Concerning Rachel Wood's Costa Rica Piece

Read the original article here

This is an excellent corrective, much appreciated, so don’t take the following comments as scholarly nit-pickings. But a few points.

One, the NEF study actually put Costa Rica’s ecological footprint–not its carbon footprint–above the sustainable level in terms of global per-capita hectares. In their study, the NEF researchers themselves admit that the measuring system is probably overly-generous to humanity [perversely, then, anti-generous in a funny way], not allowing for how much of the biosphere needs to be totally fallow in order for it to re-generate. I don’t mean to suggest that you wrote the contrary, but someone could get that impression.

Two, tree-farming construed in its most generous terms is a variant of carbon-farming, e.g. taking carbon out of atmospheric circulation and placing it into the biosphere. As part of a systematic approach to carbon draw-down, such efforts can be effective. Planting trees is less effective than building up carbon reserves in the soil through agro-ecological practices, but one thing you seem to miss is that planting trees can actually allay or stop desertification–the most extreme form of soil destruction. I can’t cite chapter and verse, but as an integrated approach, converting a given patch of land from, say, an input-heavy agricultural production unit ["farm" is the euphemism we use for such chemical food factories, I think] or brown-lot to forested land or pasture saps a great deal of carbon from the atmosphere and locks it in both biomass above ground–where it may be vulnerable–or below-ground, where it often isn’t. Soil’s total carbon-storage capacity is unknown, but far higher than the amount of carbon it currently holds. The issue isn’t merely “soil quality,” as you put it, but soil’s ability to draw-down carbon from the atmosphere.

Three, obviously, this shouldn’t be taken to mean industrial trash-tree plantations are defensible. They’re ecologically indefensible, and I’ve seen nothing to the contrary. In a similar vein, the REDD programs are enormously flawed, often privatizing indigenous or communal land for the purposes of carbon “offsets.”

Four, the amount of carbon the industrial revolution added to the atmosphere is usually measured starting at c. 1750, and you’re correct when you note that the majority of that carbon is the result of the burning of fossil fuels. However, there’s a bit more to the story. It’s not clear to what extent massive desertification is a “natural” occurrence; the destruction of Mesopotamia’s fertility essentially ripped the carbon from the soil and dumped it into the atmosphere. This may be the case in many deserts across the world. Merely restoring as much carbon as we can to the ground through re-vegetation or re-forestation schemes could put a great deal of that carbon back where it belongs. While that wouldn’t have an effect on the fossil-fuel-based carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere, it would draw down carbon. I’m unaware of efforts to measure the effects of desertification or pre-industrial but-intensive farming practices on ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but I’m sure there’s some effort to do so.

Five, I expect you’ll respond, rightly, that this is a dangerous path to go down–because such reversals of what are effectively pre-industrial carbon emissions [but remember the Dust Bowl] can be used to offset current industrial carbon emissions, thereby staving off the point at which we need to make fundamental changes in the political economy of energy consumption in Western industrialized countries. That’s correct–it’s a dangerous path to go down. But we will need to both draw-down current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide as well as radically reduce emissions levels to avoid the worst. I don’t think it’s either/or. The offset issue is in that sense a red-herring. Perhaps offsets can be made to work, perhaps not. Personally, I suspect the latter. But simply because carbon offsets are used to avoid necessary changes in our energy and industrial systems doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to create incentives to pull carbon from the atmosphere via bio-mass. Such incentives shouldn’t be the “offset” systems. Pulling carbon into soil or soil-based biomass has excellent effects for soil fertility and productivity, and can massively add to farmers’ outputs–agro-ecology is then its own incentive, which is as it should be.

I don’t mean to suggest that you’re unaware of all this. You write, “the idea of offsets could be telling society a dangerous lie: that current consumption patterns are sustainable, and that businesses can continue more or less normally. This idea is highly contrary to the real goal, which should be to permanently shift the world economy away from its addiction to fossil fuels,” which I agree with. But as a fellow young writer, you’ll agree, too that we’re running out of time. The permanent shift has to go hand-in-hand with an effort to turn the biosphere into a carbon-farm. That idea is getting short-shrift, and it looks like Costa Rica’s efforts are a pretty pallid version of the more substantive effort that I’d like to see, perhaps so much so as to be worse-than-useless. But the idea behind bio-mass based carbon cultivation shouldn’t be thrown out along with Costa Rica’s misrepresentations of its own efforts.

maxajl

Ad Hoc Memorandum by Honduran Human Rights Activists

Attorney General of Honduras August 7, 2009
Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Luis Alberto Rubi
Attorney General

As the fourth consecutive International Human Rights delegation present in the country since the coup d’état, we are writing to express our deep concern regarding the grave and rapidly deteriorating situation of human rights in Honduras, beginning with the events which occurred early in the morning of June 28th. In the name of the human rights observation groups which have visited (The Bi-Regional European Network Linking Alternatives in Latin America and the Caribbean, The Human Rights Delegation Headed by Rigoberta Menchu, The Center for Justice and International Law, and the Quixote Center/Quest for Peace), we ask that you provide us information about the following cases, and indicate what your office has been doing regarding the troubling human rights situation in Honduras.


We are arranging a continuing presence of delegations for the foreseeable future, and among their principal roles will be following up on these cases on the national level with your office, as well as on the international level. They will monitor your response to this communication, as well as new cases of human rights abuses which may occur.


· What are the investigations which you have initiated and at what stage are the cases of the kidnapping and expatriation of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, President of the Republic, and the Foreign Minister, Patricia Rodas? What have you done to investigate and hold accountable the military and the intellectual authors of these illegal actions?

· We are concerned about the multitude of reports of violations of the right to information which we have heard about. What is the state of investigation of who ordered the temporary cancellation of the program of Hedras Amado Lopez on channel 36, Edgardo Castro from channel 27 as well as the suspension of the radio program “Voices to assure we don’t forget”? Who gave the order for the suspension of Radio Global? We ask you to clarify who is behind the shooting of Radio Juticalpa and Channel 23 in Olanchito. We are also interested in what you have discovered related to the threats being received by journalists in Santa Rosa de Copan. We would encourage you to begin an investigation of these cases if you have not already done so.

· We are also concerned about the suspension of freedom of movement and other constitutionally guaranteed liberties.

· What actions will the public ministry undertake to investigate and prosecute the police and the military given their serious violation of the sovereignty and autonomy of the National University of Honduras, and physical aggression of the rector of the university on August 5th 2009? Police also threatened students, saying that “for every visa that gets revoked, one of you will die.”

· What actions will the public ministry undertake to investigate the forced disappearances of civilians, especially the case of Samuel David Flores Murillo, age 24, of San Pedro Sula?

· What actions will the public ministry undertake to investigate the deaths of, and prosecute those responsible for the deaths of the following nine people:

1. Isis Obed Murillo Mencias, 19 years old
2. Gabriel Fino Noriega, journalist from Radio Estelar, in the department of Atlántida, killed by 7 bullets on July 3rd, as he left his work.
3. Ramón García, leader in the Democratic Union (UD), forced off of public transport when he was coming back from a protest, and riddled with bullets in the area of Santa Bárbara
4. Roger Iván Bados, former unión leader of the textile sector and current member of the UD and Popular Bloque (BP), threatened with death immediately after the coup, and shot to death after being pulled from his own house on July 11 in San Pedro Sula.
5. Vicky Hernández Castillo (Sonny Emelson Hernández), member of the LGTB community, dead in San Pedro Sula from a gunshot to the eye.
6. Alexis Fernando Amador, dressed in a “4th Urn” T-shirt, found dead on Saturday July 3 in the “Agua Blanca” area of Tegucigalpa
7. Roger Abraham Vallejo Soriano, killed on Julio 29, 2009
8. Martin Florencio Rivera Barrientes
9. Pedro Magdiel, killed in El Paraíso

· We’re concerned about the case of Osman Fajardo, the judge assigned to follow up with the writs of habeus corpus filed on behalf of those detained illegally in San Pedro Sula on August 3rd 2009, who was threatened and assaulted by police when he appeared at the police station. What actions will the public ministry undertake to investigate this case and to ensure the safety of all public officials, especially those working to see that the rule of law is upheld in Honduras?

· We are concerned about the case of David Murillo, who was detained after leaving the COFADEH office where he was filing a legal denunciation of the murder of his son at an anti-coup demonstration (listed above). Mr. Murillo is imprisoned in Juticalpa, which he believes is for political reasons. What actions will the public ministry undertake to investigate this case and to ensure that all citizens have access to an efficient and effective justice system?

· A teacher in San Pedro Sula showed us eight anonymous death threats received on his cell phone, including threats against his children. These threats mentioned his past and present political work. He and others believe their names to be on a “death list,” and believe that they are targets for disappearance or assassination. We understand that the staff of the Honduran Institute for Rural Development (IHDER) has also been threatened. What actions will the public ministry undertake to investigate and prosecute those making these threats, as well as to ensure the safety of those threatened for their nonviolent work?

