Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS), the world’s leading provider of information on global issues, is backed by a network of journalists in more than 100 countries.
Its clients include more than 3,000 media organizations and tens of thousands of civil society groups, academics, and other users.

IPS focuses its news coverage on the events and global processes affecting the economic, social and political development of peoples and nations.

Visit Inter Press Service at http://www.ipsnews.net

Rome, Italy, is where the headquarters are. Much of the news come from the 4th floor of the UN Headquarters in New York.

Today’s News from IPS in its Media Section - MEDIA: IPS Has New Chairman.
By Sabina Zaccaro

Federico Mayor

ROME, Jun 25 (IPS) - The IPS International Association has chosen Federico Mayor as new chair of its Board of Directors. He replaces Mario Soares, former President of Portugal (1986-1996), who has been guiding the IPS Board since 2002.

IPS also elected its Board of Trustees, which includes two former U.N. secretaries general, Kofi Annan and Boutros Boutros-Ghali; two former presidents, Mario Soares (Portugal) and Martti Ahtisaari (Finland); two former prime ministers, Toshiki Kaifu (Japan) and Inder Kumar Gujral (India); and IPS founder Roberto Savio.

Federico Mayor, born in Spain in 1934, served as Director General of the Paris-based United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) from 1987 to 1999.

Mayor was earlier a member of the Spanish Parliament (1977-1978), Minister for Education and Science (1981-1982) and member of the European Parliament (1987).

After deciding not to run for a third term at UNESCO, he returned to Spain in 1999 to create the Foundation for a Culture of Peace. In 2005, the United Nations Secretary-General designated Mayor as Co-President of the High Level Group for the Alliance of Civilisations.

He is also member of the Honorary Board of the International Coalition for the Decade for the Culture of Peace and Non-Violence.

Mayor, who has worked on peace-related issues for more than 30 years, says the role of a news agency such as IPS in promoting peace is “essential, because the media power today is enormous, and we receive much partial and biased information.

“It is time for action and change, and to transform reality we must know reality in-depth,” he told IPS.

During his 12 years as head of UNESCO, Mayor’s work focused on the promotion of peace, tolerance, human rights and peaceful coexistence. Under his guidance, UNESCO created the Culture of Peace programme aimed at education for peace; human rights and democracy; the fight against isolation and poverty; the defence of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue; and conflict prevention and the consolidation of peace.

Access to independent information can make a strong contribution to handling the world’s conflicts, he said. “It has been misleading information that has led to war and invasions such as the one of Iraq.

“The present crisis shows how far unrestricted freedom of expression and media pluralism are crucial to overcome the present situations, particularly the food crisis, and start the process for the other possible world of which we dream,” Mayor said.

As new chair of the IPS Board of Directors, he said he will aim “to follow exactly the objectives of IPS, which are transparency, accuracy and farsightedness.”

Mario Lubetkin

The recent triennial election of the IPS International Association appointed Mario Lubetkin Director General of IPS for a third term. A Uruguay born journalist, Lubetkin has served as correspondent for several Italian and Latin American print media, and as communications adviser for various U.N. agencies and regional integration organisations in Latin America.

“The key challenge before IPS today is to strengthen its role as a leading news agency covering all development and civil society issues. But our aim is also to get deeper analysis of globalisation’s impact, particularly from the South perspective,” Lubetkin said.

The IPS International Association also elected a new 16-member Board of Directors, with a geographical and gender balance. The Board includes journalists, academics, communications experts, and specialists in international cooperation.

———————

But when it comes to reporting about areas of conflict, IPS journalism is not imune of physical search:

MIDEAST: Israelis Assault Award Winning IPS Journalist.
By Mel Frykberg, IPS, June 30, 2008

GAZA CITY, Jun 28 (IPS) - Mohammed Omer, the Gaza correspondent of IPS, and joint winner of the 2008 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, was strip-searched at gunpoint, assaulted and abused by Israeli security officials at the Allenby border crossing between Jordan and the West Bank on Thursday as he tried to return home to Gaza.

Omer, a resident of Rafah in the south of Gaza, and previous recipient of the New America Media’s Best Youth Voice award several years ago, was returning from London where he had just collected his Gellhorn Prize, and from several European capitals where he had speaking engagements, including a meeting with Greek parliamentarians.

Omer’s trip was sponsored by The Washington Report, and the Dutch embassy in Tel Aviv was responsible for coordinating Omer’s travel plans and his security permit to leave Gaza with Israeli officials.

Israel controls the borders of Gaza and severely restricts the entrance and exit of Gazans allegedly on grounds of security. Human rights organisations accuse the Israelis of using security as a pretext to apply collective punishment indiscriminately.

While waiting in Amman on his way back, Omer eventually received the requisite coordination and security clearance from the Israelis to return to Gaza after this had initially been delayed by several days, he told IPS.

Accompanied by Dutch diplomats, Omer passed through the Jordanian side of the border without incident. However, after arrival on the Israeli side, trouble began. He informed a female soldier that he was returning home to Gaza. He was repeatedly asked where Gaza was, and told that he had neither a permit nor any coordination to cross.

Omer explained that he did indeed have permission and coordination but was nevertheless taken to a room by Israel’s domestic intelligence agency the Shin Bet, where he was isolated for an hour and a half without explanation.

“Eventually I was asked whether I had a knife or gun on me even though I had already passed through the x-ray machine, had my luggage searched, and was in the company of Dutch diplomats,” Omer said.

