers by an annual total of US$500 million.
As biotechnology advances, scientists and industrialists discover more and more ways in which genetic resources can be commercially exploited. There is consequently an urgent need for the world to establish an equitable system through which industries reward local people for sharing their knowledge and the products of their labor.
Issues for Negotiation
- Should intellectual property rights and compensation be granted, for medicines developed from plants and traditional medical practices of indigenous and local peoples, to crack down on bio-piracy? Specifically, what should be the appropriate role of intellectual property rights (IPR) in the technology transfer process, and in particular the role of IPR in the transfer of components of biotechnology?
- Should indigenous and local peoples be granted control over the exploitation of natural resources located on their traditional lands?
- Environmental deterioration is taking a toll on a wide range of living organisms. Of the 242,000 plant species surveyed by the World Conservation Union in 1977, some 33,000 or 14% or now threatened with extinction-mainly as a result of massive land clearing. The impacts of loss and degradation are in the form of soil erosion, loss of biological diversity, damage to wildlife habitats and degradation of watershed areas, deterioration of the quality of life, and reduction of options for development. What should be done both nationally and internationally?
Deforestation
Deforestation and land degradation are two of the major environmental issues in The Americas. Conversion of forests into agricultural lands, urbanization, infrastructure development, commercial logging and forest fires are among the major reasons for the degradation of natural resources in the region. The high rate of population growth and socio-economic development even accelerate and intensify the degradation process. Ninety percent of the world's species are found in forests. But almost everywhere around the globe, trees are disappearing. In Brazil's Amazon rain forest, for example, this year's dry spell is resulting in more fires than ever before.
The most dangerous form of deforestation is the destruction of the rain forests, especially the tropical rain forests clustered around the equator. These are the most important sources of biological diversity on earth and the most vulnerable ecosystems now suffering the effects of our determined onslaught. Indeed, as many as half of all the living species on earth--some experts actually claim more than 90 percent of all living species--find their homes in tropical rain forests. The irretrievable loss of the living species dying along with them, represent the single most serious damage to nature now occurring. While some of the other injuries we are inflicting on the global ecological system may heal over the course of hundreds or thousands of years, the wholesale annihilation of so many living species in such a breathless moment of geological time represents a deadly wound to the integrity of the earth's painstakingly intricate web of life, a wound so nearly permanent that scientists estimate that recuperation would take 100 million years. (Gore, A. (1993). Earth in the balance. New York: Penguin.)
If you would like to take a virtual tour of the Brazilian Amazon, click here.
Issues for Negotiation
- The clearing of tropical forests has contributed recently to unprecedented fires across large areas of Southeast Asia, the Amazon and Central America. What specific measures and approaches are required to improve and harmonize policy formation, planning, and programming to more effectively manage and develop forest resources?
- How can a balance be struck between resource conservation and economic growth? Can a rational and holistic approach to the sustainable and environmentally sound development of forests be developed and implemented by the international community?
Sustainable Development
Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of the environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems, and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own, but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development (Preamble to Agenda 21, section 1.1).
Sustainable development is a strategy by which communities seek economic development approaches that also benefit the local environment and quality of life. It has become an important guide to many communities that have discovered that traditional approaches to planning and development are creating, rather than solving, societal and environmental problems. Where traditional approaches can lead to congestion, sprawl, pollution, and resource over-consumption, sustainable development offers real, lasting solutions that will strengthen our future.
Sustainable development provides a framework under which communities can use resources efficiently, create efficient infrastructures, protect and enhance quality of life, and create new businesses to strengthen their economies. It can help us create healthy communities that can sustain our generation, as well as those that follow us. What is meant by "sustainable"? A sustainable society is one that is self-perpetuating over the long term - meaning that it uses resources at a rate that does not exceed the rate at which they can be replenished. In addition, it produces waste materials at a pace that does not exceed the rate at which they can be reabsorbed by the environment.
In 1992 the major UN conference on environment and development (UNCED) took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. All the world leaders attending the conference signed a declaration undertaking to achieve worldwide sustainable development. This is the declaration underlying Agenda 21: the action program for the coming century.
The action program includes proposals for monitoring and reducing chemical waste, the treatment and elimination of radio-active waste, the protection of forests and the development of sustainable farming and measures to combat soil degradation. Agenda 21 also includes proposals for regulating the transfer of clean technologies among countries. Moreover, the Agenda lists programs in the fields of oceans, water and coastal management, combating poverty, health care and price and trade policies linked to environmental objectives. Agenda 21 is a milestone in the relationship between poor and rich countries. Agenda 21 is a basis for new worldwide cooperation, which goes much deeper than the traditional development aid provided by rich countries to poor ones. It represents cooperation based on common interests, mutual needs, shared responsibilities.
Agenda 21 is an action program that is intended to be implemented by governments, UN agencies, local and regional administrators, organizations in the community and the public at large. Governments are required to promote the dialogue among these players. But local government, too, closest as it is the public at large, has a responsibility and has been allocated a major role in providing information, education and mobilizing the general public to achieve sustainable development. One of the objectives of Agenda 21 is that every local government in 1996 should draw up its own Local Agenda 21 in close consultation with its citizens. The key principle is that of sustainable development.
Issues for Negotiation
- In what ways can/should sustainable development be promoted through trade?
- What elements, principles, and issues should comprise a multilateral Agenda on environment, trade, and development intended to ensure that trade and development policies are consistent and reinforce sustainable development?
Plant Biotechnology and Food Security
Last year, Britain was rocked by claims that genetically modified foods are dangerous. Arpad Pusztai, a biochemist who used to work at the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland, said he had shown that GM potatoes were harmful to rats because of their genetic modification alone.
Jeremy Rifkin, noted author and academician, argues that the computer revolution is merely a prelude to a far more significant change taking place in the global economy. He claims that after more than forty years of running on parallel tracks, the information and life sciences are fusing into a single powerful technological and economic force that is the raw resource of the new global economy. According to him, we are in the midst of a great historic transition into the Age of Biotechnology. But he cautions, that while the Biotech Century promises: a cornucopia of genetically engineered plants and animals to feed a hungry world; genetically derived sources of energy and fiber to propel commerce and build a "renewable" society; wonder drugs and genetic therapies to produce healthier babies, eliminate human suffering, and extend the human life span - at what cost? To date, leaders in the scientific community, the media, the government, and the business community, with a few notable exceptions, remain as reluctant today as they were a generation ago to engage in abroad public debate over what is likely to be the most radical experiment humankind has ever carried out on the natural world. 8
According to "The New Scientist," the deep concerns about the safety of genetically modified food in Europe are not shared by Americans, an opinion poll released last week suggests. Commissioned by the Food Information Council, a charity sponsored by the US food industry, the poll showed that more than two-thirds of the 1002 respondents would buy produce "enhanced through biotechnology". But it seems most Americans don't realize that some of the food they are eating comes from GM crops. Although 73 per cent had "heard something" about biotechnology, only 40 per cent realized that GM food was on sale in supermarkets.