· What actions will the public ministry undertake to investigate and prosecute the police and the military for their attack on the life of Carlos H. Reyes, especially given that he was under preventive measures under the Interamerican Human Rights Commission with its headquarters in DC?

· Have you begun investigations into the various people who have received death threats, like Xenia Sagrado Flores Hernández, who is publicly known, of the teacher Sergio Rivera, who is also publicly known, of the youth Ricardo Antonio Medida, as well as Osman Montecino, to mention just a few.

· What has the Public Ministry done with respect to the torturous treatment suffered by those detained at the 3rd Cell of the Comoyagua Regional Police headquarters and who will be held responsible for the violent eviction?

Thus, Attorney General Luis Alberto, we will be very attentive to your actions regarding the investigations which you undertake in accordance with the pertinent legal requirements should you find sufficient evidence. We are giving you an enormous opportunity for proving your capacity to do your job with objectivity and Independence.

Additional Commentary on Microsoft and Its Abandonment of Cuba

While I'm no Microsoft apologist, when you factor in that Google also yanked services (and they're in direct competition with Microsoft for everything now that they've announced they're building an operating system and very pro open source), and that the ban extended to Iran, Syria, Sudan, etc., it makes it seem more about government intervention. Also the few tech blogs I've read about on this subject and I don't know if these are all interlinked or what say it's a result of Export Administration Regulations, i.e.:


http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:B5EDZ3vnRaoJ:www.gpo.gov/bis/ear/pdf/746.pdf+licensed+software+to+embargoed+countries.&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a


While Cuba is listed as an American "Enemy," it is more to the point about exporting software to "evil" countries and less about Microsoft or the US government specifically targeting Cuba. I have also read rumors that Skype may be following suit too.


Of course it very well may be the other way around as well, it really wouldn't surprise me since Microsoft has used those tactics before, it is just a bit odd that Google would follow suit considering they're directly directly in competition now and I can't imagine them working on anything together.


Interesting as well:
http://www.bnamericas.com/news/telecommunications/CDA_calls_for_probe_into_alleged_Microsoft_IM_restriction


David Birns

**For revised version of this article:
http://www.coha.org/2009/08/an-ailing-e-empire-microsoft-blitzkriegs-cuba-and-latin-america-to-preserve-diminishing-dominance/

Timerman's commitment to democracy

Perhaps you do not see Ambassador Timerman clearly while sitting in his lap. Or perhaps it was the free food. In any case, your aria in the service of the ambassador omitted details that might have helped the reader to form a more accurate picture of those with whom you courageously ate and drank in support of Honduran democracy.

The Argentine government so faithfully served by Timerman is led by a woman who made every effort to accept an $800,000 “contribution” from the leader of another country that was attempting to the influence the electoral outcome in her country. While accepting such funds might be within the cultural bounds for the Latin American left, it is illegal, and is generally considered a disqualifier for leaders who wave the democratic flag. Of course, the case could be made that an ambassador is meta-political, that he serves his country despite the bought-and-paid-for aspect of the national leader. Fair enough.

Fair enough, that is, until the ambassador goes political by defending the transparently dishonest economic data produced by Argentina’s INDEC, as Ambassador Timerman has done. A government that so vigorously and consistently attempts to hide the effects of its policies from the electorate must be seen as anti-democratic. When a putatively meta-political figure such as Ambassador Timerman goes out of his way to defend the government’s systematic lies – even after the electorate has so roundly rejected them – he must be seen as increasingly meta-democratic rather than meta-political. Surely, even you can see past a tray of canapés, however well stacked, to notice his diminished stature as a democrat.

Of course, you might have been distracted by the presence of that other great democrat, Venezuelan ambassador, Alvarez. His employer is stands guilty – and proven so repeatedly -- for its active hostility toward free speech and democratic governance, both at home and abroad. Free speech advocates throughout the world have watched in outrage as the Venezuelan government has seized offending radio and TV stations, barred opposition expression, and as the head of that government has commandeered hundreds of broadcast hours per year to promote his “revolution”.

Neighboring nations that do not satisfy Venezuelan standards of socialist devotion have found that anti-democratic criminal gangs within their borders receive financial and military support from Venezuela.

Surely, if countries with records such as Venezuela’s are democratic champions, the concept of democracy is infinitely elastic.


Bernard McElhone

Readership Dissent on COHA's Piece, "Nicaragua Under Daniel Ortega's Second Presidency: Daniel-style Politics as Usual?"

What is going on with COHA regarding Nicaragua and Honduras? You have recently published some very shabby articles. I critiqued an earlier article by Frank Kendricks about Nicaragua and now fee the need to critique the most recent by Nidy Sarria.

I am going to lift up some quote from the article and comment on them. The quotes are in italics as follows:

“A close examination of Ortega’s second presidency also reveals crude manipulations of the Nicaraguan electorate, shameless seizures of power and under-the-table deal-making”

No such close examination has been made by COHA. What are you talking about?

“(The first Sandinista government [1979-1990] was also marked by corruption and controversy, including human rights violations and numerous scandals”

Those were allegations that came from the Reagan administration, but independent observers found much less corruption in the Sandinista government than in Costa Rica or the other countries of Central America. Human rights violations of the period were almost exclusively by the Reagan-sponsored (illegally) contras.

“Ortega lost the 1990 presidential election to Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, with some help from the CIA”.

The Bush administration put more than $10 million into Violeta’s campaign, in violation of both US and Nicaraguan law. President Bush declared in a press conference after his invasion of Panama and shortly before the 1990 elections in February: I hope the people of Nicaragua are paying attention. A clear threat to the people of Nicaragua about what they could expect if they did not vote correctly.

“Ortega came up with the devious scheme to devote his efforts to lowering the minimum percentage of votes required to win an election””

The scheme was originated by Aleman and accepted by Ortega. While all Sandinista supporters would have preferred that Ortega not even speak to a slimebag like Aleman, his strategy worked, as, much to the dismay of Aleman, it provided the Sandinistas with a victory in 2006. Without the pact, Ortega would have won the first round of the election and lost the second, as the Embassy would have, as it did in every election since 1984, forced all of the opposition parties into a coalition to defeat the Sandinistas.

“The breakaway Sandinista faction MRS, directly suggested that Ortega’s pact with former President Aleman manipulate the election by gaining control of the electoral council responsible for conducting the election”.

The Supreme Electoral Tribunal, which supervises all elections as an independent entity, had exactly the same makeup in 2006 when Ortega was declared the victor, as it had in 2000, when Bolaños won for the Liberals. The pact did not change that at all.

“Consistent with Marxist ideals, social spending in Nicaragua is under the control of the Sandinista party”.

Why is the ruling party’s control of social spending a “Marxist ideal”? The Republicans and Democrats have done that for generations in the US.

“this has infuriated Nicaraguan voters who had been convinced that Ortega had made significant shifts to the right”

None of these folks voted for Ortega. His 38% of the vote was from the very solid block of Sandinista voters. None of the Liberals or Conservatives voted for him.

“This emphasis on state control of public finances was espoused by the Sandinistas in the 1980s”

In what country does the state not control public finances? What is the point here?

“Many Nicaraguans, most notably swing voters, recall Ortega’s past history of distributing private property among loyal Sandinistas and now fear that they will be witnessing future nationalization of privately held businesses and property

There are virtually no swing voters in Nicaragua. What is Orgega’s “past history of distributing private property among loyal Sandinistas”? From 1990 to 2006, Nicaragua witnessed a shameless sellout of publicly-held entities, like the power company, to private and foreign corporations for virtually nothing, which resulted in major increases in the cost of electricity. Most Nicaraguans would deeply appreciate the nationalization of such formerly-owned utilities.

“His grab for power is most evident through the massive allegations of voter fraud in the 2008 municipal elections”

This could have been written by the American Embassy. The “massive allegations” were just that. Massive allegations are not evidence. No evidence has been presented to date to support such allegations. How can COHA simply repeat these allegations as though they were fact?

“Some parties were not allowed to field their candidates, creating a situation in which many voters were forced to choose between parties they did not necessarily support”

This is the allegation made by the MRS, a dissident group led by former Sandinista Vice President Sergio Ramirez. He tried to take over the Frente Sandinista in 1993 and was soundly trounced by the rank and file. He formed the MRS to support his candidacy for the presidency ever since. The MRS has never managed to get more than 7% of the popular vote. The Electoral Law that was passed by the Bolaños government in 2004 has a requirement that in order to be on the national ballot, any party has to field a majority number of candidates in every part of the country. The Supreme Electoral Council gave the MRS an extra year to meet that requirement, but they never did, so by the law that was passed before the Sandinistas came to power, the MRS was blocked from fielding candidates, for lack of candidates, not by any political manipulation by Daniel Ortega. And it was Wilfredo Navarro, the Liberal Party’s legal representative, who made the denunciation about the illegal activities of MRS, which led to their exclusion. The Sandinitas were only spectators in this activity.

“the FSLN decided not to accredit independent local observers as well as most international monitors, including observers from the European Union, the Organization of American States, and the Carter Center, preventing them from effectively overseeing the actual election process”.