His luggage was again searched, and security then proceeded to go through every document and paper he had on him, taking down the names and numbers of the European parliamentary officials he had met.

The Shin Bet officials then started to make fun of the European parliamentarians, and mocked Omer for being “the prize-winning journalist”.

The Gazan journalist was repeatedly asked why he was returning to “the hell of Gaza after we allowed you to leave.” To this he responded that he wanted to be a voice for the voiceless. He was told he was a “trouble-maker”.

The security men also demanded he show all the money he had on him, and particular attention was paid to the British pounds he was carrying. His Gellhorn prize money had been awarded in British pounds but he was not carrying the entire sum on him bodily, something the investigators refused to believe.

After being unable to produce the prize money, he was ordered to strip naked.

“At first I refused but then I had an M16 (gun) pointed in my face and my clothes were forcibly removed, even my underwear,” Omer said.

At this point Omer broke down and pleaded for an end to such treatment. He said he was told, “you haven’t seen anything yet.” Every cavity of his body was searched as one of the investigators pinned him down on the floor, placing his boot on Omer’s neck. Omer began vomiting, and fainted.

When he came round his eyelids were being forcibly opened and his eardrums probed by an Israeli military doctor, who was also armed. He was then dragged along the floor by his feet by the Shin Bet officials, with his head repeatedly banging on the floor, to a Palestinian ambulance which had been called.

“I eventually woke up in a Palestinian hospital with the doctors trying to reassure me,” Omer told IPS.

The Dutch Foreign Ministry at the Hague told IPS that Foreign Minister Maxime Zerhagen spoke to the Israeli ambassador to The Netherlands and demanded an explanation.

The Dutch embassy in Tel Aviv has also raised the issue with the Israeli Foreign Ministry, which in turn has promised to investigate the incident and get back to the Dutch officials.

Ahmed Dadou, spokesman from the Dutch Foreign Ministry at the Hague told IPS, “We are taking this whole incident very seriously as we don’t believe the behaviour of the Israeli officials is in accordance with a modern democracy.

“We are further concerned about the mistreatment of an internationally renowned journalist trying to go about his daily business,” added Dadou.

A spokeswoman at the Israeli Foreign Press Association said she was unaware of the incident.

Lisa Dvir from the Israeli Airport Authority (IAA), the body responsible for controlling Israel’s borders, told IPS that the IAA was neither aware of Omer’s journalist credentials nor of his coordination.

“We would like to know who Omer spoke to in regard to receiving coordination to pass through Allenby. We offer journalists a special service when passing through our border crossings, and had we known about his arrival this would not have happened.

“I’m not aware of the events that followed his detention, and we are not responsible for the behaviour of the Shin Bet.”

In the meantime, Omer is still traumatised and in pain. “I’m struggling to breathe and have pain in my head and stomach and will be going back to hospital for further medical examinations,” he said

Notes from the Americas Society, the host to an extremely interesting one-night event at New York City Philharmonic’s Hall. That was last night, Friday June 6, 2008. But the event actually started already on Tuesday June 3, 2008, at the Park Avenue home of Americas Society.

We usually go to meetings of a political/economic nature relating what goes on in the Southern half of the Western hemisphere - sometimes there is also an event in Canada that gets looked at by the Americas. But this is not all.
The founders of the organization also understood that culture is an important ingredient of what makes up the politics, and if you are interested in the economics, you might as well get some idea of the culture and the people in whose backyard you intend to set up your operations. Oh yes - like most such institutions, Americas Society has backing in the corporate world. That is why we find it nevertheless justified to look at this extraordinary event that would not have happened in New York unless for the Americas Society.

On Tuesday we saw the Tambuco percussionists with no instruments at all - just their hands - palms, fingers - coaxing out in unison sounds from the top of a simple black table. That is something you can even do now in a music hall as it was done, we are sure, by basic humans eons ago when they developed the sense of music. We just forgot our basic human nature and believe that we must have an expensive Stradivarius or a Steinway and if we do not afford it we think we cannot make music. Do I hint here something about sustainability? I really do not know, but it seems that there always are young folks among us that deviate from the norms we set them and end up being the new composers that will be in due time the new classics - and please no giggling because I am indeed serious of what I write here. The Friday night performance was in ways similar to the two Metropolitan opera performances we reviewed this year - the Satyagraha and the First Emperor. Now Why do I say this?

The Program included in its second half material from a 1939 composition for a pre WWII Hollywood movie “La Noche de las Mayas.” The music evoked Mexican folk tunes that were a new thing for the audience of that time, but much more of common knowledge today. Even so, seeing the music treated by the enthusiastic orchestra led by a pony-tail wagging very enthusiastic young lady, provide also the visual effects of enchantment. As it was in effect a gala evening, the atmosphere was high and the pouring applause brought fore two encores.

The stars were obviously the collection of percussion instruments of the Tambuco-four and the way how they interact among themselves and the way Alondra made them blend with the large orchestra were achievements that deserve repeat performances.

Ambassador Hector Timerman, Hardened In The ‘Dirty Wars’ - Argentina’s New Envoy to Washington - Occupies the Office of a Man He and His Father, Jacobo, Once Openly Fought Back In Buenos Aires.

By Nora Boustany, Washington Post Foreign Service, Tuesday, April 8, 2008.
Outside the office of Hector Timerman, Argentina’s new ambassador to Washington, across from an oval ballroom, are photographs of his 50 predecessors.

