Regarding COHA Director Larry Birns January 26 Interview on NPR program "on the Media"

Hugo Chavez Censors Opposing Media, NPR Airs One Side: Censorship Defenders

Posted by Tim Graham on January 30, 2007

NPR's weekly show On The Media routinely tilts strongly to the left. On the January 26 version, it includes a segment with ex-Greenpeace researcher/Washington Post writer William Arkin denouncing the Iraq surge as a worthless political smokescreen, and an analysis of the Bush State of the Union address with former Clinton speechwriter Michael Waldman (exaggerating the negative reviews Clinton received for his annual yawnfests). But the real eye-opener of the show was a segment defending Hugo Chavez for censoring opposition media outlets. What? An NPR segment with only one guest, making the case for censorship? Yes.

The guest arguing from deep inside the Hugo tank was Larry Birns of the Council for Hemispheric Affairs, a long-standing cheereleader for Latin American dictators and revolutionary guerrillas of the Left. NPR host Bob Garfield noted that a number of establishment newspapers editorialized against Chavez, and asked Birns skeptical questions about setting a bad precedent. But there was no defender of RCTV, the banned media outlet. So it's not a debate about Chavez, but a one-sided defense of his dictatorial move.

Garfield: "Chavez's former communications minister has referred to the move as 'the leading edge of the information hegemony of the state,' and RCTV says it has been denied due process. But to Larry Birns of the Liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs, the underlying facts betray anti-Chavez editorializing as one-sided and simplistic."

Larry Birns: "RCTV is arguably the most scabrous example of yellow journalism in Latin America. It's an advocacy outfit, and it was one of the major plotters of a coup against Chavez back in April of 2002. This station engaged in trick photography and all sort of scandalous behavior in order to advance that coup."

Garfield: "Does not the principle of free speech, even of, you know, sort of obnoxious critics trump the history of RCTV's behavior? Is Chavez not setting a very bad precedent by silencing his most vocal critic?"

Birns: "This is a situation where RCTV uniquely was shouting out the word "fire" in a crowded theater. Ninety-five percent of the media in Venezuela is controlled by the anti-Chavistas, and they have their knives out for Chavez. So talking about constitutional guarantees, you may be talking to the wrong bunch."

Garfield: "Last month, Chavez was reelected in a landslide with 63 percent of the vote in an election with the highest voter turnout in Venezuelan history. Isn't that ample evidence that RCTV and anyone else in the right-wing media represent no great threat to his government?"

Birns: "Well, perhaps at this moment, no. But if you are using lies, distortions, prevarications, at some point your influence may prevail."

Garfield: "I want to ask you about what I referred to in the introduction, and that's the media coverage in the United States about Chavez's so-called Bolivarian Revolution. It's pretty close to being unanimous in denouncing Chavez's tactics, if not necessarily his goals. These editorial boards are not populated by know-nothings. In your view, they've all gone wrong. Why do you suppose that is?"

Birns: "Well, it was said of The New York Times that The New York Times will do everything for Latin America except visit it. It happens that most of the journalists, the correspondents give measured and fair and balanced treatment. But I do think that these editorials are simply scurrilous. It's basically an issue probably more of style than substance. I mean, Chavez is the kind of fellow that you don't find at Eton – bad instincts for public relations, bizarre antics. But this is Chavez's playful style. That has nothing to do with the quality of his thinking and the proposals that he's made. He is not a cruel, heartless man. He is not a Pinochet. He's anything but a Pinochet."

Garfield said the U.S. editorialists were worried he would become not a Pinochet, but a Castro. Birns concluded that Venezuela has always been a "faux democracy," that is, until Hugo came along: "Today, Venezuela is not only a formal democracy, a constitutional democracy, but it also is a real democracy in that people have the right to more than just starve. They also have the right to access to an education, to medical help and so forth."

You can tell Birns is on the hard left because NPR's Garfield says he has a "liberal group," which is not a label they would use for a liberal group, but only for a group that's liberal when compared to the liberal "mainstream." Why couldn't NPR also allow the counter-argument from RCTV?

~

The Kennedy, Chavez & Chomsky Pipeline

By Marc Sheppard

Have you seen the latest Citgo-sponsored commercial for Citizens Energy Corporation? At first glance you may have mistaken it for a Saturday Night Live sketch and watched it prepared for a good laugh. That is, until you'd realized it was all too serious. Until it struck you that a member of one of North America's most powerful political families may well be in bed with one of South America's most notorious and dangerous men. But it gets even more disturbing. The language used to rationalize this unholy alliance appears to be right from the playbook of the devout anarchist many refer to as the Ayatollah of anti-Americanism.

The bizarre 30 second pitch (video) opens with a man who complains he needs 2 pairs of long underwear and a jacket to stay warm inside his house. We then fade into the image of an elderly "84 and alone" woman dragging an iron cot into her kitchen from her basement so she can, as her voice-over tells us, "sleep by the oven." The next voice we hear is that of Joseph Kennedy II, who assures us that "help is on the way." The son of Robert Kennedy then explains that heating oil is available at 40% off thanks to "our friends in Venezuela at Citgo." In closing, tyrant Hugo Chavez's good buddy asks us to give him a jingle at 1-877-JOE-4-OIL because "no one should be left out in the cold."

It's Nothing Political Joey, Strictly Benevolence

Of course, this wasn't the first time that the former Massachusetts congressman's name and company have been attached to a Chavez oil for fool scheme. In 2005, an ad with the banner HOW Venezuela Is Keeping the Home Fires Burning in Massachusetts ran in major U.S newspapers and offered cheap heating oil to America's poor as a "simple act of generosity." A November 20, 2005 story in the Boston Globe outlined this earlier CEC creepy covenant with CITGO, the Houston-based subsidiary of Chavez's state-owned petroleum company Petróleos de Venezuela.

The Globe reported scuttlebutt that Chavez had helped broker the deal partly as a jab at President Bush. Larry Birns, executive director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a group that tracks Latin American politics and government agreed:

''It is a slap in the face" to the Bush administration. "Chávez is involved in petro-diplomacy."

No doubt. For starters, the move curries favor among segments of the U.S. population most likely duped by his class warfare gamesmanship. This diaphanous tactic works quite well on weak-minded, self-hating Americans - just ask Chavez-bots like actor Danny Glover and singer Harry Belafonte. And, as a bonus, El Commandante gets to portray the United States as a country that can't even keep its own people warm in the winter without charity from marginally civilized Latin American socialists.

Not surprisingly, Kennedy dismissed all of this and assured critics he was not concerned with the politics of the man whose allies represent a virtual who's who of America's enemies:

''You start parsing which countries' politics we're going to feel comfortable with, and only buying oil from them, then there are going to be a lot of people not driving their cars and not staying warm this winter. There are a lot of countries that have much worse records than Venezuela."

As usual, to a Kennedy (any Kennedy), welfare (any welfare) from the state (any state) is always the cure for want (any want).

With friends like these who needs loyalties?

But it was the curious reference to "our friends in Venezuela" in this most recent commercial that caught the eye and ire of a January 19^th USA Today editorial, which fittingly noted:

"It's not entirely clear which ‘good friends' Kennedy is referring to. Chavez, who has called Bush ‘a genocidal murderer and a madman'? The Venezuelan people, whose natural resources Chavez is squandering?"

The column, which also reminded readers that only his nation's mammoth oil reserves distinguish Chavez from other cruel and murderous Latin American tyrants, elicited an immediate indignant reply from Kennedy. After drearily repeating the lame moral equivalency argument he put forth in 2005 and mentioning that poor cot-dragging woman we met in the commercial, he continued with words which placed his earlier disregard for Chavez's politics in serious doubt:

"More than 558 million barrels of Venezuelan oil made their way to the USA last year. Why just go after the small slice that helps senior citizens and struggling families? Why not take on those who also make money off Venezuela - GM and Ford, which sold 300,000 cars there last year, and Shell, BP, Conoco Phillips and other oil interests that, unlike Venezuela and Citgo Petroleum, spurned our requests for assisting the poor?"

Hey Joe, could it be that mutually-beneficial business deals don't leave either party beholding to the other, whereas charity from a socialist expansionist madman with an agenda obvious to everyone but you does?

Needless to say, outside unwashed circles Kennedy's explanation didn't quite satisfy. A week's worth of ongoing critical commentary prompted a decidedly emotional supplementary response on January 24^th. In it, he suggested that windfall tax revenues on oil and gas be used to finance increased public assistance. As to the deal with Venezuela and those who critique it:

"The alternative is a continuation of policies that steer tax breaks to the wealthy and subsidies to our biggest corporations, while telling the needy, ‘You're on your own' - a kind of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor that leaves the most vulnerable out in the cold." [emphasis added]

Did he say Socialism for the Rich?

You bet. In fact, Kennedy had made prior use of that silly idiom, including in his aforementioned January 19^th rebuttal. Interestingly enough, his brother Robert also employed the puzzling phrase when he accepted a Sierra Club Tree-Hugger Award in September of 2005.

More interesting still, almost a decade earlier, American political dissident Noam Chomsky wrote an article which commenced:

"The Free Market is socialism for the rich: the public pays the costs and the rich get the benefit -- markets for the poor and plenty of state protection for the rich."