Having watched many of these international groups give approval to openly fraudulent elections in 1995 and 2000, the Sandinistas were rightly skeptical about allowing them to observe again. Around 150 election observers monitored the elections and agreed they were well-organized, free and fair. These were professional electoral specialists from the Protocolo de Tikal group, the Protocolo de Quito group and the Council of Latin American Electoral Experts. Together they represented observers from the electoral authorities of around a dozen Latin American countries.

“The opposition claims that marked ballots were dumped after the November 9 election, that non-FSLN party members were refused access to some of the vote counting sessions, and that some of the tallies from polling places could have been altered”.

Such allegations without any evidence ever being presented are totally specious and should not be repeated by a group that professes to be somewhat objective, like COHA.

a segment of the Nicaraguan media has been a steadfast critic of the Ortega administration, criticizing the shortcomings of his government by exposing the government’s multiple acts of corruption as well as frequently condemning the administration through other means. Students, too, represent a significant segment of the anti-Ortega opposition, organizing through online social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, and assembling through marches, protests, and other forms of recalcitrant behavior”” .

Virtually all of the Nicaraguan media, with the exception of the Sandinista TV channel, is engaged in what can only be called pamphleteering. Very little of their publications could come anywhere near the basic standards for journalism. Unfounded allegations and outrageous “spins” are the mainstay of La Prensa and El Nuevo Diario. So-called scandals are frontpage news, without any evidence ever being presented. In the USA these papers would have gone broke years ago from lawsuits for libel and slander. In so-called dictatorial Nicaragua, they publish such junk daily.

The students who oppose the Sandinista government are nearly all from middle and upper-middle class groups. What else is new?

“it seems that for the moment, his (Ortega’s) hold on power is firm. Bolstered by his core base of supporters, as well as his proclivity for matching broad social moves with shameless political manipulations

What are these “shameless political manipulations”? More allegations without evidence.

“Ortega has even called for changes in the constitution in order to extend term limits and eventually allow him to run for reelection

At the 30th Anniversary celebration of the Sandinista victory over Somoza, Daniel Ortega suggested that the Constitution be changed to allow reelection (as in the US, for instance; or in France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Brazil, etc., etc.), with the addition of a Recall Referendum mechanism that would allow the people to recall a president if they became dissatisfied with his/her performance in office. Sounds pretty good. We could have used something like that around 2005 in the US.

Throughout the article the use of the terms “Marxist”, “Marxist-inspired”, etc., is sprinkled, without any suggestion of what they mean. This is normally called yellow journalism, and is not worthy of publication by COHA.

“This public appeal has been condemned by Nicaraguan opposition lawmakers, although this initiative is the least of his malfeasances.”

When COHA refers to “the least of his malfeasances” without reference to anything specific, I fear you are leaving yourselves open to a lawsuit for libel under US law. Out of respect for your more-than-thirty years of excellent work, I suggest you be more careful about editing such articles.

Fred Morris

Comments on COHA's Piece, "Puerto Rican Nationalism and the Drift Toward Statehood"

This is probably one of the best researched articles I have recently read about Puerto Rico. The analysis of the data seems to me flawed by unreal conceptual constructs (culture, and nationalism vs. economic dependence and statehood). I respectfully suggest a personality perspective. Five hundred and sixteen years of colonialism have shaped the Puerto Rican personality into two distinctively opposite poles; the colonized personality vs. the non-colonized personality, Ref. “The Governor’s Suits”. HR 2499 is a manifestation of the non-colonized personality of Puerto Ricans searching for a dialogue with the metropolis to end colonialism in Puerto Rico. The opposition to this project speaks for those colonized personalities who want to perpetuate colonialism in Puerto Rico. This proposal will never reach consensus in Puerto Rico because we are divided between the ones that want to end the colonial status and the ones who want to perpetuate the colonial status. Not having a dialogue with the US Congress is a way to perpetuate the colonial status. The ones who want to perpetuate colonialism oppose a direct dialogue between the people of Puerto Rico and the US Congress. At this stage, the issue is not to decide between Independence, Statehood or Sovereignty, but rather that we want to be heard as people and not represented by political leaders who have perpetuated this colonial status for the past 516 years with their trivial, tribal fights. All of these politicians are ignorant as to how their proposals will be shaped in reality because this dialogue between the Puerto Rican people and the US Congress has never happened. Mature relationships are not defined just by a one-sided perception of reality but by consensually agreed meanings. In my opinion, what is happening in Puerto Rico is a drift toward the non-colonized personality and away from the colonized personality that has characterized most of us for these past 516 years.

Guillermo González

War on Drugs: Not Too Big to Fail (COHA Op-Ed)

Nick Elledge
COHA Research Associate

Is legalization the idealistic response to drugs, or is prohibition the right approach?

I was blocked head-on by two humvees full of armed Mexican soldiers while on my way to pay respects to a friend. Twelve assault rifles and two .50 caliber machine guns were aimed at my face as I stepped out of the vehicle. I didn’t ask any questions because I knew exactly why it was happening. This was Ciudad Juárez.
I found out later that 54 people were killed that weekend just a half-mile from where I slept. All I wrote in my journal that Friday night was that the stars looked amazing. What’s amazing is how unaware we can be sometimes- my American friends were out partying while my friends in Mexico were dying for their sins. It’s like they were dancing to Sunday Bloody Sunday.

Recent headlines read “Drug Violence Spills Across Border,” “Mexican Drug Traffickers Corrupt Politics” and “Another Mass Grave Found in Mexico,” but the crisis is not Mexico’s alone. They say that for someone attempting to break a drug addiction, the first step is to admit that they have a problem. It’s time for the U.S. to admit it has a very serious drug problem. Since seventy percent of drug cartel funding comes from marijuana sold to Americans, fixing the problem demands discussion of a hitherto taboo alternative- the legalization of marijuana and other illicit drugs.

To me, it is no coincidence that the War on Drugs and Vietnam were both born in the same era as both are the progenies of American idealism. Drug legalization has been criticized as utopian, but frankly, I think it may be the opposite- the prohibitionists are the ones holding on to an impossible dream. The very idea that enforcement of prohibition will form a perfect equilibrium at a manageably low level of drug use is practically a parody of Icarus. Such a magical moment will never come; it simply is not possible to eradicate enough cocoa plants, kill enough narcotrafficantes, or secure the border with enough agents and technology to achieve satiety. If anyone was to be criticized of utopian indulgences it would be the man who thought that somehow our paper, guns, cameras and dogs could shut down a multi-billion dollar industry.

When difficulties break out in the War on Drugs, the answer has always been adjusting the existing prescription through measures such as increasing border patrol or decreasing arms traffic. But when you step back, how ridiculous is it that Americans and Mexicans are killing each other with machine guns and grenades over a plant? Moreover, why have over 11,000 Mexicans died from drug violence in the last two years? And why are there 500,000 Americans behind bars for non-violent drug offenses? As such, the only definite results of the drug war have been mounting causalities. Medical treatment, education, and profit reduction strategies through legalization offer more promising prospects for success than locking up countless black and Latino youths while sending profits directly to Mexican drug cartels to buy weapons and bribe politicos.

The chief obstacles standing in the way of solving the drug problem appear to be social and political in nature. Drug legalization has historically been such a taboo a subject that any politician even suggesting it might as well turn in their resignation letter. As one statesman put it, “We know what to do; we just have no idea how to get reelected after we do it.” Thus, it falls on the shoulders of the citizen to let political figures know that we want solutions and won’t crucify them for letting people, god forbid, grow their own marijuana instead of paying violent gangs in Mexico to do it for them. The examples of Portugal and The Netherlands illustrate that, rather than making drug use endemic, legalization can actually be a tool to reduce it.

No matter how faithful we are to the prohibitionist model, no one is rescuing Timmy from the well, Casey is not coming back in the bottom of the ninth, and, no matter how many times we kiss it, the frog is not turning into a prince. We’ve chased the elusive mirage of prohibition and meanwhile perpetuated malfeasance, venal legal systems and violent, organized crime rings throughout Latin America. Our policy apothecary is not just wanting, it is irreparably poisoned. Sirs and madams, it’s time to go shopping for some new ideas.

Dissenting Opinion by Readership on COHA's Piece "Deja Vu in Central America: Iran's Recent Push into Nicaragua"

I am very sorry to read a bit of irresponsible reporting by COHA, which I had admired over the years. It is hard to know how to address the many factual errors in this, but let’s start with the Iranian Embassy being “the largest” etc. There is no embassy in Nicaragua to compare with the huge, huge US Embassy. “You can imagine what that’s for.”
It is true that Hilary made the quoted remark, but she was flat out wrong and the author of this piece should have done some fact-checking of her resources before incoporating it into this piece.

The alleged voter fraud of last November has never passed the “ällegged” stage. The opposition groups, who started claiming fraud in the middle of the afternoon of November 9, while the polls were still open, have never presented any evidence. When challenged on this detail, their response is “what good would it do?” Well, it might give some credibility to the fraud claims. All the fraud claims appear to be coming from the US Embassy and orchestrated by the USIS. There was no evidence presented until some pictures recently appeared on the internet, allegedly of ballot boxes that were thrown in the rive in Leon. But the pictures could have been of anywhere and any time.