Jorge A. Aja Espil gazes sternly from one of the chipped, pale green walls. An ambassador during Argentina’s military dictatorship, Espil represented and defended the government that went after an outspoken newspaper mogul, Jacobo Timerman. Hector, 54, is his son.

As a human rights activist 20 years ago, Hector Timerman dueled openly with Espil in the American press through fiery letters and indignant rebuttals. Timerman sought to expose in writing, as had his father, the system that abducted, imprisoned, tortured and killed thousands of Argentines.

When Timerman took up his post last month, his first instinct was to tear down Espil’s portrait. But as he made courtesy calls to other Latin American ambassadors, he discovered a source of healing in the turmoil that had also shaped their journeys.

Some of his counterparts had also survived coups and despotism. They had suffered grave solitude as outcasts or were the descendants of men persecuted for their principles. Among them were Chilean Ambassador Mariano Fernandez, who as a diplomat in Bonn was exiled in 1973 and then worked as a journalist while fighting the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, and Uruguayan Ambassador Carlos Alberto Gianelli, nephew of the late Wilson Ferreira Aldunate, a leading politician who fled his country’s military coups.

“When I met these ambassadors, I remembered my father,” Timerman said. “We were all political refugees. Now as envoys here, we represent the best values of our generation.

“This is a victory of democracy over hatred,” he added. “I will leave the pictures just to remember every day how dangerous it is not to react against a dictatorship. It starts with police brutality and ends up with people dropping out of planes.”

The story of Jacobo Timerman, the publisher of La Opinión, kidnapped from his home on April 15, 1977, and ruthlessly tortured, became a symbol of Argentina’s human rights abuses and the horrors of the “dirty war” waged by the junta from 1976 to 1983. For publishing the names of thousands of citizens who had vanished into Argentina’s labyrinth of cells and torture chambers, Jacobo Timerman himself became desaparecido, or disappeared .

Two weeks before his father was kidnapped, Timerman, then 22 and an apprentice at La Opinión, attended a meeting with Patt Derian, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for human rights. In an e-mail, Derian recounted how she had asked the elder Timerman why he had stayed in Argentina despite bomb threats against him and his staff.

He explained that when he was a child, his family was forced to leave Russia. “I promised myself that I would never leave my new homeland,” she said he told her.

His son also recalled him saying, “I don’t want anyone in Argentina to see a Jew run away.”

The young Timerman took over the newspaper. He went from one police station to another trying to learn his father’s whereabouts. Asked to pay for information, he was bilked for cash with false claims that his father needed clothes and medication in jail, he said.

“Hector was very courageous,” recalled Mario del Carril, a former journalist and philosophy professor. “He stuck it out despite the bomb threats to the paper” until the publication was confiscated with the rest of the family’s property.

When Timerman was finally allowed to see his father in jail, he found him emaciated and frail from electric shocks and a poor diet.

The U.S. Embassy, where he had once protested U.S.-backed Latin American dictatorships, became a place he sought advice. When warned that he, too, was in danger, Timerman went to Brazil and then Israel before ending up in New York. In the United States, he spoke at synagogues and to human rights groups. He asked for help from State Department officials. He managed to line up support for his father’s release from seven influential U.S. senators.

Jacobo Timerman was freed after 30 months in detention, stripped of his nationality and deported to Israel. He eventually returned to Buenos Aires, where he died in 1999.

Hector Timerman wrote articles and hosted television debates after his return to Argentina in the 1980s, once democracy was restored. He lectured on human rights and helped found Human Rights Watch.

His work as ambassador began March 8. He and his wife, Annabel, an architect and winemaker, have two grown daughters.

Sitting in the same sun-drenched office that Espil once occupied, Timerman pursues an agenda focused on easing tensions between the United States and Argentina and persevering in the fight to bring to justice those who tortured his father and others.

Last year, he filed a lawsuit against police chaplain Christian von Wernich in the torture of his father. Von Wernich, the first Roman Catholic priest prosecuted for crimes committed during Argentina’s dictatorship, was found guilty of involvement in seven murders and in numerous torture cases and kidnappings.

Timerman is now suing seven civilians for human rights violations.

“They will stand trial and be indicted. I will never forgive or forget,” he said. “I have been doing this since 1977. Why should I stop now?”

But the greatest human rights violation in Latin America these days, Timerman said, is poverty. “If you just look at the picture, you see poverty,” he said. “We won the battle. Now, we have to make good on our history, to show that democracy is worthwhile.”

Dr. Tom Shannon, participated for the US at the UN launching of the Ethanol Forum. He is the head of the US activities in Latin America/ The Western Hemisphere.
Before starting on the President’s trip he made himself available to questioning by the pres and the public at large. We are sorry to note that he had very little to say on the ethanol topic.

Welcome to “Ask the White House” — an online interactive forum where you can submit questions to Administration officials and friends of the White House. Visit the “Ask the White House” archives to read other discussions with White House officials.

Tom Shannon
Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
Biography

March 7, 2007

Tom Shannon
Thank you for joining me today. As you may know, President Bush, Secretary Rice, and I depart tomorrow to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico. This will be the President’s 8th trip to Latin America – more than any other President in the history of the United States. We look forward to meeting with our counterparts and discussing how we can work together to strengthen democracy and address important social issues such as poverty, inequality, and social exclusion. I look forward to taking your questions.

Travis, from Philadelphia, PA writes:
Mr. Shannon, What details can you give on the emerging ethanol partnership with Brazil, and how does that figure into President Bush’s greater diplomatic strategy for Latin America and the Caribbean?