Because genetic engineering is a hit-and-miss affair, marker genes
are used to reveal if cells have taken up packages of new genes. After
adding the genes to plant cells, the cells are exposed to antibiotics.
The unmodified cells die, leaving botanists with the live ones that
have taken up the new genes. Some scientists fear that when people eat
GM foods that contain such marker genes, they might spread to potentially
harmful gut bacteria, making them resistant to antibiotics. Novartis
says there is no evidence this has ever happened, and that marker genes
in products such as its GM maize pose no risks. Earlier this year, however,
tests in the Netherlands showed that DNA could survive in the intestine
for several minutes, suggesting that marker genes could be transferred
to bacteria.9 And some countries have been reluctant
to approve crops that contain such genes.
In November and December of 1999, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
held public meetings to discuss whether its safety regulations are tough
enough. "Our scientists are not aware of any reason to question the
safety of currently marketed foods produced through bioengineering,"
FDA commissioner Jane Henney announced in a statement last week. "Nevertheless,
FDA will consider any valid scientific information that suggests the
agency should re-evaluate its process for overseeing the safety of these
foods." In a policy statement issued in 1992, the FDA ruled that GM
food did not need special testing or labeling. However, it does ask
companies marketing GM food to inform it of possible safety issues,
such as the potential of the product to trigger allergies. So far, in
the United States, 40 genetically modified plant varieties have been
approved for human consumption.
Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the International Center for
Technology Assessment in Washington DC, says the FDA is too lenient.
"For seven years they've been allowing millions of people to eat these
foods with no testing and no labeling," he says. In May 1998, Kimbrell's
group filed suit in a federal district court in an attempt to force
the FDA to require safety tests and labeling for GM food. The case has
yet to be settled. In addition to concerns about potential safety issues
to concerns, there are also rising concerns about "transgenic pollution."
Several months ago month, delegates from 140 countries met in Montreal
to draft trade rules for the altered foods and organisms. The result
was an agreement that requires exporters to get permission from the
receiving country before shipping genetically modified organisms, or
GMOs, if they are meant for release into the environment, such as seeds.
Advance permission is not required for products meant for human consumption.
The agreement does require that the shipment be labeled as "possibly
containing GMOs." The agreement must still be ratified by 50 countries
before it takes effect.
In a discussion on "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, " John Richardson of the
European Commission stated:
Scientific evidence on these subjects is not complete because we're dealing with new technology. We're dealing with new products. And the jury is still out, if you will, even scientifically. But I agree that we are dealing here with a technology, which has enormous potential benefits. I give you one example. Two weeks ago there were research results published in Europe showing that we can now introduce new rice varieties containing beta carotene, which will increase the Vitamin A content for this particular rice. There are 250 million children in this world that suffer from blindness caused by Vitamin A deficiency. With any luck, this new technology will be able to cure those 250 million children. That's enormous. We're talking here enormous potential. And if we want that potential to be realized, we must make sure this technology is well examined were we adopt it so that it's acceptable to our populations and then introduced successfully so that we can realize those benefits. 10
An article based on a report to the Food and Agriculture Organization's
Committee on Agriculture (COAG), which met in Rome on 25-26 January
1999, indicates that agriculture must feed an increasing human population
forecast to reach 8,000 million by 2020. Although the rate of population
growth is steadily decreasing, the increase in absolute numbers may
be such that the carrying capacity of agricultural lands could soon
be reached, given current technology. But if properly focused, new technologies
- such as biotechnologies - offer a responsible way to enhance agricultural
productivity today and in the future. Biotechnology could help solve
many problems limiting crops and livestock production in developing
countries. For example, biotechnology-derived solutions for biotic and
abiotic stresses, built into the genotype of plants, could reduce use
of agrochemicals and water, thus promoting sustainable yields. However,
FAO says, national programs need to ensure that biotechnology benefits
all sectors, including resource-poor rural populations, particularly
in marginal areas where productivity increases will be more difficult
to achieve.
The inequity shared between industries and the environment was first
truly addressed at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) drawn
up at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. "The overall approach
of the convention requires Parties to take precautionary actions to
ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity."7
This convention, although a step in the right direction, was nonetheless
merely a new forum in which issues could be discussed. Actual enforcement
capability was still lacking.
The first binding agreement the convention tried to create was the Biosafety
Protocol of 1999. The Biosafety Protocol to the CBD was negotiated in
Cartagena, Colombia from February 14-23. Delegates from 174 nations
gathered to discuss how to regulate trade in genetically engineered
products including potatoes, cotton and grains. This summit, backed
by the UN, represents the first global attempt to regulate genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) and to seriously evaluate public health and
environmental issues related to this new, burgeoning industry. As we
shift to a more biotechnically oriented society, our approach to regulations
and the accountability factor needs to be re-addressed. "The Biosafety
Protocol...would regulate the shipment between countries of organisms
that have been altered by genetic engineering...The treaty is aimed
at reducing the risk of harmful ecological effects from introducing
genes from different species into plants, animals or microorganisms."
The articles that follows illustrate the complexities of the debate
on genetically modified plants and the potential consequences to both
human health and to the environment.
Rising concerns about the impact, both positive and negative, of genetically
modified crops are forcing governments to exercise greater levels of
scrutiny. In an article entitled "EPA Weighs Tighter Biotech Rules,"
it is revealed that,
Seed companies developing genetically modified crops might be required to conduct an array of new tests to detect any harmful effects for mallard ducks, rainbow trout, honeybees, and other wildlife, according to an Environmental Protection Agency panel reviewing procedures. AN EPA scientific advisory panel is drafting new requirements to ensure that biotech crops are safe for the environment at the same time several international groups, foreign governments and other U.S. agencies are taking a closer look at the controversial plants. The EPA panel met Wednesday to consider requiring more test data from seed companies to ensure that genetically altered canola, squash, soybeans, corn and other crops are safe for wildlife, the soil, and water sources.
