Greetings Mr. Racheotes,

In response to your piece "Immigration Compromise, too little to late...." from July 26th, 2007, I would like to present to you some real questions that I believe truly reflect the will of the American People. I would like to preface w/the fact that I'm a 34 year old, African-American, from Kansas. I lived in Mexico City as an exchange student during my senior year in high school and loved my familia Mexicana so much that I returned on 3 different occasions to have 12-16 weeks 'live-in' visits with them. As a younger man, I witnessed first hand Mexico's foray into the global economy, NAFTA and to Mexico's present day GDP ranking 12th in the world according to the World Bank. I know as well, as you, that Mexico is not a poor country, but has a lot of her citizens who live in poverty, thus my email to you today. Poverty, my friend, is the greatest enemy of the people on both sides of the border and here is where my question's come in to you. In your article you outline the common political argument's and/or sound bytes, such as, American's losing job's, wages being depressed, the 'criminalization' of people who enter illegally, that 'nativists' or restrictionist are a recent phenomena, immigrant's don't assimilate, the environmental impact and the war on terror. I would like to present to you the following questions, because as an American, I often feel that the actual American people are not consulted in this as it seems only migrant's, first or second generation, their lobbyist or the politicians seem to be the only voices heard on the matter.

So, Mr. Racheotes, is it not true that that this is largely an issue between The United States and Mexico? Our proximity,history, present and our future is our commonality. Mexico, is by far the largest source of illegal immigration, because the masses from say Lithuania, Haiti or Guatemala, don't have the option of walking through the deserts, mountains or rivers to reach the promise land. Also doesn't Mexico have 47 consular offices throughout the U.S.? So, in my opinion, we should give Mexico what she's been begging for all along a 'special' agreement between the two lands allowing for the free flow of people, as well as goods and services between the two nations. However, this could only happen if we can get Mexico's people, her pro-immigration lobby and President Calderone on board with channeling of their energies into real change in their house FIRST!!! On a micro scale, you and I are neighbors and I'm living in modest house on a meager existence and you have much the same, except your existence isn't so meager and your house is 13 times the size of my house. Your family is large with 1/2 of them doing really well, but the other 1/2 struggling to survive on a daily basis and really they don't have anything. My family, while also large is doing quite well, with only about 10% living in poverty, but opportunity exists to affect change. Because I have more does not give you carte blanche access to my house to further yourself and your needs. It would only be proper for you to knock on the front door and await my permissions to enter. Correct? On a macro scale, The US has acted with impunity or imperialistically in her historic actions and yes, we did take land from Mexico 160 years ago, but we all have to come to terms with the our present. The US also allowed slavery until shortly after this war, a morally bankrupted policy, but it is our American History. So,my point is if Mexico feels that she needs her land back, that should have been addressed centuries ago. So, geopolitics has altered the landscape and the outlook of some of it's inhabitants, but we common American's see such much energy being focused on changing our government's policies, but see no effort's in Mexico City to change the outlook of her peoples, to stamp out corruption and the lack of transparency. It would be nice for the American people to know that there is just as much passion for change at home as well as here, but we do not see this. We see millions of Mexican flags waving in the streets, millions of Mexican dollars being spent on immigration lobbying (sustaining those remittances, no doubt), even branding their efforts as Ya! Ciuadana! Also, according the an email from sarajuanavir.sre.gob.mx, if I attempt to enter Mexico City without a passport, I will be detained, arrested and deported for violating the entry requirements for La Republica Mexicana. She also went on to detail that if I purchase a home in Mexico, I'm required to pay taxes on my property but am not allowed to work without the proper permissions of their government. Again, a violation of Mexican law, which is criminally punishable and a deportable offense. So, in short, it feels as if many Open Borders Advocacy groups want the very thing that even their home country will not permit. I know first hand that many citizens in and from Mexico cry racists because US immigration policy doesn't work in their favor, yet many Guatemalans and Cubans are picked up by Mexico's department of Immigration Control and guess what, detained and then shipped back to their home base. As an African-American, I've also witnessed the cultural racism that exists in Mexico towards the Indian populous and even the attitudes towards the children of Africa who've been scattered throughout the earth. Another question or actually concern of the average American, is the immigrants who want so desperately to cling to their national identity. It's rather unsettling to know that I live in an area where a large percentage of my 'neighbors' are really concerned about our great nation first and foremost. I understand dual loyalties or even divided, but when a people live in a place that they have no allegiance too, it's quite disturbing. Of course I know that a lot of what we are experiencing in these times has a lot to do with globalization. But, I believe the average everyday American would like our Southern neighbors to love their country more so and not be afraid to live there and to be enabled to thrive there, like Canada. Again, it's the ruling superclass on both sides of the Rio that are going to have an awful future to face if they continually ignore the plight of the people. But it is absolutely not fair for one to dump their poor on the other.