Tom Shannon
Although we have not yet concluded a formal agreement, the U.S. and Brazil, the world’s two largest producers of biofuels, are discussing how we might deepen our bilateral cooperation to encourage local biofuels production and consumption in some of the most vulnerable economies of the Caribbean and Central America, countries which typically depend entirely on imported energy. We are also looking at ways to encourage the development of common international standards and codes for biofuels and considering ways to promote information sharing. Through our cooperation we hope to spur greater economic and social development in the region, encourage new investment and boost job growth. This cooperation will contribute to hemispheric energy security. This in turn will support our national effort to promote a more democratic and prosperous Western Hemisphere.

cantiflas, from guatamala, mexico writes:
we are all very excited that the president will be visiting our country. but what exactly will his commitment to the latin american regions be?

Tom Shannon
As the President outlined in his speech earlier this week, this trip will renew his connection with a region that has made great strides toward freedom and prosperity by raising up new democracies and enhancing and undertaking fiscal policies that bring stability. Despite the advances, however, tens of millions in our hemisphere remain stuck in poverty, and shut off from the promises of the new century. The working poor of Latin America need change, and the United States of America is committed to helping to increase opportunity for all of the citizens in the hemisphere by relieving debt and opening up trade, encouraging reform, and delivering aid that empowers the poor and the marginalized.

Joshua, from Chicago, Illinois writes:
I am supporter of our President, and I wanted to congratulate this administration for seeing the need to visit Latin America, in particular Guatemala, as the region needs the support, investment, and cooperation from the United States. It is very pleasing that our government is creating more dialogue with the region in order to better the region’s stability, economic prosperity and the bilateral relations among both countries. Immigration (deportations, TPS, comprehensive reform), increased economic relations (investment, development, adjustment assitance from TLC, etc), are the main issues I would like to see this government address and carry out. I feel that this will help gain more support from the country’s opposition and further improve bilateral relations. My question is what real or concrete measures will the President and his administration carry out on these issues, in order to gain even more support in the region? I want to end on this, Guatemalans are pro-democracy, pro-America, pro-prosperity. Will the U.S. work more diligently with our counterparts to achieve these goals?

Tom Shannon
The President has visited Latin America many times, but this will be his first visit to Guatemala. With CAFTA underway, we are already seeing the positive impact in Guatemala through increased foreign investment and job creation. President Bush will visit Chimaltenango to see for himself the positive impact it is having. President Berger’s government is also hard at work on its efforts to meet the requirements for a Millennium Challenge program as its neighbors in Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador have already done. President Bush remains committed to comprehensive immigration reform that includes a temporary worker program that would allow Guatemalans and others to work legally here in the United States. Finally, I think that there is broad recognition that security issues throughout Central America must be confronted, but have to be addressed comprehensively. CAFTA and other development-focused initiatives can help address some of the underlying causes of crime and insecurity, but they have to be accompanied by concrete, practical improvements in the areas of law enforcement and judicial reforms. In Guatemala and throughout Central America, we work closely with governments to support these efforts through the International Law Enforcement Academy (recently established in El Salvador), Law Enforcement Development programs that improve technical skills for police forces, and prevention programs designed to keep vulnerable youth out of gangs.

Erik, from Oregon writes:
How will the President handle the thorny issue of Venezuela during the trip, especially as Hugo Chavez tries to thwart the visit with his own travel in the region and with his bombastic rhetoric?

Tom Shannon
This trip is about deepening U.S. relations with those countries that want to work with us. The President will be meeting with presidents whose governments span the political spectrum. From our point of view, we will work with any government – be it left or right – that shares our commitment to democracy and open economies. With these countries, we share a common desire to work together to create jobs, reduce poverty and social exclusion and ensure that all citizens enjoy the benefits of good government.

Ana, from So Paulo,Brazil writes:
Hello, First, I’d like to know If president Bush is going to visit the social project “Meninos do Morumbi”(Boys of Morumbi) here in So Paulo?The USA and Brazil produce more than 70 of the world’s ethanol,so is the main goal of Bush’s trip to Brazil to form a global ethanol market? As well as the ethanol issue,there is Chvez who has dismissed Bush’s upcoming trip as “destined for the depths of defeat.” Does the American government believe he’s said such things because the deal would reduce other countries,including America,dependence on foreign oil?Also, reduced demand for oil might reduce the clout of Venezuelan president,who has tried to use his nation’s oil reserves to undercut U.S. policies in Latin America Finally I’d like to say that I’m big fan of the first lady Thanks and hope the president enjoys his trip down here:)

Tom Shannon
The president is going to Latin America to underscore the commitment of the United States to the hemisphere and to highlight our common agenda to advance freedom, prosperity and social justice. On this trip the president will emphasize the importance of delivering the benefits of democracy to all of the citizens of the hemisphere, particularly in areas of health, education and economic opportunity.

Both the United States and Brazil recognize that the world needs to reduce its dependency on fossil fuels. At present we are discussing ways in which we might cooperate to encourage local biofuels production for local consumption in some our hemisphere’s most vulnerable economies. Diminishing dependence on imported oil by substituting biofuels for hydrocarbon imports has the potential to relieve financial pressure on fragile developing countries, increase investment and boost jobs. In short, it will contribute to hemispheric energy security. President Bush has established ambitious goals for biofuels production in the United States but our discussions with Brazil have focused on international cooperation and information exchange. We are not discussing trade or tariff issues with respect to the U.S. market.