"The eyes of the world are on this meeting," said Dr. Steven Galson, director of EPA's pesticide science policy. Bioengineered crops, in which genes are inserted to protect the plant from pests or to resist a specific herbicide, were among the issues that galvanized protesters at last week's World Trade Organization meeting. Critics and green groups have demanded more safety testing and regulation of foods made with genetically altered ingredients. Seed companies say the new technology reduces the need for farmers to use toxic chemicals, and enhances crop yields and quality. 11
The Cartagena summit began as an attempt to focus more on environmental
and safety issues than trade concerns. As each conflict arose, the members
tried to keep in perspective their broad goals and many problems were
dealt with through compromise. One major concern dealt with defining
living modified organisms (LMOs). Some delegates wanted to restrict
the definition to pertain to the actual organisms themselves, while
others wanted a broader interpretation including the organisms and their
products. After much deliberation, the narrower view of LMOs was finally
incorporated into the protocol. Many issues were brought to the table
and negotiated through to a successful conclusion. The summit seemed
to be moving in the right direction, finally it looked like progress
could be made.
Although the U.S. was supposed to be barred from negotiations (because
the U.S. never ratified the 1992 Biological Diversity Treaty) and had
no voting power, representatives from the United States played a strong
role in the negotiations in Cartagena. According to the Biotech Industry
Organization, the U.S. exports more than $50 billion of agricultural
products each year, an increasing amount of which are genetically engineered.
Already 25% of corn, 35% of soy beans, and 45% of cotton are genetically
manipulated. With these numbers growing rapidly, it is easy to understand
why the U.S. felt it had a stake in the Biosafety Protocol proceedings.
"American companies [along with the U.S. government] are alarmed about
draft language they say could undermine the global economy and severely
disrupt world trade."12 Even though it could not participate
directly, the U.S. was not deterred from trying to prevent a broad,
restrictive protocol from being adopted. The U.S. managed to gain the
support of such other large agricultural exporters as Canada, Australia,
Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. Since these nations were directly involved
in the negotiations, the U.S. managed to indirectly find a path of influence.
The negotiations began by focusing on the environment but the U.S. managed
to redirect the focus to trade issues. First, negotiators for the developed
world, led by the U.S., succeeded in watering down the initial protocol
to exclude food crops and many other products. Then, the U.S. brought
about a stalemate, creating a larger gap between those favoring a restrictive
protocol and those fearful of such an agreement by emphasizing negative
economic affects. It was generally believed that this movement from
biosafety to biotrade and the exclusions of products this switch entailed
were victories for the United States, but at what cost? All in all,
many felt that the U.S. led a small minority and destroyed a possible
global treaty in order to maintain and try to expand its own economy
while barriers are low. The United States should have been a leader,
promoting the noble intentions of the Biosafety negotiations. In the
end, it is clear that there must be uniform practices and at least minimum
standards for testing in order to carefully regulate and control the
genetic engineering industry that is on the verge of exploding.
Finally, under the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), most processes and
many products of biotechnology research are patentable. Since most biotechnology
research is conducted in industrialized countries, very often by private
companies, developing countries may have to pay to use a new procedure
or product. IPRs are critical for growth of the biotechnology industry,
and lack of patent protection in a country can limit access to the results
of biotechnology originating elsewhere. The issues are complex, with
implications for trade, technical investment and access to biotechnology
outputs. Countries need to evaluate carefully their positions and, as
appropriate, introduce legislation foreseen in the WTO Agreement. In
particular, they will need to evaluate the most appropriate form of
protection for plant varieties.
Making matters worse are increased concerns about "transgenic" pollution,
as reflected in the article below entitled "Transgenic Pollution a New
Concern."
In an ad for Apache Tortilla chips, a slice of succulent red pepper grins out at you over a line of plump, yellow ears of sweet corn – the promotion for an organic line of corn chips, available in "five delicious flavors – yellow, blue corn, nacho, sesame, and red." But far from being welcomed at their distribution point, the chips — made by Terra Prima, a certified organic producer in Hudson, Wisconsin — were discovered by an independent tester to contain traces of genetically modified corn, and their Netherlands importer was notified.
It was a devastating blow to Terra Prima, a small producer that prides itself on a superior product free of chemicals or other substances. The company chose to destroy 87,000 bags of their corn chips and essentially swallow $147,000 when they couldn't sell their product as organic — a big bite out of a company with only about $4 million in total sales, says Chuck Walker, its president.
Walker didn't blame the Texas organic farmer who sold them the corn, which was grown using rotational methods, minimal pesticides and no genetically modified, or GM, seed varieties. But he did blame the contamination on pollen from GM corn that was blown over from another farm and whose patented gene was the same one picked up in the test. That apparent cross-pollination is what environmentalists and organic farmers are calling "transgenic" pollution.
Last February (1999) Terra Prima joined environmentalists and consumer groups in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, charging the EPA with registering genetically engineered crops without adequately considering their health and environmental impacts. "I'd like to see an open public dialog on the whole issue of genetically modified foods. Does the public even want the foods already being served to us, as well as others waiting in the back pantry?" says Chuck Walker.
Terra Prima president The lawsuit, filed by the Center for Food Safety, asked the EPA to withdraw all current registrations and deny future approvals of crops engineered with the Bt (Bacillus thuriengensis) insecticide — a natural bacterial toxin used for years as a spray by organic farmers who grow crops without using industrial pesticides.
It was this toxin that was detected on the Terra chips. The lawsuit charges that the EPA did not properly assess three major environmental risks: the development of insects resistant to Bt, the transfer of Bt genes to other plants, and effects of Bt crops on beneficial, non-target insects. Included among the more than 70 plaintiffs are Greenpeace, the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (with 650 member groups in 100 countries) and environmental organizations. 13
The Biosafety Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity will provide a regulatory framework for international trade in bio-engineered products referred to as living modified organisms (LMOs). It was adopted by more than 130 countries on January 29, 2000, but must be ratified by 50 countries before it can go into effect. This process could take 2-3 years.
Issues for Negotiation
- Should there be a world-wide moratorium on commercial planting of GM foods and organisms until research can provide more details about the precise long-term impact GM foods and organisms might have on our lives? What would be the potential consequences of such a moratorium?
- Should all foods and organisms be labeled when they contain an ingredient that has been genetically modified? What are the critical considerations that should guide the debate and future regulatory policies on labeling?
