The annual conference on Latin America sponsored by CAF, Corporacion Andina de Fomento, took place in Washington DC, September 11110 and 11. Most of the panelists were of high quality. There were eight panels on the topics of the economic outlook for the region, the impact of food and energy prices in the region, U.S. politics (two panels), energy challenges, the Summit of the Americas, Political developments in the Andean region and the politics of Latin American relations.
1. Economic Outlook.
Miguel Castilla, CAF. After several years of growing 5% or more the region has been caught up in the global economic slowdown and will grow less, at 4.0-4.5 % for the year. The overall economic management in the region has improved dramatically. Free Trade agreements of U.S. with Colombia and Panama have relatively good chances of being approved. However, trade is slower, remittances to the region are significantly down and there are signs of credit contraction.
Brian O’Neill. Department of the Treasury. The Department of the Treasury is working closely with the countries of the region in the upgrading of finance institutions. It promotes financing by the private sector and has established fiscal savings programs in several countries. The Treasury has about 15 advisors working with Latin American governments.
Jose Fajgenbaum. International Monetary Fund. Forecasts a weaker growth for the region, 3.7-3.9% for the year. Inflation will rise and all efforts should be done to contain inflationary pressures.
Hugo Beteta, IDB. He offered an optimistic view. Inflation will peak at some 8.4%.
Joyce Chang. J.P. Morgan- Chase. Inflation behavior will largely depend on food prices, probably at 7-8%. Countries like Peru, Chile and Colombia are doing well while Argentina and Venezuela are not. There is low confidence in capital availability for the region since there is a global credit crisis. The economic crisis in Latin America will be felt for the next 2-5 years.
2. Impact of Surging Food and Energy Prices in the region.
The increasing food and energy prices do no affect all countries of Latin America in the same manner because some are net exporters of these commodities while others are net importers. In fact, the region as a whole is net exporter of both energy and food. It could be argued, therefore, that a large majority of Latin American countries are better off due to higher price increase. However, at the level of households most of Latin Americans are net buyers of food and have not been able to profit from the rise in food prices. The weak point in the region is production capacity. In the case of energy the exporting capacity is limited to a few countries while the majority of the countries are net importers.
It is argued that increasing food costs are due to the utilization of more and more land to produce bio-fuels such as ethanol. However, it has been documented that only a small percentage of the arable land is being dedicated to this activity. The panel, made up of Thomas Shannon, Department of State; Nora Lustig, George Washington University; Nancy Birdsall, Center for Global Development, Francisco Ferreira, World Bank and Augusto de la Torre, World Bank, could not agree on how serious this phenomenon was for the region or how to minimize its effects.
My Comments. It seems to me that a fundamental problem lies in the incapacity of governments in net exporting countries to manage wisely the income received from the surge in prices. In net importing countries there is a fundamental lack of sound national planning in order to increase food production and search for alternative sources of energy.
3. U.S. Politics, Panel I.
This panel was made up of U.S. Congress members Gregory Meeks, Christopher Cannon and Jerry Weller. I must say that this was a very impressive panel, basically due to the civility and political maturity of the panelists.
Gregory Meeks. Democratic representative from New York refrained from making a prediction about the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. He said that predictions are only made by two kinds of people: Those that do not know and those that do not know that they don’t know. It will be a very close election, he said, and he trusted that his candidate, Barrack Obama, would win. He said that in the global scene the U.S. should be prepared to deal with democratic as well as with non-democratic governments and focus their efforts on consolidating potential points of agreement rather than harping on points of disagreement. He said he was sure that President Obama would be very close to Latin America and maintain with the region a relationship based on mutual respect. He supports the signing of the Colombian and Panamanian Free Trade Agreements.
Christopher Cannon. Republican representative from Utah. Cannon was in Colombia as a child, with his parents and, later, in Guatemala as a Mormon missionary. He is an enthusiastic supporter of the region. He emphasized the need to put in place programs to disseminate the use of Internet and is supporting such programs, as well as a cheap computer ($250) that can be used at school level in Latin America. Cannon believes that economic activity can increase significantly through the implementation of these programs. He believes that McCain will win the presidency but expects the Democrats to have a majority in Congress. He supports the Colombian and Panamanian Free Trade Agreements.