Meninos de Morumbi is a great group. I have visited the Meninos twice, once with Secretary Powell and again with Under Secretary Karen Hughes. I hope the President has an opportunity to visit Meninos.

Martin, from Ohio writes:
Many people feel that the U.S.A. has neglected Latin America during this administration due to many reasons, including 911, the war etc. These people also feel that this will come back to haunt the U.S.A. through various manifestations because during this time Latin America has transformed a lot (i.e. general political shift to the left for many countries etc.). Also, Mexico, who once had a major influence in the region, has lost most of its influence because of its close relationship with Washington; therefore, not even Mexico can assist the U.S. improve its image with other L.A. countries. Basically, what I am getting at is that by going to far away lands to fight two wars, the back door to the U.S.A. have been left opened. What are your thoughts about these concerns many people worry about?

Oh, what about the NAFTA SPP, is NAFTA moving towards increased integration? I am all for it, I believe this increased integration will only make the U.S.A. stronger and be a counterbalance to the EU and China.

Tom Shannon
Those of us who work full-time on Latin America and the Caribbean do not believe that we have ignored it. The President has made eight trips to Latin America and almost doubled U.S. foreign assistance to the region.

As important as we view our relations with South and Central America, we are also working to deepen our cooperation in North America with Mexico and Canada. The establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is evidence of our commitment. The SPP is aimed at making North American economies more competitive in world markets, and to protect our prosperity and democratic institutions from terrorist attacks. Together, the three countries of North America are building resilient societies that protect and promote our democratic values.

Besian, from Chicago writes:
Is Mr. Bush visting Latin America to discuss the Free Trade Agreement of Americas?

Tom Shannon
The purpose of the visit is talk with our friends about bringing the benefits of democracy to all of our citizens. The emphasis will be on creating jobs, improving education, and improving health care for the 200 million Latin Americans who live in poverty. Trade is an important engine of economic growth, but we recognize that our conversation has to be broader than trade if we are going to help our friends meet their social and economic development challenges.

Federico, from Montevideo, Uruguay writes:
Why doesn’t the US play a major role in Latinamerica? Specially when it had a closer relationship with former governments in the area. Unfortunatelly, nowadays this continent is suffering the epidemic of populist rulers, but not long ago we had liberals ruling our countries. Don’t you think you didn’t pay attention to this part of the world and now is late?

Tom Shannon
The United States continues to be deeply engaged in Latin America. Since President Bush took office traditional U.S. assistance to the region has nearly doubled. In addition the United States has introduced new programs like the Millennium Challenge program which has so far awarded an additional 866 million dollars to Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador as well as smaller preparatory programs in several other countries. The U.S. has also concluded a number of new free trade agreements with countries of the hemisphere and these are already showing very encouraging results. Interestingly, last year virtually every country of the Americas experienced economic growth. The challenge now is to assure that the benefits of democracy and growth at the macroeconomic level reach all of our hemisphere’s citizens.

Cliff, from Brimfield, Ohio writes:
Secretary Shannon: When it comes to the United States interest in Latin America. Are other countries starting to show some interest in the same area. China for instance? Thank You

Tom Shannon
Absolutely. And at the same time, we are seeing several countries in Latin America more interested in developing ties – economic, social and political – with countries in Asia and Europe. I have traveled to Europe and Asia to encourage interest and investment in Latin America. The Asia Pacific Economic Forum, which links Mexico, Peru, the U.S., and Canada to some of Asia’s most dynamic economies, holds a lot of promise to deepen ties between Asia and Latin America.

Tom Shannon
This has been a great session. I enjoyed the opportunity to talk with you about our partnerships in Latin America. Together, we can create a hemisphere that is more balanced in opportunity and more secure, for everyone. Thank you.

At SustainabiliTank.info we are watching with fascination the various new minuets at the UN and in Latin America. The launching of a purported one year life span - INTERNATIONAL BIOFUELS FORUM - that will try to pick up subjects like the commoditization of ethanol-for-fuel that were started 30 years ago, but got burried by US Congress, is now the latest mantra sounding from Washington.

The subject lies dead for 30 years and no prince in sight yet who will say that it is insane to punish imports of ethanol to the US by slaming on them a high tariff, while imports of oil get no tariff, and are in effect susidized with military expenditures, and waste in human life to mercenary US armed forces.

Has the US woken up because of the forays that Chavez makes distributing money he gets from the US for seling it oil? Chavez even distributed money to the US poor - right here in New York City! He is now going to visit a thankfull Argentina that he helped save from financial debacles that came about in part because US banks lent money in situations that did not warant credit.

Latin America is not yet the Middle East - so an honest effort by the US might yet win the day. Will we see such an honest effort? We are eager and watching.

In the meantime, and before coming out with our own informed opinions, let us see what others think of the President’s trip to Latin countries of the hemisphere. The trip starts this coming Thursday, March 8, 2007.

The Washington Post of today - March 7, 2007, carried the following cartoon:

The International Herald Tribune and The New York Times carried an article by Larry Rohter from Sao Paulo, Thom Shanker and Jim Rutenberg from Washington, but did not include any reporting from their UN correspondent - this is proof to us that they really did not give any credibility to the launching of the Forum that we witnessed at the UN. We believe that they are wrong, and that when President Bush gets to talk to President Lula of Brazil, and then to talk to President Tabare of Uruguay, with Chavez tripsing across the bay in Buenos Aires, there will be a change of heart by someone. We believe it will be the US President’s heart to change, and upon his return he may indeed be advised to fight Congress for change - and this time, on these topics, for change in a positive direction.