- Will the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, as currently written, sufficiently mitigate the risks associated with GM foods and organisms? In what ways should the Cartagena Protocol be strengthened/weakened?
- What should or can be done to circumvent the potential environmental risks associated with the proliferation of GM foods and organisms?
Economics
Democracy and Development in Latin America
While the political blessings of democracy appear manifest, many poor countries are still worrying whether democracy is a burden or a benefit to their economic development. The U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, in it's February 26, 1999 "Overview to Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998," asserts: "Democracy and genuine respect for human rights remain the best paths for sustainable economic growth."
In contrast, an authoritarian development model may generate prosperity for a time, but cannot sustain it in the face of corruption, cronyism, and the continued denial of citizens' rights. When severe economic downturns occur, authoritarian regimes cannot respond flexibly or effectively to economic problems. Without genuine democratic mechanisms to channel popular displeasure, the government must often choose greater repression to avoid a popular uprising." Democratization though, is a long and complex struggle that does not come easily.
Countries must come to democracy by their own path. As Secretary of State Madeline Albright has noted, "Democracy must emerge from the desire of individuals to participate in the decisions that shape their lives...Unlike dictatorship, democracy is never an imposition, it is always a choice."
In a situation of economic collapse, large-scale corruption became a pressing political issue to the point that dismissal of corrupt officials, investigations of ill-gotten wealth, and the creation of anti-corruption agencies became seen as the essence of political reform. The crisis changed fundamental assumptions about rights.
Editorials in the international press suggested that open and accountable governments could prevent disastrous decision-making, better cope with economic crises when they occurred, or at least forestall political unrest by having elections in which voters could throw out those perceived as the culprits. In the end though, it was not necessarily that political change would produce economic answers, but that the economic crisis helped bring festering political tensions, many of them rooted in past human rights abuses, to the surface.
Skeptics question whether external assistance can do much to foster democracy in the face of historical traditions, value systems, class structures, and embedded power distributions that are profoundly hostile to democracy. If recent trends are a guide, the period of rapid and easy gains for democracy in the world is possibly over. At best, we have probably entered a long period of halting institutionalization, uneven marketization, and considerable regime instability, in which most new democracies that progress toward consolidation will do so incrementally with no guarantees of success in the end.
Some scholars argue that Latin America’s economic development was qualitatively different from that of North America and West Europe, and therefore it produced different political results. Specifically,
Latin America’s experience was determined by the pervasive fact of its economic dependence…By ‘dependency’ we mean a situation in which the economy of certain countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy to which the former is subjected. The relation of interdependence between two or more economies, and between these and world trade, assumes the form of dependence when some countries (the dominant ones) can expand and be self-sustaining, while other countries (the dependent ones) can do this only as a reflection of that expansion, which can have either a positive of a negative effect on their immediate development. 14
As we look to the future, we can draw a number of conclusions. One, Latin America’s future development will depend on how these countries respond to the rapidly changing outside world and events over which it has no control (i.e., the Asian financial crisis, the price of oil).
Additionally, the degree to which Latin American countries will be able to respond to world economic trends will depend upon their ability to set their own developmental priorities.
Of significant importance is also identifying which social group and or groups in Latin America will hold the initiative. Will it be the political leadership, the middle class, the urban working class, rural workers, labor union leaders, the military, wealth holders?
In the end, one of the most significant factors impacting development and change in Latin America will be the size and the growth of the population. Population will directly impact the overall demand for resources, employment, services, and political participation.
Issues for Negotiation
- The financial and economic chaos in Latin America has evolved into social and political crisis for countries in the region. Many people have taken to the streets to vent their anger. A number of protests have turned into riots, posing threats to the political stability of their countries. Many government leaders have insisted that greater political freedoms would come at the expense of lower economic growth -- that democratic pluralism had to be suppressed and that individual freedom should be sacrificed. Many believe that economic development has to precede political liberalization. If the countries of Latin America were open (democratic) and transparent societies, would progressive economic development be assured?
- Madeline Albright, Secretary of State for the United States, remarked in a statement before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary (10 March 1999) that "one of the critical lessons of the (Asian Financial) Crisis is that nations with strong democratic institutions are better able to withstand the turbulence of the new global economy. Does effective sustainable economic development really require that nations seek to implement strong democratic institutions? In what ways should the establishment of strong democratic institutions be encouraged?
- Is "constructive engagement" enough? Should countries that violate human rights and other fundamental tenets of positive codes of conduct towards their people be subject to global ostracization or sanction?
Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA)
|
With the ink barely dry on the signatures to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), plans to pursue regional economic integration on an hemispheric-wide basis were announced. In December of 1994 a formal declaration was announced in Miami to create a Free Trade Area of the Americans (FTAA) by the year 2005. Since the Miami declaration, meetings at various governmental levels have taken place in Denver and Cartagena, Colombia, to further solidify plans prior to negotiation. Due to the enormity of the undertaking and the strict time-line for bringing the undertaking to fruition, current work has been carried out by various working groups charged with studying and gathering data on various areas of economic integration spelled out in the "Plan of Action" agreed upon at Miami. The complexity of the work to be undertaken is apparent when one considers the sheer number of states that would be affected, the variety of governance models within the hemisphere, and the proliferation of smaller regional trading arrangements through North, Central, and South America. Though what is envisioned for this hemisphere has yet to take full shape, the likely outcome of the preliminary work and negotiations will be a free trade area as defined under Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the governing document of world trade. That provision defines a free trade area as "a group of two or more customs territories in which the duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce ... are eliminated on substantially all the trade between the constituent territories in products originating in such territories." As such, the FTAA will not be as ambitious a project as the European Union, which is a far more comprehensive effort at economic regional integration. The European Union is basically a common market under which members agree not only to free trade among themselves, but to a common external tariff. The Union has become over several decades a semi-federal system where sovereignty in various areas of economic policy is exchanged for common or harmonized approaches.