For the US to withhold promised aid on the basis of alleged fraud is so similar to the ploy used against Aristide in Haiti in 2004 that it had to come from the same playbook. And the fact that the current US Ambassador to Honduras, who was a party to the plot to kidnap and remove President Zelaya last month (”but I tried to get them to stop their plot” he said shyly) was the orchestra leader of the coup against Aristide in 2004 when that president was kidnapped at gunpoint and shipped off to Africa stinks to high heaven.

Ambassador Callahan (in Nicaragua) was a longtime aid to then-Ambassador Negropointe in Honduras during the infamous period when Negropointe was covering up the death-squad activity of the Honduran military and has been active in Nicaragua since his arrival only to undermine the Sandinista government. He has admitted meeting weekly with opposition political leaders in the Embassy, certainly not a normal activity for an Ambassador.

COHA produces very reliable material on Latin America, but its recent coverage of Nicaragua and now Honduras could very well have originated in the same US Embassy.


Fred Morris

Comments on COHA's Piece, "Kirchnerismo’ in Argentina Continues its Descent"

John Alabama

Illusion that U.S. not an absolute top-down dictatorship

When in 1776 our rich nobility founded the United States, they hired a militia to defeat the arm forces of England, France and Spain, and then hired paid actors to create a make believe government to hide their wealth, power and absolute control.

So here we are 233 years later giving 11 trillion of tax payer money to the rich nobility who own our seven largest banks, giving 18% of our gross national product each year to the rich nobility who own our medical industry, giving over a trillion each year to rich nobility who own our war materials industry, and sitting helpless while rich nobility give away over half of our jobs to cheep-labor nations. For our intelligent middleclass is about to become extinct, as they have not a big brain to be among the rich, nor the strong back needed to be among us who hard labor for the rich.

Comes now the richest corporations in Honduras, all owned by U.S. rich nobility, and by way of a military coup they to reestablish an absolute dictatorship over a slave-labor force of 7.5 million.

Its like the history teacher in Chicago who when asked by a third grade student, “Was Cuba one of our colonies?” then replied, “The United States does not have colonies. We have territories.”

Brief Commentary on COHA's "Clarification on COHA's Position on President Zelaya and What Went on in Honduras"

Arlan

COHA must realize that it discredits its own authority by having the original piece on the situation with Zelaya in Honduras by Brian Thompson removed. COHA’s angle and take on this incident is not lost by this change and I commend you for putting its actions into words. Your own style, however, lacking responsibility, is in fact honest. Keep up the struggle on the information highway.

Readership Comments on COHA's Piece, "Give talks a chance, US tells Honduran rivals"

John Alabama

Why was coup known by all but Zelaya? — Not a friend to warn Zelaya?

In total secrecy the Honduran Congress, Supreme Court and generals all proposed, argued and debated until they reached perfect agreement on a coup, and then before Zelaya could get out of bed there were a dozen hooded solders pointing guns at his head — Unbelievable. And most except it, without even a word of debate about it — truly Unbelievable.

For unless something changes the dynamics, Zelaya will agree to end all reform, and no president in Central America will again dare offend deadly Empire USA. Comes now light to force such darkness to give way.

Before Zelaya ran for president, the owners of Chiquita Banana and some other rich corporations in Honduras happened to be playing a round of golf, when one bemused, “If we do nothing to stop Chavez and his Bolivarian revolution, this green were standing on will be turned into a vegetable garden for the homeless. Come, let us sucker Chavez into fighting a coup he cannot defeat, a coup we orchestrate in a way that Chavez looks weak and helpless, and a coup that sends a cold chill down the spine of every president in Central and South America.”

So President Zelaya, his family being rich nobility for many generations, increased minimum wage 60% from about $1 to $1.60 an hour, and created welfare programs that could easily be reversed. Then as all politicians in Honduras are paid actors running a make believe government, all were coached on what they must say and do, and Zelaya shows up in pajamas at a foreign air port yelling “Coup!… Coup!… Coup!”

Take for example what Zelaya said when asked by Al Jazeera TV why he did not fly to the U.S. Air Force base in Honduras, “It is not a U.S. base, and our military would be on the runway.” Not true, as we have a lease that prevents anyone but U.S. troops from entering the heavy guarded base. As our supersonic jets and guided missiles are top secret, and the knowledge of whether we have nuclear warheads on the base is super top secret. And as Zelaya did not attempt to land on the base, and as the U.S. did not propose this as a first step to ending the coup, surely we have something most deceitful and suspicious going down.

And so, watch carefully how our hero Chavez handles the way Zelaya and the U.S. are doing nothing but talk about a compromise between dictatorship and democracy, how they can come up with a somewhat dictatorial democracy.

Comments on COHA's Piece, "Colombia's President Comes to Washington--Uribe's Problematic Reelection Bid"

Free traders are selling the pending U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement as a vehicle for producing American jobs by eliminating Colombian tariffs on American exports. But Colombian President Álvaro Uribe keeps talking about American “investment” in his country. This agreement is about foreign direct investment in Colombia and as such is not a trade deal but an outsourcing deal. Outsourcing deals require investment. Trade deals do not require investment. Trade deals require only the removal of barriers to trade.

When US trade negotiators sat down to negotiate the existing trade deal with Colombia their contempt for the well being of the American people led them to accept a deal where a tariff is applied to US exports to Colombia while imports coming in from Colombia are duty free. That contempt for the Americans continues in the proposed new trade agreement. The spin is that it is about American jobs and indeed a bone is thrown to American workers in the form of no more tariffs on our exports. That bone is near worthless since they have little money to buy from us and what little they do buy from us they have little choice about. They will buy it with or without the tariff. There are fewer jobs for Americans in this agreement not more.

The coup aimed at halting a growing popular movement that wanted genuine change in Honduras

By: BjornBlomberg

The Honduran constitution that the coup plotters claim to defend forbids referendums on almost all areas of any importance. So the movement for constitutional change was growing and even received some support from the establishment. Even Liberal presidential candidate Elvin Santos realised that change was needed but suggested a referendum to be carried out after the elections in November (not on the same day as the election as was suggested by Zelaya).

After swapping from the right wing of his Liberal pary to the left wing Manuel Zelaya started to gain enormous support from social movements, trade unions and organisations defending indigenous people. They were enthusiastic because Honduras’ ALBA membership was going to make it possible to do something about the horrifying social exclusion in the country. Already 150.000 people had learned to read using the Cuban method Yo sí puedo. Now the coup government is throwing out nearly 150 Cuban teachers claiming they were “indoctrinating” Hondurans. This puts an end to a process that in January 2010 would have eradicated illiteracy in the country.

But for an elite that has not realised that Latin America is changing there was even worse to come. The ALBA-cooperation was making it possible for Honduras to offer cheap credits to poor farmers enabling them to buy seeds and new equipment. FAO has praised the results of this kind of reforms in Nicaragua, a country that according this organisation has the best program for food security in all of the third world. But large landowners in Honduras were of course furious. Poor farmers acting with dignity and in defense of democracy are a nightmare for these not so very democratic people.

Now civil organisations are being harrassed by the authorities and hundreds of people have been detained. Popularly elected mayors are driven away and replaced with pro-coup polticians. Civil liberties are abolished during night time. Radio- and TV-stations have been either shut down or silenced by the military. A dictatorship is being used by one part of the population to suppress then democratic aspirations of another part.

But a democracy cannot in the long run exclude important groups just because they are poor or because of the fact that they are indigenous.

The popular movements incited Zelaya to do some things that were not very wise. Walking into a military base to recapture voting materials irritated and humiliated the military in a most dangerous way. Zelaya wanted to postpone the Opinion poll for a couple of weeks and the social movement behind him should have let him do so. Also Chavez insults toward some respectable but very conservative people in the Honduran establishment have been extremely unwise and may have contributed to some good people mistakedly supporting the coup.

But neither of these mistakes can excuse the introduction of a dictatorship that suppresses civil libarties and sets a horrifying example for the rest of Latin America.

BJÖRN BLOMBERG, Sweden (a country that has for several decades allowed indigenous people to organise themselves and have radio stations without becoming communist. Our capitalists do extremely well under both social democrat and right wing governments)

Additions to COHA's Piece, "Canada's Nuclear Dilemma"

To explore the US angle of this article a COHA reader, Alan J. Kuperman, Ph.D. includes the following:

News Release
LBJ School Professor Alan Kuperman Speaks Out on Canadian Medical Isotope Shortage
When the nuclear reactor in Chalk River, Ontario, which produces one-third of the world’s medical isotopes, shut down on May 14 over safety concerns, it created a worldwide crisis in the field of nuclear imaging.

Medical isotopes are used in the effective detection and evaluation of patients with cancer, heart and brain diseases. With a shortage of isotopes, doctors are being forced to resort to other more costly and invasive procedures.