——————————–

Bush Faces Clash of Agendas in Latin America

By JIM RUTENBERG  from Sao Paulo and LARRY ROHTER from Buenos Aires - for The New York Times - March 8, 2007.

President Bush arrived here tonight for the start of what he has portrayed as a “We Care” tour aimed at dispelling perceptions that he has neglected his southern neighbors.

Nabor Goulart/Associated Press
Protesters in Porto Alegre, Brazil,
today demonstrating against
President Bush’s upcoming visit.

Rodrigo Arangua/AFP-Getty Images
Students in Bogota, Colombia, today
protesting the upcoming visit
of President Bush.

But the fresh graffiti on streets here in South America’s largest city calls Mr. Bush a murderer. And the smattering of protests and the placement of antiaircraft guns around town that have preceded his arrival present an alternate interpretation of his visit: as a clash between the United States-style capitalism he espouses and the socialist approach pushed by leftist leaders who have grown in power and popularity.

And as the Bush administration prepares to use the president’s five-nation tour to highlight a new ethanol development deal with Brazil, the world leader in that technology, and American health care and education programs elsewhere, much of the pre-tour attention is focusing on what may best be called “The Rumble on the River.”

President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Mr. Bush’s chief nemesis in Latin America, will be leading a protest against him in Buenos Aires as Mr. Bush arrives across the Rio de la Plata in Montevideo, Uruguay, on Friday night. “Our planes will almost cross paths,” Mr. Chávez said this week, although he denied any intention to sabotage Mr. Bush’s visit.

Mr. Bush played down Mr. Chávez’s planned rally in interviews with South American reporters this week, telling a group of them on Tuesday: “I go a lot of places and there are street rallies. And my attitude is, I love freedom and the right for people to express themselves.”

Whether inadvertently or not, though, Mr. Bush irritated Mr. Chávez with a speech he gave in Washington on Monday. In it, he said Simón Bolivar, the hero of South America’s independence struggle and Mr. Chávez’s idol, “belongs to all of us who love liberty.” That remark brought a sharp and sarcastic rejoinder from Mr. Chávez the next day during his weekly radio program.

But in spite of administration attempts to minimize the shadow cast on the visit by Mr. Chávez — who has called Mr. Bush “the devil” and has pushed an aggressively anti-American agenda throughout the region — the tour itself seems at least in part geared to counter his influence. Mr. Chávez has built that influence in part by showering poor communities in Latin America with money for housing and health care and freely dispensing oil at cut-rate prices.

Mr. Bush’s new agreement with Brazil to increase ethanol production in the region represents a way to cut back on the influence Mr. Chavez’s oil supply gives him while at the same time encouraging employment and economic development. And before arriving here, Mr. Bush announced a number of new initiatives to help the poor in Latin America, whom he referred to, in a venture into Spanish, as “workers and peasants.”

He promised hundreds of millions of dollars to help families buy homes and said he would dispatch a Navy hospital ship to the region to provide free health services.

In his interviews this week, Mr. Bush has repeated that the United States’ aid to Latin America has doubled during his tenure to roughly $1.6 billion a year. “When you total all up the money that is spent, because of the generosity of our taxpayers, that’s $8.5 billion to programs that promote social justice,” including education and health, he told reporters on Tuesday.

But the view from here could scarcely be more different. In an editorial headlined “Uncle Scrooge’s paltry package,” the conservative daily newspaper O Estado de São Paulo on Wednesday noted that Mr. Bush’s offering amounts to “the equivalent of five days’ cost of the war in Iraq, and a drop of water compared with the ocean of petrodollars in which Chávezism is navigating at full speed, from Argentina to Nicaragua.”

Some of Mr. Bush’s aides this week said they were worried that perceptions in the region that the United States had neglected its southern neighbors, and that frustration in lower classes that had not reaped the benefits of free trade, were helping to fuel the region’s leftist movements.

Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, said, “It’s something we have not done well enough — getting out the full scope of the president’s message.”

Mr. Bush told reporters that he hoped to counter Mr. Chávez’s message by espousing the benefits of free trade.

Asked by a reporter about Mr. Chávez’s “so-called alternative development model” calling for nationalization of industry, Mr. Bush said: “I strongly believe that government-run industry is inefficient and will lead to more poverty. I believe if the state tries to run the economy, it will enhance poverty and reduce opportunity.”

He added, “So the United States brings a message of open markets and open government to the region.”

But even Mr. Bush’s Brazilian hosts seemed divided in their reaction to that message. Although President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will be meeting with Mr. Bush on Friday to sign the ethanol accord and is scheduled to visit him at Camp David on March 31, the party he leads has chosen to support and participate in the anti-Bush demonstrations.

The party, the Leftist Workers’ Party, warned on its Web site that Mr. Bush “shouldn’t count on Brazil for imperialist actions in the region.” One essay called him “the big boss of international terrorism,” while another declared that Mr. Bush was “persona non grata” in Brazil.

“The United States in general and the Bush government in particular are brutally violent,” wrote Valter Pomar, the party’s head of international affairs. “We will only be free of this threat when the North American people constitute a government on the left.”

Council on Hemispheric Affairs - a Review Of The State Of the Hemisphere’s Affairs Prior to the 5 Country Bush Tour Of March 2007.  Wednesday, February 21st, 2007

—————————

Press Notice - Several days prior to the commencement of President Bush’s 5-country tour of Latin America, which begins on March 8, COHA will issue a publication concerning the problems and prospects that will most likely define the trip. Topics to be covered include:

Bush to work with Lula to further U.S. ambitions to use Ethanol as a means to decrease petroleum dependency.

