Ukraine’s vice prime minister has encouraged both Poland and the Czech Republic to ratify the Lisbon treaty.

Speaking to TheParliament.com on Thursday, Hryhoriy Nemyria said those things.

“We encourage those countries to exercise their duty and responsibility to continue to ratify the Lisbon treaty. I especially have in mind the presidents of Poland and the Czech Republic.”

Nemyria, who has responsibility for European affairs, also said that he didn’t think the Irish vote against the Lisbon treaty was a vote against enlargement, but stressed that the ‘reflection time’ given to Ireland after the no vote should not take away from Ukraine’s progress towards EU integration.

“We support those MEPs who think that Irish reflection time should not be deducted from Ukrainian integration - There were a number of doomsday scenarios on previous enlargements and every time the EU was creative enough to find a way out and to continue.”

Ukraine is currently in talks with the EU on a new “enhanced” agreement to take over from a 2005 pact under the EU’s neighbourhood policy. A major part of the new agreement will be a free trade area, which goes side by side with requirements on economic and sectoral cooperation.

A thorny issue for Ukraine is whether or not they will be granted a “membership perspective” in the new agreement. The official line is that no watered down versions of membership will do, so while welcoming the recent Polish-Swedish idea for an ‘eastern partnership’ Nemyria says that it should not be used as a substitute for the real thing.

And commenting on the start of talks on a new EU-Russia agreement, he said, “We can’t but support this process because a European solution works in Ukraine and shall work in Russia.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko visits Brussels today, June 19, 2008 for talks with European commission chiefs, Javier Solana ( the EU’s High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the designated  EU’s Minister for Foreign Affairs), Günter Verheugen (Vice-President of the European Commission, responsible for enterprise and industry), and Andris Piebalgs (Commissioner for Energy at the European Commission). So, it seems quite obvious that the reason for her visit to Brusells is Energy for Europe. We assume that it is the Russian gas pipelines.

‘Eastern Partnership’ could lead to enlargement, Poland says.

27.05.2008 - 09:15 CET | By Renata Goldirova, Euobserver from Brussels.
Poland and Sweden have officially tabled proposals for an “Eastern Partnership” between the EU and its neighbours Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine - with Poland presenting the deal as a path toward EU membership.

“It’s time to look to the east to see what we can do to strengthen democracy,” Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt said on Monday (26 May), after presenting the project to the rest of the EU club with his Polish counterpart, Radoslaw Sikorski.

According to Mr Sikorski, the eastern partnership initiative is tailored to “practically” and “ideologically” strengthen the union’s existing neighbourhood policy towards countries that could eventually become EU members, but are held back by “enlargement fatigue” within the bloc.

The minister drew a clear line to distinguish the EU membership prospects of those countries affected by the Polish-Swedish proposal and those involved in the “Mediterranean Union” - a similar, French-sponsored project for countries lying south of the EU.

“To the south, we have neighbours of Europe. To the east, we have European neighbours…they all have the right one day to apply [for EU membership],” Mr Sikorski said, urging the eastern countries to follow the example of the Visagrad Group set up in 1991 by Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic as part of their EU integration efforts.

“We all know the EU has enlargement fatigue. We have to use this time to prepare as much as possible so that when the fatigue passes, membership becomes something natural,” the Polish minister said.

The initiative has seen some criticism from countries such as Bulgaria and Romania who do not want to see the union’s “Black Sea Synergy” - a co-operation scheme for Black Sea rim states - undermined. But the Czech Republic, which will sit at the EU’s helm in 2009, has thrown its weight behind the Polish-Swedish plan.

“We believe that the initiative of the Eastern partnership should envisage a clear EU membership perspective to those European neighbours of the EU who can demonstrate the seriousness of their European ambitions through concrete actions and tangible achievements,” said a statement issued by Ukraine’s foreign ministry on Monday.

Poland and Sweden to pitch ‘Eastern Partnership’ idea

By Philippa Runner, May 22, 2008.