The FTAA, on the other hand, is likely to follow the structure and integration philosophy of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The NAFTA is a free trade area whose member states are obligated at minimum to open trade arrangements among themselves. NAFTA does, however, expand upon the free trade model somewhat in that it is an arrangement involving various areas of economic cooperation in addition to free trade in goods. If the FTAA follows the NAFTA model, it will result in a grouping of several Caribbean, Central and South American states, many of which are currently participants in regional trading arrangements. Several of the arrangements exist in a different form from NAFTA. Thus the key to a successful completion of the FTAA project will be integrating the various forms and economic philosophies of the likely constituent units. A crucial aspect of planning, adding to the complexity of the effort, will be the degree and method of harmonization of laws that will be necessary to the success of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Harmonization has been defined as the process by which national laws of several states are made similar to accomplish a specific purpose. In the case of economic integration, that purpose on the whole is the efficient facilitation of economic activity between constituent units. The need for some level of harmonization is apparent when one considers the purpose behind economic integration. Countries agreeing to regional economic integration in fact agree to give up certain economic advantages associated with protected markets in exchange for access to other markets. Larger market access increases the general welfare by opening up economic opportunities, and by placing competitive pressures on firms to become more efficient in their production, thus lowering prices to consumers, and, conceivably, improving quality. Economic integration thus is an attempt to achieve the economic efficiencies, transparencies and predictability to produce the economic gains envisioned. Harmonization is a process by which these gains may be realized.
If an individual entrepreneur desires to sell a product in another country, with which his/her home state had a free trade agreement, his/her products in that country will likely be cheaper than comparable products from a third state (that did not have a free trade agreement with the state of sale). This occurs, in large part because the goods from the third state would be charged a tariff for the privilege of selling in that market, while the goods of our entrepreneur will be allowed to enter tariff free. The tariff on the goods from the third state will be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices, while our entrepreneur will not have to raise his/her prices at all. Therefore, our entrepreneur’s goods should enjoy an advantage over the goods from the third state. However, there are other considerations important for exporting merchandise. The importing state may have regulations on quality, or technical standards that might restrict the trade in the tariff-free imported goods, or make them less attractive to local consumers than had been anticipated to be a result of the free trade regime between the two countries. As a result, whatever advantage gained by our entrepreneur because of the tariff-free entry of his/her products is lost because of the standards that might be peculiar to the importing state. Laws regulating securities and capital flows in some countries might be incompatible with similar laws in other states, dampening the flow of financial resources between parties to an economic integration. The idea behind harmonization is for the states to develop common rules and laws in these and other areas so that economic activity can flourish without artificial strictures. Another major problem involves manufacturing operations and the cost of labor. Goods produced in a territory of a free trade partner with lower labor costs may benefit from an additional advantage because the labor savings will be passed on to consumers in the free trade partner-state in addition to the savings passed on as a result of duty-free entry. Furthermore, entrepreneurs from one party may set up manufacturing within the party with the lower labor costs in an effort to sell their products in both markets while benefiting from the advantage caused by the labor savings. The result of both phenomena could be the dislocation of labor in the party with the higher labor costs. Where the fact of low-cost labor is the result of lower labor standards (as opposed to labor supply), many regard harmonization of laws in this area as an appropriate fair trade measure. Hence the idea of harmonization is to remove the extra, or unanticipated, inefficiencies from the smooth functioning of a regime designed to spread economic advantages through the vehicle of free trade. However, harmonization may take a variety of forms, reflecting different levels of intrusion into state governance and policy-making, not to mention different philosophies of the propriety of supranational governance. How the various subjects of harmonization are handled will be a major part of the negotiations of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas in the next few years. The preliminary plans for the FTAA reflect a studied caution in the area of harmonization policy. This is understandable because the concept does require states to take certain action with regard to national policies and laws for the general good of the economic integration plan. This kind of obligation is often associated with loss of sovereignty and can become a source of controversy within states, as developments during the NAFTA debate in the U.S. indicated. The language that refers to integration policies in the Miami plan of action, and in the various declarations from the Denver and Cartagena ministerial summits, suggests the intention to study issues that might require harmonization, but no firm commitment to harmonization at this pre-negotiation stage. Many areas of economic activity will require some sort of harmonization, and non-committal language no doubt reflects the early stage of the negotiations. However, the cautious approach in the area of worker rights reflects a more difficult hurdle to free trade in this hemisphere. The Plan of Action is divided into four sections: I. Preserving and Strengthening the Community of Democracies of the Americas; II. Promoting Prosperity Through Economic Integration and Free Trade; III. Eradicating Poverty and Discrimination in Our Hemisphere; and IV. Guaranteeing Sustainable Development and Conserving our Natural Environment for Future Generations. Within these broad titles, various areas of cooperation and study were outlined in the Plan of Action agreed upon at the Miami Summit. Several of these areas will involve to some degree legal harmonization to achieve the efficiencies envisioned by free trade. As a general rule, the Plan of Action avoids direct reference to harmonization as a concept, and it deals with labor issues only in passing. However, it is apparent in many of the areas being examined that some degree of common approach will be required to accomplish the specified ends. Under Section II on free trade, the plan of action calls upon governments to seek common guidelines on capital movements, if appropriate to accomplish the ends of liberalization of capital movements and capital market integration. Hemispheric infrastructure is also considered within the free trade context as governments are requested to develop mechanisms in the form of multilateral and bilateral commitments on regulatory and legal rules to encourage investment in domestic and foreign infrastructure projects. The reason for this focus is to ensure that each party is reasonably attractive, from an infrastructure standpoint, to foreign investment, and so that the benefits of free trade will be accessible to producers and manufacturers in each of the parties to the agreement. Regarding telecommunications and information technology, the governments pledged to explore ways to promote common standards and consistent certification process for telecommunications equipment and to develop regional guidelines for the provision of international value-added network services. Under the general heading dealing with environmental matters, the Plan calls for the strengthening of technical and institutional capacity to address environmental priorities such as pollution prevention, waste and sanitation issues, risk reduction, lead contamination, pesticides, urban environmental problems and access to safe drinking water at the governmental level. In addition, parties are expected to strengthen and/or develop enforcement and implementation of environmental protection laws with the goal of ensuring that economic integration occurs in an environmentally sustainable manner.