LBJ School Professor Alan Kuperman has been lending his expertise to the issue after organizing and drafting a letter to the U.S. Congress, with other non-proliferation experts and medical experts, urging Washington to start domestic production using low-enriched uranium (LEU), which is not weapons grade.

According to a press release issued by the letter-writers, “American patients depend on such isotopes for nearly 20 million medical procedures each year, but the United States does not produce any itself, relying entirely on imports. Complicating matters further, most foreign manufacturers currently produce isotopes using nuclear weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium (HEU) – the same material that fueled the Hiroshima atom bomb – which is controversial.”

The crisis is expected to worsen when a European reactor, which produces a third of the world’s supply of medical isotopes, will close for scheduled maintenance this summer.

Related:

Press Release and Letter to Congress “Medical and Nonproliferation Groups Unite to Confront Dire Shortage of Medical Isotopes.” - PDF


Press:

The Toronto Star - U.S. is poised to enter medical isotope market - July 10, 2009

Houston Examiner - Critical US medical radioisotope shortage sparks Obama administration response - July 9, 2009

Modern HealthCare - Isotopes on the Ropes - June 22, 2009

Ottawa Citizen – Isotope Shortage a Flashpoint, at Home, Abroad – June 15, 2009

CBC Radio, As It Happens – Isotope Future – June 12, 2009

CBC Radio One, The House – June 13, 2009

For more information, contact Alan Kuperman, 512-471-8245 , or akuperman@mail.utexas.edu

http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/news/story/821/

Dissenting Opinion by Readership, Regarding COHA's Piece, "Clarification of COHA’s Position on President Zelaya and What Went on in Honduras"

Monday, July 6, 2009



I am worried that the international community does not really know what is going on; and what is worse, they are victimizing Mr. Zelaya. Furthermore, I cannot believe the international community wants Zelaya back in power, when he clearly has been hanging out with crazed Chavez. Which leads you to think, don`t they wonder if Zelaya is trying to lead us to the same place as Chavez led Venezuela??


In summary what has happened:
Since the beginning of his term, democratically elected ex president Zelaya started bonding with Chavez (Venezuela) and Ortega (Nicaragua), using slogans like “power to the people”, increasing minimum wage in Dic. 08 by 300% regardless if a company, small or big, could pay this salary, especially in these financial times (Note: To date, more than 200,000 people have become unemployed as a result of this increase in minimum wage), all to win the poor people over. He has bought people (literally everyone knows this in Honduras) by paying them to participate in public demonstrations against other branches of power, or to show support for the signing of the ALBA (By the way, this money spent is taxpayers money).


Among Zelaya`s breaches of law, he has neglected in almost a year (to date) to send the annual budget to Congress, therefore controlling the money that comes in and out of government, as well as spending the money without regulation (for instance, making government purchases without limitations).


Downturns of his government include, rise in criminality (kidnappings, murders, etc.) and drug trafficking rates never seen before, decrease in medical attention and medicines in major public hospitals as well as Social Security, total lack of attention and abandon of agriculture sector, and most recently lack of attention to disasters provoked by recent earthquake in our north coast.
What happened this weekend was the last drop. Ex President Zelaya was trying to do a “survey” as he called it, that was supposedly nonbinding, asking people if they wanted a Constituent Assembly to reform the Constitution (and in other words, to create a One Branch/Power Government, and prolong his term as president). This kind of surveys, called referendums by law, can only be done by Congress, who is the legislative power (1 of the 3 branches of power) according to our Constitution. However, the Ex President disobeyed this order and continued spending millions of taxpayers’ money in propaganda, as well as paying off individuals to support him, and coercing government officials to sign a paper that said they would vote “yes” on the survey or they would be fired. This survey, unlike other surveys, would require citizens to present their ID at the voting center, to confirm among other things, that officials had gone to vote.


Then, this last Thursday, Zelaya issued a notice in a local journal (El Heraldo, June 25th, 2009) where he states that this “survey” would be binding. By then, the Supreme Court had issued Zelaya’s actions illegal, since he had been continuously breaking the law. On top of this, the Chief of Armed Forces, General Vasquez (Note: the Armed Forces, by law, oversees all voting processes to ensure transparency) said to Zelaya that the army could not participate in this survey since the Supreme Court had issued it to be illegal. President Zelaya, instead of advocating to the Supreme Court, fired the Chief. Zelaya then busted his way into an Armed Forces building to capture the ballots, apparently in realization that he was running out of time before elections are held this coming 29th of November, especially without the Armed Forces support.


The point Congress and the Supreme Court are making is that Zelaya was stepping out of boundaries of the Constitutional Law. General Vasquez was later reinstated by Congress and the Supreme Court.


To be honest, I did not expect the military to grab the president the way they did, however, if they wouldn`t have taken action (following Congress and Supreme Courts orders) Honduras would be headed to a Chavez`s Venezuela, Fidel`s Cuba…or Corea`s Ecuador. For this, I believe our Congress, Supreme Court, and Armed Forces have acted honorably and courageously, in defending our Constitution and the freedom it guarantees its people. Unlike Venezuela, our Armed Forces are Neutral and follow the Law. The Lesson Honduras have learned, is that no one is or should be above the law.


Honduras`s Constitution does not include an Impeachment Trial for Presidents, as the U.S. Constitution does; therefore the military, which is controlled by the Law, and follows the Constitution…followed the road they had to take…Perhaps we must perfect our Constitution, but it has to be made through legal means… through the means enabled by our Constitution.
In supporting Zelaya, the international community is completely ignoring the Honduran Constitution. This was not a coup...but rather could be considered an ousting. This is our Constitution…and nobody except Mr. Zelaya has broken the law.


I recommend you read a Manual issued by the Organization of American States (OAS or OEA in Spanish) which was made after dictator Allende turned Chile to the Left during the 70s. The manual, describes exactly how to turn a country into a Lenin-Marxist state, and the steps Allende followed. This is exactly what Zelaya was doing; this is exactly what Chavez did in Venezuela.


This is a sad time for my country and I hope we overcome it. I hope the international community can see the truth…


--Andrea Facusse



Friday, July 3, 2009



I am an USA citizen in Honduras. Having lived here for several years and having strong ties to Honduras and having made over 110 trips to Honduras since 1991, I must say that today’s retraction of Brian Thompson’s article is a shame. He was right on!


I have watched Mel Zelaya trounce many laws in Honduras over the last several years.


I was afraid I would have to return to the USA soon due to the anti-American hate constantly exuding from the mouth of Zelaya and his friend Chavez and now I can stay here in peace.
How dare you, who do not know Honduras, make judgments against people fighting for democracy and against Chavez and his cohorts?


And FYI, CNN’s “advisors” for the woman who is covering the story in Honduras are Mel Zelaya’s former Public Relations man and one of the people from Channel 8 which was socialist.


--Teresa Searcy



Thursday, July 2, 20o9



Mr. Birns:


Thanks for your email yesterday restating COHA's position on the situation in Honduras. I worked in Honduras in the late 1980s (actually as a brief colleague of Joe Eldridge while he was at the Christian Commission for Development) and returned there for my doctoral dissertation work on shrimp farming. I now am at California State University-Fullerton.


I had contacted Adam after meeting other COHA staff at a June 2 Woodrow Wilson Center event commemorating Margaret Crahan (my former teacher). I asked several more economic questions to help Adam restate the situation, but oh well, the situation changed very quickly between then and June 29! I'm including that message below for your information.


I wanted to say that I do think your newer analysis is more balanced, yet as you and other members of the Washington community continue to analyze this crisis (and possibly others in the region), I hope that you can make a call for better on-ground-reporting. One of my biggest concerns about this whole situation is the polarization within Honduras, but I'm wondering how skewed it is. Before Zelaya tried to hold the election there were some press reports that "only 30% of the population said they approve of Zelaya"; then after the coup Michelleti said "80-90% of the Honduran population supports the coup". I have not seen the first pre-June 29 survey document, but as a person who works extensively with statistics, I would be cautious. I'm most concerned if any surveys done in Central America are not drawn from a representative sample and if they do not include rural areas in the sampling. In mid-June I received emails from listservs (mainly of peasant organizations) supporting the IV Urna and Zelaya. And I think Honduras is divided geographically also, but international reporters are only in Tegucigalpa.


A second concern centers around US aid and if it is to be reduced next week. I would pay particular concern to the Millenium Challenge Corporation funds, which are directly linked to democracy and institution-building in each of the countries signing the compact. As a person who has followed Honduran issues over 2 decades (as well as the burning of the U.S. Embassy after the Juan Ramon Matta "kidnapping") I can imagine the U.S. State Department is in a very difficult position and probably does not want to withdraw aid immediately. But targeted approaches could be more effective.


Again, thanks for rewriting the COHA statement, and I look forward to remaining in touch with your office as events develop.