Poland and Sweden are to unveil joint proposals for a new eastern Europe policy at an EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels on Monday (26 May), in a mini-version of France’s “Mediterranean Union.” The “Eastern Partnership” envisages a multinational forum between the EU-27 and neighbouring states Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Polish press agency PAP reports. {This list amounts to the old GUAM States + Armenia}

The forum would aim to negotiate visa-free travel deals, free trade zones for services and agricultural products and strategic partnership agreements with the five countries.

It would also launch smaller, bilateral projects on student exchange, environmental protection and energy supply, but would avoid the controversial topic of EU membership perspectives.

Dictatorship Belarus could join at a technical and expert-level only. Russia would also be invited to cooperate on local initiatives, involving the Kaliningrad enclave for example.

Unlike the grander Mediterranean club, the eastern set-up would not have its own secretariat but would be run by the European Commission and financed from the 2007 to 2013 European neighbourhood policy budget. A commission official would be appointed as its “special coordinator.”
Following the foreign ministers’ debate, Warsaw hopes to secure formal approval at the EU summit in June and to start detailed work on the “partnership” by the end of the year.

Warm reception:

Germany, the UK and the Netherlands have also voiced initial support, but Spain and Italy could prove problematic while Ukraine will have to be persuaded the partnership offers something better than the current EU neighbourhood package, Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza reports.

“The EU’s eastern policy is of interest to the whole EU,” Polish commissioner Danuta Hubner told the Rzeczpospolita newspaper. “The weakness of [previous] northern, eastern or southern European Union policies was that they existed only in the sphere of interest of member countries in those regions.”

Ukraine has high hopes for French EU presidency - writes Elitsa Vucheva from Kiev for the EUobserver - May 14, 2008.

Expectations are high in Kiev that an EU-Ukraine summit in September in France will result in stronger ties between the two sides and boost progress in negotiations on a new bilateral agreement.

“We expect certain serious steps to be taken along the lines of preparing the new enhanced agreement and the free trade agreement [between Ukraine and the EU],” Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko told a group of journalists in Kiev.

“We look forward to the EU flashing the green light for us that would help us on our way forward,” she added.

Ukraine’s relations with the EU are currently regulated by a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) in force since 1998, a set-up that Kiev considers politically insufficient.

Negotiations to replace the PCA started in March 2007 and Ukraine wants it to contain a clear reference to eventual EU membership, and avoid the vague political formulations that have characterised Brussels statements about the large eastern European country to date.

The new bilateral agreement is also to include a free trade agreement on which negotiations were launched in February.

Oleksandr Chalyi, a senior foreign-policy adviser to Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko, suggested that after overcoming a “very deep political and social crisis” by signing the Lisbon treaty, the EU would now be “more capable of developing a consensus on Ukraine’s European perspectives.”

“We want the legal substance of our partnership transformed to association,” instead of a simple “closer cooperation,” Oleksandr Chalyi said.

According to government estimates, a clear majority of Ukrainians – around 65 to 70 percent – back the idea of seeing their country becoming a future EU member. The EU, however, has not shown much enthusiasm for this and still prefers to talk about “a much closer and enhanced partnership.”

Ian Boag, head of the European Commission’s delegation to Ukraine, stressed that the deal that will be eventually reached should not be seen as “a stepping stone for membership of the EU.” But in a bid to reassure the Ukrainian side he added that “nothing excludes [such an option].”

In this context, a high-level EU-Ukraine meeting planned to take place on 9 September in France and under French EU presidency, is expected to bring a breakthrough in the stagnating bilateral relations.

Paris recently floated a proposal for an “Association Agreement” with the former Soviet country – which stops short of any EU accession commitments but provides for visibly stronger ties.

Kiev welcomed the fact that “such country as France recently put new ideas to bring Ukraine closer to the EU.”