Other areas of pre-negotiation study noted at the subsequent ministerial meetings in Denver (June 1995) and Cartagena (March 1996) which are likely to require some harmonization effort include government procurement, intellectual property rights, trade in services, competition policy, and standards. Working groups have been charged with identifying areas of legal commonality and divergence in the national laws of the likely FTAA partners. The issue of worker rights and labor standards is rather conspicuous in the way it has been treated thus far. Worker rights were mentioned as part of the preamble to the section of the Plan of Action dealing with free trade. The provision states: "[a]s economic integration in the Hemisphere proceeds, we will further secure the observance and promotion of worker rights, as defined by appropriate international conventions." At the Denver ministerial meeting, the trade ministers did not assign a working group to study worker rights. Nevertheless, under the heading of "Other Matters" the ministers "welcomed the contribution of the private sector and appropriate processes to address ... the further promotion of worker rights through our respective governments." At the recently concluded Cartagena meeting, the ministers recognized "the importance of further observance and promotion of worker rights and the need to consider appropriate processes in this area, through our respective governments." The apparent subordination of worker rights as an area for harmonization is not surprising. Efforts at harmonization in the labor area within the context of other regional arrangements have been controversial in the past. The European Union Social Charter is regarded as one of the most, if not the most, comprehensive set of harmonized standards in the labor area. However, passage of those standards was fraught with controversy, with Great Britain opting out of the process. Worker rights harmonization in the context of free trade in North America was controversial when the labor side agreement was negotiated to address the need for some degree of harmonization of labor standards as a companion to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Indeed, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) was considered to be a necessity to passage of the NAFTA in the United States Congress in 1993. It appears likely that a similar effort will be controversial within the context of the FTAA. Some members of Congress have made clear their opposition to an effort similar to the NAALC, while the Clinton Administration indicated its desire to link free trade with progress in protecting worker rights. The impasse has lead many observers to claim that the FTAA may be stalled indefinitely while the United States works out its internal political problems. However, the preliminary work on the FTAA appears to be proceeding, though no date for the beginning of negotiations has been set as this article went to press. 15 |
In response to uncertainty on the part of the U.S. Congress and American public to the FTAA, governments in Latin America pursued strategies of sub-regional integration in the form of projects for economic cooperation among groups of Latin American countries, rather than for the continent as a whole. The Central American Common Market (CARICOM) was resuscitated, and the Andean Pact was reshaped and revitalized. The most influential and ambitious of these initiatives emerged in South America, where the "Common Market of the South" (MERCOSUR) linked the economic fortunes of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay.
Parallel to the FTAA proposal is the one for a South American Free Trade Area (SAFTA). Brazil launched the idea in 1993. Formal discussions have not taken place nor does it respond to a prepared project, like those being developed by the FTAA, but it is in the process of becoming concrete through partial negotiations that could advance at a faster pace than the hemispheric ones.
The crucial point for the advance towards the SAFTA is the negotiation process currently under way between the Andean Community and MERCOSUR. According to the Framework Agreement for the Creation of the Free Trade Zone between both blocs, signed on 16 April 1998 in Buenos Aires, a first stage up to 30 September 1998 was agreed.
This stage comprises the negotiation of a Preferential Tariff Agreement on the basis of the traditional ones that could include new products. This stage gave way to a second one, from 1 October 1998 to 31 December 1999, during which a Free Trade Agreement will be negotiated which will include the products negotiated in the first stage and the rest of the tariff universe. This Agreement should enter into force on 1 January 2000. It is assumed that these negotiations could be similar to the agreement reached between Chile and MERCOSUR, but the commitments that the Andean countries have with each other and with third countries should be taken into account.
The positive outcome of negotiations between the Andean Community and MERCOSUR would practically cover the entire area of South America, given that Chile has already advanced in its links with the southern countries and has signed bilateral free trade agreements with the rest of the countries in the sub-region, with the exception of Peru. For its part, Bolivia signed a framework agreement with MERCOSUR in 1996, which furthers negotiations that lead to free trade.
Initially there was the dilemma as to whether Andean countries would negotiate with MERCOSUR individually or as a whole. This uncertainty disappeared at the Andean Presidential Summit held in May 1997 in Sucre, Bolivia, when the decision to negotiate jointly was adopted.
The common cultural tradition, geographic continuity and the fact that all South American countries are members of ALADI could facilitate the process of setting up SAFTA. The main obstacle lies in the weakness of the existing trade relations between MERCOSUR countries and members of the Andean Community.
In 1996, MERCOSUR exports to the Andean Community amounted to only 4.3% of its total exports (US$3.2 billion), and those of the Andean Community to MERCOSUR 3.5% (US$1.5 billion).
This fact underlines the notable difference between the FTAA and the SAFTA proposals. While the former is based on significant trade flows and attempts to link countries with very dissimilar levels of development, the latter is based on a greater affinity as regards development levels. The flaw observed in SAFTA is that it starts out from weak trade ties.
In the past, the creation of new integration schemes in Latin America has given rise to an accelerated initial increase in trade exchanges. But that dynamic has tended to decrease once the most obvious trade possibilities have been exploited. In general, intra-subregional trade has not exceeded a quarter of total trade. In contrast, U.S. trade in the majority of cases has surpassed that proportion.
Nonetheless, the dismantling of obstacles to trade during recent years, the increase in intra-regional investments and rise in trade of manufactured and semi-manufactured goods between Latin American and Caribbean countries could give a new impulse to intra-regional trade within an adequate institutional framework.
If South American integration has advanced sufficiently by the year 2005, it is possible to conceive that the countries can join the FTAA "as members of a sub-regional integration group that negotiates as a unit", in accordance with the agreement reached in this respect at Belo Horizonte. As it can be assumed that Central America and CARICOM will also use this modality, the process of hemispheric negotiation would be simplified.
Issues for Negotiation
- What structure and integration philosophy should guide the FTAA?
- What degree and method of harmonization of laws will/should be necessary to the success of the FTAA?
- To what extent should workers’ rights be protected? …As a critical element of the FTAA? Why or Why Not?
- What of SAFTA? Should SAFTA negotiations move forward? Why or why not?
Human Rights
The Inter-American Convention Against Corruption
The Inter-American Convention Against Corruption was negotiated under the auspices of the Organization of American States (OAS) following a mandate agreed to by the 34 heads of state that participated in the Summit of the Americas in 1994. The convention was adopted and opened for signature on March 29, 1996 in Caracas, Venezuela and promptly signed by 21 countries. The United States signed the convention on June 2, 1996 at the OAS General Assembly in Panama City. T is the first anti-corruption treaty in the world.
The convention identifies acts of corruption to which the convention will apply and contains articles that create binding obligations under international law as well as hortatory principles to fight corruption. The convention also provides for institutional development and enforcement of anti-corruption measures, requirements for the criminalization of specified acts of corruption and articles on extradition, seizure of assets, mutual legal assistance and technical assistance where acts of corruption occur or have effect in one of the States parties. In addition, subject to each party's constitution and the fundamental principles of its legal system, the convention requires parties to criminalize bribery of foreign government officials and illicit enrichment. The convention also contains a series of "preventive measures" that the parties agree to consider establishing to prevent corruption including systems of government procurement that assure the openness, equity, and efficiency of such systems.