--Denise Stanley, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Economics
California State University-Fullerton



Wednesday, July 1, 2009



Mr. Birns:


Your analysis of the situation in Honduras is, for the most part, fairly balanced. And, for the most part, fairly accurate. I won't go into the inaccuracies, because the important issue is that we, in Honduras, are standing firm in our refusal to recognize Manuel Zelaya as the constitutional president. The new constitutional president is Roberto Micheletti, not a favorite with many of us, but nevertheless, the person that lawfully should succeed the deposed president under these circumstances. He has pledged that elections will be held in November, which is something Zelaya planned to cancel alledging that the 'people' wanted him to continue in power. The removal of Zelaya, a president who thought he was above the law and was intent on violating the Constitution of this country, was done as lawfully as is possible in a country like ours which has laws but not detailed procedures on how to carry them out. However, under the circumstances, many of us would never call the events of this weekend a coup d'etat. For one, the military did their task under orders from the Supreme Court and Congress. Secondly, our Constitutional rights have not, at any time, been cancelled. In most of the country, people are carrying on business as usual, even on Sunday while the transfer of power was being effected. And finally, Micheletti is not a puppet of the Armed Forces by any stretch of the imagination, as only we Hondurans would know and he's surrounded by men and women who will surely keep him honest (for 5 months at least!)


There have been no deaths so far. But, should the OAS persist in bringing Zelaya back into this country, confrontations will most certainly escalate. The OAS would be acting very irresponsibly if they did this because they would be directly responsible for any deaths that could result. I'm a Honduran and I live in Honduras. The relief over having gotten rid of Zelaya by far outweighs any concern over whether it is viewed as lawful or not, by people outside this country. There is overwhelming support for this new government and, even those of us who have been completely non-partisan and non-political, have felt obligated to stand up in defense of our country's ultimate well being. Zelaya's outrageous conduct, his very obvious utilization of government resources of all kinds to further his own interests, his suspected ties with drug traffic, and his 3 and a half years of a government characterized by improvisation, guaranteed that we never want to see him return as Constitutional president. We only ask that COHA and other influential think tanks remain open minded and try to be objective with regards to the events in our country.



--Marta Collart



Wednesday, July 1, 2009



Dear Larry,


I have now read your article. I am glad you support the return of Zelaya as president.


I do not agree that Mr Zelaya's assessment of the situation as an elite ousting him in order to protect their privileges as being wrong or a way to win international support.


The news media that is owned by some 3-4 families in Honduras with TV-stations and newspapers have for several months played a crucial role by waging a ruthless propaganda war against Zelaya's government.


This crucial role of the median owners is exposed in an editorial today in El Tiempo in the article "Y luego que?": http://www.tiempo.hn/index.php/editoriales
The media wars that created a climate of intolerance were government outlets responded with a similar propaganda refusing their enemies to have a say.


El Tiempo consistently let all sides have a say and has for many years been the only paper in the country that does it. La Prensa and El Heraldo never let indigenous people or organizations of the poor have a say, but El Tiempo has done it for years. Some years ago its chief director got sacked for allowing the journalists criticize the elite too openly but they have continued using as little self censorship as possible.


The coupsters have closed down channel 36 a private TV channel that was not critical enough toward Zelaya, they have closed radio stations, the private TV stations have been showing only cartoons etc in the days after the coop. Look at Venezuela in 2002 and compare.
Zelaya suggested to re-found the country and wanted a participative democracy. He ensured that he was NOT going to run for reelection. But the wealthy elite and its followers among the upper class and upper middle class feared that they were going to be swept away from power by a popular movement not specifically by Zelaya.


Why do you thing they shot at the home of PUD presidential candidate Cesar Ham who may be dead or maybe is hiding (sources give different versions)?


The elite was afraid and reacted in panic. That is my interpretation of this coup.



--Bjorn Blomberg

Opinion by Readership, Regarding COHA's Piece, "Talking About Legalization, Part I: The Legalization Debate and Drug Consumption in Colombia"

I read with much interest of an upcoming report on the issue of legalization of drugs in Colombia by Research Fellow Rachel Godfrey Wood.

Many of the reports on drug use, abuse and legalization address the issues of the impact of drugs on society but limit themselves to the impacts on the urban society, both in the US and in Colombia: use by kids, killings, drug cartels, addiction, incarceration, rehabilitation, the futility of the current war, etc.

Where I have seen little coverage is on the impacts of the current war on the Colombian peasants and on the environment. Cultivation of coca and cocaine extraction require the use of chemicals that are highly regulated in the legal economy but are handled very irresponsibly by the illegal producers. Spillage, mismanagement, intentional dumping to avoid seizure of people or goods cause serious damage to the rivers and the environment. In additon, the continued persecution by law enforcement agents forces the traffickers to be on the move leving behind abandoned camps with leaking containers. And large spots in the jungle that have been cleared of vegetation for the planting of the coca bushes.

The other grave issue is the displacement of peasants who are forced to leave their plots by the traffickers looking for land to cultivate the coca and also by the violence of the war among groups vying for control of areas to cultivate. In addition by the escalating price of food, agricultural supplies, fuel and consumer goods brought about by the availabiliy of money from the drug traffic and by the increase of consumption of goods without the necessary increase in the supply. To top it, the current policy of erradication considers the use of herbicides to destroy the coca plants. The herbicides, applied from the air over small coca plots end up destoying the plantain, yucca, and other food crops. It also contaminates the roof tops that are used as collectors of rain water used for drinking. And it contaminates the rivers and soil. But it does little to hurt the coca industry. By many accounts of peasants with whom I have talked, soon after the planes spread the herbicides, the harvesters come in to collect the coca leaves for processing before the chemicals ruin them. The plants, free from the herbicides on the leaves, recover soon. And the cocaine production is only hastened a bit by the need to process the leaves sooner than expected. The yucca, plantain, papachina, maize, rice and other crop, however, cannot be harvested and the peasants who live nearby coca plots simply go hungry. Or join the coca production.

I live in the town of Guapi, a small town on the Colombian Pacific coast that has seen the horrible impacts of all that I describe above. I have seen in the two years since I arrived a tremendous increase in the number of peasants that have arrived in town displaced from their plots totally uprepared for life in a town (let alone life in a big city like Cali, that has seen the arrival of thousands). I have also seen from the plane the increase in the size and number of clear cut areas of the jungle, some for coca others for the extraction of wood, both very damaging to the environment. And I have met many a young man whose only chance for a job is upriver working for the cocaine industry. And I have seen a large increase in the number of drug-related killings that have happened in broad daylight on the town streets. Mostly the dead have been young men involved in the coca business but recently a young boy was caught in the middle of a gun fight and lost his life to a bullet. And I live a prisoner in a town surrounded by the most beautiful jungle there is, unable to explore it on account of the danger in which I will subject myself should I leave the confines of the town borders.

Hopefully there will come a change in policy that will end the current war and allow peace to return to the area. And allow the environment to recover before the headwaters of the innumerable rivers that flow in this very dense and beautiful jungle.

Sincerely,
Ricardo Gomez Fontana
Representante Legal
Fundación Pacífico del Cauca

Opinion from Readership on Drug Legalization in Colombia

I read with much interest of an upcoming report on the issue of legalization of drugs in Colombia by Research Fellow Rachel Godfrey Wood.
Many of the reports on drug use, abuse and legalization address the issues of the impact of drugs on society but limit themselves to the impacts on the urban society, both in the US and in Colombia: use by kids, killings, drug cartels, addiction, incarceration, rehabilitation, the futility of the current war, etc.
Where I have seen little coverage is on the impacts of the current war on the Colombian peasants and on the environment. Cultivation of coca and cocaine extraction require the use of chemicals that are highly regulated in the legal economy but are handled very irresponsibly by the illegal producers. Spillage, mismanagement, intentional dumping to avoid seizure of people or goods cause serious damage to the rivers and the environment. In additon, the continued persecution by law enforcement agents forces the traffickers to be on the move leving behind abandoned camps with leaking containers. And large spots in the jungle that have been cleared of vegetation for the planting of the coca bushes.
The other grave issue is the displacement of peasants who are forced to leave their plots by the traffickers looking for land to cultivate the coca and also by the violence of the war among groups vying for control of areas to cultivate. In addition by the escalating price of food, agricultural supplies, fuel and consumer goods brought about by the availabiliy of money from the drug traffic and by the increase of consumption of goods without the necessary increase in the supply. To top it, the current policy of erradication considers the use of herbicides to destroy the coca plants. The herbicides, applied from the air over small coca plots end up destoying the plantain, yucca, and other food crops. It also contaminates the roof tops that are used as collectors of rain water used for drinking. And it contaminates the rivers and soil. But it does little to hurt the coca industry. By many accounts of peasants with whom I have talked, soon after the planes spread the herbicides, the harvesters come in to collect the coca leaves for processing before the chemicals ruin them. The plants, free from the herbicides on the leaves, recover soon. And the cocaine production is only hastened a bit by the need to process the leaves sooner than expected. The yucca, plantain, papachina, maize, rice and other crop, however, cannot be harvested and the peasants who live nearby coca plots simply go hungry. Or join the coca production.

I live in the town of Guapi, a small town on the Colombian Pacific coast that has seen the horrible impacts of all that I describe above. I have seen in the two years since I arrived a tremendous increase in the number of peasants that have arrived in town displaced from their plots totally uprepared for life in a town (let alone life in a big city like Cali, that has seen the arrival of thousands). I have also seen from the plane the increase in the size and number of clear cut areas of the jungle, some for coca others for the extraction of wood, both very damaging to the environment. And I have met many a young man whose only chance for a job is upriver working for the cocaine industry. And I have seen a large increase in the number of drug-related killings that have happened in broad daylight on the town streets. Mostly the dead have been young men involved in the coca business but recently a young boy was caught in the middle of a gun fight and lost his life to a bullet. And I live a prisoner in a town surrounded by the most beautiful jungle there is, unable to explore it on account of the danger in which I will subject myself should I leave the confines of the town borders.
Hopefully there will come a change in policy that will end the current war and allow peace to return to the area. And allow the environment to recover before the headwaters of the innumerable rivers that flow in this very dense and beautiful jungle.
Sincerely,
Ricardo Gomez Fontana

Dissenting Opinion by Readership, Regarding COHA's Piece, "Testing Time For Obama's Colombia Free Trade Agreement"

The Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In the first paragraph of Ms. Knoth's article on
US/Colombia free trade, she asserts that, in the final presidential debate in 2008, " Obamavoiced his disapproval of the FTA,stating that continued violence in Colombia and the
treaty’s insufficient human rights protections should slow the agreement’s passage, perhaps
indefinitely."

In fact, Obama did something starkly different. He criticized Colombia for its failure to
protect labor organizers; and then he implicitly but unmistakably endorsed the treaty, noting that it does include labor and environmental protections. His sole stated concern was that the
protections be properly enforced. But even the most fevered ideologue must realize
that, in the context of Obama's statement, he means that they should be enforced within
the terms of the treaty; that is to say, he assumes its passage, not its indefinite postpone-ment.

Further, contra Ms. Knoth's assertion, he never mentions "go(ing) slow".

As well, he gratuitously mentions that he voted in favor of the US/Peru free trade treaty. It is
impossible (well, I'd have thought so until now) to read the words without recognizing that
Obama ran, at least on the occasion cited by Ms. Knoth,as fully opposed to the
COHA/Smoot-Hawley stance on international trade.

I go on regarding the subject at such length as a prelude to asking one question: If your commentators cannot comprehend the
clear facts in a 400-word text, what are they doing writing 2600 word "analyses" of public policy issues?
McElhone

Here is the entire text of the Obama-McCain debate as it relates to the pending free trade treaty between the US and Colombia:
MCCAIN: Well, you know, I admire so much Senator Obama's eloquence. And you really have to pay attention to words. He
said, we will look at offshore drilling. Did you get that Look at. We can offshore drill now. We've got to do it now. We will reduce the cost of a barrel of oil because we show the
world that we have a supply of our own. It's doable. The technology is there and we have to drill now.
Now, on the subject of free trade agreements. I am a free trader. And I need -- we need to have education and training programs for displaced workers that work, going to our community colleges.

But let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that Senator Obama opposes. Right now, because of
previous agreements, some made by President Clinton, the goods and products that we send to Colombia, which is our
largest agricultural importer of our products, is -- there's a billion dollars that we --our businesses have paid so far in order to get our goods in there.

Because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our country for free. So Senator Obama, who has
never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that's helping us try to
stop the flow of drugs into our country that's killing young Americans.

And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us create jobs in America because they will be a market
for our goods and products without having to pay -- without us having to pay the billions of dollars --the billion dollars and more that we've already paid.

Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.

OBAMA: Let me respond. Actually, I understand it pretty well. The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders
have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions.

And what I have said, because the free trade -- the trade agreement itself does have labor and environmental protections, but we have to stand for human rights and
we have to make sure that violence isn't being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights,
which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement which was a well-structured agreement.

But I think that the important point is we've got to have a president who understands the benefits of free trade but also is
going to enforce unfair trade agreements and is going to stand up to other countries.

And the last point I'll make, because we started on energy. When I talked about the automakers, they are obviously getting
hammered right now. They were already having a tough time because of high gas prices. And now with the financial crisis,
car dealerships are closing and people can't get car loans.

That's why I think it's important for us to get loan guarantees to the automakers, but we do have to hold them responsible as well to start producing the highly fuel-efficient cars of the future.

And Detroit had dragged its feet too long in terms of getting that done. It's going to be one of my highest priorities because
transportation accounts for about 30 percent of our total energy consumption.

If we can get that right, then we can move in a direction not only of energy independence, but we can create 5 million new
jobs all across America, including in the heartland where we can retool some of these plants to make these highly fuel-efficient cars and also to make wind turbines and solar panels, the kinds of clean energy approaches that should be the
driver of our economy for the next century.

MCCAIN: Well, let me just said that that this is -- he -- Senator Obama doesn't want a free trade agreement with our best ally in the region but wants to sit down across the table
without precondition to -- with Hugo Chavez, the guy who has been helping FARC, the terrorist organization.

Free trade between ourselves and Colombia, I just recited to you the benefits of concluding that agreement, a billion dollars
of American dollars that could have gone to creating jobs and businesses in the United States, opening up those markets.

So I don't -- I don't think there's any doubt that Senator Obama wants to restrict trade and he wants to raise taxes. And the last
president of the United States that tried that was Herbert Hoover, and we went from a deep recession into a depression.

We're not going to follow that path while I'm -- when I'm president of the United States.

Nicaragua's Interaction with Iran Poses no Threat to the U.S.

On June 6 the Nica Times Published an article "Iranian Hydro Project Stirs Concern." The article discussed Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's recent economic interactions with Iran and the U.S.'s unjustifiable attacks over such negotiations. COHA Research Associate Maggie Airriess prepared and submitted the following letter to the editor in response to the article. 

There is no reasonable justification for U.S. apprehension over the Iranian hydroelectric dam project in Nicaragua ('Iranian Hydro Project Stirs Concerns', June 6). Washington opposes the dam because it is financed by Iran, a political enemy. Clearly, the U.S. fears a growing Iranian presence in Latin American countries, following similar deals with countries like Ecuador and Bolivia that effectively thwart U.S. efforts to resume its traditional supremacy in the region. Nicaragua's interaction with Iran poses no threat to the U.S., considering that the ties seem solely economic, with no evidence to the contrary. The U.S. argues that Nicaragua, like other Latin American countries, should respect the U.N.'s sanctions against Iran's nuclear production and refuse any links to Tehran. This contradicts past U.S. unilateral decisions irrespective of past U.N. votes, such as going to war with Iraq. Accordingly, the U.S. has no right to scrutinize or exercise a veto right regarding the external affairs of another country. 

Finally, Nicaragua is in desperate need of development, specifically in its energy sector. The country regularly suffers prolonged power outages. The building of a new dam offers the potential to remedy this problem by providing a reliable energy source. However, President Ortega should take steps to inform local populations of the possible safety issues linked to the project, including fatal nuclear accidents. Although new constructed infrastructure associated to the dam could cause local problems such as flooding, this is a domestic concern and not an ideological issue where a U.S. fiat rules supreme. 

Maggie Airriess

Research Associate

Council on Hemispheric Affairs 

Regarding Chavez's Bid for a Third Term

On July 18 the Miami Herald published an article "Chavez party seeks changes for third term." The article discussed Chavez's efforts to amend the Venezuelan Constitution and allow infinite presidential re-election. COHA Research Associate Lydia Pardini prepared and submitted the following letter to the editor in response to the article.

Venezuelan President Chávez’s renewed effort to amend the Constitution is based on his idea that “peace, tranquility and development” in Venezuela is contingent on him remaining in power (“Chávez party seeks changes for third term,” Jul 18). Yet his two terms in office have revealed a somewhat mixed record in achieving these goals. For example, the murder rate in Venezuela has risen in the past few years to 48 per 100,000, the second highest rate in the world.

The social missions aimed at bringing social justice to the country’s poverty stricken established early in the Chávez presidency, have enjoyed some successes. However, these programs are entirely dependent on a constant flow of high-price state oil revenue and do not necessarily constitute reliable development. Furthermore, the extensive and inefficient bureaucracy in charge of these programs (much of it inherited from the country’s past traditional regimes) has been marred by accusations of corruption.

In a referendum last December a narrow majority of Venezuelans rejected a set of reforms that would have allowed indefinite presidential re-election. Yet, as of now, up to 56% seem convinced of his ability to provide peace and development in the long term. Thus, if Chávez truly hopes to win the country’s upcoming regional elections in November, he needs to deliver on some of his promises, concentrating more on internal improvements rather than grand visions.

Lydia Pardini

Research Associate

Council on Hemispheric Affairs

En referencia el redireccionamiento de la política de Hugo Chávez con respecto a los Estados Unidos

El 8 de julio de 2008, el periódico Panorama de la ciudad de Maracaibo, Venezuela, publicó un artículo llamado "Gobierno Venezolano busca reanudar lucha antidrogas con EEUU." El artículo hacía referencia a las intenciones del Presidente Hugo Chávez de mejorar las relaciones con los Estados Unidos, y la importancia de este comentario. La Asociada de Investigaciones Raylsiyaly Rivero, preparó la siguiente carta al editor en respuesta:

La postura que tomó el Presidente Chávez el pasado 5 de julio en cuanto a cómo será su nueva línea estratégica ("Gobierno busca reanudar lucha antidrogas con EEUU", 6 de julio 2008), ha despertado la atención de muchos. Si revisamos el historial de la política venezolana hacia la administración norteamericana, es más que evidente que se han ido cerrando las vías de comunicación entre ambos. Ahora sería un buen momento para preguntarnos ¿qué ha impulsado al primer mandatario nacional a tomar una postura tan flexible con los Estados Unidos, hasta el punto de considerar restablecer las relaciones de cooperación "que pudiesen poner en peligro el desarrollo de la Revolución Bolivariana"? que tanto pregona el Presidente. Esto sin olvidar la concepción de guerra asimétrica que se ha venido diseminando dentro de las Fuerzas Armadas. Quizás el ascenso en la popularidad del Presidente Uribe esté molestando a su homólogo venezolano y precise tomar parte en el acontecer de la región. Convenientemente, la reunión prevista entre ambos el próximo 11 de julio, servirá de trampolín para que se planteen nuevas líneas de acción al igual que el fortalecimiento de las relaciones, necesarias para combatir conjuntamente los problemas de seguridad y narcotráfico que hostigan a ambos países. La divergencia que presenta el nuevo discurso de Chávez puede enclaustrar a sus seguidores en una contradicción ideológica, en donde se sugiere aceptar nuevamente la ayuda del organismo norteamericano DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) que desplaza la premisa de amenaza que este ente representa. Esto Podría ocasionar que algunos seguidores del Gobierno Revolucionario se confundan.

Raylsiyaly Rivero

Asociada de Investigaciones

Consejo de Asuntos Hemisféricos

Merida Initiative

On June 8 the San Antonio Express News published an article "U.S. lawmakers to review Mexico aid terms." The article detailed the Mexican governments objections to the Merida Initiative and the language regarding human rights. Research Associate Michael Katz prepared submitted the following letter to the editor in response to the article.

The Mexican government has every right to question the specifics of the United States anti-drug plan, but their objections regarding human rights stipulations might be misguided and counterproductive (“U.S. lawmakers to review Mexico aid terms,” June 8). Prioritizing human rights in the pending $1.4 billion US aid package to the Calderon administration needs to send an urgent message to Latin America, emphasizing Washington’s pledged commitment to protecting the basic rights of civilians and pursuing human rights violators. Past Latin American anti-drug initiatives, including the infamous Plan Colombia in 2000, demonstrated the ill effects that lax human rights policies can have on the well being of civilians of the recipient nation. Mexican officials who claim that a human rights clause in the pending legislation infringes on their sovereignty must carefully assess the dangers of a plan devoid of such stipulations. The US is not trying to infringe on Mexico’s sovereignty, as much as it is trying to learn from past mistakes, while still strengthening its human rights rhetoric in an effort to create a policy that stresses oversight and accountability. The United States should be lauded for refusing to compromise its strong position on human rights.

Michael Katz

Research Associate

Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Regarding End to Sanctions Sees Benefits All Around

On June 11, 2008, the Cuban News Agency published an article entitled “Cuba Demands U.S. End to Sanctions at WTO Forum” which discussed the effects of the U.S. trade embargo on the Cuban economy. COHA Research Associate Amy Coonradt wrote the following letter to the editor in response:

You are correct in your claim that the termination of the U.S.’s economic sanctions on Cuba would not only resolve America’s institutionalized violation of World Trade Organization guidelines (“Cuba Demands US to End Economic Sanctions at WTO Forum”, June 11). However, you fail to state the benefits that lifting the sanctions could have for both the U.S. and Cuba. Such an action would help U.S. exporters by opening up Cuban markets. It would also help solve Cuba’s endemic fuel and food shortages and let Cuban families receive more remittances from relatives living abroad, which currently is restricted by the embargo to $100 per month.
Ending the embargo would allow for real reform on Cuba’s part, much more so than the modest and largely symbolic measures taken by Raul Castro. True, he has lifted the ban on cell phones and allowed Cubans to visit tourist hotels, but these rights are still financially unattainable for most Cubans, who average only $18 per month in income. Lifting the U.S. embargo would surely have a more lasting and positive effect for the average Cuban than Raul’s otherwise token reforms. Better yet, it likely will benefit both the U.S. as well as Cuba.

Amy Coonradt
Research Associate
Council on Hemispheric Affairs

The Argentine People Finally Heard

It appears the Argentine people have finally been heard after the Fernández de Kirchner administration for months failed to successfully negotiate with the nation's farmers. The recent Senate vote against the government's legislation to raise export taxes demonstrates Fernández de Kirchner's inability to centralize power as her popularity crumbles.

It appears that Argentines have finally clearly been heard after the Fernandez de Kirchner administration for months failed to successfully negotiate with the nation's farmers ["Argentine Cabinet Chief Offers to Resign," July 23, 2008]. It is a relief to see the Senate strongly oppose the government's attempt to raise export taxes in recent months, which has failed to curb inflation, while adding to growing food shortages and rising food prices. 

The Senate's recent vote represents both a victory against Fernandez de Kirchner to centralize power and a positive step for the citizens who are now recognizing the all too familiar rhetoric of their leaders' illusory promises to help the impoverished locals within the capital district. While it is obvious that the President is trying to run the country based on the credibility of her husband's former administration, it is equally clear that she has little support from the Argentine people, as reflected by her narrow defeat in the Senate. Her basic problem is that by a slender majority, the Argentine public doesn't believe that the passing of an export tax would help curtail either food shortages or inflation rates, which today are among the top six in the world.

President Kirchner just doesn't have the political base to continue with her husband's "uncompromising political style." Now that Argentines have spoken through the Senate's negative vote, it appears the Kirchner administration needs to find different long-term alternatives to high inflation. Instead of pressing economic strategists and chief advisors with the task of solving national crises, Fernandez de Kirchner needs to realize she cannot always win and that acting by pressure, rather than through conciliation, rarely produces results. 

Regarding the Merida Intiative to Mexico

On May 29 The Palm Beach Post published an article, “Richardson urges US on aid package for Mexico," which described Governor Richardson's urging U.S. policymakers to strike a deal acceptable to President Calderon of Mexico so that Mexico may receive aid to fight crime.
COHA Research Associate Emily Dunn submitted this letter to the editor in response to the article.

Dear Editor,
Despite the argument that it would be a violation of Mexico’s sovereignty for the U.S. Congress to lay down conditions before any aid is dispersed under the $1.4 billion Merida Initiative, investigations into recurring human rights abuses by Mexico’s military would prove extremely beneficial (“Richardson urges US on aid package for Mexico,” May 29). In addition to curbing human rights abuses, Mexico could gain from this telling blow against corruption, U.S. aid aimed at stopping crime and ending of the spate of crime and drug shipments crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

Mexico’s failure to adequately confront its rampant gangs has allowed the number of armed groups to climb. As The Post correctly notes, crime-related homicides have increased considerably this year. Clearly, President Calderon needs the aid that the proposed Merida Initiative would supply him in order to curb the dangerous increase in the number of organized crime groups and the lethal weapons at their disposal.

While the equipment and training that the Merida Initiative would provide may be essential to stem organized crime and ward off drug cartels that adversely affect both Mexico and the United States, the assistance to one of the most corrupt societies in the world needs to be supervised. If Washington is to aid Mexico in confronting crime, gangs and drugs, then Mexico should not oppose reasonable conditions calling for close monitoring of its war against derelictions in all forms.

Emily A. Dunn
Research Associate, Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Death of Manuel Maralunda

On May 27 the Boston Globe published an article "Colombia urges FARC to surrender: Impact of rebel's death still unclear," which described optimism surrounding the death of FARC leader Manuel Maralunda. COHA Research Associate Michael Katz wrote submitted this letter to the editor in response to the article.

Dear Editor,

The death of Manuel Marulanda, leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), will not improve the chances of a sustained peace resolution nor stop the violence of FARC as some have suggested (“Colombia urges FARC to surrender: Impact of rebel's death still unclear,” May 26^th). Optimism surrounding the significance of Marulanda’s death, with respect to peace talks, falsely presumes that a new leader can single-handedly stop the violent ways of an entire guerilla force and create peace. This notion is impractical considering that FARC is a terrorist group with a long history of spontaneous and counterproductive violence. For example, promising peace talks in 1998 and 2002 were abruptly halted because of FARC’s terrorist activities. All parties involved in future peace talks with FARC cannot assume that Marulanda’s death is a positive step toward peace and an end to FARC’s violence, as has been proven in recent history.

Sincerely,

Michael Katz

Research Associate,

Council on Hemispheric Affairs