Sounds a lot like Joseph the Second's January 24^th comments, doesn't it? Don't be surprised. You see, Joe's buddy Hugo has a buddy named Noam who's been whining about the evils of capitalism in general and as practiced by selfish Americans specifically for decades.

You'll recall the stir Chavez caused addressing the U.N last September when he opened his speech by waving a copy of comrade Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States in the face of the General Assembly. The Latin nutcase claimed that the book contained proof that the greatest threat looming over our planet is the

"hegemonic pretensions of the American empire [which is] placing at risk the very survival of the human species."

In an uneven tirade which included his referencing President Bush alternately as the world dictator and the devil himself, he gushed over the book so convincingly that it jumped to number 1 on Amazon's best-seller list overnight. There must have been an abundance of Libertarian socialists, Anarcho-syndicalists, and otherwise-aligned America haters in the gallery that day.

I told you, we're an Anarcho-syndicalist Commune

A recurring theme in Chomsky's work of late has been the evolving symbiosis between Venezuela and Cuba which he holds forth as a shining model of the virtues of Chavez's socialist petro-charity. Chavez provides low-cost oil while his dying hero and mentor Castro reciprocates with literacy and medical programs. Take that premise and add another familiar Chomsky fantasy -- Chavez's brave struggle to overcome American backed trade agreements which exploit workers and perpetuate unfair economic and social strata. Now, mix well in a large Margarita pitcher and Voila -- Kennedy's argument exactly.

And by the way, the man who favors a social revolution whereby freely co-operative workers' unions would replace all forms of competition, leadership and executive power is no stranger to Kennedy's ploy. It just so happens that in December of 2005, Chomsky penned an article addressing the hoopla over the Citgo-Kennedy connection. The anarchist linguistic genius begins by making disappointingly generic moral equivalence points similar to Pal Joey's - and then manages to degrade farther still. True to form, the piece quickly descends into his signature rhetorical abyss -- blaming all things Capitalist America for all things awry in South America, advocating Chavez as the natural, if imperfect, outcome. And, of course, adding the requisite socialist-expansion academic spam:

"At issue in the region, as elsewhere around the world, is alternative social and economic models. Enormous, unprecedented popular movements have developed to expand cross-border integration - going beyond economic agendas to encompass human rights, environmental concerns, cultural independence and people-to-people contacts. These movements are ludicrously called "anti-globalisation" because they favour globalisation directed to the interests of people, not investors and financial institutions."

Curiously, the man once voted the world's top public intellectual also failed to ask one obvious question. If even Hugo's best friend is expected to pony up recompense for cheap Latin-tea, why would he provide the same to his worst enemy without similarly anticipating his due pound of flesh?

The Three Ameriphobic Amigos

Okay, so Hugo loves Noam and Joey loves Hugo and maybe Noam but Noam loves Hugo and, while no fan of Kennedys per se, maybe even Joey. So just what is it that connects these three contrasting socialists -- one dictatorial, one anarchistic and one welfare-state?

On the day following the September 11^th terrorist attacks President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías mumbled,

"The United States brought the attacks upon itself, for their arrogant imperialist foreign policy."

In an interview a week later, one Avram Noam Chomsky Ph.D proclaimed:

"During these years the US virtually exterminated the indigenous population, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the world. The number of victims is colossal. For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way."

And while a prominent American who might agree wouldn't be stupid enough to say so, Joseph Patrick Kennedy II certainly isn't lacking stupid things he is willing to say. For instance, last November, he told a Wall Street Journal Reporter questioning his assisting "an anti-American tyrant at the expense of the Venezuelan people," that as to democracy, there is,

"ample room for improvement in the ways that people get elected in Venezuela as well as in Florida."

So then, it would appear that there's one thing the three share much more congruently than their underlying common dream of wealth redistribution.

~Hello Larry,

I wrote on this issue in article titled RCTV's Acts ofSedition. I encourage you to read it on my blog site- sjlendman.blogspot.com.

We agree on all RCTV has done since Chavez firstelected. Key point is Venezuelan law is clear and allcorporate media violated it egregiously. Chavezacting against RCTV because its VHF license expiringin May. He's barely slapping it on wrist.

If RCTV and others pulled these stunts in US against aUS admin. they could be charged with sedition carryingup to 20 years in prison or treason that could getthem death penalty. No nation tolerates what thesepeople did, not should they.

Steve Lendman

~Hello Mr. Birns,

I'm the new Media Analyst at the Venezuela Information Office (www.veninfo.org) located in Dupont Circle, DC. I don't know if youhave heard of us, but our mission is "...to educate the public aboutcontemporary Venezuela. We seek to present an accurate view of the current political scene in Venezuela for the American public and buildallies for the Venezuelan people."

I just heard and very much appreciated your interview that airedyesterday. I thought you did an excellent job of filling in what the mainstream media consistently leaves out of its coverage of Chavez andVenezuela. In particular, I appreciated the way you distinguishedPresident Chavez style from the quality of his thinking and policies.

I hope to have a chance to meet you sometime. Please let us know ifwe can ever be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Paul Beich

Media Analyst

Venezuela Information Office

~Larry,
You were fabulous on NPR today. Here on my blog is a mini-tribute to you. I think this is the first time I haven't been a total smartass in my postings.

Best to you,

Eric

http://www.borev.net

"The voice of Stewart, the acumen of Zinn, the sardonic dig of Wilde, Larry Birns is a goddamned UNESCO World Heritage Site of analysis. You can hear him today on NPR's On the Media on Venezuela and the RCTV controversy. The transcript is here . But take the time to click the "listen" button. It's worth it."

Regarding COHA's January 30 Press Release: "A Beneficial Uruguayan Paper Mill: Pulp Fiction?"

• As Mercosur was about to meet, Uruguay’s President Vázquez signs papers with the U.S. that could lead to a free trade pact with Washington. Vázquez flirts with the idea of being forced to leave Mercosur if he goes ahead and binds himself to Washington.

• In the fatal battle between the two normally friendly nations, Uruguay may be making the mistake of the generation by not seeking some kind of settlement of its ugly spat with Argentina.

• International lending agencies deserve blame for not engaging in a vigorous environmental study before agreeing to allocate the substantial asset to the “Orion” project.

Through their use of roadblocks and varied inflammatory statements to the press, Argentine activists and Uruguayan public officials have sought international attention to their respective sides in the nearly 2-year-old conflict over the construction of a paper mill on the Uruguayan side of the river. Usually amassed on the San Martín Bridge and largely hailing from the Argentine town of Gualeguaychú, these demonstrators vehemently oppose Botnia’s (a privately-owned Finnish firm) vision of a cellulose plant on the banks of the river separating the two countries. The project has evoked strong antagonism due to the detrimental environmental effects that appear unavoidable should the mill be completed and become operational. Botnia’s endeavor has drawn enthusiastic support from the Vázquez government, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and the World Bank. Unsurprisingly, their backing has added to the political tension now plaguing the two sides, which includes Buenos Aires’ pleas before the International Court of Justice to halt construction of the mill and Uruguay’s plea to the same court that the border closures were causing ‘irreparable’ damages to the country’s economy. On January 25, Uruguay boldly signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with the U.S. in hopes that the affiliation with the northern super power might influence the paper mill dispute in its favor. A TIFA is often a first step to a Free Trade Agreement, which would directly violate Uruguay’s membership agreement with the other Mercosur countries. In spite of the perspective economic bonanza to Uruguay, resulting from the pulp mill, Montevideo would be wise to reexamine the likely political and economic costs of risking its continued membership in Mercosur. Then there is the need for Uruguay to preserve its own environment, as well as the need for it not to imprudently go too far out of its way to antagonize Mercosur partner Argentina and, quite possibly, its long term ties to Brazil.

Full article...

~There is a lot of relevant information in this article, but no mention of the various effects, good and bad of the several Argentine paper mills on the other side of the Uruguay River, in Corrientes Province, I believe, which employ older and much more polluting technologies. Why? Nor is there any mention of the fact that the Argentine Province of Entre Rios attempted to attract the Botnia project and lost out--and that, at the outset of the controversy, the Governor of the Argentine Province of Corrientes stated that Corrientes would be happy to receive the project. (He appears to have been silenced since.) These seeem like most unfortunate omisions. Whether or not there are ecological arguments against the plant, in the interest of a balanced presentation, the efforts of two Argentine provinces to attract the investment, and the experience of more polluting Argentine cellulose plants on the other side of the river should be noted. As it is, the article seems like it was prepared primarily with information supplied by the Province of Entre Rios and the Government of Argentina.

Hugh Schwartz

COHA answers:

My dear Hugh,

We will look into this. Any article, that you ar aware of that shed light on the subject would be very much appreciated here.

My best,

Larry Birns
Director of COHA


~ Dear COHA

While I always read and enjoy your reports on South America I am once again moved to write to you because of your continuing bias for Nestor Kirchner's Argentina, which I feel is rooted in a mistaken belief that the man is some kind of progressive reformer as opposed to the latest Peronist populist (Hartford Campbell's article last year and my response to it).

As an Argentine I too am worried about the impact of the Botnia plant on the environment but I am even more worried about how the Argentine government's absolute failure to manage this diplomatic problem is threatening to wreck Mercosur and bring relations between what should be two brother republics to a new and very sorry low.

Completely absent from Ms Donovan's report was any broader history of the dispute. No mention of the fact that the Uruguayans consulted the Duhalde government about the plant only for Kirchner to decide AFTER the roadblocks went up that that consultation did not count because the government at the time gave the answer he now could not or would not implement without facing down roadblocks - something he has shown himself to be unwilling or unable to do since coming into office.

In effect Argentina has contracted out one of its most important bilateral relations to unelected protesters who are breaking the law of the land which guarantees free movement on the republic's roads.
One can feel for these people - no-one wants a large industrial project to set up in their neighbourhood, especially when it is across a national frontier and leaving them to benefit less in terms of jobs and income while having to share any environmental impact. But to contract out your country's bilateral relations with a close neighbour to these people is the height of stupidity.

What nation would end a massive foreign investment project in the face of demands that it do so by foreign protesters who blocked the international frontier in an attempt to strangle your economy? This is even less likely in Uruguay where there are long memories of Argentine meddling in its internal affairs that go back to the time of independence and have by fuelled by Argentine insensitivity in every generation since.

This is why I believe why Tabaré is so strongly backed by the VAST majority of the Uruguayan population. Sending troops to guard the plant was a stupid stunt but no worse that Kirchner's repeated stupid rantings on the subject both domestically and at international forums.

Of course as a pluralistic society opposition to the plant is to be found in Uruguay, but Ms Donovan's report I believe over-emphasises this opposition while failing to stress the huge support for the plant in Uruguay, increasingly out of defiance at the Argentine roadblocks.
This was very clear to me on my last trip to Uruguay.

What I feel is also missing in the report is the growing sense in Buenos Aires political and business circles that this whole dispute is another example of the Kirchner government's almost total disregard for diplomacy, playing fast and loose with an important neighbour based on typically Peronist chauvinistic tendencies dressed up as progressive environmental concerns.

Do you really think that Kirchner's government gives a damn about the environment? Just look at the number of new mining projects it has authorised within its own borders in recent years. Botnia's plant passed international studies of its environmental impact and Botnia says the plant meets EU standards, a claim that can be verified by end of 2007. Nothing like this is underway in Argentina. Gold mines using high levels of mercury are being approved all over Argentina with very little oversight. The idea that the Argentine government has an environmental stance on the paper plant is not just wrong - it is absurd to even think so. Nearly all the heavy pollution already flowing into the Rio de la Plata comes from Argentina, plants the government is doing little or nothing to clean up or shut down. One only has to get a taxi to La Boca in Buenos Aires to realise that the major environmental threat to the Rio de la Plata is Argentina, not Botnia or Uruguay.

The problem is that Kirchner's diplomatic maladroitness has backed him into a corner.
It is hard outside of Kirchner's supporters to find anyone in Buenos Aires who thinks our case will win at the Hague. Why did he back the protesters? Because he thought it would be another cheap populist move to further boost his popularity? Possibly. Maybe it was because he fears his own police's ability to remove roadblocks without violence, which would be understandable. But by letting whoever block whatever road they wish since coming to power he now finds it almost impossible to articulate a situation in which this should stop. The result is that this particular saga has gone on until now we have our diplomatic relations with Uruguay being conducted by the inhabitants of Gualeguaychú. Leaving bilateral relations in the hands of people living on the border is never really a good idea.

I believe the root of this dispute is to be found in the actions or lack of them of the Kirchner government. Ms Donovan's report I think shamelessly implies that Uruguay should back down in the face of Argentina's demands. No government could do this and survive and I believe that the Uruguayan government should not be asked to do so.
What is lacking in the report is an analysis of how the Kirchner government has blithely walked into this mess, dragging Uruguay along with it. Just because it is the bigger, more important power and has wrapped itself in a spurious environmental cloak is no reason not to call its bluff and force it to conform with the norms of international law and decency.

Yours,
Jean Fournier

~ This opinion essay is bias and too much influenced by Argentinean position. You should include a Uruguayan version of this conflict and uncovered the real selfish interest from Argentina in this conflict. It is too easy to write on something you are scarcely or not well informed. As an Uruguayan citizen I resent this kind of essays, but this is not the first time I have problems with essays published by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

Sincerely,

Hugo Achuga MLL Dept.

Between the Arrows and the Olive Branch: The Tortured Path of the War Powers Resolution in the Reagan Years (1981-1987)

In 1987, COHA Senior Research Fellow Terrence E. Paupp authored a law journal article examining the War Powers Resolution, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1972. Paupp's article, "Between the Arrows and the Olive Branch: The Tortured Path of the War Powers Resolution in the Reagan Years (1981-1987)," was published in the Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, Volume 1, Number 1, 1987, University of San Diego School of Law. The article contains two major sections, which examine, respectively, the Constitutional issues and several case studies.

Now, at the begining of 2007, Paupp's article appears to be even more relevant than when it was first published due to President Bush's proposal to "surge" 20,000 more American troops into the war in Iraq and continue with an armed presence in the country for at least the next two years. Paupp argues that such a result need not be the case if Congress has the courage to reassert its Constitutional rights with regard to its power to have a definitive say on the nation's waging of war. The War Powers Resolution, according to Paupp, gives Congress the ultimate authority in such matters.

The Constitution addresses the question of where the war power actually resides by advocating a balance between the Legislative and the Executive powers. Paupp's arguments is that just because President Bush is "Commander in Chief," this does not dismiss his Constitutional obligation to consult with Congress on the introduction and funding of U.S Armed Forces. Further, Congress retains the "power of the purse" to cut off funds when the Executive oversteps its bounds.

On a recent airing of the NBC' program, "Meet the Press," Senator Joe Biden (D - DE), the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relation Committee, asserted that there was no way for Congress to force President Bush to withdraw American troops from Iraq. This paper contends that Senator Biden is wrong in maintaining that President Bush can keep them there for a specified time period. The the contrary, Congress is free to resist this (In 1972, it passed the War Powers Resolution over President Nixon's veto).

The War Powers Act was designed chiefly to restore the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches of government with regard to declaring and waging war. The War Powers Resolution states in its introduction, Section 2(a), its intended goals:

"It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."

The Resolution's emphasis on "collective judgment" seeks to restore cooperation between the Executive and Legislative branches. In the Bush presidency there has been no such consultation with Congress. In its place, Bush and his legal team have come up with the theory of the "unitary Executive"---a president that can do as he will in matters of war and peace because he has the title of "Commander-in-Chief." Contrary to his ability to use this presidential proclamation in a plenary manner, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution is further defined and explicated by the War Powers Resolution which leaves ultimate authority on the engagement of American troops to the Congress.

The War Powers Act, as spelled out in Section 4, requires the president to send a report within 48 hours when, without a declaration of war, he introduces United States forces into combat or some other dangerous situation. In Section 4 (3) the Act requires that he consult with Congress when he seeks to deploy troops "in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation."

The reporting requirement is critical. Within 60-days after the report is submitted or required to be submitted (whichever comes first), Section 5 of the War Powers Act directs that "the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted)." Unless Congress has declared war or enacted a specific authorization to the use of the Armed Forces, or extended the 60- day period to not more than 90 days upon certification by the President, "such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution."

The result is this, Senator Biden is wrong in rendering minimalist analysis of Congress' authority when it comes to unlimited presidential prerogatives and when it comes to the use of force. Congress has the power to stop Bush's enlargement of the presence of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and---even more importantly--- Congress alone retains the explicit authority to withdraw ALL American forces by concurrent resolution.

Terrence E. Paupp is the author of the just-published book, Exodus From Empire: The Fall of America's Empire and the Rise of the Global Community (Pluto Press, 2007). [NOTE: It is available through barnesandnoble.com --- or through amazon.com]. COHA Senior Research Fellow Terrence Paupp has taught philosophy, international law, and political science at Southwestern College and National University. He is the author of a noteworthy earlier work, Achieving Inclusionary Governance: Advancing Peace and Development in First and Thirld World Nations (Transnational Publishers, 2000). From 2001-2005, he served as National Chancellor of the United States for the International Association of Educators for the World Peace (IAEWP). Currently, he divides his time between his responsabilities as a COHA Senior Reseacrh Fellow and as vice-president of the Association of World Citizens (AWC).

Click here to read the article

Regarding COHA's December 13 Press Release "Will Democrats Cut and Run from Bush’s Deeply Flawed Latin American Policy?"

• Bush’s Latin American policy and what can be expected now that the Democrats control both Houses of Congress
• Up to now, the Democrats have either ignored or lacked much wisdom on regional issues

Is there, or will there be, a revitalized Democratic Latin American policy as distinct from the farrago of ineptitude witnessed under the Bush administration? To begin, in Bush’s eye, the Cold War remains. The head of his personal list of enemies is Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, and, of course, Fidel Castro. While this may be a faithful characterization of the Bush hemispheric strategy, it does not differ that much from the opportunism and occasional meretricious initiatives of the Clinton administration and its all-encompassing pursuit of free trade. Clinton’s controversial trade agenda predictably developed a sharp cleavage over policy both within the Democratic and Republican parties as well as between them.

Full article...

~ With due respect for your integrity, I wish to ask you the following:
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO BEGIN TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT U.S. COLONIALISM IN PUERTO RICO AND BEGIN TO REQUIRE THE US'S OBEDIENCE TO THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE UNO'S COMMITTEE ON DE-COLONIZATION TO GET OUT OF PUERTO RICO, GRANT AND GUARANTEE ITS INDEPENDENCE THROUGH THE PAUMENT OF THE ASSIGNED DUES FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY OF EXPLOITATION AND ABUSE?
Colonialism has acquired its greatest seccesses in Puero Rico, causing it's people to lean on dependency, lack of self-esteem, and self demeaning to the point of making our people believe that they are "Americans" as the colonial term applies to USians. We cannot go through life claiming defendeses of peoples' rights without encompassing each and every place where those rights are being trampled.

Yours truly,

Ramón E. Dapena, ex-Puerto Rican legislator and US citizen though not by choice but because of invasion and colonialism ~

Dear Ramon,

The people here mainly select the themes they wish to write and go ahead and do it. We had a young “independentista” a year or so ago and he did a couple of articles on that issue (maybe just one on that issue). We’ll see whether we can get one going on the subject. Believe me, I respect your obvious passion on the subject and we’ll try to service the issue.

My best,

Larry Birns
Director of COHA

Regarding COHA's December 21 Press Release "Washington (Perhaps Unwittingly) Unleashes Another Onslaught on an Already Precarious Caribbean Economy"

A correction has been made to the aforementioned piece, in which a statistic showed that 17% of Americans were in possession of a passport. Since publication, the author has updated the fact in accordance with the most recent data, which shows the figure to be closer to 25%.

Regarding COHA's November 15 "Washington Looks to Cement its Military Presence in Central America by Emphasizing its Ties to Honduras"

The Latest in a Series of COHA Reports on the Latin American Military

• Daniel Ortega’s victory in Nicaragua’s recent presidential election could roil the U.S. – as well as its friends in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama – making Central America the new fulcrum for the Bush administration’s future regional security policy

When Honduran President Manuel Zelaya visited Washington this past June, he had two security-related requests for President Bush. The first was to convert the Colonel Enrique Soto Cano airbase (also commonly known as Palmerola) into a commercial air cargo terminal, while the second was to deploy U.S. Special Forces along the Mosquitia region in eastern Honduras to help combat drug-trafficking along the Caribbean coast. At the time of President Zelaya’s visit, there were numerous media reports indicating that a military facility would be built in the Mosquitia with Washington aid that would, most likely, house some form of a U.S. military presence.

Full Article

~Response from Armstrong A. Wiggins~

It is very sad you write a story about Military Presence in Central America... specifically in La Moskitia, Hondoras and you didn't mention anything about the Miskito Indian from la Moskitia that own that land and territories.. I think Daniel Ortega from Nicaragua needs to consult with Miskito from Nicaragua and Zelaya from Honduras need to do the same with the Miskitos from la Moskitia, Honduras.

COHA still don't get it!

-Armstrong A. Wiggins

Reply from COHA Staff:

Mr. Wiggins,

I agree with you that I should have made a clear reference to the Miskito people's position on the proposed military facility and I apologize for not doing so. However, the scope of my article was an analysis of Central American security and the U.S.' interests in the region, and as I was working under space limitations, I was unable to discuss the Miskito's position as well as other relevant issues to the proposed facility.

I agree that any proposed military facility should be the result of conclusive talks among the governments and Miskito people- I sincerely hope that this will be the case. COHA will continue to closely monitor the situationand report whatever events may occur. I do hope that even though I did not discuss it directly, my article helped raise awareness of events going on in the Mosquitia.

Finally, I can assure you that COHA does "get it." Since its foundation, COHA has fought to improve responsible policymaking and to promote the rights of people across the hemisphere, from the persecuted during the era of South AMerica military governments to those who suffered during the civil wars in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. We try our best to report on important events occurring throughout the region, particularly those regarding ethnic groups, like the Miskito, Colombia's U'wa, Chile's mapuches etc.

Regarding COHA's November 2 Press release: "Nicaragua Elections: Ortega Appeals to a Higher Power"

• For the fourth time since his unceremonious electoral ousting from the presidential office in 1990, Daniel Ortega is looking to become the next leader of Nicaragua - and thanks to his forgiving supporters, along with his increasingly preachy sermons, he may achieve it
• The U.S., in spite of the best covert efforts at intervention undertaken by Ambassador Paul Trivelli, has failed to bring cohesion to Ortega’s opposition and is likely to lose even more leverage in Latin America in the event of a Sandinista victory

In a campaign replete with warm-and-fuzzy rhetoric aimed at influencing the populace to look less critically at his infractions incurred during three-decades of public life, Daniel Ortega is once again running for president. Some analysts have concluded that this time he will not lose his bid as he did in 1990, 1996 and 2001, as his current closest competitor is straggling more than ten points behind him. However, looking beyond his evangelical-styled appearances at public rallies, where he never fails to pronounce the importance of reconciliation, it becomes increasingly apparent that Ortega does not really have a clearly etched platform regarding key issues such as land reform, free trade initiatives, workers’ rights or drug policy, only tactics of the day. Concomitantly, his likely victory has to be seen as providing momentum behind South America’s pink tide movement, and the strong likelihood that, to Washington’s great chagrin, he will develop some kind of a relationship with Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales. One clue to the true nature of his presidential bid is the fact that his past enmity towards the U.S. obviously still runs deep, as shown in his periodic blasts at the “empire” given at whistle stops along his campaign trail. At the same time, however, his style has been to minimize the stormy history of Nicaragua’s past and future bilateral relations between the two countries. Come November 5, Nicaraguans will have to decide if Ortega really is the changed man he claims to be.

Full article ...

~To the Editors, Ryann Bresnahan et al,

The progressives in Nicaragua have been betrayed enormously by Ortega, and his opportunistic alliance with --Aleman!-- and the Church in Nicaragua, The incredible vote which was unanimous to deny any woman an abortion]under any circumstances, was unbelievable, and besides the problems in that particularly oppressive content, was a measure of how far Ortega was willing to go to get elected.

Had Lewites not died, he would have been much closer to the core spirit and values of Sandinismo, and though they have little chance of winning, the remaining candidates for Lewites' party are at least honest partisans to represent the values that were inherent in the original Sandinista revolution.

I am very surprised, as a regular COHA subscriber and reader, and someone who appreciates the COHA research and papers, that this piece ignored the serious and deep flaws in the Ortega candidacy, not to mention his own personal liabilities in the allegations made towards him by his step-daughter.

The progressives had a real dilemma, given the US interference-- and may have had to support Ortega only for that reason. But he looks, sounds, and acts like someone who on the way to the presidency got corrupted.

Please follow up with another article in the near future on the status of women at this time in Nicaragua. I have at least three articles in Spanish from Nicaragua that describe the rage of the womens' movement there.

Thank you for your work, in general, though I take exception to this article.

David Green

Thanks-

COHA staff:

Dear David,

In all sincerity, I think that we were rather harsh on Ortega.
In fact, we raised all the points except for the abortion vote (which you brought up).
I do recall that Ortega put me up in the early 1980 when I was visiting the country. For this, he deserves some leeway. However, I agree with you.

Regarding COHA’s October 10 Op-Ed: “Pragmatism vs. Populism in South America”

• The foreign policies of South American countries reflect the intricacies of national interests rather than any overarching ideology

• Correspondingly, the perception of Washington among the South American public is characterized by substantial diversity

The reemergence of populism and the intriguing if possibly brief half-life of the left-leaning “pink tide” movement in South America have facilitated a somewhat misleading perception that the continent as a whole is headed towards an era of leftist, anti-U.S. policies. While the hostility between Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and the Bush administration reached a new high at the 61st UN General Assembly session, most of the other South American nations have taken a decidedly more pragmatic stance with regards to Washington, essentially sitting out the spat now taking place around them. In fact, the majority of South American leaders often play both sides – cooperating with left-leaning Latin American stalwarts while accommodating themselves, at important junctions, to U.S. priorities. Thus the challenges posed by Hugo Chávez and often Evo Morales could represent the exception rather than the norm.

Full article...

~ Gentlemen: One of the things we need nowadays is objective information. Utilizing the term Populism is playing up to the detractors of a system for Social Justice, it is a tool to adhere the subterm "ism" to anything in order to get it installed in the minds of the public as an idelogical brother of "communism", "fascism", "nazism", et al. Please cooperate to a better and clearer understanding. Riggin Dapena, La Corunha, Spain

COHA is always ready to cooperate and we will consider the point that you made. Please remember that the “populism” piece was put in the dissent section and does not represent COHA’s official position.

Larry Birns
COHA Director

Regarding COHA's October 19 Press Release: "UN Delegations: Consider St. Lucia for the Security Council’s Latin American Seat"

Guatemala and Venezuela have persistently fallen short of the two thirds majority needed to secure GRULAC’s (the UN’s Latin American and Caribbean caucus) seat in the UN Security Council (UNSC) after more than two days of voting and 22 grueling rounds of balloting. Now, into the third day of voting, the results read: Guatemala 110, Venezuela 77. Voting was suspended on Tuesday until today, Thursday October 19, giving Venezuela and Guatemala’s ringmaster and vociferous supporter – the United States –time to lobby other governments into supporting their respective camps, or to consider a compromised third nominee.

Full article...

~Interesting idea. And I haven't seen think tanks trying to alter public debates on United Nations votes before.

Bob Press

Robert Press
Assistant Professor
Political Science
University of Southern Mississippi


~I'm a bit taken aback by your St. Lucia suggestion for the GRULAC Security Council seat. The choice between Venezuela and Guatemala should be a simple one - like choosing between St. Joan and Jack the Ripper even if Jack is always the US's favorite as long as he's our Jack.

I hope Chavez has other ideas, and if I were he I would never back off an inch from pursuing what all the UN neys know he deserves despite their cowardly votes against him. I'd go 122 ballots and many more to infinity until they threw me out bodily. He just may do that. If you can send me his email address, I'll recommend it.

I do enjoy your articles so please keep sending even though I disagree at times. I write a great deal about Venezuela for VHeadline.com.

Steve Lendman

Regarding COHA’s September 18 Press Release “Trinidad and Tobago’s Dirty Peg to the U.S. Dollar and Inflation Galore: Fateful Days for the Economy”

Thursday, October 12th, 2006

Mr. Anthony Wilson
Business Editor
Trinidad Guardian

Thank you for the time you spent in critiquing my analysis. You made several valid points and the necessary changes will be made to the article. However in several concerns you voiced, you had been overly hasty to prove the thesis wrong and missed important facts that compromise your position. For your benefit in the following I have included some sources from widely respected economic analysis providers.
Sincerely,
Brittany Bond
Research Associate, Council on Hemispheric Affairs
I respond piece-meal leaving intact your original critiques.

Mr. Wilson: 1)COHA states that the Trinidad government is “disproportionately channelling investments into its natural gas and oil production.”
The government is described as engaging in a “biased allotment of funds to the energy sector.”
This statement is entirely bogus.
The TRUTH is the Trinidad government has made few direct investments in the energy sector. Such investments as have been made were made by State-owned companies such as NGC and Petrotrin. All projects were scrupulously analysed, were funded by foreign project financiers and were based on the balance sheets of the companies.
Most of the investments in the energy sector have been made by foreign and local private sector businesses.

COHA STAFF: According to reliable sources such as caribbeannenews.com (Trinidad Government to Ease Inflationary Pressures 08/31/2006) and The Economist, (Trinidad’s dash for development 08/42/2006) there is warranted reason to believe that the Trinidad government is channeling extra investments towards natural gas and oil production. For example, Minister in the Ministry of Finance, Conrad Enill, made the announcement while speaking in the Senate on Tuesday August 22 on a government motion meant to increase the borrowing limit in the country from TT$8 billion to TT$20 billion to better manage excess liquidity in the economy. He also noted that while Trinidad and Tobago was not directly affected by record-high global oil prices due to Government’s TT$1.3 million subsidy on fuel, it was experiencing indirect effects with regard to inflation.

Mr. Wilson: 2) COHA states:
“Most significantly, this inflation-rate statistic is actually being negatively altered by Trinidad and Tobago¹s record-breaking gas and oil revenues. This is due to government restraint in raising interest rates in the energy sector so as not to deter investments from the only area supporting the country¹s economy. If gas and oil figures were not included in the average, the inflation rates would be seen as bordering on the astronomical. ”
This statement is entirely bogus.
The TRUTH is the all energy companies fund most of their capital expenditure requirements in US dollars from foreign banks. Even the local energy companies fund their capex requirements from foreign banks.
The Government (really the Central Bank) has little influence over interest rates on US dollars held in Trinidadian banks.
Therefore, rising interest rates have little impact on the energy sector

COHA STAFF: It is basic economics that in order to abate increasing inflation, a government should raise interest rates. In carefully reading the above quote from Trinidad’s Finance Minister, it is seen that although indirectly, Trinidad’s energy sector is, in fact effected by inflation.
In regard to energy companies trading funds, you are correct, in that it is in fact, relevant and important to mention that oil and gas are by-and-large traded in U.S. dollars.

Mr. Wilson: 3) The COHA analysis suggests that the TT dollar would appreciate if it was allow to float freely, “given the positive effects of foreign investment and trade surplus.”
This statement is false, misleading and shows a woeful lack of knowledge of Trinidad realities. One Trinidad reality is that the Central Bank has had to sell hundreds of millions of US dollars to the market to prop up the TT dollar thereby preventing its depreciation. Anyone who has even fleeting knowledge of the T&T economy would know this. If it were not so, the Central Bank would be in a position of having to buy US dollars from the market to maintain exchange rate stability.
As most people know, foreign investment and energy tax payments (trade surplus) are lumpy with tax payments being made quarterly and foreign investments being disbursed as necessary.

COHA STAFF: You say “One Trinidad reality is that the Central Bank has had to sell hundreds of millions of US dollars to the market to prop up the TT dollar thereby preventing its depreciation.” I am fairly certain that is another way of defining a Dirty Peg. A Dirty Peg if I must reiterate often creates an illusionary value of the smaller country’s currency vis-à-vis the currency it is pegged to.
This is very similar to the current issue at the IMF and World Bank where China’s peg to the U.S. dollar has become a very contentious issue because if China allowed it’s currency to float freer it would appreciate relative to the US dollar. As of now, it is artificially cheapened (just like the Trinidadian dollar) so that Chinese exports are cheaper in the U.S. and U.S. goods are more expensive in China.

Mr. Wilson: 4) The COHA analysis states: “Since the T & T dollar is kept at a lower pegged rate, foreigners can buy Trinidadians and Tobagonian products, like natural gas and other products, cheaper than if the currency was appreciating as would happen if it freely floated.”
If this argument were correct, it would mean that Trinidad nationals would be able to buy foreign products at cheaper prices. But it would also mean a flood of “cheap” foreign products into T&T with no guarantee that prices would be lowered as a result given the structure of the economy. (The proof of this is that lower import tariffs have had little impact on prices)
In my view, an appreciation of the exchange rate would lead to a massive draw-down of the country’s foreign reserves as everyone would expect the appreciation to be temporary.

COHA STAFF: Again, it is basic economics that an artificially appreciated currency from pegging means that this country’s (Trinidad’s) exports are equally artificially cheaper abroad and the imports from countries whose currencies are artificially cheapened by the peg (United States) are artificially more expensive. Therefore, no there would not be a flood of “cheap” foreign products into T&T; just the opposite.

Mr. Wilson: 5) COHA states: “So far, the Trinidadian Bank has concentrated all its efforts into managing monetary policy, largely ignoring the fiscal aspect of inflation risks.”
The TRUTH is that the Central Bank is responsible for managing monetary policy. As in most other countries, fiscal policy is the province of the Minister of Finance.

COHA STAFF:Thank you. Valid observation. It would be more correct to say the Trinidad and Tobago has concentrated all its efforts into managing monetary policy… There is a need to distinguish between the separate roles the Central Bank and the Minister of Finance play. This error will be corrected in my analysis.

Mr. Wilson: 6) COHA states: “For example, flushed with large sums of energy revenues, the Central Bank has taken on large-scale construction of roads, railways, factories and medical facilities.”
The TRUTH is that it is the Central Government that is responsible for undertaking the large-scale projects, not the Central Bank. The Central Government has NOT “taken on” the large scale construction of factories and medical facilities. The railway project is in the planning stage as is the construction of most highways.

COHA STAFF: Again, you are correct in pointing out my errors in enumerating the responsible bodies. It is not the Central Bank but in fact the Central Government that is taking on large-scale construction projects. This error too will be fixed in my analysis.
I am however not alone in cautioning Trinidad and Tobago in over-extending itself with these over ambitious construction projects. (you can refer to The Economist as well as Economic Intelligence Unit for similar voicing of concerns)

Mr. Wilson: 7) COHA states: “However, missing in these mega-projects are the doctors for the new facilities, as well as water sources for those communities desiccated because of the water-guzzling new factories.
Trinidad’s problems with provision of medical services and water are well known but the statement that doctors are “missing” in the “new” facilities is a figment of the authors over-active imagination. There are no “water-guzzling new factories” and existing petrochemical plants are supplied with desalinated water from the Gulf of Paria.

COHA STAFF: This analysis came from several of my news sources including the aforementioned Economist article which states:
“Flush with revenue, the government has gone on a spending spree: on free higher education and skills training as well as roads, a commuter railway, low-cost housing, a national cancer-treatment programme and leisure facilities. It seems to find such mega-projects easier to implement than reforming routine public services. Hospitals are short of good administrators and, sometimes, medicine. Waiting lists for operations are long.”
In relation to the problems of water guzzling factories consider the following assertion again from the Economist:
“But the boom is throwing up problems too, ranging from rising food prices to traffic jams, with two hours of gridlock each morning. In the rural south a middle-aged householder says his district has had no mains water for days because of the demand from thirsty factories.”

Mr. Wilson: 8) COHA states: “The government¹s asymmetrical spending, which benefits the energy sector, crowds out investment from less favored parts of the economy.”
It would be a stretch to claim that the Government’s spending is benefiting the energy sector. The TRUTH is that the Government’s asymmetrical spending is being poured into unnecessary building projects. These are crowding out less favoured parts of the economy, as stated.

COHA STAFF: To continue my consistency, please consider the following point recently enumerated by experts at the Economist:
“Some Trinidadians fear that the island is trying to grow too fast. If planned industrial projects go ahead, known gasfields could be used up in about 20 years. They worry about the environment, and note that growth is lopsided: agriculture is in swift decline, for example.”

Regarding COHA Report “The Rebirth of Populism in Latin America Poses A Powerful Challenge to the Neoliberal Order"

History may never repeat itself, but some patterns have a tenacious staying power. Latin America’s populist political movements, as today’s genera represented by Hugo Chávez in Venezuela would exemplify, display a recurring vigor which is not all that mysterious. On the one hand, powerful elites continue to dominate the region’s economic and political structures. In the context of more than two decades of recent neoliberal economic initiatives, the rich have become much richer, and everyone else has tended to fall steadily behind. Social justice throughout the region is at best spotty, and often tends to be little more than an elusive fantasy or the prospected gift of blowhards. On the other hand, Latin America’s less-favored inhabitants remain decidedly unsatisfied with the status quo, and indeed, see it as a noxious growth that must be cut at the root. The above are textbook conditions for the rise of populism.

Full article...




~ Dr. W. John Green
Could you kindly document where I have advocated reduced public spending adn a flattened tax structure, both of which you attribute to me personally. If you are unable to do this, kindly print a correction and retraction,

Yours faithfully

John Williamson~



~COHA REPONDS:

Dr. Williamson,
It was not my attention to attribute those specific policies to you personally, nor do I think my wording actually does so. But it could be clearer, I agree.
I’ll speak to Larry Birns, COHA’s director about sending out a clarification, if you so desire.

Respectfully,
John GreenCOHA Senior Research Fellow~


~Dr Green,
Your article states inter alia “Williamson’s advice…included…reduced public spending and a flattened tax structure…”. That seems to me absolutely unambigous, and is incorrect. I would appreciate a clarification, retraction, and apology.

John Williamson~



~COHA Responds

Dr Williamson,

Let’s look at the full quote.

“Williamson’s advice, aimed at developing countries around the globe, embodied ideas long favored by neoliberal economists that emphasized “free market” solutions. These included fiscal discipline, redirected (and reduced) public spending, and a flattened tax structure that dropped the higher brackets while raising the lower. Governments were advised to eliminate tariffs and encourage greater hospitality to direct foreign investment. However, without question, the most important of these “reforms” was the deregulation of the business environment and privatization of state-owned enterprises.”

My mistake here is not making enough of a break between these two sentences. The first seems defendable enough. So are the following sentences, except that I utterly fail to make it clear that I’m going on to address the general complement of policies often associated with what some would call a “neoliberal” take, and others a “free market” approach, and not your individual position. It was not my intention to attribute to you all policies associated with this general perspective, but one can look at it that way. I disagree, howver that it is “absolutely unambigous” as you say. If it were, we would not be having this exchange.
If you demand that I apologize for a sin against clear writing, I do so now, and will do so again in public as soon as possible.

Once again, Respectfully,
John Green~

~Dr. Green,

Actually my paper was directed primarily at Washington, and was about Latin America not “developing countries around the globe”, but we’ll let that pass. It did indeed embody some to the ideas favored by neoliberal economists–all the mainstream ideas they favored, like fiscal discipline, redirected public expenditure, and free trade, and none of their cranky ones like reduced public spending everywhere and flat tax structures. I do not see how anyone can read the second sentence as not applying to me, and accordingly I would indeed appreciate your using the mechanisms you have to publicise an apology.

John Williamson~

~COHA Responds:

Dr. Williamson,

I’m sorry this has happened. As I wrote, I agree that it can be read this way, and at best it is unclear. I simply hate getting it wrong, especially through imprecise writing. If I understand Larry’s intentions correctly, I believe COHA will be doing two things. One is to rewrite that paragraph to separate your personal policy recommendations from the larger list, and make that public. The second is to air this in COHA’s Forum section, and declare mea cupla. I’ll get back to you when this is done.

John Green~

Regarding COHA’s August 8 Press Release “Expanding the Panama Canal: A Wider Canal or More Governmental Payola?”

• Under the Torrijos government, the expanding Panama Canal will not likely serve the needs of the vast majority of Panamanians. Much of the benefits will be tied to the commercial interests of the country’s accountants, bankers and lawyers, as well as their U.S. counterparts, and world trade
• Final costs: $5 or $25 billion?
• The current government, not yet corruption-free, is not sufficiently professional to be trusted as the steward of such an enormous and lucrative financial venture
• Evidence of venality surrounds the Torrijos administration, as well as the canal’s management
• Other administration flaws raise questions about Panama City’s capacity to supervise such an enormous project

In early May of 2006, Panama’s President Martin Torrijos announced the publication of the official summary of the proposed canal expansion project and rallied the nation to support the single largest public works project in that country’s history, after the construction of the Panama Canal. The fate of this project will be determined in the referendum scheduled for October 22 of this year. The expansion, proposed by the Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (ACP), includes the construction of a third set of locks as well as the expansion of existing ones, allowing for a faster transit of ships as well as accommodating larger “post-Panamax” vessels.
According to the ACP, an increase in tolls and foreign loans will pay for the estimated $5.25 billion project. While the government boasts that the project will generate a vast number of jobs for its large numbers of unemployed citizens, many Panamanians are coming to the conclusion that canal expansion may not be in their best interest at this time.

Full article...





~Dear Larry Birns,

I. There are factual errors in the piece. For example, your document says that the project includes widening the existing locks — this is not part of the proposal and has never been considered. On the Moscoso item you mentioned, I can tell you definitively that she is not serving in any role on the expansion project, in the Panamanian government or at the ACP.
I understand from our conversation where you were trying to go with this piece — and what precipitated COHA writing it — but the piece really does leave the impression that the project is wrong, that the ACP/Panamanian government is corrupt and that expansion would be a disaster for the country.

Again, as I know you know, there is total unanimity that the ACP (which is autonomous from the government) is doing a good job for the Panamanians and world trade—they are running the Canal better than the United States. Moreover, the ACP’s billions in contributions to the Panamanian government in six years exceed by far the contribution the U.S. gave to Panama from 1914-1999. And expansion is needed now — the impetus for the project is that the Canal is nearing full capacity. I would encourage you to review, in particular, the unique aspects of the proposal, such as the use of rolling gates and the benefits of Water Saving Basins, which are good for the environment and water conservation.

II. As I mentioned, the ACP is prohibited from creating debt for the Panamanian government. The costs for the project are prohibited from being transferred to the government of Panama and, by extension, to Panamanians. The impression or “take away” from the piece is that the project is corrupt, going to cost a lot more than the estimate and that the average Panamanian is going be left holding the bag. Below are the laws of the country which ensure the abovementioned items:

A. Panamanian Constitution, Title XIV Article 320
Article 320. The Panama Canal Authority shall adopt a triennial financial planning and management system, according to which it shall approve its annual budget by means of a justified resolution; this budget shall not be included in the general budget of the government of Panama.

B. National (Legislative) Assembly LAW No.28 (of July 17, 2006)

Article 2. The proposal approved by this Law shall be subject to the following provisions:
1. All of the works costs and pertinent financial or other liabilities which proceed there from shall be paid with moneys generated from Canal operations and from such tolls increases as may be determined from time to time, pursuant to relevant norms and procedures.

2. The Canal as defined in Law 19 of 1997 and given its inalienable nature, shall Not be mortgaged, or encumbered in any other way whatsoever, in order to guarantee the fulfillment of the liabilities originated by the project; nor shall it be the object of any precautionary measure to demand fulfillment of such liabilities.

3. During the construction of the project, payments by the Panama Canal Authority to the National Treasury in concept of surpluses shall not be less than those made in such concept for Panama Canal Authority Fiscal Year 2005. The total amount of the transfers in concept of fees per net ton and surpluses shall not be less than the total amount of the transfers made for Panama Canal Authority Fiscal Year 2006.

4. No reservoirs shall be built for the operation of the third set of locks.

5. Funding for this project shall not bear State endorsement or guarantee.

C. Panama Canal Authority Expansion Proposal, p. 72 of PDF
No guarantee or endorsement by the Government will be used. None of the Canal’s financing will bear the sovereign guarantee of the State. Consequently, the Canal’s financing contracts will not be consolidated with the sovereign debt. In other words, just as Canal finances do not form part of the public sector’s finances, the financing for building the third set of locks would not form part of the State’s public debt.

III. On the cost estimates

It is irresponsible to say that the project may cost $25 billion. No one believes the cost is going to be $16-25 billion. The Roger Pardo-Mauer’s quote was not reacting to the ACP’s project; it was in relation to an abstract question on Canal modernization/expansion and was not supported in any way, with backup, facts or third-party evidence. He did not know the details of the Canal’s proposal when he gave that answer.

Aside from Pardo-Mauer’s one line, there is no evidence that the project would cost substantially more than the ACP’s estimates. The ACP has spent the better part of three years modeling this project — with substantial outside help from academics and management consulting firms. In total, they have done more than 150 studies.

Here is some background on the research done for the costs:
ACP personnel developed the costs and estimates based on numerous demand forecasts, under the guidance of premier firms, using sophisticated financial modeling to provide their surveys and estimates.

* There are three main pillars to the cost estimate:
o First, the cost estimate is based on a detailed lock and navigational channels conceptual designo Second, this conceptual design was thoroughly analyzed in terms of the feasibility of its construction, to determine the sequence and interdependency of activities, and to accurately estimate the requirement for manpower, equipment, operating supplies, energy, administration and tests and materials, among other considerationso Third, the cost estimate was supplemented with the use of a state-of-the-art risk analysis model that evaluated and weighed factors such as uncertainty and contingencies
* The project’s cost estimate considers:
o Potential increases in manpower
o Equipment
o Operating supplies and materials costs
o Possible price fluctuations (particularly for key operating supplies and materials)
o Delays in the construction (such as weather, design changes, productivity fluctuations)
o Consequences and effects of shortages or timely availability of equipment, materials, and personnel
o Effect of inflation during the time period. The total estimate includes an average annual inflation of 2 percent and does not include possible financing costs per information from the General Comptroller’s Office and the International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook Database of March 2006. Panama’s average inflation has been approximately 1.10 percent during the last 16 years (1990-2005)
* Cost Breakdown (in millions) Totaling 5,250:
o Locks
+ 1,1100 for Atlantic Lock+ 1030 for Pacific Locks+ 590 for Contingency (possible variations for each component along with an assumed inflation of 2%)
o Water Saving Basins
+ 270 Atlantic+ 210 Pacific+ 140 Contingency
o Access Channels for New Locks
+ 70 Atlantic (dredging)+ 400 Pacific (dry excavation)+ 180 Pacific (dredging)+ 170 contingency
o Existing Navigational Channel Improvements
+ 30 deepening and widening of Atlantic Entrance+ 90 widening of Gatun Lake Channel+ 120 Deepening and Widening of Pacific Entrance+ 50 Contingency
o Water supply improvements
+ 30 increase the maximum level of Gatun Lake+ 150 Deepening of the navigational channels+ 80 contingency

IV. Your piece also claims that the jobs creation estimates are way off and that there are contradictions between the government’s estimates and the ACP’s. This is not true. Both the government of Panama and the ACP have maintained that there will be job creation of 35,000 to 40,000 direct and indirect (6,500 – 7,000 will be direct during the high peak of construction). On medium-and long-term growth, both the government and ACP have maintained that, assuming certain GDP predictions and economic forecasts, (study performed by IntraCorp, March 2006) an additional 150,000 to 250,000 people by the year 2025 would have a job thanks to expansion.

Appreciate you addressing this. Please let me know if you need additional information.

Thank you again.

Chris Hayes Consultant on Panal Canal Expansion

Edleman Public Relations~

~Dear Larry:
It’s been too long. Hope you are well and still battling away. We will never forget your support during our darkest years in Panamà.
I’ve just received COHA’s “Expanding the Panama Canal…” and believe you might be interested in my comments.

After much study and investigation I came out with a positive opinion on the Canal expansion project, but also with a very strong position on the need for a “social Pact” of all sectors of society on the required social investments of the excess revenues produced by the expanded Canal, and a citizens’ monitoring system to guarantee the funds are not unwisely spent by politicians of all stripes and partisan colors.

The excess revenues between the years of ’07 and ’25 are estimated to be $29 Billion dollars. This money, well invested, could pole vault Panama into the First World – which necessarily means eradication of poverty and creation of a strong middle class. I believe the movement towards a consensus of a social pact is close to being achieved with UNDP as facilitator; we will know in the next few weeks. The only hold-out is the President, but we are keeping the pressure on strong.

Some notes on your report:

a) “The project is likely to go way over budget..as much as 5 times the amount”.
Budget overruns on a 7-8 year project are obviously a major concern,but inflation is calculated way over historical averages, material price increasesare built-in and there is a one billion dollar contingency built in; afterexamining it closely, I am comfortable with this risk factor.

b) “Many Panamanians are coming to the conclusion the Canal’s expansion may not be in their best interest…”.
Serious surveys consistently show from 60 to 70% positive votes for expansion, with an extra 10 points if a social pact process is started before the Referendum.

c) “…the project will only serve as another vehicle for the US to project its authorityin Latin America…”.
Wow! This is the first time in our history as a nation that the Canal is run by Panamanians (much better, may I say, than the U.S. did). The expansion project is built by Panamanians and will be approved by Panamanians. For the first time we will not have the gringos to blame. As for U.S. influence in Latin America, inmy view, it has never been weaker. Anti-U.S. positions seem to elect governments throughout the hemisphere.

d) “Revenues from the Canal in 2005 Fiscal Year were $489 Million…”
Wrong! Revenues were $1,250 Million. Profits to the Panama government were $489 Million.

e) “The Catholic Church of Panama is adamantly opposed to the expansion”.
Wrong.

f) “Bobby Eisenmann, a prominent Panamanian….purportedly wrote for the ACPpropaganda Journal “El Foro”, which is included weekly in La Prensa, a publication that Eisenmann partly owns. In exchange, Eisenmann allegedly has received a lucrative benefit from the insertion of the campaign brochure in the newspaper”.
Wrong, and shameful for COHA! How can anyone in his right mind believe that a man who risked his life on a daily basis for 21 years fighting a Dictatorship on principle is going to sell-out his soul “in exchange” for pennies going to a newspaper from which he retired 11 years ago and in which he holds a minority ownership position of less than ½ of 1%? Besides, what I wrote was an op-ed piece in La Prensa, and that’s what was reproduced by El Faro.

The other corruption assumptions under the same sub-title are equally wrong.

a) “Lack of press freedom…”.
Based on the firing of one columnist? ….come on, be serious! Panama has a vibrant critical Press that drives governments of all stripes up the wall on a daily basis.

b) “The expansion is not of immediate vital importance as post-Panamax shipsare not in wide use”.
Wrong. The expansion is needed for all ships due to lines of ships waiting to go through. Once we decide on the needed expansion, it is best to accommodate the post-Panamax size ships now in production.

c) “Observers must be vigilant when it comes to ensuring a fair Referendum in orderto prevent the type crisis now witnessed in Mexico”
Post-dictatorship Panama has had 6 electoral and referendum voting processes, and in all 6 the Opposition of the moment has won, and not once has the loser cried “foul”. We have an almost perfect electoral democracy (no Mexico comparison is possible).
We lack a citizens’ Democracy and require radical judicial reform and a continued fight against corruption (I chair the Transparency International – Panama Chapter).

Larry: I sincerely hope that my comments will help you balance out COHA’s position, as I always knew it…: hard and firm in its quest for justice, but with serious information.

A big abrazo from your long lost amigo,
I.Roberto Eisenmann, Jr.~

~ Hey Larry,
No problem; I’ve just read it & I’ve had a few minutes to spare todayso I’m responding at some length.
My impression is: what is Panama’s alternative? The Canal is their mostlucrative asset and from an overall shipping perspective, I don’t seeanyway around the argument that it must be expanded as soon as possible. If the status quo remains, the only option to increase Panama’s revenues from that asset is to watch traffic hit the capacity ceiling at some point in the next five years, then squeeze customers as much as possible when that ceiling is reached by hiking tolls further, until customer backlash from costs and delays pushes them to alternate routes.
I agree that the percentage increase in Asian-US trade is going toinevitably decrease, particularly given that the limit of importsubstitution for certain goods that were previously US domestic-sourcedis being reached, so Asian-US trade growth in such cases will fall more in line with US demand growth for those goods and will be less inflated by offshoring.

But I think it’s incorrect to assume that Panama Canal traffic growthis so directly correlative with Asian-US trade growth. In fact, Canal growth is being heavily buoyed by the diversification strategies of the major US shippers (Wal-Mart, et. al.), who have been convinced by the 2002 US West Coast port labour disaster and the 2004 congestion crisis in LA/Long Beach that they can no longer afford to keep all their supply-chain eggs in the LA/Long Beach basket, therefore, they must diversify import gateways more to the US East/Gulf Coasts via both the Panama Canal and increasingly, the Suez Canal.

This trend (which is believed to be a largely permanent supply chainshift)is a major factor in Panama Canal traffic growth above and beyondoverall Asia-US trade growth — representing a plus for the expansion argument that your article doesn’t mention. Also in Panama’s favour, I’d point out some significant advantages over its Suez competitor vis-à-vis import diversification to the US East/Gulf Coasts: the Suez is much more expensive toll-wise (even vs. the projected Panama rate hikes to fund expansion) and the route from Asia-to-US is longer via the Suez, meaning that more ships are required to offer weekly Suez service strings than Panama service…currently, the Suez’ pitch to shipping lines is that they can use larger, more cost-effective vessels, but Panama would theoretically undercut this advantage through its expansion.

Anyway, I personally believe the Panama government is doing the right thing by pushing for Canal expansion now. They have devised a construction plant that will keep transits volumes flowing during construction process. And more importantly, the alternative inherent in not moving forward is: (1)shippers will be forced to keep more of their US imports flowing through the West Coast when they otherwise wouldn’t have and (2) alternate trade routes will grow and take the profits Panama could have gained for itself(alternatives include not only the Suez but plans for new British Colombia and Baja port developments using rail links to US, and to a much lesser extent, the very nascent cross-Mexico land-bridge idea). In other words, consider the opportunity costs of Panama not moving forward.

Of course, I have no doubt the whole venture will be riddled with corruption, but who else but the Panama government can expand the canal? So I think of it as a necessary evil allowing the necessary expansion of just about the only asset Panama has that can create more employment and prosperity for the country. Even if I agree that the trickle-down effect will be heavily diminished by the people at the top taking an overlarge share of the booty, what other alternative is there for Panamanians given their limited assets?
I also think that now is the time to move forward, not later, because the Canal is just years away from reaching its capacity and developers providing carriers and shippers with other trade-route alternatives will be quick to take advantage of any delays in expansion by Panama. Meanwhile, Panama has studied this thing to death already; I don’t think they’ll gain any further insight by doing more studies.
I’m not saying the whole thing won’t go wildly over-budget and be a disaster; it’s Panama, after all, so that’s certainly possible. But the shipping industry is indeed willing to pay the higher tolls to underwrite this, the volumes are there and are fairly certain to continue growing, and the alternative is essentially a guaranteed loss, versus a potential albeit uncertain win. Anyway, that’s my opinion.

–Best regards, Greg Miller~

~ COHA Responds:

Several weeks ago, Ashley Dalman, along with a number of other COHA research associates who had collaborated with her on the research project, issued a study on the recent proposal by the Panamanian government to increase the capacity of the Panama Canal. COHA’s major thesis was not to suggest that the canal does not require expansion, but rather that the project’s estimated cost (over $5 billion) may, in practice, dramatically exceed that figure and could cost as much as $25 billion accounting for over-runs, inflation and the inevitable factor of corruption. Given the nature long history of graft and venality on the part of past Panamanian governments, as well as the already swarmy track record of the Torrijos administration, COHA argued that the latter may not be the best-suited candidate to be the steward of such an ambitious endeavor. Two other concerns which COHA has taken up in its essay are:

1) the validity of the government’s claim of the number of jobs that will be created from the expansion project

2) the lack of public discussion concerning the possible environmental impact.

Additionally, in reference to Chris Hayes’ letter re-printed here, COHA recognizes the impartiality, up to this point, of the Canal Commission, the ACP; however, with Panamanian history so full of insidious corruption incidents—often involving U.S. principals—and the ubiquitous nature of Panama’s lack of civic rectitude, one would be wise to be somewhat wary of any adverse pressure on the autonomous nature of the ACP and whether the Torrijos administration is a fit implementing body for the project.

COHA acknowledges the factual errors that Mr. Hayes has graciously pointed out. Like all research projects, this one is not immune from an occasional mishap and COHA will immediately modify its findings to reflect these facts.

COHA Director, Larry Birns will be addressing the statements made by Roberto Eisenmann concerning the canal expansion as a way to transform Panama into a Singaporean-like society. We have also sampled the large response of emails that we have received on the subject and reprinted some of them above.

Forum Editor~

Regarding COHA’s August 7 Press Release “Salvaging Washington’s Cuban Train Wreck”

With Fidel Castro temporarily transferring his authority to his brother Raúl a number of days ago, the instability that could accompany any significant shift in the Castro regime is now under close review in Washington. The best that President Bush and Secretary Rice are able to do is exhort the leaders to turn to democracy. But such exhortations are small change compared to what is at stake in the game that is being played out in the Caribbean. Cuba, after years of malign neglect by one U.S. president after another, once again has landed on U.S. radar, but maybe too late. The relatively subdued nature of the words uttered from Crawford by President Bush and Secretary of State Rice were welcomed. Of course the explanation for this was that U.S.-Cuban policy, dating back to the Eisenhower administration, through Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton to this day, was spawned by the Cold War and Washington’s inability to make the transition to a time when old hatreds should exist no more, because they were no longer needed.

Full article...









~Mr. Birns:
You are correct that there is a train wreck in Cuba. Remarkably, you do not seem to know who has been driving the train. In your most recent Bush-bashing tirade, you have once again baffled me with your Birnsian Logic. Let me give you some examples. Your effort to demean the US attitude toward Cuba as being the vestige of “old hatreds” from the Cold War makes no sense. Actually, in recent history America has demonstrated itself to be a most forgiving nation. America does not disdain Cuba for its past any more than we hold grudges against Japan, Germany, or Italy. We are even trying to get along with Vietnam. But we do hate Castro and his minions. We do not abhor them for what they did forty years ago. We abhor them for what they are today. (In that regard, I hope you had the chance to read the article in today’s The Wall Street Journal about Cuba’s Dr. Molina.)

Castro has created one of the world’s saddest, poorest countries, and in the face of his abject, extraordinary failure, not to mention the economic failure of virtually all modern totalitarian regimes that have no oil, he insists on maintaining his island-prison and communist dictatorship. Contrary to your assertions, it occurs to me that the main cause of Cuban poverty could be Castro, not the US embargo. After all, Cuba is free to sell everything they produce to Europe and Canada, combined markets bigger than the USA. The real trouble is that their economic system does not produce. The Castro economic model is so frail and unproductive that there is little or nothing of value to sell, either to themselves or to anyone else. Castro presides over such a dismal dump of a country that he cannot even compete with his Caribbean neighbors for European tourists, except, of course, for the Sex Tourism trade, where Castro continues to operate a world-class destination.

I especially find your logic regarding the Cuban embargo hard to grasp in light of economic observations expressed in your previous articles. Typically, Birns, Chavez and Castro berate the USA for abusing Latin America with its economic interests. Now you are telling us that the USA is abusing Cuba by not exercising its economic interests. I am confused. Oh wait…I think I get it…Birnsian Logic is simple once you accept the postulate that everything the USA does is bad.
And now we have Castro’s disastrous leadership being propped up by Chavez. I ask you, Larry, who is the villain? Is it the USA, who refuses to support Castro, or is it Chavez, who is funding this tyrant and artificially prolonging his cruel system of government? By the way, the Chavez largess is laughably reminiscent of the former Russian strategy of paying to support the failed economies of its communist satellites. Both you and Castro know how that turned out. Despite today’s oil prices, Chavez himself presides over one of the world’s poorest economies, as judged by per capita GNP. How can you admire his payoffs to Castro, to Kirchner, to Morales, now to his new friends in Africa, much less justify $4 billion in weapons purchases, when his own people are in such dire need?

You try to convince us that the different USA investment policies towards China and Cuba are driven by merchantilism, not morality. Here again, your argument seems to be missing an important piece. The USA is certainly wary of China. Very different from Castro, however, China’s communists have been making significant strides toward a free market economy. Economic freedom has often led to greater political freedom. China is moving in a direction that is more and more consistent with Western principles, and we are correct in cooperating with them as long as they are on that track. We are trying to trade with Vietnam based on their similar changes in attitude. We are dealing with Libya only after Khadafi made a 180 degree change in his terrorist philosophy. We do not trade with Iran or North Korea. You and Madeline may not have noticed, but in the past forty-seven years, Castro has not taken one step towards granting any shred of freedom, economic or otherwise. There is, in fact, a very big difference between the economic conduct today of China and that of Castro, and $200 billion in USA trade is a by-product of China’s growing embrace of free enterprise and competition. Castro could take a lesson from the Chinese. However, there is no evidence to indicate that he will ever consider economic reforms, and certainly no evidence or logic to support your belief that USA diplomacy, investment, or charity will alter Fidel’s hubristic commitment to his ruinous autocracy.

Henry McDonald ~

Regarding COHA’s August 3 Press Release “Democratic Decay in Venezuela”

Since September 11, 2001, the Bush White House has taken a hard rhetorical line against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Its accusations have been numerous, ranging from assertions that Chávez harbors regional hegemonic aspirations to claims that he provides financial and material support to leftist guerrilla organizations in neighboring countries. The administration’s most oft-cited grievances, however, relate to Chávez’s democratic credentials. Washington maintains that the outspoken leader’s “Bolivarian Revolution” has assaulted democratic institutions and that, left to his own proclivities, he will turn one of Latin America’s oldest democracies into a full-force dictatorship.

Full article...



~I just finished reading “Democratic Decay in Venezuela” by Timothy Hatfield. I was disappointed, to say the least, to read such a piece on COHA. As I read I kept wondering, is this piece really about Venezuela? Or is it about the United States we now live in? Certainly many of his statements could easily be applied to our Government.

Of course every story has two sides. But generally speaking, one side is the truth or much closer to it. There is no dearth of the opinion expressed by Mr. Hatfield across the web and in the US print / broadcast media. If you really believe his piece is factual, you should cease publishing the kind of material you have in the past. But you should not publish a piece just because it is well written and “intellectually rigorous.” The world has always seen plenty of untruths that are well written. Unlike Fox News, COHA has no obligation to be “fair and balanced.” If that’s what you want to call it. Please spare us from such future diatribes.

Greg Stricherz