"The fight for human rights and the fight against corruption share a great deal of common ground. A corrupt government, which rejects both transparency and accountability, is not likely to respect human rights. Therefore, the campaign to contain corruption and the movement for the promotion and protection of human rights are not disparate processes. They are inextricably linked and interdependent. The elimination of corruption and the strengthening of human rights both require a strong integrity system. Indeed, there is a remarkable similarity between the two. The experience of the international human rights movement suggests that, as in promoting and protecting human rights, the primary responsibility for strengthening the national integrity system rests with civil society. An empowered people is surely the most powerful segment in a democratic society". 16
Corruption is commonly defined as "the misuse of public power for private profit." In that sense, it involves behavior on the part of officials in the public sector, whether politicians or civil servants, whether policy-makers or administrators, through which they improperly and unlawfully enrich themselves, or those close to them, by the misuse of the public power entrusted to them. Acts involving corruption fall broadly into two categories. Conventional bribery, or "petty corruption", occurs when a public official demands, or expects, "speed money" or "grease payments" for doing an act which he or she is ordinarily required by law to do, or when a bribe is paid to obtain services which the official is prohibited from providing. "Grand corruption" occurs when a person in a high position who formulates government policy or is able to influence government decision-making, seeks, as a quid pro quo, payment, usually off-shore and in foreign currency, for exercising the extensive arbitrary powers vested in him or her.
Hemispheric action to combat corruption has gone beyond the adoption of the first international treaty on the matter. The Convention itself treats the fight against corruption as an ongoing process and effort.
Recognizing the importance of that process, the countries have, in various fora and through resolutions adopted at the highest level, reconfirmed the consensus that the OAS’s commitment to fight corruption is not limited to the Convention. Throughout the process of analyzing and discussing this issue, a comprehensive strategy has been taking shape.
The Convention has nonetheless provided, and will continue to provide, the main guidance for activities and strategies being adopted within the OAS.
One of the points emphasized throughout this process has been the need to develop a strategy for ensuring prompt ratification of the Convention as well as its promulgation in the domestic laws of states. This is reflected in the documents issued by the Santiago Summit, the decisive support that the Heads of State and Government of the Americas have given to the Inter-American Program for Cooperation in the Fight Against Corruption, and resolutions of the General Assembly.
The mandates and resolutions adopted in this regard also recognize the importance of exchanging information and strengthening domestic mechanisms for enforcing laws on corruption.
The Inter-American Program for Cooperation in the Fight Against Corruption, which consists mainly of measures the countries have undertaken to implement in the juridical field, emphasizes the importance of adopting a strategy for ratification of the Convention and the need, inter alia, to: conduct comparative studies of legal provisions in the member countries; analyze specific issues, such as illicit enrichment and transnational bribery; and identify steps that could be taken to formulate model legislation.
In addition to these mandates, resolution AG/RES. 1649 (XXIV-O/99), approved by the General Assembly at its last session, directs the Permanent Council to resume the work of the Working Group on Probity and Public Ethics.
This group has been assigned to follow up on the Inter-American Program for Cooperation in the Fight Against Corruption and to consider specific measures to encourage the ratification and implementation of the Convention, strengthen cooperation, provide technical assistance to the member states, at their request, and exchange information and experiences regarding implementation of the Convention.
In newly democratizing countries, governments are justifiably concerned that corruption will undermine the legitimacy of political and economic concerns and may even threaten democracy itself. With more porous borders and greater transfer of services, goods, and people, accompanied by the internationalization of illegal activities such as drug and small arms trafficking, the international dimension of corruption has increased in significance.
Issues for Negotiation
- Are there or have there been legal, constitutional, or other impediments in your country to sign the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption? If so, describe these impediments?
- Describe the oversight bodies in your country with a view to implementing mechanisms for preventing, detecting, punishing, and eradicating corrupt acts.
- Describe mechanisms under your national law for preventing, deterring, and punishing the bribery of domestic and foreign government officials, and indicate such measures.
- In what way(s) can the Convention be strengthened?
The Health and Welfare of Children
Nearly a quarter century after the coup d'etat that brought to power the military government that ruled from 1976 until 1983, Argentina continued to grapple with its cruel legacy of killings, "disappearances," and other abuses. Federal judge Adolfo Bagnasco investigated the theft of babies during military rule, a case brought by the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo (Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo) in 1996 that was not excluded by the country's amnesty laws.
The case involved the armed forces' practice of taking babies who were forcibly "disappeared" with their parents or who were born in captivity after the detention of their parents, and of handing them over to military families and others not considered subversive. Over 200 children are alleged to have been kidnapped in such circumstances.
Nine defendants remained under house arrest, including former presidents brigades general Reynaldo Bignone and general Jorge Videla, former junta member admiral Emilio Massera, and former Buenos Aires security zone chief general Carlos Guillermo Suárez Mason. On August 10, another officer was placed under house arrest: retired Gen. Santiago Omar Riveros, the former commander of Military Institutions implicated in the theft of babies born in the Campo de Mayo military hospital. The previous week, the Supreme Court had rejected a petition from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to hand jurisdiction over the case to the military courts.
Although the armed forces publicly accepted the prosecution of retired officers in connection with the kidnapping of children, they expressed concern over judicial efforts to collect information from officers still on active service. In July, army chief Lt. Gen. Ricardo Brinzoni sent his secretary general, Eduardo Alfonso, to visit Armando Barrera, a former officer detained in Bahia Blanca for refusing to testify before a federal court investigating those cases.
The government also expressed support for a proposal by Brinzoni to establish a "reconciliation panel," involving the army, human rights groups and the Catholic Church, as a means to try to determine the fate of the "disappeared" without resorting to the courts, a proposal scrapped when human rights organizations rejected it outright.
In Brazil, Conditions of detention for juveniles remained well below international standards as well as the minimum guarantees set out in Brazil's progressive Children's and Adolescents' Statute (Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente). The tenth anniversary of the law was celebrated in the midst of a wave of flagrant abuses against youths held in the detention centers of the Foundation for the Well Being of Minors (Fundação pelo Bem Estar do Menor, FEBEM) in São Paulo. Over the course of 2000, rights groups documented numerous cases of mass beatings; on several occasions, public prosecutors entered FEBEM detention centers and also filmed the fresh wounds of dozens of detainees.