Jerry Weller. Republican representative from Illinois. His wife is a member of the Guatemala Congress and has made many trips to Latin America. He maintains excellent relations with other representatives who work in support of Latin America and is a strong supporter of the Free trade Agreements with Colombia and Panama. He says that the promotion of trade is the best mechanism to support Latin America. He also advocates security cooperation and the participation of NGO’s in Latin America. He said that no less than 150 U.S. NGO’s visit Nicaragua every year. According to him Bush started on the right foot with Latin America and became the U.S. president paying the largest amount of visits (11) to the region. Unfortunately, he added, 9-11 changed the priorities of his government. He believes that the next U.S. president will be John McCain and that he will go to the April 2009 Summit of the Americas to listen carefully to his Latin American colleagues. McCain, he said, has traveled extensively throughout Latin America while Obama has never visited the region. In Latin America, Weller said, we must find a way to get the food to the market.
My Comments. Listening to these members of Congress I understand fully why democracy in this nation is so strong. These persons are civil with each other, argue their points without passion, and concede the other a point when this is the thing to do. This panel was one of the magic moments of the conference because it allowed the audience to see true democracy in action.
Panel 4. U.S Politics, II.
The second panel on U.S. politics brought together the Latin American spokespersons for both U.S. presidential candidates, Daniel Restrepo (Obama) and Adolfo Franco (McCain).
Daniel Restrepo. The Obama spokesperson said that, as soon as he was inaugurated, President Obama would name a Special Envoy to the Americas. The motto of his candidate, he said, is: “Whatever is good for the Americas is good for the U.S.”. He said that Obama would be prepared to use a full array of presidential powers to deal with countries such as Venezuela, where a non-democratic president was in power. This would include a dialog, he said, since it would be self-defeating not to establish this connection. He said that Obama supports the FTA with Colombia and that Obama would deal with every country differently, since what works in one country does not necessarily works in another. Obama favors remittances to Cuba.
Alfonso Franco. The McCain spokesperson said that President McCain himself would be the Special Envoy to Latin America. McCain supports the FTA with Colombia and Panama. Today, he said, 90% of all Colombian goods entering the U.S. are duty free. The FTA would simply put U.S. products in an equal position and this is only fair. McCain, he said, knows Latin America well and has a long and coherent record of support for Latin America. McCain, he added, will not reward Venezuela or Cuba with an unconditional dialogue. These regimes will have to make democratic moves before McCain talks to them. He also supports remittances to Cuba but thinks they should not be taxed by the Cuban regime. McCain is very bipartisan about the immigration issue and acted very courageously to advance a bill together with some democrats and against members of his own party.
My Comments. This panel was excellent and featured two young and very sharp Latin intellectuals, both highly articulate. Restrepo is very bright, looked ready for a Hollywood movie but not quite ready yet for the political major leagues. He did not keep his cool under Franco’s questioning. Franco is more mature and seems more experienced than Restrepo. Both of them, however, did a very good job in trying to “sell” their candidates. Franco 2, Restrepo 1, as in soccer.
Panel 5. Energy Challenges.
This panel was moderated by Genaro Arriagada and included Jeffrey Davidow, president of the Institute of the Americas, Joel Velasco, representative of the Brazilian Sugar Cane Industry Association and Paul Isbell, Director of the Energy Program at El Elcano Royal institute, Spain.
Latin America, as a region, is a net exporter of energy but not all the countries export. The majority are net importers. Of the main exporting countries Mexico and Venezuela have suffered important declines in production during the last six or seven years, about 600,000 barrels per day each. In both countries this is due to severe under investment and poor management in their national oil companies. In the small countries of the Caribbean and Central America the high prices of energy is critical. The good news mostly come from Brazil, a country that has attained energy self sufficiency, not only through the efforts of a well managed national oil company but also thanks to its bio-fuels program, the second largest in the world after the U.S.
Paul Isbell. There is increasing energy nationalism in Latin America. This is damaging the efforts at regional integration since political ideology is prevailing over economic cooperation. The politicization of energy in the region, the use of oil as a political tool, is not justified in times of peace although it could be justified in times of war.