U.S./Uruguay FTA talks expected to further jeopardize Montevideo’s relationship with MECOSUR.

Bush and Uribe’s discussions of Plan Colombia II shadowed by issues of Colombian Congressional collusion with right-wing paramilitaries.

Recent Mexican counter-narcotics successes and immigration docketed for Bush’s visit to Mexico City
Efforts to mobilize creation of a cordon sanitaire around Venezuela.

Likely outcome of the Bush trip.

Prospects for reviving regional relations.

What caused U.S. ties with Latin ties to founder?

————————–
Off Course: Current U.S.-Latin American Relations; U.S.-Latin America ties suffer from Iraq distraction.The rise of the left. The Negroponte factor will soon be unleashed featuring more stick than carrot.

Assistant Secretary of State Shannon’s policy of constructive engagement towards Venezuela and Bolivia about to be swamped by Negroponte’s advent as the administration’s main architect of U.S. policy toward the region.

Bush Administration handicapped by an anemic regional policy and guided without a compass;
The administration is using “populism” as a dirty word, a fitting replacement for the word “communism” during the Cold War. Pink tide at high tide.
President Bush has been witnessing the advent of a new bloc of left-leaning and sometimes robustly anti-American leadership that has sprung up in countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, among others. At the same time, there are a number of recent developments throughout the region that Washington only now beginning to correctly see as a menace to its own narrow definition of U.S. national interests. Bush will discover that the region will never be the same now that Washington’s obsession with Iraq has freed up the region to go its own way on a number of global highways. Preceding by several weeks President Bush’s upcoming visit to Latin America, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad stopped off in Caracas, Managua and Quito in mid-January to welcome an expanding crop of tough-minded and often abrasive hemispheric figures willing to aggressively speak out on regional issues, often at Washington’s expense. Ahmedinejad’s visit coincided with civil unrest in Mexico, threats of secession in Bolivia, and President Chávez’s crackdown on a rabidly right-wing Caracas TV network.

Until recently, it seemed that the flowering of a new generation of hemispheric populist leaders symbolized by Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales who appeared to have less to do about leftist rhetoric than with hard policy aimed at advancing a coherent political system which would best serve their basic constituency, the poor, but not necessarily Washington’s. Now, however, with Washington’s massive distraction over Iraq and its deteriorating relationship with Iran, the challenges posed by a restless Latin America have resulted from an unexpected opportunity to break from its traditional moorings and sail free. Ultimately the U.S.’ ability to lead and inspire its neighbors, will no longer be automatic, but will have to be earned.

Bush is No Student of Latin America: When Bush thinks of the region, images of his amiable paladins like El Salvador’s Tony Saca, whose administration could not survive an audit, or Costa Rica’s Oscar Arias, who sees only his own reflection in everyone’s mirror, come to mind. But they are hardly anything more that yesterday’s Latin America, a function of failed U.S. regional policies. With the U.S. mired in its problematic “War on Terror,” a new faction of self-absorbed Latin American nationalists are becoming increasingly emboldened by Washington’s mounting irrelevance in the region’s future.

The Bush administration is being made aware that its leverage in Latin America is rapidly dissipating. Even well-meaning kinsmen found at the top in Brazil, Colombia, Chile, let alone its Central American banana republics, don’t always salivate when the bell is rung. If this is true, the U.S. could be running out of conventional diplomatic options to “stay the course.” Today, apart from Central America’s durable servitors like El Salvador and Costa Rica, and the White House’s victory in turning the CAFTA-DR free trade pact into a portal for the U.S.’ entry into Central America’s markets, only Mexico remains to be accommodated. For President Calderón, Washington must establish a guest workers program so that he may reach his goal of successfully exporting up to a million undocumented workers to the U.S. which would help alleviate the immigration issue between the two countries. Meanwhile, the moderate left in South America seems to be fast escaping from Washington’s grasp as the region goes global, not only in matters of trade but in mindset. With the region’s leaders offering growing resistance to Washington’s free trade model and their refusal to take a U.S.-sought defiant stance against Chávez’s provocative rhetoric and leftist goals, Latin America is signaling that it will not necessarily follow a Washington-defined development path, which is better known for its inability to break away from Cold War instincts.

A Rising Tide Which May Actually Lift all Boats
The rise of moderate leftist leadership in Latin America is the result of a series of reasonable events. One possible explanation is that an oversold nexus of free trade pacts over the past two decades has failed to bring tangible benefits to a wide spectrum of the region’s population, particularly to those trapped in structural poverty. Some of those who originally were active proponents of regional trade pacts like NAFTA, have since acknowledged that such ties often have failed to live up to expectations. Skimpy economic growth, low levels of job creation and entrenched corruption have been some of the more notable aspects of the pact’s failure, but are certainly not the only ones.

No matter how often the White House refers to free trade as alchemy’s most perfected draught, the limited success of Washington’s free trade dogma has prompted a skeptical attitude regarding the alarming growth of financial inequality throughout Latin America. As a result, brimming economic nationalism stemming from endemic frustration over the continued dominance by traditional political elites has reemerged. These components have helped bring to power a crop of leaders who have promised their electors that they will fairly spread authority among the region’s perennially-exploited indigenous and other disadvantaged elements of the population. As has been seen in recent months, many of these new leaders have broken from the above cliché and appear to be acting on their rhetoric and not simply poised on their laurels.