The Minors' Code, which the Guatemalan legislature passed in 1996 but postponed implementing until the year 2000, was again postponed indefinitely in February. The legislation would extend procedural protections-such as the right to a lawyer-to children accused of crimes, and introduce other changes to bring domestic law into conformity with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Guatemala ratified in 1990.
In September, Guatemala signed a newly-adopted optional protocol to the children's convention prohibiting the involvement of children in armed conflict. In August, the ODHA released a report on the forced "disappearance" of children during the civil war, attributing 92 percent of the eighty-six documented abductions to the military.
In proceedings before the IACHR in March, President Portillo accepted state responsibility for the events leading to the 1995 murder of Marco Quistinay, a thirteen-year-old street child whom two officers handed a bag he believed was food, but which contained a grenade that exploded and killed him. In December 1999, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that two police officers were responsible for the 1990 deaths of five street youths and that the Guatemalan government had failed to protect the rights of the victims. The decision called for the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the crime.
Every day, millions of children suffer from poverty, hunger, homelessness, disease, war, violence, exploitation and sexual abuse. For many of these children, the basic human rights of protection and well-being are jeopardized by financial instability, environmental degradation or insufficient health and social services. Children are uniquely dependent on the will and initiative of others for help.
In recent years, the international community has made significant strides in recognizing the rights of children of all ages in all countries. Many national governments have also legislated promising new initiatives for the protection of children's rights within their own countries, and established special health and education programs for youth.
New international protections pledged in 2000 held out hope for the many children who were exploited as laborers or abused as soldiers around the world. A new optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibiting the use of children in armed conflict was adopted in May, and quickly garnered signatures from seventy countries. The protocol, achieved after six years of negotiations, raised the minimum age for compulsory recruitment and participation in armed conflict from fifteen to eighteen. A new Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention (International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 182) went into force and achieved the fastest rate of ratification in ILO history. The convention, adopted by the 1999 International Labor Conference, targeted such practices as child slavery, sexual exploitation, debt bondage, and trafficking.
Despite these new promises and the nearly universal ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children's rights were widely disregarded and many countries failed to muster the political will to fulfill their legal obligations towards children.
Violence against children-frequently carried out at the hands of the state-remained an issue that governments were loath to address. Countless children continued to suffer violence resulting in physical injury, psychological trauma, and even death. Street children were subject to arbitrary detention and abuse by police; children in correctional or other institutions were beaten or tortured by staff; children in schools were subjected to severe beatings by their teachers; others were victims of summary and arbitrary executions. In many cases, the failure of law enforcement bodies to promptly and effectively investigate and prosecute cases of abuses allowed the abuse to continue.
As in past years, street children continued to suffer serious abuses at the hands of authorities. An egregious example was Honduras, where Casa Alianza reported that over 165 street children under the age of eighteen were killed between January 1998 and September 2000; a total of 320 street youth between the ages of nine and twenty-four were killed during this period. Police and security forces were found to be responsible for the deaths in thirty-six of the 320 cases. Nearly three-quarters of the cases remained unsolved.
|
At the World Summit for Children, on 30 September 1990, it was agreed:
Each day, countless children around the world are exposed to dangers that hamper their growth and development. They suffer immensely as casualties of war and violence; as victims of racial discrimination, apartheid, aggression, foreign occupation and annexation; as refugees and displaced children, forced to abandon their homes and their roots; as disabled; or as victims of neglect, cruelty and exploitation. Each day, millions of children suffer from the scourges of poverty and economic crisis - from hunger and homelessness, from epidemics and illiteracy, from degradation of the environment. They suffer from the grave effects of the problems of external indebtedness and also from the lack of sustained and sustainable growth in many developing countries, particularly the least developed ones. Each day, 40,000 children die from malnutrition and disease, including acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), from the lack of clean water and inadequate sanitation and from the effects of the drug problem. Economic conditions will continue to influence greatly the fate of children, especially in developing nations. For the sake of the future of all children, it is urgently necessary to ensure or reactivate sustained and sustainable economic growth and development in all countries. It is also important to continue to give urgent attention to an early, broad and durable solution to the external debt problems facing developing debtor countries. |
Issues for Negotiation
- What does your government view to be the most critical crisis facing children in your country? What is your government doing to address this crisis?
- To what extent and in what way(s) can countries in Latin America work together to constructively protect the rights of children?
- What specific regional agreements are currently in place to address children’s rights? In what ways should/can these agreements be strengthened?
Endnotes
1. 1998 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998 ed., s.v. "Foreign Policy."
2. 1998 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998 ed., s.v. "Foreign Policy."
3. Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (New York: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1983), xi.
4. Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (New York: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1983), xi.
5. Excerpted from Modern Latin America (5th Edition), Skidmore, Thomas E. and Smith, Peter, Oxford University Press, 2001, p.1-3.
6. Fourth Report Of The Special Committee On Inter-American Summits Management To Ministers Of Foreign Relations Pursuant To Resolutions Ag/Res. 1349 (XXV-O/95), Ag/Res. 1377 (XXVI-O/96), And Ag/Res. 1448 (XXVII-O/97)
7. Jelsma, Martin and Theo Roncken, Democracy Under Fire: Drugs and Power in Latin America, A joint publication of the Transnational Institute, Acción Andina and Ediciones de Brecha: Montevideo (Uruguay), May 1998.
8. Rifkin, Jeremy, The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World, New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 1998.
9. New Scientist, 30 January, p 4.
10. NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, "Food Fight," January 31, 2000, MacNeil Lehrer Productions, 2000.
11. Reuters, "EPA Weighs Tighter Biotech Rules," December 9, 1999, London: Reuters Limited, 1999.
12. Weiss, Rick., "U.S. 'Observers' Lobby Against Trade Curbs on Biotechnology Accord: Would be First to Target Genetically Engineered Products." Washington Post. Washington, DC, February 13, 1999.
13. Francesca Lyman, "'Transgenic' Pollution a New Concern," New York: MSNBC, September 14, 1999.
14. Skidmore, Thomas E. and Peter H. Smith, Modern Latin America, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 8.
15. "The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and Legal Harmonization," by Craig L. Jackson, in ASIL Insight, American Society of International Law, June 1996.
16. Cockcroft, Laurence, "Corruption and Human Rights: A Crucial Link," Berlin: Transparency International, October, 1998.
INP |
INMP |
Project ICONS | ICONS
Research Library
© 2001, International Negotiations Project
http://www.icons.umd.edu/inp/inpscen.htm
Last modified: March 26, 2001