Joel Velasco. In Brazil up to 80% of energy needs are met with hydro electrical power. Brazil is now a pioneer in offshore drilling for oil and gas. The bio-fuels program is now the second largest in the world. The price of ethanol is half the price of gasoline. Velasco says that the U.S. and Europe have imposed a 30% tax on Brazilian ethanol that is damaging to these countries and to Brazil. Franco also says that the countries in Central America and the Caribbean should produce more ethanol. Many producers of ethanol are needed, he said. In fact, sugar cane can also generate plastics, an industry which is growing in Brazil. He added that only one percent of arable land in Brazil is being used for bio-fuel production.
Jeffrey Davidow. Although producing countries have a legitimate right to make more money out of their energy production, the way some counties are going about it, like Venezuela, will likely produce the opposite result. National Oil Companied, in the average, are about 30% less efficient than private companies. They are plagued with poor management and low transparency. The government intervenes in their decision-making process and the governments usually utilize the money required for investments for another purposes. It should be of concern to the United States that Mexico, Venezuela and, even, Canada, the three main hemispheric sources of energy for the country, are now producing less and resorting to heavy oils or tar sands to balance their declining production. Populism/Statism is increasing. IN Bolivia, Argentina, Venezuela and Ecuador gasoline sells at low, subsidized prices. The energy integration process in the southern cone has collapsed, each country going its own way. LNG terminal are being built in Argentina to import gas from the opposite side of the world, due to the unreliability of Bolivian gas.
My Comments. The energy situation in Latin America is tragic, both from the viewpoint of the energy importers and of the energy exporters. It is a sad situation of lost opportunities, corruption and mismanagement. Net importers in Central America and the Caribbean are either paying more than they can afford for energy or falling into the hands of political predators such as Hugo Chavez. Net exporters such as Mexico, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia have yielded to the temptation of politicizing their industries, a process that is leading to the deterioration and eventual operational collapse of these companies and of the national economies these companies sustain. In Ecuador the operations of the oil company are in the hands of the Navy. In Venezuela the oil company is engaged in importing and distributing food, in the training of Olympic athletes and many other tasks without relation to its core business. The company is also engaged in criminal activities, such as financing the presidential campaigns of Chavez’s ideological friends in other countries of the hemisphere. In Bolivia, a country in turmoil, the operations of the corrupt and inefficient oil and gas state company is practically paralyzed and the gas to Brazil and Argentina is not being delivered. Throughout the region most political leaders practice populism, the easiest way to get nowhere. The central problem in Latin America is not geological but the lack political integrity, courage and vision by its leaders.
Panel 6. The Summit of the Americas. This panel dealt with the meeting of hemispheric heads of state being planned for April 2009. The panel included Jose Miguel Insulza, OAS; Luis Alberto Rodriguez, IADB; Pamela Cox, World Bank and Luis Alberto Rodriguez, Summit of the Americas Coordinator. The moderators were Peter Hakim, IAD, and Enrique Garcia, president of CAF and main motor behind the Conference.
The discussion centered on the outlook for success of the Summit and the possible Agenda. Insulza, Rodriguez and Cox were optimistic about the outcome. Moreno was more cautious, suggesting that the Agenda should be realistic instead of over ambitious, a problem that had limited the success of previous summits. Insulza agreed, saying that it should be possible for the summit to tackle sub-regional issues having better probabilities of agreement. Ambassador Rodriguez was very much the diplomat, both in language and attitude. He mentioned two topics that would probably be part of the agenda: Global Warming and Employment.
My Comments. There have been six or so Summits of the Americas. I wonder if an evaluation of the results of these summits has been made, a comparison of expectations and accomplishments. I agree with IADB’s President Moreno that an over ambitious agenda will probably be a kiss of death for the meeting. I made a joke, at least tried to, saying that when the last period of global warming took place, 150,000 years ago, the Summit of the Americas had no role to play, only to suggest that the next Summit should ideally tackle more manageable issues. I mentioned one: how to transform the millions of Latin Americans who are just people into citizens. Now, this would really be a challenge worthy of the leaders of the hemisphere and certainly within their power, given proper planning and will. It would be easier than going to the moon! Another would be how to transform the OAS into a working organization, but this would probably be more difficult than the other objective. A third issue that still awaits decisive action is that of institutional weakness in the countries of the region. Probably thousand of studies have been made about this problem but no remedial action has been taken, except in a very few countries (Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Costa Rica).