Hugo Chávez has succeeded in reversing the deplorable conditions under which generations of his people have been forced to live. This mission has seen notable success in capturing the hearts and minds of Venezuela’s poor, while other equally boisterous hemispheric players have proven to be more bark than bite when it comes to delivering upon their ambitious campaign promises. The anti-American line to which much of the new regional leadership initially subscribed is now split into hard-liners and soft-liners, when it comes to either confronting or embedding with Washington. One of the major casualties of the White House’s distraction over Iraq is that the U.S. has faded as an all-prevailing Western Hemispheric presence, by failing to come up with a winning formula to reassert its traditional primacy in the region.

Coping with the Pre-occupation of Iraq
Despite the White House’s recent botched efforts to coerce favorable verdicts from a record number of presidential elections in Latin America, non-U.S.-anointed populist candidates are still winning the predominant number of votes of their electorate. An example of this is Nicaragua’s 1980’s revolutionary leader, now-President Daniel Ortega, who reemerged victorious despite overt U.S. interference and two decades of repudiation by the electorates.

Assistant Secretary of State, Thomas Shannon (currently the administration’s leading Latin American policymaker), and U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield (outgoing U.S. ambassador to Caracas) have been relatively restrained in their handling of Latin America’s most recognizable populist, Hugo Chávez. Shannon and Brownfield, though, have ventured beyond the Bush Administration’s normally primitive and ideologically-driven strategy, and are calling for constructive engagement with the Venezuelan leader.

Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte—who has been convincingly accused of being one of the lead plotters of the Honduran death squads while he was ambassador to that country in the early 1980’s—has managed to avoid answering a stream of potentially embarrassing questions on such matters by seeking refuge in his tendency to contract selective amnesia. He has just been confirmed by the Senate as the State Department’s number two man. This change of command could be catastrophic for the region because Negroponte, who already has expressed his desire to act forcefully against Chávez, will have seniority over Shannon. Even before his confirmation, Negroponte sharply criticized some of Chávez’s actions, which should be considered indicative of the much tougher policy line that he is certain to follow once he gets settled in. Due to Bush’s often-stated judgment that Negroponte is his “kind of guy”, it would not be surprising that Shannon, at a predictable future point, will decide that he has irreconcilable differences with the hard-line Negroponte and ask for a transfer, or even resign from his position if he is unable to obtain an equivalent post within the Department or an embassy.

A New Era
In a stunning rebuke to Bush’s foreign and defense policy, the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress last November for the first time in over a decade. Nevertheless, as it applies to Latin America, many Americans fail to realize that despite the worldwide implications of this country’s “War on Terror,” up to this point its strategy has generally failed to make the international community feel any safer, and instead has increased anti-American sentiment, thereby ironically and unintentionally promoting America’s vulnerability, or at least the appearance of it.

How can this be done?
Latin American editorialists increasingly are raising the question: what will the Democrats’ congressional sweep mean for Washington’s policy toward the region? They are aware of Bush’s vast unpopularity and the singular opprobrium that his policies are attracting from both rich and poor throughout Latin America. Several weeks ago, a bipartisan congressional delegation traveled from the U.S. to Cuba seeking new ideas and reviewing old components from a long-soured relationship, and several U.S. legislators have independently visited with Chávez in Venezuela. Still others have traveled elsewhere in the region, seeking to engage a new generation of leadership in meaningful dialogue. In general, all of these trips have produced at least some positive results. The Democratic leadership would be wise to approach the subject of future U.S.- Latin American relations with a coherent and open mind, as the subject can only be broached by a frank discussion with some of the region’s most fractious leadership. It can be argued that until problems with Venezuela and Cuba are resolved, such an exercise could be pointless. Only through a process of negotiations, rather than a series of diktats, will real progress be made.

Possible Solutions
Though trade ties may be of transcendent importance to the Bush Administration, they cannot possibly define the entire relationship between Latin America and the U.S. Major regional powers such as Brazil and Argentina, as well as some of the smaller nations, require leeway to develop their own sense of economic and geopolitical national destiny. Bolivia, for example, where the majority of the population is impoverished, also suffers from high rates of illiteracy and meager levels of foreign investments. Creative initiatives coming from the U.S. alone will not necessarily generate effective and immediate solutions to age-old problems, but could at least start improving the situation. Furthermore, the trade agreements sought by the U.S. need to be accompanied by guarantees of corruption-free and environmentally-conscious incentives, as well as acute attention being directed to potential regional trading partners.

Washington would also be wise to reverse the expanding roster of skeptics by approaching the region with the same dogged determination to clean out the Augean stable, whose growth dates back to the closing years of the Clinton administration. Political appointees such as Otto Reich, Roger Noriega and John Bolton, were para-diplomats who specialized in empty heroic rhetoric devoid of any substance. Their antiquated Cold-War approach relied upon bullying smaller countries into line when it came to persuading them to join the coalition of the willing and conjuring up information in order to advance the administration’s messianic anti-Castro credo. At the same time, these discordant players worked tirelessly, if not destructively, to advance narrow and hegemonic U.S. trade and security interests, which often came at the expense of the region’s poor.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Director Larry Birns
February 21st, 2007
Word Count: 2000
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being “one of the nation’s most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers.” For more information, please see our web page at www.coha.org; or contact our Washington offices by phone (202) 223-4975, fax (202) 223-4979, or email  coha at coha.org.