“Now we are working on the basis of the French proposals and… hope this event [the EU-Ukraine summit] will produce some results,” said deputy foreign minister Kostiantyn Yelisieiev in charge of negotiating the new agreement.

He stressed the importance of the French idea, considering that “France was one of the countries ‘a little bit cold’ [towards Ukraine’s EU perspectives].”

According to Mr Yelisieiev, the September summit will be “the real test [for EU-Ukraine relations] and will show the real intentions of the French leadership” regarding Ukraine.
Problems still to be tackled:
Along with the lack of political consensus among EU states on the 46-million strong country’s EU future, Ukraine still has its own internal issues to tackle before such a possibility could be realistically discussed.

Political in-fighting blocking much needed changes has on several occasions prompted the EU to call for more political stability in Ukraine, while Kiev still has to tackle its inefficient administration, high levels of corruption, as well as judicial and economic reforms.

Ukrainian politicians concede there are problems.

“We have got to get rid of corruption and other negative consequences of our socialist past… We should achieve European standards as soon as possible,” foreign minister Volodymyr Ogryzko told journalists in the margins of Europe’s day celebrations in Kiev on Sunday (11 May).

But he added: “I do hope that we will have a very concrete signal from the EU that Ukraine will in the nearest future be in the EU.”

————–

At www.SustainabiliTank.info, we expressed already in the past our “puzzlement” of why Ukraine does not agree of its own free will to let the eastern third of the country - still Russian speaking - go and join Russia - if that is what the people living there prefer - and then the western 2/3 of the country could easily readjust and join the EU as the EU’s natural eastern frontier. That would leave outside only Russia and Belarus - quite a natural outcome.

——————

Further, in http://euobserver.com/9/26150/?rk=1 Peter Sain ley Berry, while questioning the EU intent with Turkey, makes the point that the Ukraine belongs to Europe.

[Comment] The elephant on the European doorstep.
16.05.2008 - By Peter Sain ley Berry.

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - Politically, it has been a propitious time for those named Boris. Not only do we now have a Boris as Mayor of London, but, in the Balkans, the parties that support Serbian President Boris Tadic, and seek a European future for Serbia, defeated those that affected an isolationist persuasion. Whether Mr Tadic will now be able to form a pro-European government remains to be seen.

The European Union’s position at least is settled. The Western Balkans - seven countries with a population of approximately 27 million - have been offered a European future, subject only to satisfying the normal criteria. This process will take time but few doubt the result. We are on course therefore for an EU of 34.

This will make the government of the EU more complex. If there are 15 possible bilateral relationships in a community of six, there are 351 in a community of 27. Adding a further seven states increases the complexity by a whopping 210. Apart from this complexity there will be other consequences, including for financing, for decision-making, for the distribution of MEPs and Commissioners. None of this seems to be being discussed. Nevertheless, there is general agreement that the Western Balkans should accede to the Union in due course. Public opinion is broadly favourable.

The same cannot be said for Turkey, to which Queen Elizabeth II of Britain paid a state visit this week. At the formal banquet she praised the advances made by the government and rehearsed Britain’s credentials as a champion of Turkish entry. Although Turkey is formally a candidate for accession, the end of that process seems as far away as ever. Britain, and her allies among the newer member states, may champion Turkish entry for sound geo-political and geo-economic reasons, but France and Germany most certainly do not. Moreover, European public opinion is divided.

The reasons are partly geographical. I remember a former President of the European Commission, the late Roy Jenkins, saying that the then Turkish President had acquired a piece of paper from some prestigious geographical institute certifying Turkey’s Europeaness. His response was that any country that needed a piece of paper….. probably wasn’t European.

In this he was no doubt correct, though in the absence of a recognised border with Asia, who can say? But there are other more important arguments - financing of the poor but populous Turkish state is one, the internal coherence of the Union is another. Which is why France and Germany have been trying to divert Turkey down the route of a ‘privileged partnership,’ instead of full accession, through which the EU’s commitment might be modified if necessary. Turkey, of course, is having none of that. Meanwhile the accession negotiations drag on.

Out of 35 chapters only six have been opened and eight are frozen by the Cypriot stand-off. France, which assumes the rotating Union Presidency on 1st July, has said it will continue the negotiations in good faith. This is a semi quid pro quo for Turkey agreeing to sup from the poisoned chalice of France’s ‘Mediterranean Union’ scheme (now formally adopted by the EU) designed to provide a political forum for the EU and its Mediterranean neighbours.

Turkey has been told specifically that belonging to the Mediterranean Union will not affect its EU candidacy. But as the French rather hope that the Turks may be persuaded to accept some leadership role in this body - so taking its mind off EU membership - it would be prudent for them to take this assurance with a grain of salt.

What is certain is that the Union would not be the same if Turkey joins with its 80 million population. It would not necessarily be a worse Union, or a better Union, but it would be a different Union. For quite apart from the effect that Turkey itself will have on the existing member states, its accession would change the dynamics of other nations looking for a European future.

Chief of these is the Ukraine whose Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, was again this week announcing her intention to bang on Mr Sarkozy’s door come July.

In fact, when it comes to European credentials the Ukraine has rather better claims than Turkey. It’s capital, Kiev, is closer to Brussels, for instance, than Athens. Moreover, as anyone reading Heinrich Boell’s - great anti-war novel ‘Der Zug war Punktlich,’ can appreciate, Germany, Poland and the Ukraine are but stations on a journey into Europe’s deep hinterland. The railway line is no doubt still there.

It is true to say that with its 55 million people the Ukraine is therefore the elephant on our European doorstep. Still, the policy is to resist giving any hint of promise of future membership. True, the country has much to reform before it could become a credible candidate. Nevertheless, it has as much right to lay claim to its place in the European firmament as anyone else. The banging on the door will become louder and more insistent. There will be other bangings, too; Georgia is already demanding to be heard. Belarus, Moldova, the other Caucasian nations may well follow suit.

No one can believe the Union can remain the same should these accessions take place. Again, they are not necessarily to be resisted. It may be in our interest that we should go ahead. But we should not sleepwalk toward a decision, finding out too late that we have no room left for manoeuvre.

For despite the frequency of the phrase, ‘Future of Europe,’ and constant enjoinders to discuss it, a conspiracy of silence surrounds anything more remote than the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Only the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has raised the difficult questions about where the future borders of Europe should lie and what sort of Europe, in terms of its integration, competencies and governance, we are seeking. And short shrift he has got for his pains.

This is unfortunate, for the Future of Europe is the future of the next thirty or forty years.
I do not see how we can continue to espouse Turkey’s candidacy and not that of the Ukraine. But this has consequences. If we are to have a grand Europe, a Europe of 42 states and 700 millions of people, it is not too early to start debating the prospect now.

The author is editor of EuropaWorld.

10.30 – 10.40
Opening and welcome address
Corrado Clini, GBEP Chair

10.40 – 11.00
Biofuels: a solution for climate change
Luca Belelli Marchesini, University of Tuscia, Department of Forest Science and Resources

11.00 – 11.20
Case study of bioenergy project
Gian Piero Latini, Agrotec spa

11.20 – 11.40
Opportunities to promote biofuels production in Central and Eastern Europe – EUBIA experience and perspective
Angela Grassi, EUBIA European Biomass Industry Association

11.40 – 12.00
Strategy to meet EU target on biofuel production and consumption – Italian scenario and perspective
Giuseppe Caserta, ITABIA Italian Biomass Industry Association

12.00 – 12.20
The European Commission proposal for a new Directive on the promotion of biofuels – opportunities and challenges for the private sector
Raffaello Garofalo, EBB European Biodisel Board

12.20 – 12.30
Conclusion

 http://www.sepromania.it

From: Polish Cultural Institute [mailto:mail@polishculture-nyc.org]
Sent: Montag, 31. März 2008 18:25
To:  mail at polishculture-nyc.org
Subject: No. 312: “BORDERLANDERS: FINDING THEIR VOICE” FESTIVAL

The Polish Cultural Institute
presents

The Borderland Foundation in Sejny, Poland,
and the work of its Borderland Center of Arts, Cultures, and Nations
- practising dialogue where the paths of cultures and people cross -

Festival Program:
l
SEJNY CHRONICLES
American Premiere at La MaMa E.T.C.
April 10-20, 2008
10
CAFÉ EUROPA
An Evening of Arts and Letters on the Theme of “Borderlanders”
The Bowery Poetry Club
April 14, 2008
10
FILMS ABOUT THE BORDERLANDS
Millennium Film Workshop, Inc.
April 9-17, 2008
101
BETWEEN THE PAST AND THE FUTURE: MEMORY WORK IN THE BORDERLANDS
A Conversation with Krzysztof Czyzewski, president of the Borderland Foundation
The New School for Social Research
April 16, 2008

The Borderland Foundation’s work involves an artistic rediscovering of the area’s rich multicultural heritage, which had been all but destroyed by two world wars.                                             – Ian Fisher, The New York Times

In just over a decade Mr. Czyzewski has won an international reputation, helping to set up about a dozen similar centres as far afield as Mostar in Bosnia, Uzhgorod in Ukraine and Arad in Romania.
– Stefan Wagstyl, The Financial Times

Before multitudes from the Eastern European borderlands emigrated to the Lower East Side around 1900, and before many others perished or were resettled in the hell of WWII, the little town of Sejny in northeast Poland was home to Lithuanians, Poles, Jews, Russian Old-believers, Belarusians, Roma, and Germans. As immigrants, they brought their borderland identity with them to the multicultural experiment of America.

For a long time people had been emigrating from Sejny. Today, this little town is exporting to diversified societies worldwide its pioneering methods of community work as a laboratory for multiculturalism. The aim of Borderlanders: Finding Their Voice is to present the ideas and practices of the Sejny-based Borderland Foundation in building bridges between cultures and ethnicities. Multiple identity, exile, immigration, and the arts’ creative role in multicultural community work are the themes that relate the festival’s events to each other.

All performance events are presented in the Lower East Side as a tribute to the multicultural heritage of a district that was home to many Eastern European immigrants in the early 20th century.

BORDERLANDERS: FINDING THEIR VOICE is presented by the Polish Cultural Institute in New York in association with La MaMa E.T.C., Bowery Poetry Club, Millennium Film Workshop, Inc., and the Transregional Center for Democratic Studies, New Schoolfor Social Research.

Special thanks to Professor Elzbieta Matynia of the New School for Social Research for her dedication and creative input.

Special thanks to LOT Polish Airlines CARGO

Columbia Business School, March 28, 2008, Hosted LABA (Latin American Business Association) Conference 2008.

The Topic - “LATIN AMERICA: Growth Perspectives in a Shifting Political Landscape.”

www.SustainabiliTank.info posted the announcement as we received it from YPIC - the UN affiliated “Young Professionals for International Cooperation.”

The meeting had 5 Sessions - serious business advice - Growth Oriented - and networking.
I will restrict the reporting to a star studded Fifth-Session actually titled: “THE SHIFTING LATIN AMERICAN POLITICAL LANDSCAPE.” This was indeed the special thing about this year’s meeting.

Interestingly, the two stars of the panel were both “Have-Beens” of sorts - Ex-Presidents of their countries. But - and watch this - they actually were those that put things in motion that are part of the present developments in their respective countries - though the emergence of the China factor came after them. From their “freedom to analyse” now - their presentations were enlightening indeed.

The Former Presidents were - President Cesar Gaviria of Colombia, and President Alexandro Toledo of Peru.

Further, President Gaviria is also Former Secretary-General of the Organization of American States (OAS).

The Chairman was also an important “EX-” and now Professor of Professional Practice in International and Public Affairs, School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), Columbia University. Jose Antonio Ocampo, who was put in place of the previously announced Mr. Andres Oppenheimer, 1978 Graduate of The Columbia School of Journalism, now Latin American editor and syndicated foreign affairs columnist, The Miami Herald - The Newspaper for the Americas in the city that calls itself the capital of Latin America.

Professor Jose Antonio Ocampo, a Colombian national, teaches now courses in the Ph.D. program in Sustainable Development and has an active role in the Columbia’s Committee on Global Thought. He came to Columbia from the UN where he was UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) under UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan - appointed September 1, 2003 to suceed Mr. Nitin Dessai of India. He was replaced by the new UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, as the rumors are at the UN, because he had to promise that slot to China. So - Ocampo went from Colombia to UN and from there to Columbia (the “U” changed to “u” but we are glad he still will be involved in Sustainable Development - as the UN Commission on Sustainable Development was part of his domain at the UN - who knows - he might be able to do more good in his new job then in the previous job).

Professor Ocampo, prior to his coming to the UN, served in various positions in the government of Colombia as Minister of nearly every economic topic, and head of agrarian banks. He was also Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) 1998 - 2003, before coming to the UN, and that position gave him the overview of all of Latin America. His recent publications include “Stability with Growth: Macroeconomics, Liberalization and Development,” with Joseph E. Stiglitz, Shari Spiegel, Ricardo French-Davis and Deepak Nayyar, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Professor Ocampo was also a Professor in the Advanced Programme on Rethinking Development Economics at Cambridge University, a Professor of Economics at Universidad de los Andes of Bogota, a Professor of Economic History at the National University of Colombia, as well as a Visiting Fellow at Yale and Oxford.

Introducing the Session, Ocampo said that Gaviria was his boss. Ocampo said that both men had successful periods even though there were controversies in Toledo’s days at helm. There is now a shifting Political Landscape and people talk of two different lefts in Latin America. Ocampo would like to hear from the two Presidents what they think of these changes, and what they think the US elections would imply for Latin America?

President CESAR GAVIRIA TRUJILLO is currently National Director of the Colombian Liberal Party, and is a member of the Advisory Commission of External Relations of Colombia, where, it is said, he recently contributed mediation in the diplomatic incidents between the Colombian Government and the States of Ecuador and Venezuela.

He studied at Universidad de los Andes in the 1960’s and established there AIESEC (the local chapter of the International Association of the Students of Economics), and then in 1968 he was elected President of AIESEC in Colombia. This began his public service career. { Personally I found this interesting, because sometime in the begining of the 80’s I came to Medellin, Antioquia, as a speaker at a Global AIESEC meeting, and most probably had then the chance to meet him.} At 23 he was elected councilman of his hometown in Pereira, in the Coffee famous Risaralda State. 4 years later he became Mayor. In 1974 he was elected into the House of Representatives, before rising to the top in 1983. Three years later he became co-chair of the Colombian Liberal Party.

He was first elected to Congress in 1974; 1986 - 1990 he served in Virgilio Barco’s government, first as Minister of Finance and later as Minister of the Interior, then when Liberal Candidate Senator Gallant was assassinated, he became the Presidential Candidate, and President, August 7, 1990 - August 7, 1994. The period of Presidents Barco and Gaviria was marked by a process of trying peace with the M-19 and other rebells.

As President he did economic reforms to bring Colombia into the International economy; his time saw growth, the convocation of a Constituent Assembly to fortify Colombian Democracy, Human Rights laws, he made the Central Bank independent, and privatized many public service and infrastructure institutions.

He was followed in offfice by Ernesto Samper Pizano also from the Liberal Party who had a difficult campaign against Andrés Pastrana Arango, the candidate of the Colombian Conservative Party. Opinion polls were sharply divided. The elections for President took place on 29 May 1994. Ernesto Samper was elected president by a very narrow margin. Strangely eventually Ernesto Samper became also 16th Secretary General of the Non-Aligned Movement (October 20, 1995 – August 7, 1998). Andres Pastrana and the Conservatives won the Presidency in 1998.

But, there is another parallel story here. Samper was accused shortly after his presidential victory by his opponent and future successor, Andrés Pastrana Arango, of having received campaign donations from the Cali drug cartel in an excess of $6 million US dollars. Samper initially denied the allegations and deemed his political adversary as a sore loser, but soon afterwards a series of tape recordings were released to the public, the so called narco-cassettes. The Prosecutor General at the time, Alfonso Valdivieso, personally led the investigation. Valdivieso was cousin of the late Luis Carlos Galán Sarmiento, a charismatic presidential candidate assassinated by the Medellín Cartel in 1989 for his political views, particularly for favoring the extradition of drug dealers to the United States. Soon, the investigations led by Valdivieso unveiled a more than evident connection between the Cali drug cartel and top figures of Colombia’s society including politicians, journalists, athletes, army and police officers, and artists, among others.

A corollary to the Samper story: As a consequence of the political turmoil, the U.S. government withdrew any political assistance to Samper’s government. For consecutive years, Samper’s administration was lambasted by the US for its supposed failure to make every effort to effectively fight the war against cocaine and the Cali Cartel. Additionally, the US revoked Samper’s visa and thereby effectively banned him from entering the country. Then in July 2006, the present Colombia President, Álvaro Uribe, offered Samper Colombia’s ambassadorship to France. This led to the resignation of Former President and Colombian ambassador to the U.S., Andrés Pastrana, who criticized the decision. Opposition was also expressed by the media, political groups and other parts of Colombian society. In the end, Samper did not accept the offer.

Andres Pastrana was President August 7, 1998 – August 7, 2002, and 17th Secretary General of Non-Aligned Movement only between August 7, 1998 – September 3, 1998 when he was succeeded by Nelson Mandela. In 2002 he was succeeded as President by Álvaro Uribe Vélez who started out as a Liberal Party member, and is now in his second term (till August 7, 2010) as President, seemingly as an Independent.

The International Herald Tribune of May 29, 2006 wrote: “Colombian president wins 2nd term.”
By Juan Forero, BOGOTÁ, Colombia: “President Álvaro Uribe, considered by the Bush administration to be an unswerving caretaker for Washington’s drug war in Latin America, was re-elected Sunday in a landslide to a second four-year term. Colombians gave Uribe 62 percent of the vote, with nearly all of the votes counted. Voters were apparently satisfied that he had made headway during his first term in wresting control of this country from Marxist rebels and drug traffickers. He overwhelmed the second-place finisher, Carlos Gaviria, a left-of-center former Constitutional Court justice who received 22 percent of the vote, and Horacio Serpa, the Liberal Party’s standard-bearer, who garnered less than 12 percent. “

We wrote this lengthy introduction in order to be able to say that seemingly - the Branco-Gaviria times in Colombian recent history were probably the best days the country has seen for a long time - though, it is now the tough hand of President Uribe that is most appreciated by Washington.

Dr. ALEXANDRO TOLEDO was democratically elected President of Peru from July 2001-July 2006. He was elected by narrowly defeating former President Alan García. It was Toledo’s second presidential race in just 13 months. A year earlier he ran against incumbent Alberto K. Fujimori. Toledo dropped out of the runoff election amid widespread allegations that the election was rigged in Fujimori’s favor. Months after being reelected, Fujimori fled to his native Japan and resigned via fax after the broadcast of Fujimori’s chief spy, Vladimiro Montesinos, evidently bribing an opposition congressman to switch parties.

Toledo was born in a small and remote village in the Peruvian Andes, 12,000 feet above sea level. He is one of sixteen brothers and sisters from a family of extreme poverty. His father was a bricklayer and his mother sold fish at markets. At the age of six, he worked as a street shoe shiner and simultaneously sold newspapers and lotteries to supplement the family income.

At age 16, with the guidance of members of the Peace Corps, Toledo enrolled at the University of San Francisco on a one-year scholarship. He continued his education, obtaining a partial soccer scholarship and making up the difference by pumping gas.

In addition to two masters degrees, he earned a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford, where he met his wife, Elaine Karp, a Belgian-born American anthropologist. Dr. Toledo was able to go from extreme poverty to the most prestigious academic centers of the world, later becoming one of the most prominent democratic leaders of Latin America. He is the first Peruvian president of indigenous descent to be democratically elected in five hundred years.

Dr. Toledo attributes his academic and political accomplishments as being the result of a statistical error. His most precious dream and work now is that other men and women of the large socially excluded Peruvian and Latin American population can also become presidents of their respective countries by having access to quality health care and education.

On the stump, like the most experienced politicians, Toledo knows how to work a crowd, whether addressing peasants or potential foreign investors. Seamlessly transitioning from a buttoned-down, eloquent economist to a rebel outfitted in jeans, a t-shirt, and a bandana, Toledo is well versed in international trade and promises to give voice to the labor movement.

Mostly, though, Toledo has preached a centrist platform, pledging to award small-business loans to farmers, balance the budget, lure foreign investment, and create jobs. Toledo’s moderate campaign and carefully selected issues have found broad appeal.

President Toledo first appeared on the international political scene in 1996 when he formed and led a broad democratic coalition in the streets of Peru to bring down the autocratic regime of Alberto Fujimori. This coalition had the support of the international democratic community.

During the five years of Dr. Toledo’s presidency, the Peruvian economy grew at an average rate of 6 percent, registering as one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America. Inflation averaged 1.5 percent and fiscal deficit went as low as 0.2 percent. While markets in China and Thailand were opened, free trade agreement negotiations with the United States, Chile, Mexico and Singapore were about to conclude. These markets were generating new investments and jobs for the most poverty-stricken Peruvians.

The fight against poverty through health and educational investment was the central aim of Dr. Toledo’s presidency. As a result of sustained economic growth and deliberate social policies directed to the most poor, extreme poverty was reduced by 25 percent in five years. Employment grew at an average rate of 6 percent from 2004-2006.


Before becoming President, Dr. Toledo worked for the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, and the United Nations in New York.

During his academic years, Professor Toledo was a visiting scholar and a research associate at Harvard University and Waseda University in Tokyo. He is currently an economics professor (on leave) at the University of ESAN in Peru.

1986-1991: Director, Economic Development Institute (IDE/ESAN), Lima, Peru.

1989: Leader of the PNUD/OIT mission for the evaluation of: “Impact of Macroeconomic Policies on Growth, Employment and Salaries” in six Central American countries, UNDP/ New York.

1981- 1983: Chairman of the Economic Advisory Committee to the President of the Central Reserve Bank and the Labor Minister in Peru under President Fernando Belaunde.

1981-1983: General Director, Institute of Economic and Labor Studies, Ministry of Labor and Social Development. Lima, Peru.

Current Activities:

-Payne Distinguished Visiting Lecturer at the Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies (FSI - Stanford University) and Visiting Scholar at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) for the 2007-2008 academic year.

-Distinguished Fellow in residency at the Center for Advanced Studies and Behavioral Science (CASBS) at Stanford for the 2006-2008 academic years.

-Founder and President of the Global Center for Development and Democracy (GCDD), which studies the interrelationship between poverty, inequality, and the future of democratic governance.

To read more about this amazing man who is an unusual giant hidden in a diminutive figure - see please: http://fsi.stanford.edu/people/alejandro…
Gaviria was the first to make an introductory speech. He said he was happy to be here with Toledo, because of Toledo’s attempt to bring back democracy to Peru. This is needed now in Colombi