Panel 7 was on Political developments in the Andean Region. It was moderated by Ana Mercedes Botero, CAF, and panelists included Ana Maria San Juan, Central Venezuelan University; Cesar Montufar, Andean Studies Center; Carlos Camargo, United Nations, Bolivian Program; Diego García-Sayan, Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Rafael Pardo, former Defense Minister of Colombia.
My Comments. There are few regions of Latin America as turbulent as the Andean region. Paradoxically, the country most affected by violence during the last decades, Colombia, is today one of the more stable, thanks to the military victory of the Colombian Army over the FARC and other irregular armed groups. Venezuela, Ecuador and especially Bolivia are social and political pressure cookers, due to the presence of populist regimes that have made of anti-Americanism their main objective, in preference to the welfare of their own peoples. A Venezuelan narcissistic leader, illegally using his country’s oil wealth has adopted a strategy of increasing hostility against the United States in the Andean region. However, the strategy is backfiring and Chavez, Correa and Morales are now fighting for their political lives, after some years of increasingly abusive authoritarianism. In particular, Chavez is now firmly linked to two criminal investigations, one related to the FARC and the other connected with the oil money delivered to the Kirchners in Argentina. As Chavez weakens as a result of these scandals and crimes the other two Andean leaders, who depend on Chavez’s financial handouts for survival, have also become more fragile. One sad aspect of this situation has been the passive, complacent role played by the Secretary General of the OAS Jose Miguel Insulza. Mr. Insulza has done nothing to curb Chavez’s pretensions of regional hegemony. In fact, at times he has sounded like one of his allies. This has further discredited the OAS as an effective organization to defend freedom and democracy in the Americas. Many of the Latin American leaders have preferred to sit on the fence, to watch the confrontation between the powerful United States and the prodigal Fidel Castro’s pupil, probably trying to extract maximum benefit from both sides in exchange for insincere pledges of loyalty.
Panel 8 was on the Politics of Latin American Relations. I did not attend this panel and cannot comment.
************************
In summary, this is the type of gathering that provides the audience with food for thought, stimulates the interest in the region and raises our hopes that positive action will be taken by those who are in a leadership position.
Congratulations to CAF for a job well done!
1. Economic Outlook.
Miguel Castilla, CAF. After several years of growing 5% or more the region has been caught up in the global economic slowdown and will grow less, at 4.0-4.5 % for the year. The overall economic management in the region has improved dramatically. Free Trade agreements of U.S. with Colombia and Panama have relatively good chances of being approved. However, trade is slower, remittances to the region are significantly down and there are signs of credit contraction.
Brian O’Neill. Department of the Treasury. The Department of the Treasury is working closely with the countries of the region in the upgrading of finance institutions. It promotes financing by the private sector and has established fiscal savings programs in several countries. The Treasury has about 15 advisors working with Latin American governments.
Jose Fajgenbaum. International Monetary Fund. Forecasts a weaker growth for the region, 3.7-3.9% for the year. Inflation will rise and all efforts should be done to contain inflationary pressures.
Hugo Beteta, IDB. He offered an optimistic view. Inflation will peak at some 8.4%.
Joyce Chang. J.P. Morgan- Chase. Inflation behavior will largely depend on food prices, probably at 7-8%. Countries like Peru, Chile and Colombia are doing well while Argentina and Venezuela are not. There is low confidence in capital availability for the region since there is a global credit crisis. The economic crisis in Latin America will be felt for the next 2-5 years.
2. Impact of Surging Food and Energy Prices in the region.
The increasing food and energy prices do no affect all countries of Latin America in the same manner because some are net exporters of these commodities while others are net importers. In fact, the region as a whole is net exporter of both energy and food. It could be argued, therefore, that a large majority of Latin American countries are better off due to higher price increase. However, at the level of households most of Latin Americans are net buyers of food and have not been able to profit from the rise in food prices. The weak point in the region is production capacity. In the case of energy the exporting capacity is limited to a few countries while the majority of the countries are net importers.