Best Regards,

Derrick Osborne

PAN-MACEDONIAN ASSOCIATION USA ANSWERS ZLATKO KOVACH’S ALLEGATIONS ON Macedonia: Reaching Out To Win L. American Hearts

Zlatko Kovach, in his Macedonia: Reaching Out To Win L. American Hearts, proves one more time that he is the product of the continuous brainwashing condition and lies, provided by an education system which emerged from a Balkan nation, under Tito’s and Stalin’s tutelage.

Mr. Kovach begins his elaborations, stating: “Macedonia historically and culturally did transcend the country's current borders. In 1912-13, through two brutal regional wars, Macedonia was forcefully partitioned among Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. The Macedonians were subject to qualified genocide and many were driven from their land. It is this reality that Greece tirelessly tries to cover up.” Mr. Kovach fails to bring up that during the Ottoman era which lasted for five hundred years and ended in 1912 in that area, there was no use of the term Macedonia (meaning the boundaries of the geographic or ancient Macedonia). Ancient Macedonia was divided in two vilaets, the vilaet of Thessaloniki and the vilaet of Monastiri (Bitola). Skopje was the capital of the Kosovo vilaet and was never included in the so-called geographic Macedonia.

The author of this article is referring to the Slavic element that existed in Macedonia as part of a “Macedonian” nation whose people were wronged and “were subject to qualified genocide and many were driven from their land.” He however fails to explain why there was no “Macedonian ARMY” to fight for the rights of the supposed “ethnic Macedonians” during the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. In addition during the negotiating talks of the Bucharest Treaty, which determined today’s borders with Greece’s neighbors, there were no representatives of any “Macedonian Nation”. The 1914 Carnegie Report (Report of the International Commission to Report on the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars) not only did not record the existence of a “Macedonian” army, but neither did it record the existence of any “ethnic Macedonian” civilians.

The Slavs did not arrive in the region until the sixth century AD. Until 1944, the area that is now legally referred to as the FYROM was called "Vardarska Banovina" until the Hellenic name of Macedonia was usurped by Marshall Broz Tito. According to Interim Accord (Sept. 13, 1995) and under the aegis of UN (UN Resolutions #817 of April 7 and #845 of June 18) of the year 1993, the temporary name until both countries, Greece and the aforementioned state, reach a permanent solution about this issue, is “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, or simply The

FYROM. The Interim Accord was signed by BOTH Greece and The FYROM, and its purpose was to find a name for the aforementioned country.

“…Greece labeled any use of Alexander the Great’s name by Macedonia as hostile propaganda…it was the Macedonian forces of Alexander the Great, led by his father King Philip II of Macedon, that beat the entire Greek army at Chaeronia in B.C. and conquered the modern Greeks’ ancestors,” writes Mr. Kovach. The author however, plunged into oblivion that the FYROM propaganda machination has provided for him, does not understand that his government’s actions over the years, such as distortions of geographic maps, revision of textbooks in their schoolbooks, renaming of their airport “Alexander the Great,” create hostility and animosity among their youth which is lacking knowledge to mainstream history. These actions and not Greece’s are the true threats to stability and have become the obstacle to their accession into EU and NATO.

The FYROM is a small country in the southern Balkans with very serious external and internal problems. It is the only country in Europe that succeeded in having open serious conflicts, with no prospect of resolution, with each of its four neighbors. Incredibly however, they have an entirely different type of conflict with each one of these neighbors.