It is argued that increasing food costs are due to the utilization of more and more land to produce bio-fuels such as ethanol. However, it has been documented that only a small percentage of the arable land is being dedicated to this activity. The panel, made up of Thomas Shannon, Department of State; Nora Lustig, George Washington University; Nancy Birdsall, Center for Global Development, Francisco Ferreira, World Bank and Augusto de la Torre, World Bank, could not agree on how serious this phenomenon was for the region or how to minimize its effects.
My Comments. It seems to me that a fundamental problem lies in the incapacity of governments in net exporting countries to manage wisely the income received from the surge in prices. In net importing countries there is a fundamental lack of sound national planning in order to increase food production and search for alternative sources of energy.
3. U.S. Politics, Panel I.
This panel was made up of U.S. Congress members Gregory Meeks, Christopher Cannon and Jerry Weller. I must say that this was a very impressive panel, basically due to the civility and political maturity of the panelists.
Gregory Meeks. Democratic representative from New York refrained from making a prediction about the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. He said that predictions are only made by two kinds of people: Those that do not know and those that do not know that they don’t know. It will be a very close election, he said, and he trusted that his candidate, Barrack Obama, would win. He said that in the global scene the U.S. should be prepared to deal with democratic as well as with non-democratic governments and focus their efforts on consolidating potential points of agreement rather than harping on points of disagreement. He said he was sure that President Obama would be very close to Latin America and maintain with the region a relationship based on mutual respect. He supports the signing of the Colombian and Panamanian Free Trade Agreements.
Christopher Cannon. Republican representative from Utah. Cannon was in Colombia as a child, with his parents and, later, in Guatemala as a Mormon missionary. He is an enthusiastic supporter of the region. He emphasized the need to put in place programs to disseminate the use of Internet and is supporting such programs, as well as a cheap computer ($250) that can be used at school level in Latin America. Cannon believes that economic activity can increase significantly through the implementation of these programs. He believes that McCain will win the presidency but expects the Democrats to have a majority in Congress. He supports the Colombian and Panamanian Free Trade Agreements.
Jerry Weller. Republican representative from Illinois. His wife is a member of the Guatemala Congress and has made many trips to Latin America. He maintains excellent relations with other representatives who work in support of Latin America and is a strong supporter of the Free trade Agreements with Colombia and Panama. He says that the promotion of trade is the best mechanism to support Latin America. He also advocates security cooperation and the participation of NGO’s in Latin America. He said that no less than 150 U.S. NGO’s visit Nicaragua every year. According to him Bush started on the right foot with Latin America and became the U.S. president paying the largest amount of visits (11) to the region. Unfortunately, he added, 9-11 changed the priorities of his government. He believes that the next U.S. president will be John McCain and that he will go to the April 2009 Summit of the Americas to listen carefully to his Latin American colleagues. McCain, he said, has traveled extensively throughout Latin America while Obama has never visited the region. In Latin America, Weller said, we must find a way to get the food to the market.
My Comments. Listening to these members of Congress I understand fully why democracy in this nation is so strong. These persons are civil with each other, argue their points without passion, and concede the other a point when this is the thing to do. This panel was one of the magic moments of the conference because it allowed the audience to see true democracy in action.
Panel 4. U.S Politics, II.
The second panel on U.S. politics brought together the Latin American spokespersons for both U.S. presidential candidates, Daniel Restrepo (Obama) and Adolfo Franco (McCain).
Daniel Restrepo. The Obama spokesperson said that, as soon as he was inaugurated, President Obama would name a Special Envoy to the Americas. The motto of his candidate, he said, is: “Whatever is good for the Americas is good for the U.S.”. He said that Obama would be prepared to use a full array of presidential powers to deal with countries such as Venezuela, where a non-democratic president was in power. This would include a dialog, he said, since it would be self-defeating not to establish this connection. He said that Obama supports the FTA with Colombia and that Obama would deal with every country differently, since what works in one country does not necessarily works in another. Obama favors remittances to Cuba.
Alfonso Franco. The McCain spokesperson said that President McCain himself would be the Special Envoy to Latin America. McCain supports the FTA with Colombia and Panama. Today, he said, 90% of all Colombian goods entering the U.S. are duty free. The FTA would simply put U.S. products in an equal position and this is only fair. McCain, he said, knows Latin America well and has a long and coherent record of support for Latin America. McCain, he added, will not reward Venezuela or Cuba with an unconditional dialogue. These regimes will have to make democratic moves before McCain talks to them. He also supports remittances to Cuba but thinks they should not be taxed by the Cuban regime. McCain is very bipartisan about the immigration issue and acted very courageously to advance a bill together with some democrats and against members of his own party.
My Comments. This panel was excellent and featured two young and very sharp Latin intellectuals, both highly articulate. Restrepo is very bright, looked ready for a Hollywood movie but not quite ready yet for the political major leagues. He did not keep his cool under Franco’s questioning. Franco is more mature and seems more experienced than Restrepo. Both of them, however, did a very good job in trying to “sell” their candidates. Franco 2, Restrepo 1, as in soccer.
Panel 5. Energy Challenges.
This panel was moderated by Genaro Arriagada and included Jeffrey Davidow, president of the Institute of the Americas, Joel Velasco, representative of the Brazilian Sugar Cane Industry Association and Paul Isbell, Director of the Energy Program at El Elcano Royal institute, Spain.
Latin America, as a region, is a net exporter of energy but not all the countries export. The majority are net importers. Of the main exporting countries Mexico and Venezuela have suffered important declines in production during the last six or seven years, about 600,000 barrels per day each. In both countries this is due to severe under investment and poor management in their national oil companies. In the small countries of the Caribbean and Central America the high prices of energy is critical. The good news mostly come from Brazil, a country that has attained energy self sufficiency, not only through the efforts of a well managed national oil company but also thanks to its bio-fuels program, the second largest in the world after the U.S.
Paul Isbell. There is increasing energy nationalism in Latin America. This is damaging the efforts at regional integration since political ideology is prevailing over economic cooperation. The politicization of energy in the region, the use of oil as a political tool, is not justified in times of peace although it could be justified in times of war.
Joel Velasco. In Brazil up to 80% of energy needs are met with hydro electrical power. Brazil is now a pioneer in offshore drilling for oil and gas. The bio-fuels program is now the second largest in the world. The price of ethanol is half the price of gasoline. Velasco says that the U.S. and Europe have imposed a 30% tax on Brazilian ethanol that is damaging to these countries and to Brazil. Franco also says that the countries in Central America and the Caribbean should produce more ethanol. Many producers of ethanol are needed, he said. In fact, sugar cane can also generate plastics, an industry which is growing in Brazil. He added that only one percent of arable land in Brazil is being used for bio-fuel production.
Jeffrey Davidow. Although producing countries have a legitimate right to make more money out of their energy production, the way some counties are going about it, like Venezuela, will likely produce the opposite result. National Oil Companied, in the average, are about 30% less efficient than private companies. They are plagued with poor management and low transparency. The government intervenes in their decision-making process and the governments usually utilize the money required for investments for another purposes. It should be of concern to the United States that Mexico, Venezuela and, even, Canada, the three main hemispheric sources of energy for the country, are now producing less and resorting to heavy oils or tar sands to balance their declining production. Populism/Statism is increasing. IN Bolivia, Argentina, Venezuela and Ecuador gasoline sells at low, subsidized prices. The energy integration process in the southern cone has collapsed, each country going its own way. LNG terminal are being built in Argentina to import gas from the opposite side of the world, due to the unreliability of Bolivian gas.
My Comments. The energy situation in Latin America is tragic, both from the viewpoint of the energy importers and of the energy exporters. It is a sad situation of lost opportunities, corruption and mismanagement. Net importers in Central America and the Caribbean are either paying more than they can afford for energy or falling into the hands of political predators such as Hugo Chavez. Net exporters such as Mexico, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia have yielded to the temptation of politicizing their industries, a process that is leading to the deterioration and eventual operational collapse of these companies and of the national economies these companies sustain. In Ecuador the operations of the oil company are in the hands of the Navy. In Venezuela the oil company is engaged in importing and distributing food, in the training of Olympic athletes and many other tasks without relation to its core business. The company is also engaged in criminal activities, such as financing the presidential campaigns of Chavez’s ideological friends in other countries of the hemisphere. In Bolivia, a country in turmoil, the operations of the corrupt and inefficient oil and gas state company is practically paralyzed and the gas to Brazil and Argentina is not being delivered. Throughout the region most political leaders practice populism, the easiest way to get nowhere. The central problem in Latin America is not geological but the lack political integrity, courage and vision by its leaders.