In the north with Serbia who is a member State with The Partnership for Peace and an aspiring new NATO member, they have an open conflict with their schismatic illegal church, the so-called “Macedonian Orthodox Church” and this fact has angered their Serbian northern neighbor.

On the eastern side Bulgaria, a NATO member, does not recognize the so-called “Macedonians” as a distinct nation, nor a “Macedonian” language and accuses the FYROM of stealing its history. Amazingly enough The FYROM currently seems to have claims either linguistically or ethnologically to approximately 20% of the territory of this NATO ally of ours, Bulgaria.

On the west side the citizens of Albania clearly do not consider, and rightfully so, that 25% of the

population of The FYROM should be called “Macedonians.” They consider them their Albanian brethren.

In the south they succeeded in angering Greece, and especially us, the true Macedonians, by using our identity and stealing our glorious history. After all Alexander the Great the Macedonian, spoke Greek, used the Hellenic alphabet, carried Homer’s works with him and spread the Hellenic language and civilization throughout the then known world. He did not speak the Bulgarian dialect that The FYROM people speak; he did not use the Cyrillic alphabet, which had not even appeared till about one thousand years after his death. Alexander the Great is our Abraham Lincoln, as he united the North and the South of the Hellenic World under Hellas.

Mr. Kovach seems to forget something very important. The Greek businesses that exist in his country right now have created over 30.000 jobs in FYROM’s depleted economy. Greece actually is helping its neighboring country to prosper economically and is guiding the FYROM on its way to EU and NATO, under one condition: the Slavs cannot be ethnically, linguistically or culturally Macedonians simply because they did not exist in this area until the 6^th century AD, when they descended from Siberia and settled there. The Hellenic name Macedonia, which had always identified the northern area of Greece, preceded the introduction of the majority Slavic population of The FYROM in the Balkans by well over 2000 years. It is therefore of utmost importance that their nationality and language does not include the term “Macedonian.”

The author continuing the myth which he learned in the schooling he received, writes: “Greece is administratively divided into thirteen regions, three of which include the word Macedonia: "Region of Western Macedonia", "Region of Central Macedonia" and "Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace", but take notice that none of the regions are named simply "Macedonia." The liberation of present day Greece

from the Ottomans did not happen simultaneously in all former Greek territories, but it happened in different stages. In 1912-13, parts of Macedonia and Epirus were liberated. Since then Macedonia has been called as such. In fact, the first administrator in Thessaloniki in 1913 was called “Governor of Macedonia”. The term Northern Greece was ONLY for the Greek Ministry in Thessaloniki, because it included the region of Thrace as well. The Minister of this part of the Greek mainland is therefore called, the Minister of Macedonia and Thrace.

We agree that every country has the right to exist and find a proper name for itself, as long as no other ethnic group had previously rights to the same name. No German would allow a non-German ethnicity to call itself Bavarian. Therefore it is impossible for Greece to allow any non-Greek people identified as Macedonian, because the name implies Greek identity. The same would be true for Peloponnesus/Peloponnesians, Thessaly/Thessalians, etc., all being parts of the Hellenic world and identity for thousands of years. The name Macedonia/Macedonian has been copyrighted by Greece for thousands of years. Greece used the self-determination right first and she named one of her provinces Macedonia, first.

The analysis was prepared by Professor Nina Gatzoulis, President of the Pan-Macedonian Association and edited by Dr. Antonios Papadopoulos, Vice-President of the Pan-Macedonian Association.

Greek Ambassador to Washington Responds to Op-Ed piece by COHA Senior Research Fellow Zlatko Kovach

The points made by Zlatko Kovach in Op-Ed piece, Macedonia: Reaching Out to Win Latin American Hearts and Minds, have been responded to by the Ambassador of Greece to the United States of America, Alexandros P. Mallias, in the following letter.


March 19, 2008


I must admit that Zlatko Kovach’s article entitled “Macedonia: Reaching out to win Latin American Hearts and Minds,” published on February 25, 2008, left me with a strong sense of surprise and amazement.

Aside from questioning Mr. Kovach’s dubious historical references regarding Greece as well as his own country, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), the article fails to acknowledge Greece’s significant role in the political and economic stability of FYROM and gives, I am afraid, COHA readers the wrong impression about Greece’s true role in the Balkan region.

As a longstanding EU and NATO member, Greece is a strong advocate of these organizations’ perspective as well as a supporter of the FYROM’s political, social and economic stability. In fact, Greece is currently the largest investor in FYROM, with over $1 billion of its capital invested there, translating to more than 30,000 jobs. Moreover, through the Hellenic Plan for the Economic Reconstruction of the Balkans (HiPERB), Greece has pledged the amount of approximately $112,260,000 of development aid for FYROM.

FYROM joined the United Nations and all relevant UN Agencies and Bodies under this official international name. UN Security Council Resolution 817 (1993) specifically provides that “the difference over the name of the state (i.e. FYROM) needs to be resolved in the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good neighborly relations in the region.”

FYROM, therefore, participates in all international organizations and conferences under this official name. Indeed, it is under that name that it established relations with the European Union and NATO, and gained membership to the Organization for the Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In fact, no single regional or international organization refers to FYROM by any other name. Greece does abide with UN Resolutions 817 and 845 and seeks a solution to the name issue within the United Nations framework.

Your article also fails to recognize that Greece’s stance has very strong support in the United States Congress, which can be no mere coincidence. Senate Resolution 300, introduced by Senator Robert Menendez, and co-sponsored by Senators Barack Obama and Olympia Snowe, urges FYROM to cease hostile activities and propaganda against Greece, and reach a mutually acceptable solution. In addition, over 115 Congressmen have thus far co-sponsored House Resolution 356 on the same topic in the House of Representatives.

Crucial and delicate negotiations are currently in progress under the United Nations auspices, and intensive diplomatic efforts are required on both sides to reach a mutually acceptable solution prior to the upcoming NATO Summit in April 2008. The Greek government has taken a significant step towards that direction by announcing Greece’s readiness to accept a composite name for the FYROM with a geographic qualifier.

It is now time for FYROM and its leadership to reach out and demonstrate the political maturity, which will bring an end to the name issue, and clear the path to its European and NATO perspective. Mr. Kovach may still argue that the current United Nations process, as provided for by the UN Security Council Resolutions 817(1993) and 845(1993), is unfair to his country. But he will once again have forgotten that, as an aspiring EU and NATO member, FYROM needs, first of all, to realize that abiding with international law obligations is not an “artificial dispute” imposed by Greece, but rather a fundamental code of conduct, which applies to all.

Jorge Luis Borges once said: “For the longest time, my contemporaries are the Greeks”, which in itself sums up the profound cultural, intellectual and spiritual bonds between Greece and Latin America. Greece’s longstanding relationship with Latin American countries is furthermore characterized by strong historic ties of friendship, solidarity and cooperation. Despite the geographical distance, Greece and Latin American countries have forged a close bond between their peoples by sharing and defending precious common values, such as security, democracy and peace, concepts enshrined in the UN and OAS Charters.

I am confident that the friendly Latin American countries understand that Greece greatly respects the identity and culture of others. I am also confident that they also understand the importance for countries, which claim to abide by the rules of international law, to also act so, in order to respect the historic and cultural heritage of their neighbors, and not systematically engage in provocative propaganda prejudicial to the fundamental principle of good neighborliness. I am afraid that at this time, this is the case with FYROM’s policies vis-a-vis Greece.




*******

COHA's response to commentary on the FTAs piece

COHA would like to thank its readers for their contribution to the debate on Free Trade Agreements.

(See COHA press release Peru, Yes; Colombia? Free Trade Agreements: Lessons from Latin America’s Recent Past)

--------------------------------------

Regarding Hugo Fitch’s comments:

“LatAm is better educated than you think. It’s not just economists like Rafael Correa, but the Argentinian government, and the bitter experience of the poor of the whole continent that can demonstrate what these deals really mean - more inequality. Please don’t be so dismissive of those who oppose FTAs. If the US wants favourable deals it must concede rights to nations who cannot afford to subsidise their own markets on the US/EU models, namely the chance to protect them with specific tariffs. But such deals are never put on the table, because FTAs are not about fairness but profit and buying influence to stop LatAm working together for itself.”

Of course Mr. Fitch is correct.

COHA was not trying to be dismissive of those who oppose FTAs with the U.S. Actually, the piece describes the viewpoints of those who oppose U.S.-backed FTAs: the "TLC: Así No" movement in Peru, the opposition by Colombian leaders, the comments by an economist in Chile who opposes the current U.S.-Chile FTA, among others.

There are many well-prepared economists in the region who deserve credit. Unfortunately, those Latin American economists and leaders who disagree with the conditions of U.S.-backed FTAs usually do not get to sit at the negotiation table.

--------------------------------------

Regarding Richard Vizor’s comments:

“But to categorically state that there were massive human rights violations during Garcia’s first term is nonsense and totally incorrect. If they want to find massive, tell them to look up Fujimorii’s tenure and, the actions of Montesino. In fact, this is what Fujimori’s is most favorably known for in Peru … he stopped the Sendero. It certainly was not Garcia who had already vacated power BEFORE the most gruesome of the Sendero’s actions (and, the Government’s reactions to them). Get your facts straightened out, Messrs. COHA!!!”

Of course, he is right in saying that Fujimori was far more guilty than Garcia in sanctioning the murder of thousands of members of Sendero and those thought to be their sympathizers. But here are some facts that suggest that Garcia was guilty of rights violations during his first term in office and never had to answer them.

-According to the U.N., in 1987 there were 559 forced disappearances worldwide, of which 133 (nearly one fourth), occurred in Peru. During Garcia’s term, Peru had the highest number of forced disappearances in the world.

-Human Rights Watch says in a report: “García first served as president from 1985 to 1990, at the height of a bloody civil conflict in which an estimated 69,000 people lost their lives, many of them victims of atrocities committed by irregular armed groups and by government forces.”

-Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported that the armed forces were responsible for 28 percent of the 69,280 who were killed or disappeared.

-Salomon Lerner, president of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, said “We have reconstructed history and we have reached the conclusion that it would not have been so grave if it were not for the indifference, passivity, and simple ineptness of those who held the highest political office at the time.”

For all of his bluster, President Garcia’s record deserves close examination and not plaudits.

--------------------------------------

Regarding jb’s comments:

“This FTA request was initiated by the Toledo administration. Had Congress not played politics and delayed this approval (only to rub it in Bush’s nose) it would have been approved while Alejandro Toledo was still in office. Toledo was never a part of any dirty war.”

Toledo was never a part of any dirty war and he did initiate the FTA request. But Toledo introduced the FTA with the U.S. to the legislature during his final months in office. Peru’s push for the deal has taken place mostly during Garcia’s second term. Therefore, Garcia will be willing to interpret the approval of the trade deal as his own political success.

Regarding COHA's coverage of Haiti

Dear Larry Birns,

Greetings from South Africa, my name is Thabo Sanyane formerly [2003-2006] with the center for latin american at the university of south africa[ where Aristide currently works] as a research fellow in the faculty of religious studies.

It was during this time that i was introduced to COHA I have never missed any issue ever since , your coverage on Haiti does not need one to have decades of knowledge about the politics of this country to know what is going on and make informed analysis, I continue to discuss and interact with Aristide from time to time and my conclusion of the man is that he is a 'Nelson Mandela" to his people and hope that one day he will be treated as part of the solution in Haiti not as a problem. I was moved by your last sentence on the -Preval goes it alone, but what about Aristide, " Preval and the national assembly will be respectful as they try to repair the nation and its basic institutions, as well as honor Aristide for his undeniable contribution helping build a good society, as Haiti moves on to better days.

As a non Zulu speaking South African every time I meet Aristide I become proud of him in the manner he is mastered to learn to speak Zulu, he has recently finished his Doctoral studies comparing Haitian cultures and African cultures making a contribution towards knowledge production in my country. may the ancestors protect and guide him on his ways.

regards,


Thabo Sanyane

Venezuela: some cautionary words from Prof. Thomas Walker

Thomas Walker is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Director Emeritus of Latin American Studies at Ohio University.


As a grizzly, grumpy old professor who has watched the behavior of the United States in Latin America for a number of years, I am increasingly worried nowadays about the real possibility that the US may be about to foment a coup in Venezuela. We've done it a number of times in other countries and unsuccessfully once in Venezuela itself in 2002.

I would ask you all to be very suspicious if our media and government start beating their breast over the killing of peaceful opposition marchers in the planned demonstration protesting the constitutional referendum this Sunday. As a Nicaraguanist I remember the CIA's lengthy terror manual, Psychological Operations in Guerrila Warfare (by "Tayacan") instructing the Nicaraguan opposition in a variety of very dirty tricks to be employed in overthrowing the Sandinista government. This document was published in English in 1985 and is easily available in hard copy or on the line in English, Spanish or Portuguese.

Of interest to us in particular should be pages 84 and 85. On p.85 "Tayacan" instructs us that "If possible, professional criminals will be hired to carry out specific selected 'jobs'." Then, on the very next page, he tells us that "Specific tasks will be assigned to others, in order to create a 'martyr' for the cause, taking the demonstrators to a confrontation with the authorities, in order to bring about uprisings or shootings, which will cause the death of one or more persons who will become martyrs..."

The clear implication is that, if the government does not oblige in creating the requisite "martyr" or "martyrs" this should be done by the aforementioned "professional criminals hired to carry out selected 'jobs'" - i.e. sniper assassins.

You may or may not remember, that in the failed coup attempt of 2002, the "brutal murder of unarmed demonstrators" was served up to us by the US and Venezuelan opposition media as a "last straw" justifying the overthrow of the evil Chavez. A number of demonstrators had, indeed, been shot dead. The perfect touch! And the anti-Chavez media showed red-shirted Chavez supporter firing off a bridge and anti-Chavez demonstrators in a crowd of marchers falling from fatal gun wounds. The only problem with this juxtaposition of images is that the Chavistas were actually firing down a largely empty avenue in the direction of a unit of rebel Caracas police, while the "marters" were being killed very professionally by gunmen firing from a completely different direction and obviously using extremely accurate weapons which could inflict one fatal wound after another. For more on that see La Revolucion no Sera Transmitida, a documentary shot during the coup attempt.

Not that Chavistas have not shot people. However, I would urge us all to be skeptical if in a few days we are treated to yet another "perfect storm" of coup-justifying propaganda a la "Tayacan" and Venezuela 2002.

Regarding "Nearly All-White Argentina Confronts Its Troubled Racist and Religious Past"

COHA would like to thank Hugh Schwartz for his insight into this important topic. Dr. Schwartz was a Fulbright Lecturer and held visiting professorships in finance and economics in Uruguay, Brazil, and Mexico.


I think that this article is quite admirable. Even so, there are a few items that might be noted.

During the first Peron administrations, there was a substantial immigration into the country from Paraguay, Bolivia and Peru, and a substantial flow of persons from Northern Argentina to Greater Buenos Aires and Rosario of "cabezas negras" --both groups of which were almost entirely mestizo, mixed Indian and white (though largely of Indian background). These darker skinned inhabitants continue as part of Argentina's population and are probably of the order of 10-12% of the population.

A small but significant portion of Jewish immigration during the 1890s and early 1900s went to Entre Rios and Santa Fe, particularly to agricultural settlements, aided by a prominent Jewish philanthropist from France. While much of that group eventually migrated to Greater Buenos Aires, some still remain active in agriculture and pursuits related to agriculture. In the past, several of the provincial Ministers of Agriculture in that part of Argentina have been Jewish. Argentina's Jewish population probably was of the order of 350,000 - 500,000 during the period from the 1940s through the 1960s and may have been 2-3% of the population, comparable to the proportion in the U.S. Many emigrated to Israel and the U.S. The percentage of the population that is Jewish these days is probably between 1 and 2%, higher than the 1% in Uruguay (which was once about 1 1/2 %), and much higher than in all other Latin American countries, in none of which is it even as high as a quarter of one percent.

Hugh Schwartz