Panel 6. The Summit of the Americas. This panel dealt with the meeting of hemispheric heads of state being planned for April 2009. The panel included Jose Miguel Insulza, OAS; Luis Alberto Rodriguez, IADB; Pamela Cox, World Bank and Luis Alberto Rodriguez, Summit of the Americas Coordinator. The moderators were Peter Hakim, IAD, and Enrique Garcia, president of CAF and main motor behind the Conference.
The discussion centered on the outlook for success of the Summit and the possible Agenda. Insulza, Rodriguez and Cox were optimistic about the outcome. Moreno was more cautious, suggesting that the Agenda should be realistic instead of over ambitious, a problem that had limited the success of previous summits. Insulza agreed, saying that it should be possible for the summit to tackle sub-regional issues having better probabilities of agreement. Ambassador Rodriguez was very much the diplomat, both in language and attitude. He mentioned two topics that would probably be part of the agenda: Global Warming and Employment.
My Comments. There have been six or so Summits of the Americas. I wonder if an evaluation of the results of these summits has been made, a comparison of expectations and accomplishments. I agree with IADB’s President Moreno that an over ambitious agenda will probably be a kiss of death for the meeting. I made a joke, at least tried to, saying that when the last period of global warming took place, 150,000 years ago, the Summit of the Americas had no role to play, only to suggest that the next Summit should ideally tackle more manageable issues. I mentioned one: how to transform the millions of Latin Americans who are just people into citizens. Now, this would really be a challenge worthy of the leaders of the hemisphere and certainly within their power, given proper planning and will. It would be easier than going to the moon! Another would be how to transform the OAS into a working organization, but this would probably be more difficult than the other objective. A third issue that still awaits decisive action is that of institutional weakness in the countries of the region. Probably thousand of studies have been made about this problem but no remedial action has been taken, except in a very few countries (Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Costa Rica).
Panel 7 was on Political developments in the Andean Region. It was moderated by Ana Mercedes Botero, CAF, and panelists included Ana Maria San Juan, Central Venezuelan University; Cesar Montufar, Andean Studies Center; Carlos Camargo, United Nations, Bolivian Program; Diego García-Sayan, Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Rafael Pardo, former Defense Minister of Colombia.
My Comments. There are few regions of Latin America as turbulent as the Andean region. Paradoxically, the country most affected by violence during the last decades, Colombia, is today one of the more stable, thanks to the military victory of the Colombian Army over the FARC and other irregular armed groups. Venezuela, Ecuador and especially Bolivia are social and political pressure cookers, due to the presence of populist regimes that have made of anti-Americanism their main objective, in preference to the welfare of their own peoples. A Venezuelan narcissistic leader, illegally using his country’s oil wealth has adopted a strategy of increasing hostility against the United States in the Andean region. However, the strategy is backfiring and Chavez, Correa and Morales are now fighting for their political lives, after some years of increasingly abusive authoritarianism. In particular, Chavez is now firmly linked to two criminal investigations, one related to the FARC and the other connected with the oil money delivered to the Kirchners in Argentina. As Chavez weakens as a result of these scandals and crimes the other two Andean leaders, who depend on Chavez’s financial handouts for survival, have also become more fragile. One sad aspect of this situation has been the passive, complacent role played by the Secretary General of the OAS Jose Miguel Insulza. Mr. Insulza has done nothing to curb Chavez’s pretensions of regional hegemony. In fact, at times he has sounded like one of his allies. This has further discredited the OAS as an effective organization to defend freedom and democracy in the Americas. Many of the Latin American leaders have preferred to sit on the fence, to watch the confrontation between the powerful United States and the prodigal Fidel Castro’s pupil, probably trying to extract maximum benefit from both sides in exchange for insincere pledges of loyalty.
Panel 8 was on the Politics of Latin American Relations. I did not attend this panel and cannot comment.
************************
In summary, this is the type of gathering that provides the audience with food for thought, stimulates the interest in the region and raises our hopes that positive action will be taken by those who are in a leadership position.
Congratulations to CAF for a job well done!
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario