On June 4, 2003, Brazil @ The WilsonCenter, in conjunction with theBrazilian Embassy in Washington and

the Brazil Information Center, hosted an all dayseminar on “Brazil and the United States in aChanging World: Political, Economic, and

Diplomatic Relations in Regional andInternational Contexts.”

An opening panel discussed U.S.-Brazilrelations in historical perspective, focusing onmajor developmental influences within thecontext of long-term socio-historical change.Noting past encounters with state nationalism,former U.S. ambassador to Brazil andBrookings Institution scholar Lincoln Gordonwarned of the hazards of what he called“unhealthy and negative nationalism” inBrazil. Despite publicized fears of anti-U.S.sentiment in Brazil, however, he argued thatcurrent bilateral relations are quite healthy.Moreover, he indicated that bilateral trade dis-putes, which have characterized relations inrecent months, are indicative of a healthybilateral relationship insomuch as they are out-growths of democratic state discourse in aglobalized age. Presenting an alternative view,Paulo Roberto de Almeida of the BrazilianEmbassy detailed the development of today’s

Brazil-U.S. Relations 1-3

Democratic Security in Colombia 3-4

Argentina-United States Bilateral Relations: An Historical 4-6Perspective and Future Challenges

Mexico’s Changing Politics 6-7

Religion and Society in Cuba 7-9

Brazil’s 2002 Presidential Election 9-10

NAFTA at Ten 10-12

Legislatures and Trade Agreements 12

Honduran President Discusses Regional Integration 12-13

Urban Crime and Violence in Latin America and the 13-15Caribbean

Bilateral Relations between Mexico and the United States 15-17

Argentina @ the Wilson Center 17-20

Political Crisis and the Threat to Democratic Governance 20-21

Brazilian Environmental Policy under Lula 21-22

Presidential Candidate Lucio Gutiérrez 22-23

Chiapas: The Dilemmas of the Current Conflict 23-24and Negotiation

Promises and Disillusionment: Affirmative Action and 24-25Race Relations in the United States and Brazil

Creating Community 25

The Geopolitics of Oil: Iraq and Venezuela 25-26

Interns and Researchers 27

Recent Publications 28-29

Fellows and Public Policy Scholars 30

INS

IDE

Brazil-U.S. Relations

Fernando Furlan, Minister of Development

N O T I C I A SL A T I N A M E R I C A N P R O G R A M N E W S L E T T E R F A L L 2 0 0 3

hesitant and distrustful bilateral relationship.While private investment has increased in Brazilsince 1995, Almeida argued that Brazil needs theopportunity to develop further if it is to achievean equitable and balanced relationship with theUnited States. Thomas Skidmore of BrownUniversity observed that Brazil spent significantresources promoting itself to Washington duringthe 1990s, perhaps at the cost of further anddeepened state socio-economic development.He proposed increased export promotion forBrazil as a means to reduce its dependence oncapital inflow and to redress the balance of pay-ments. Skidmore also directed attention to futureBrazilian-U.S. trade policy and conflicts that mayarise. Eduardo Viola of the University of Brasiliahighlighted the influential role played by theBrazilian media in shaping the view of nationalsociety, both towards the United States anddevelopment policy in general.

A second panel on “Parallel Paths ofDevelopment and Economic Interdependence”focused on historical and contemporary socio-economic development within a comparativeframework. John DeWitt, a long-time ForeignService Officer and adjunct professor at theUniversity of Florida, discussed the similarity ofsocio-economic development in Brazil and theAmerican South during the 18th and 19th cen-turies. Georgetown University visiting scholarEliana Cardoso assessed economic policy andgrowth in Brazil during the last century in com-

parison with South Korea. Both DeWitt andCardoso emphasized the role of institutions—from farms to international financial organiza-tions—in influencing the course of develop-ment. They argued that due to globalization andits varied effects on society, current institutionsmay now be much more highly contested thanever before.

During a luncheon speech, U.S. PermanentRepresentative to the OAS Ambassador RogerNoriega laid out the Bush administration’s policytowards Brazil and Latin America. Whileemphasizing the strong need for pragmatism inU.S.-Brazilian relations, Noriega noted thatboth countries are strongly supportive of amulti-lateral trade agenda and that it would bepossible to work together in forming a strongtrade-based U.S.-Brazil partnership. He rejectedthe notion that the United States has diverted itsattention away from Brazil and Latin Americasince September 11th and underscored theimportance of the FTAA for the region.

During a third panel on regional trade issuesand related hemispheric/multilateral negotia-tions, Jeffrey Schott of the Institute forInternational Economics discussed the chal-lenges to U.S.-Brazilian trade liberalization.Noting that both countries have much to gainfrom such liberalization, he stated the need forcontinuing dialogue on the issues of steel, citrus,sugar, telecom, government procurement, andtariffs. Brazilian Ambassador Rubens Barbosa also

argued for a continued and bal-anced dialogue on trade issues,while also highlighting the diffi-culties of negotiating FTAAwithin the rules and guidelinesset forth by the WTO. Marcelo dePaiva Abreu of the PontificalCatholic University of Rio deJaneiro, contrasted the politicalobstacles in Brazil and theUnited States which have hin-dered economic integration. Henoted that strong protectionistlobbies and resistance to closeU.S. relations are obstacles inBrazil, while the U.S. tends to beignorant of “how things work”

N O T I C I A S

2

Brazil Advisory Council

Over the past 30 months Brazil @ the Wilson Center has become a valuedsource of quality information and analysis for U.S. policy makers andscholars. In addition to generating interest and debate on issues related toBrazil-U.S. relations, the project has created new channels of communica-tion among leading scholars and policymakers in both countries, address-ing key issues on the bilateral agenda and promoting the exchange of ideas.

In order to facilitate the continued growth and evolution of the project,the Wilson Center has invited distinguished Brazilian and American lead-ers from public service, academia, and the private sector to serve as mem-bers of an Advisory Council. We are pleased to announce that former U.S.Ambassador to Brazil Anthony Harrington has accepted the invitation toserve as the U.S. chair of the Council.

FA L L 2 0 0 3

3

in Brazil as it emphasizes “special goods”exemptions in negotiations. Paolo Giordano ofthe Inter-American Development Bank, mean-while, argued for a closer examination of theFTAA-WTO relationship and the role played bycivil society in the FTAA process.

The last panel, entitled “Prospects forBilateral Relations in 2003 and the Future,” dis-cussed the new administration of President LuisInacío Lula Da Silva and its relations withPresident Bush and other major world partners.Peter Hakim of the Inter-American Dialogueargued that neither the United States nor Brazilever found the relationship satisfactory. At pres-ent, however, Hakim stated that much ofBrazil’s possible international success stems fromits internal accomplishments in the areas of fiscalpolicy, investor confidence, and sustainedgrowth. Thomaz Guedes da Costa of the NationalDefense University noted that, while Bush andLula share many personal affinities, Brazil needsto be much more proactive if it is to successfullyreinvigorate U.S.-Brazil relations—Brazil willearn the respect of the United States only whenit is able to convince the Bush administrationthat it is an influential “shaper” of the state sys-tem. William Perry of William Perry &Associates indicated that both Bush and Lula arepractical leaders, and that idealizations of thebilateral relationship as continual and harmo-nious are not only unrealistic but also harmful topolicy formulation. Maria Regina Soares de Limaof the Inter-University Research Institute ofRio de Janeiro emphasized the many culturallinkages between the two states as an example ofa growing Brazil-U.S. convergence in the post-Cold War era. While predicting future diplo-

matic and political friction on such issues astrade, she noted that Lula’s election was animportant event in and of itself, indicating aconsolidation of Brazilian democracy. Sheargued that a new state-based pragmatismtoward the United States is emerging in LatinAmerica, with Brazil leading the way. LuisBitencourt, director of Brazil @ the WilsonCenter, pointed to questions of practical policyformulation, highlighting the extent to which aworkable view of future relations can be con-structed within Brazil and the United States.

Luiz Fernando Furlan, Brazil’s Minister ofDevelopment, Industry & Foreign Trade,emphasized his commitment to improving andexpanding Brazil’s exports and implementingsocial security and other reforms by the end ofthe year. Both Ambassador Barbosa and Furlanpredicted that Lula’s June 2003 visit to theUnited States would be highly beneficial for thedeepening of U.S.-Brazilian dialogue, andwould assist in clarifying issues of contentionregarding the EU and FTAA.

Democratic Security inColombia

Colombian President Álvaro Uribe spoke at aSeptember 24, 2002, breakfast co-sponsored bythe Latin American Program, the Council onForeign Relations, the Inter-American Dialogue,the Center for Strategic and InternationalStudies, the Association of American Chambers

Roger Noriega

Rep. Jim Kolbe and President Álvaro Uribe, photo courtesy of sardari.com

of Commerce of Latin America, and theHeritage Foundation. Uribe outlined a programof “democratic security” to protect Colombiancivilians from armed groups of the left and right,and pledged to enlarge the armed forces andnational police. He also pledged to expand drugeradication efforts and to protect human rights.

Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Chair of the HouseForeign Operations Subcommittee, introducedPresident Uribe, stating that it was “in the inter-ests of the United States to promote stability inColombia by helping it address its long-standingproblems.” Kolbe noted a bipartisan compromisein the Congress over erasing the “imaginary linebetween counter-narcotics and counter-terror-ism,” indicating that Uribe had an unparalleledelectoral mandate to combat terrorism andimplement fiscal austerity.

Uribe began by noting a significant deterio-ration in the security situation, low economicgrowth, and unacceptably high unemployment.He pledged to restore the confidence of theaverage Colombian in the government’s capaci-ty, by “strengthening the military to enhancesecurity, to restore law and order,” [and] byreforming state institutions. Uribe outlined sev-eral initiatives to reduce government expendi-tures and raise revenues, including through pen-sion reform, the freezing of government salaries,the streamlining of government bureaucracy, aswell as the implementation of emergency meas-ures and the introduction of ordinary legislationto increase income taxes. He promised to honorColombia’s financial obligations to the interna-tional community as well as to meet its domesticsocial obligations.

Asked about reports of collaborationbetween Colombia’s armed forces and paramili-tary groups, Uribe emphasized a strategy ofdemocratic security for all Colombians. Forsecurity policy to be sustainable, he said, itneeded public support, and that depended onthe observance of human rights. Uribe statedemphatically that to end terror in Colombia,the country needed to destroy narcotics. Hepointed to increased spraying of coca crops dur-ing his administration, as well as the need toprovide incentives to farmers for alternativecrops. Uribe invited illegal armed groups in

Colombia—the FARC, ELN, and AUC—toenter into dialogue with the government fol-lowing a cessation of hostilities. Uribe alsonoted that the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations had agreed to lend its good offices inthe search for a negotiated settlement.

Argentina-United StatesBilateral Relations: AnHistorical Perspective andFuture Challenges

On March 5, 2003, the Latin AmericanProgram and the Wilson Center’s Cold WarInternational History Project sponsored a con-ference on U.S.-Argentine relations, focusingon the conflicted relationship between the twocountries both during the current crisis inArgentina and the period of the military dicta-torship. The conference was occasioned by thedeclassification of thousands of U.S. documentsfrom the Ford and Carter administrations thatcast a new, and at times harsh, light on bilateralrelations during the Dirty War of the 1970s. Inaddition, the conference focused attention onthe fact that the principal focus of U.S. foreignpolicy on the war against terrorism made it lessattentive to crises in the hemisphere, inArgentina and elsewhere.

In discussing current relations, Juan GabrielTokatlián of the San Andrés University inBuenos Aires argued that former presidentCarlos Menem’s policy of “pragmatic acquies-cence,” in which the country subordinated itsforeign policy to an external actor, had been“costly and useless.” The unrestricted alliancewith the United States, manifest in Argentina’ssupport for the first Gulf War and in other ini-

N O T I C I A S

4

Kathyrn Sikkink, John Dinges

tiatives did not benefit Argentina; today thecountry is weaker, less relevent in internation-al affairs, and more impoverished than it was adecade and a half ago. Tokatlián argued thatthe best foreign policy for Argentina would bea good domestic policy, which empoweredinstitutions, developed national identity, andenhanced competence and maturity on thepart of political leaders.

Mark Falcoff of the American EnterpriseInstitute said that a principal challenge in thebilateral relationship was “to restore a measureof political and moral credibility.” For Argentina,distrust towards the United States has to do withthe way in which “the relationship was over-sold” during the Menem years. In the U.S.financial press, Falcoff argued, there was a ten-dency to overstate radically the extent of theeconomic reforms enacted during the 1990s.Since the onset of the current economic crisis,Argentines have become deeply disillusionedwith U.S. indifference to their plight, andFalcoff faulted the U.S. belief that “if Argentinessimply tighten their belt everything will be allright.” He also argued that Argentina’s politicalcredibility in the United States was linked toArgentines themselves finding a political leader-ship in which they could believe.

Argentine economist Beatriz Nofal, formerunder-secretary of industry and trade, de-scribed multiple causes of the worst economiccrisis in Argentina’s history: external shocks,domestic vulnerabilities, governance prob-lems, and mistakes in economic policy, espe-cially adjustment policy. Nofal emphasized the“tremendous social regression” that has leftmore than half of Argentines below the pover-ty line, but also cited signs of a precarious eco-nomic rebound. Argentine skepticism aboutcloser integration into the world economy andcooperation with the United States had beenfueled by Washington’s lack of reciprocity, sheargued, at the same time that closer collabora-tion with the international community did notnecessarily mean subordination. She arguedfor a balanced FTAA that eliminated agricul-tural and agro-industrial subsidies and non-tariff barriers to trade and did not widen percapita income gaps.

Latin American Program director Joseph S.Tulchin called for a realistic foreign policy pos-ture on the part of Argentina that was rooted ina sense of the country’s strategic objectives. Heargued that Argentina cannot define itself inrelation to the United States and insisted that,given conditions of assymetry, it was unrealisticto expect a balanced relationship between thetwo countries. He described as a “signal suc-cess” the fact that management of the currentpolitical and economic crisis was achievedwithout military intervention.

The second panel addressed new informationin the close to 5,000 documents released by theU.S. Department of State in August 2002, inresponse to a request by prominent Argentinehuman rights groups.

Carlos Osorio of the National SecurityArchive described U.S. support for the militaryjunta in the 1970s and the double message onhuman rights under the Ford Administration;the clash between the Carter administrationand Argentine government over human rightsin 1977; the parallel rapprochement and nego-tiations with “moderates” in the junta; anddivisions within the U.S. embassy in BuenosAires over the scale of violations and over howforcefully and in what manner to promotehuman rights. Osorio concluded that the workof U.S. embassy staffers boosted the morale ofhuman rights workers in Argentina, preservingtheir work if not their lives. He noted thatinformation contained in the documents ishelping lawyers, family members, and judgesin clarifying the fate of the disappeared.

Carlos Sersale di Cerisano, former director gen-eral for human rights in the Argentine ForeignMinistry, said “bringing to memory theArgentine ‘holocaust,’” especially for a new gen-eration of Argentines, had contributed to theconsolidation of Argentine democracy, byreminding citizens of the suffering of livingunder a military government. So far, he said, nocriminal proceedings had been initiated on thebasis of information contained in the documents,and it was too early to tell if the release wouldhave an impact on changing domestic laws (PuntoFinal and Obedencia Debida) that had protectedmembers of the military from prosecution.

FA L L 2 0 0 3

5

Sersale said that, other than in the press andamong human rights organizations, the responseto the release of the documents had been limited.

University of Minnesota professor KathrynSikkink focused on “critical junctures” of repres-sion, arguing that repression is a choice govern-ments make in the context of ideology and aperception of costs and benefits. The attitude ofthe U.S. government is crucial in influencingboth areas. She cited new material contained inthe documents that shed light on the periodbetween June 1976 and January 1977, the peakof repression in Argentina as well as the periodof what she called the “green light” from U.S.policymakers. Sikkink referred to cables reflect-ing efforts by U.S. Ambassador to ArgentinaRobert Hill to impress on Argentine militaryleaders that certain norms could never be setaside in the fight against terrorism. Thesedemarches were undermined by Secretary ofState Henry Kissinger, who in meetings withthe Argentine foreign minister, a naval admiral,encouraged the government to continue andeven accelerate the war against subversion.

Columbia University School of Journalismprofessor John Dinges portrayed the U.S.embassy in Buenos Aires as essentially ignorantof the approximately 4,000 disappearances thattook place in 1976, as well as of the thousandor so killed by the military before the coup.Dinges said that his own research placed thenumber of those killed between 1975 and mid-1978 at some 22,000, a figure based on a docu-ment of an Argentine intelligence battalionchiefly responsible for the repression. Dingescalled U.S. human rights policy in both theFord and Carter periods ineffective with respectto Argentina, noting that human rights viola-tions, including two to three thousand disap-pearances, continued in the first two years ofthe Carter administration.

F. A. “Tex” Harris, a political officer in theU.S. embassy in Buenos Aires at the height ofthe dirty war, described policy struggles withinthe U.S. government over how forcefully toincorporate human rights issues into diplomacy.He detailed his own efforts to collect informa-tion from relatives of victims of repression,opening the U.S. embassy to their visits and

establishing an internal database unique to thatperiod. He described U.S. decisionmaking con-cerning an Export-Import Bank loan to a U.S.company, to set up a turbine factory for a whol-ly owned subsidiary of the Argentine Navy. Hisefforts to report on the beneficiary of the Ex-ImBank loan were opposed by his superiors, andonly through his extraordinary efforts did theinformation reach Washington in time to impacton the loan decision. Harris argued thatArgentina provided cautionary lessons that mustbe learned in the battle between protectinghomeland security and preserving individualhuman rights.

A bulletin in Spanish summarizing the conferencefindings was published in May 2003. A fuller reportin English will be available in the Fall of 2003.

Mexico’s Changing Politics

The Wilson Center sponsored three eventsfocused on political changes in Mexico, featur-ing presentations by José Woldenberg, president ofthe Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), TomásYarrington, governor of the border state ofTamaulipas, and Jorge Castañeda, former secre-tary of foreign affairs.

Woldenberg argued that Mexico’s democratictransition was built on gradual change thatbegan at the grassroots and slowly extendedfrom local to national government. Change wasthe natural result of a modern society that couldno longer sustain a single-party political system.

N O T I C I A S

6

Jorge Castañeda

He argued that elections were central to thetransition, and that as opposition parties wonmore and more elections, citizens gained greaterconfidence in the ability of the political systemto undergo real change. Clean elections led toother positive developments in Mexico, includ-ing expanded political liberties; a free and morecritical press; a more assertive congress; theemergence of opposition political figures; and agrowing sense of citizenship. According toWoldenberg, Mexico now needs to use theopen political system it has achieved to debatesubstantive issues like reducing poverty.

Tomás Yarrington emphasized the role of theInstitutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in cre-ating the conditions for Mexico’s democratictransition and stressed that the party needs tolearn to be a constructive opposition party inMexico. At the same time, the National ActionParty (PAN) needs to learn to govern effectively.He emphasized the role of governors in statesalong the U.S.-Mexican border in conducting“foreign policy” on a daily basis, and noted thatgovernors on both sides of the border have beendeveloping common solutions to address con-cerns regarding infrastructure, natural resources,and economic growth.

Jorge Castañeda noted that the democratictransition in Mexico had achieved its first objec-tive, of breaking with the 71-year history of oneparty rule, but it had not been able to generate areal change in living conditions for averageMexicans. He lauded President Fox for ensuringa peaceful and orderly transition, but noted that

the administration had become bogged down bytrying to do too much. Noting that he was con-sidering a possible presidential bid in 2006, heargued that the Mexican government shouldfocus its energies on two major goals that areachievable: reforming education and promotingthe rule of law. To do this, it would also be nec-essary to reform the political system and increasegovernment revenues by closing tax loopholesand using oil resources more wisely.

Religion and Society in Cuba

On January 21, 2003, a group of scholars andpractitioners from the United States, LatinAmerica and Europe met at the Wilson Centerto examine the profound impact of religion onCuban society, culture, national identity andtransnational adaptation. To set the context fora discussion of modern Cuban religions andtheir impact, Margaret Crahan of HunterCollege, City University of New York, tracedCuban diasporas from the sixteenth century tothe present. She examined their impact on theformation of diverse religions in Cuba and thelink between these religions and Cubannational identity. Crahan argued that the com-bination of religious groups resulting fromcenturies of migration has led to the forma-tion of unique religious beliefs, practices andcultural identity. AlfonsoQuiroz of Baruch Collegeand the Graduate Centerat the City University ofNew York reviewed theevolution of laws govern-ing civil society in Cubaand argued that relaxingthe current legal frame-work would better enablecivil groups to promotenon-violent political tran-sition while avoiding fur-ther erosion of the rule oflaw. Nevertheless, KarenLeimdorfer of Southampton University suggest-ed that religions’ historic international linksand associations with foreign agendas had

FA L L 2 0 0 3

7

José Woldenberg

Silvia Pedraza

resulted in religions frequently being regardedby the Cuban leadership as antithetical toCuban national interests.

Daniel Levine, University of Michigan, andAriel Armony, Colby College, presented theo-retical and methodological frameworks for theanalysis of the interplay of religion, culture andsociety. Using an expanded definition of societyto include informal networks and groups,Armony discussed societal changes followingthe economic crisis of the early 1990s andargued that democratic transformation wouldhave to be tied to the creation of a pluralisticcivil society.

The panelists paid considerable attention tothe role of the Catholic Church in Cuba.Cristina Hip-Flores of Harvard University andDavid Roncolato, Allegheny College, agreed thatthe Catholic Church has played a significant rolein addressing the problems of Cuban society byproviding an array of social services, while it has

chosen to remain apolitical to avoid confronta-tion with the Cuban state. Brian Goonan ofCatholic Relief Services and Thomas Quigley ofthe United States Catholic Conference discussedthe specific work of the Church in Cuba,including the services provided by Caritas Cuba,and the international links that have sustainedthe Church’s activities.

Other analysts highlighted the importance ofreligion and race in the formation of culturalidentity and the link between Spiritist practiceson the island and abroad. Marta Moreno Vega,Caribbean Cultural Center, examined the trans-formation of Afro-Cuban spiritism in Cuba andthe globalization of these traditions. Despite thefact that Afro-religious beliefs and rituals werehistorically kept underground and were used asresistance mechanisms, they have had a majorimpact on Cuban culture and identity, and spiri-

tist practitioners in Cuba have historic ties tocommunities in Brazil and New York. JohnBurdick, Syracuse University, described populardevotion to the Brazilian slave Anastasia andanalyzed the black movement’s rejection of heras being part of black identity, in order to sug-gest the various manners in which popular reli-giosity and race intersect.

Sarah Mahler of Florida InternationalUniversity, Silvia Pedraza of the University ofMichigan, and Yolanda Prieto of RamapoCollege discussed transnational religious tiesand their impact on identity, as well as religionand the construction of Cuban-Americanidentity. Pedraza examined the role of theCatholic Church in the Cuban exodus since1959 and the impact of the exodus on thework of the Church on the island. Prietodescribed the impact of four waves of out-migration on the Catholic Church in Cuba andthe inter-group dynamics among four groupsin the United States, specifically in Union City,New Jersey. Mahler noted that despite the offi-cial posture of the Catholic Church, Catholicreligious leaders abroad sometimes use religionto express their political opinions, rangingfrom antipathy towards the Castro or U.S. gov-ernments to support for rapprochement andreconciliation between Cubans and Cuban-Americans. Mauricio Font of the Bildner Centerfor Western Hemisphere Studies at the CityUniversity of New York agreed that religionhas had a large impact on the formation ofnational identity and he recognized its impor-tance for building civil society. However, heexpressed skepticism that religion has had agreat impact on politics in Cuba.

Commentators Philip Brenner and WilliamLeogrande of American University, HugoFrühling of the Universdad de Chile, andCristopher Welna of the Kellogg Institute,University of Notre Dame, underscored theseminar’s overarching themes: religion’s impacton the formation of Cuban identity and thedevelopment of transnational identities in thecontext of globalization, and the relationshipbetween civil society and political transition.Some saw religion and the expansion of civilsociety in Cuba as an opportunity for political

N O T I C I A S

8

The Catholic Church has played a signifi-

cant role in addressing the problems of

Cuban society by providing an array of

social services, while it has chosen to

remain apolitical to avoid confrontation with

the Cuban state.

change. Others, however, felt that there wereno incentives for the Cuban state to allow thegrowth of civil society and that a political tran-sition would depend on other factors, includ-ing the dynamics within the regime.

Brazil’s 2002 PresidentialElection

For the first time in Brazilian history, the effectsof a presidential election were felt in the inter-national financial sector. During the campaign,Brazil’s credit rating was downgraded; as LuisInácio da Silva (Lula), presidential candidate forthe leftist Workers Party (PT), surged in thepolls, uncertainty over his future policies ledmany analysts to predict economic turbulence.

The campaign provided the backdrop for aJune 17, 2002, Working Group of Brazil @the Wilson Center. Lourdes Sola of theUniversity of São Paulo discussed the identifi-cation and weighting of factors for makingreliable predictions of electoral behavior, therelative importance of the electoral strategiesof the incumbent party’s candidate, José Serra,and the challenges that a Lula governmentwould face.

Riordan Roett of the Johns HopkinsUniversity School of Advanced InternationalStudies underlined the significance of this elec-tion in influencing Brazil’s foreign policy onsensitive hemispheric issues such as bilateral rela-tions with the United States, the FTAA,Mercosul, the Doha Round of the WTO, andthe Argentine crisis. Although Roett acknowl-edged the pre-electoral economic turbulence,he expressed doubts that it would last andinstead emphasized the importance of managingexpectations prior to the October elections.

Brazil’s economic prospects following theOctober 2002 Lula victory were the subject ofa March 19, 2003 meeting with political scien-tist and risk analysis expert Alexandre Barros.Discussing Lula’s first 75 days in office, Barrosnoted that Brazil faced grim prospects for aquick global economic recovery. He under-scored that the government is also forced tocope with overwhelming social demands on

the domestic front. Barros said that the centralchallenge for Lula’s administration will be totransmit confidence to foreign financial mar-kets by demonstrating respect for existing con-tracts, while simultaneously addressing socialneeds, trimming public expenditures, fightingcorruption, reducing the debt burden, andpromoting economic growth. To maximize thepossibilities for balancing and achieving thesegoals, during the first days of his administrationLula adopted a very orthodox set of economicpolicies similar to those of the previous admin-istration. According to Barros, “there is noth-ing more similar to a conservative than a liber-al in power.”

In Barros’ view, Lula has been pursuing aresponsible economic policy based on maintain-ing fiscal restraint while pushing for reforms ofthe tax (revenue sharing) and social security sys-tems as well as securing the autonomy of theCentral Bank.

Some critics have questioned the efficiency ofthe Lula administration, pointing to detailsoverlooked in the formulation of major policies.Some of these criticisms could be expected as anew and inexperienced administration takesover; however, Barros felt that these issues, aswell as what he referred to as “ego disputes”within the administration and the possible radi-calization of some factions of the PT could raise

red flags. He also noted concern about apparentdouble standards for the administration’sappointments: economic positions were filledon the basis of technical merit, while appointeesin other sectors appeared to have been designat-ed for political reasons.

Barros emphasized the importance of address-ing Brazil’s debt burden (57 percent of GDP in2002) and for the Central Bank to achieve its tar-gets, reducing its vulnerability in dollars. In orderto achieve these goals, Brazil needs to increase itsexports, a reality that underscores the enormousimportance of bilateral trade with the United

FA L L 2 0 0 3

9

Brazil needs to increase its exports, a reality

that underscores the enormous importance

of bilateral trade with the United States.

States (which accounts for 23 percent of Brazil’simports and 24 percent of its exports).

On some issues, Barros deemed it too earlyto make reliable predictions. These are the “bigif ’s” of the Lula government: privatization,deregulation, social expenditures, growth anddebt, and friction in Brazil-U.S. trade relations.Barros felt that the overall outlook for Lula’sadministration would hinge on its effectivenessin managing these “if ’s”. Despite the deteriora-tion of global political and economic conditionsand the emergence of serious domestic chal-lenges in Brazil, Barros expressed optimismregarding Brazil’s future.

NAFTA at Ten

Ten years ago, in December 1992, U.S.President George Bush Sr., Canadian PrimeMinister Brian Mulroney, and MexicanPresident Carlos Salinas de Gortari signed theNorth American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) in San Antonio, Texas.

Since the signing of NAFTA, trade andinvestment among the three North Americannations has grown by more than 100 percent,with $1.7 billion in trilateral trade each day.

To mark the 10th anniversary of this historicagreement, the Wilson Center convened atwo-day conference to assess the impact ofNAFTA, the lessons the agreement may holdfor deepening North American ties and futuretrade agreements, and the international effortto “get globalization right.” The 10th anniver-sary of NAFTA comes in the midst of the mostwide-ranging set of trade negotiations theworld has ever seen. In addition to the DohaDevelopment Agenda launched last year, anumber of regional and bilateral negotiationsare underway. In particular, Canada, Mexico,and the United States will be engaged in theeffort to forge a Free Trade Agreement of theAmericas (FTAA) by 2005. This ambitioustrade agenda is being dealt with in the contextof a widespread debate over the benefits andcosts of globalization, particularly the effects oftrade on poverty, inequality, labor rights, andthe environment. During the conference, pan-

elists examined the experiences of the pastdecade to look ahead to the still unfoldingdevelopment of a North American communityboth challenged and strengthened by growingeconomic and social integration.

THE THREE SIGNATORIES “The NAFTAsigning created the largest, richest, most pro-ductive market in the world,” said formerPresident George Bush, Sr. at the opening sessionof the two-day program, held in the AtriumBallroom of the Ronald Reagan Building andInternational Trade Center. More than 800 peo-ple attended this session featuring the threenational leaders who negotiated and signed theagreement. All three leaders lauded what theysaw as NAFTA’s success at creating millions ofnew jobs. Since 1993, Bush said that in theUnited States some 350,000 manufacturing jobswere lost due to NAFTA, but that 2 millionhigher-paying jobs were created.

“Our countries are stronger, our economiesmore robust, our peoples more prosperous, oursocial structures more resilient, our capital mar-kets more stable, and our roles in the worldmore vigorous as a result of NAFTA,” said for-mer Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

“NAFTA guaranteed that Mexican productswould gain access to the world’s largest market,”said former Mexican President Carlos Salinas.“For the first time, labor and environmentalissues—the latter an issue on which Canadataught us much—had a place in a trade agree-ment.” He also recounted the process leading upto NAFTA, recalling the importance of reduc-ing Mexico’s debt, unifying the government,and rallying the public before signing on.

Mulroney endorsed similar future agreementssuch as the pending FTAA, which potentiallywould encompass 800 million people in 34countries when ratified. “The power of a goodidea should never be underestimated,” he said.“It should happen again.”

MAKING AN IMPACT Dozens of key businessleaders, academics, and current and formergovernment officials convened for two days ofpanel discussions. During the first panel, afterthe three heads of government spoke, speakerscalled NAFTA a paradigm shift for the threenations led by three visionary leaders.

N O T I C I A S

10

Yet speakers also addressed the challenges fac-ing NAFTA, including the need for more workto strengthen dispute-resolution mechanisms, toincrease the openness of borders among stateswhile strengthening exterior borders, and tohave agricultural trade open and free of subsi-dies. Another challenge will be to ensure thatcertain regions, particularly the southern sec-tions of Mexico, are not left behind.

LINKING NORTH AMERICA While the “bigidea” behind the European Community was theprevention of another European war, manyfound it difficult to see the “big idea” behindNAFTA, beyond the obvious strengthening oftrade relations. NAFTA institutions do exist,and the three states do submit to them, but theseinstitutions are neither democratic nor transpar-ent. The question was raised as to whether theconcept of continental security could be thenew idea around which NAFTA could moveforward, especially if the tradeoffs between con-tinental democracy and sovereignty areaddressed in the process.

Numerous speakers throughout the confer-ence noted that, in practice, NAFTA representstwo separate bilateral agreements (between theU.S. and Mexico and the U.S. and Canada),more so than one trilateral agreement as wasintended. For example, there is little military

collaboration between theUnited States and Mexicocompared with the strongermilitary cooperation betweenthe United States and Canada.Panelists reported the call for areduction in the perceivedunilateralism of the UnitedStates regarding border issueswith Canada and particularlyMexico. Some suggested thatpotential benefits would resultfrom stronger convergence onmany elements of tax policy.

GETTING GLOBALIZATION

RIGHT A panel on globalizationhighlighted growing incomeinequality both within Mexicoand between Mexico and theUnited States. Income dispari-

ties in Mexico are among the highest in the world,with many social groups and geographic regionsfailing to participate successfully in the marketeconomy, a situation which, in turn, drivesmigrants to the United States in search of jobs.

Panelists also said that income inequalitieshave been a major source of Mexican migra-tion. For example, the rural population com-prises one fifth of Mexico’s total population,yet it contributed only about one twentieth ofGDP. Meanwhile, the U.S. job creation of 1.2million jobs per year exceeded growth in theU.S. labor force—a gap that Mexicans living inthe United States helped fill. Six millionMexicans, working in the United States, sendabout $9 billion to Mexico each year.

In particular, speakers urged a focus on build-ing stronger institutions in NAFTA to addressgovernance problems and corporate disputes.Panelists observed that, regardless of whetherthe NAFTA countries develop a common cur-rency, interest rates and monetary policy inMexico, the United States, and Canada arebeginning to converge

INTO THE FUTURE While NAFTA addressesbusiness relations, some of the related and moredifficult issues have yet to be tackled, such asmigration, labor, security, transportation, andmonetary policy. Regarding NAFTA as a model

FA L L 2 0 0 3

11

Lee H. Hamilton, George Bush Sr., Brian Mulroney, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, JosephGildenhorn

for future agreements, speakers emphasized thatnegotiators should take a long-term approach tothe agreement, seek to avoid special status treat-ment for politically powerful industries, andfocus on building institutions for the resolutionof disputes. Speakers also stressed the importanceof involving civil society, NGOs, and businesses,big and small, to build a more powerful con-stituency for a better agreement. Panelists sug-gested that NAFTA be seen as a model, alongwith the creation of the European Community,for the creation of substantial regional free tradeagreements in other parts of the world.

Legislatures and TradeAgreements

Although issues of trade liberalization and freetrade agreements have taken on ever greaterimportance in U.S.-Latin American affairs, con-sultation within countries of the region betweenlegislatures and the executive branch has beeninadequate at best. To address this concern, theLatin American Program sponsored two meet-ings aimed at helping elected representativesfrom both the United States and Latin Americangrapple with the issues they face in the debatesover regional integration and free trade. The ini-tiative, carried out with the generous support ofthe Inter-American Development Bank,brought parliamentarians and trade ministersfrom Central America and the Caribbean toWashington in December 2002 and March 2003to meet with members of the U.S. Congress.

During the meetings on “Legislatures and theApproval of Trade Agreements in theAmericas,” visiting policymakers spent a day onCapitol Hill discussing the challenges of freetrade agreements with members of Congressand senior staff of key congressional commit-tees. A second day was devoted to meetings atthe Wilson Center with trade specialists fromother U.S. governmental institutions involved intrade issues, such as USAID, the USTR, GAO,CRS, and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Throughout the discussions, it became clearthat political pressures have significant leveragein determining the outcomes of trade agree-

ments, and that understanding these pressureswould lead to the adoption of more focused andsuccessful strategies aimed at the ratification oftrade agreements in the legislature. The face-to-face discussions also helped define the positionof each country and build confidence, thus nar-rowing the gap between expectations and therealm of the politically possible.

In terms of negotiating power and resources,coordination between countries within theregion was found to be crucial to increase bar-gaining power, unify interests and demands, andpromote a better and more efficient use of exist-ing capacities. In this context, U.S. and multilat-eral agencies can play a significant role in capac-ity building in the developing countries.

On a more technical note, participants fromCentral America and the Caribbean expressedconcern about preserving special and differen-tial treatment for small economies, and espe-cially about the need for longer periods inwhich to phase out tariffs. They also realizedthat, because of U.S. concern, special attentionneeds to be focused on environmental and laborlaws. Most agreed that the recent U.S.-Chiletrade agreement could serve as the frameworkfor future accords.

Honduran President DiscussesRegional Integration

During his visit to the Wilson Center on April 29,2003, Honduran President Ricardo Maduro Joestaddressed the state of Central American economicintegration and Honduran democratization—bothof which have deepened despite the widespreaddevastation brought about by Hurricane Mitch in1998. Maduro, of the Honduran National Party,was elected to the presidency in November 2001on a strong anti-corruption platform. Prior to hiselection, he served as president of the NationalBank and the Central Bank, as well as coordinatorof the Economic Cabinet. His administration hasbeen an active supporter, with the United States,of the proposed U.S.-Central America Free TradeAgreement (U.S.-CAFTA)—which will alsoinclude Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,Honduras, and Nicaragua. Accompanying

N O T I C I A S

12

President Maduro were Honduran ambassador tothe United States Mario Canahuati and ForeignMinister Guillermo Pérez-Cadalzo Arias.

Maduro detailed the significant democraticdevelopment in Honduras since the transitionfrom military rule in the early 1980s.Specifically, he noted the growth of civilian par-ticipation, which has assisted his administration’sefforts to support electoral reform aimed atwidening participation. Despite internal chal-lenges posed to his initial campaign efforts,Maduro argued that state reforms targeting“participation between elections” as well as anti-corruption measures have been instrumental inbringing about progress. He also highlighted hisadministration’s emphasis on macroeconomicstability and on participatory, sustainable socio-economic growth. Maduro also emphasized theneed for greater and deeper regional integration,and expressed strong support for a trade agree-ment between the United States and CentralAmerican countries.

To foster equitable socio-economic develop-ment, Maduro underscored the need for“bridges between the moment we sign treatiesand the moment when they produce results.” Henoted that one such “bridge” was that of immi-gration policy, since remittances from workersliving in the United States provide 6 percent ofthe GDP of the Central American region and

10 percent of Honduran GDP. He stressed thatregional and state policies to foment local eco-nomic development will be most beneficial ifthey are able to directly affect and assist thosemost in need. According to Maduro, such poli-cies should include increased assurances ofinvestment security, equitable access to markets(i.e., for Honduran coffee), and more openavenues for citizen participation in the socio-political arena.

Urban Crime and Violence inLatin America and theCaribbean

On April 30, 2003, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and theWoodrow Wilson Center sponsored a confer-ence on public safety and the prevention of vio-lence in Latin America and the Caribbean. Theconference drew experts from various countries,including current and former governmentalofficials, researchers, and NGO activists; its aimwas to share experiences and studies carried outin various contexts in order to identify interna-tional trends related to the prevention of vio-lence and the promotion of public safety.

Scholars and practitioners alike agreed on theneed to promote crime prevention and improvethe perception of security at the communitylevel through an integrated approach thatincluded participation of the community, notone limited to police reforms. In addition, there

was consensus that municipal programs mustfocus on the particular concerns of specific pop-ulations. For this to occur, local level institu-tional capacity building must take place, espe-cially prior to crime prevention tasks carried out

FA L L 2 0 0 3

13

President Ricardo Maduro Joest

Municipal programs must focus on the par-

ticular concerns of specific populations. For

this to occur, local level institutional capaci-

ty building must take place, especially prior

to crime prevention tasks carried out in a

given jurisdiction.

in a given jurisdiction. Finally, while the speak-ers emphasized the need to find solutions at thelocal level, they also underscored the need tofind mechanisms to coordinate the different lev-els of government.

World Bank Vice President for Latin Americaand the Caribbean David de Ferranti opened theseminar. Antanas Mockus, Mayor of Bogotá,delivered a keynote address. Mockus described aplan implemented in Bogotá to promote a “cul-ture of citizenship” in order to counteract cul-tural norms that promote violence.

The first panel, moderated by Shelton Davisof the World Bank, dealt with “PreparingMunicipal Crime and Violence Prevention

Strategies: The Role of Diagnosis, Partnerships,and Stakeholder Consultations.” Claudio Beato,Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil,described the “Program to Control HomicidesCommitted by Youth,” which was implementedin the favelas or shantytowns of Belo Horizonte.The program aims to mobilize the communitythrough communication campaigns and a jointtask force composed of municipal officials,judges, and district attorneys. Tinus Kruger ofCSIR in South Africa discussed the preparationof a manual to help the national and local gov-ernments collaborate in the development ofcrime prevention strategies. Allison Rowland,Center for Economic Research and Teaching,Mexico, outlined the difficulties of coordinatingnational, state, and municipal initiatives on citi-zen security in Mexico, as well as the limitedrole that citizens play in fighting crime. AlbertoFöhrig of the University of San Andrés,Argentina, noted the importance of focusing onspecific problems and at-risk populations, ana-lyzing the local context before anti-crime initia-tives are to be implemented, and applying aninteragency approach.

The second panel addressed “Youth Crimeand Violence Prevention Issues.” Father Jorge

Cela, Bono Center, Dominican Republic, pre-sented a study carried out in five marginal settle-ments in Santo Domingo, which analyzed threeareas: at-risk youth involved in crime related todrug use, gang activity, and the police’s repres-sive practices. Alberto Concha Eastman of thePan-American Health Organization (PAHO)discussed PAHO’s study of youth gangs in ElSalvador. Lynn Curtis of the U.S.-basedEisenhower Foundation presented several exam-ples of the youth-oriented programs the foun-dation sponsors. The “Youth Safe Haven-Ministation” program, for example, is a combi-nation of the American concept of after-schoolprograms and the Japanese idea of neighbor-hood-based police mini-stations. Other panelparticipants included Guadalupe López of theAssociation of Honduran Municipalities. MayraBuvinic of the Inter-American DevelopmentBank moderated the session.

During a third session focusing on “TheRole of Police and Judicial Systems inMunicipal and Local Crime and ViolencePrevention Strategies,” Hugo Frühling of theCenter for Development Studies in Chileexplained the importance of community polic-ing and the challenges facing community polic-ing that arise from the lack of coordinationamong different governmental levels, the lack ofsufficient numbers of police, and centralized andmilitarized police forces. Catalina Smulovitz,Torcuato Di Tella University, Argentina, arguedthat it is hard to implement community policingstrategies when there is not sufficient trustbetween the communities and the forces of lawand order. Police forces, for example, often con-sider these initiatives threatening. In addition,community policing programs require a highlevel of sustained community involvement andcollaboration among state agencies, which maybe difficult to attain. Carlos Basombrío of theLegal Defense Institute in Peru described thethree major objectives of the police reform thattook place in Peru under the Toledo administra-tion: to legitimize the police forces, to institu-tionalize citizen security at the local level, and tolimit impunity and recourse to authoritarianmeasures. Joseph S.Tulchin of the Wilson Center,who moderated the session, commented on the

N O T I C I A S

14

It is hard to implement community policing

strategies when there is not sufficient trust

between the communities and the forces of

law and order.

transition that must occur in Latin Americancountries from militarized, authoritarianregimes characterized by impunity to democrat-ic regimes with professional police forces thatuphold the rule of law.

The following panel addressed “The Role ofUrban Environmental Design and PhysicalPlanning in Crime and Violence PreventionStrategies.” Severin Sorensen, U.S. Departmentof Housing and Urban Development (HUD),described a HUD program that focuses on anenvironmental analysis of crime and the effi-cient allocation of limited resources. SusanLiebermann, CSIR, South Africa, stated thatcrime prevention strategies must involve envi-ronmental planning and designing in order tobe effective. Macarena Rau, Citizen PeaceFoundation, Chile, explained how the SouthAfrican model of using environmental designto reduce crime was applied to the design ofpublic spaces in Chile. Andrew Altman of theDistrict of Columbia Office of Planning dis-cussed a crime-fighting strategy in Washington,D.C. that was based on citizen feedback regard-ing areas most affected by crime. RobertoChávez of the World Bank emphasized theneed for comprehensive responses that generatecommunity participation.

In the closing session, “Monitoring andEvaluation of Crime and Violence PreventionPrograms,” Wilson Center consultant JuliaPomares outlined indicators by which policeperformance in Argentina could be judged.Christopher Stone of the New York-based VeraInstitute indicated that crime-prevention pro-grams should be evaluated in terms of the pri-orities of the audience. Rodrigo Guerrero, formermayor of Cali, Colombia, underscored theneed for practical approaches to citizen securityproblems. Andrew Morrison of the IDB andMaría Emilia Freire of the World Bank also par-ticipated in the panel.

In August 2003, the Wilson Center, the WorldBank, and the Inter-American DevelopmentBank jointly published a policy bulletin summa-rizing the meeting’s major conclusions.

Following the World Bank meeting,Basombrío, Beato, Föhrig, Pomares, andSmulovitz, along with Tamara Taraciuk, a Junior

Scholar at the Wilson Center, and LiliánBobea of FLACSO-Dominican Republic, metto plan the next stage in the Wilson Center’sproject on citizen security. In the next yearand a half, the Wilson Center will sponsorfield work in five countries in the region totest ways of building capacity at the neighbor-hood level as a strategy of reducing insecurityand levels of violence.

Bilateral Relations betweenMexico and the United States

The Mexico Institute of the Latin AmericanProgram hosted four seminars on relationsbetween Mexico and the United States, toexplore both short- and long-term trends inbilateral affairs. These seminars explored theissues on the bilateral agenda, the nature of civilsociety linkages between the two countries, andthe politics of trade in both countries.

On May 9, 2003, the Mexico Institute,together with the Migration Policy Institute(MPI) and the Mexican Council on ForeignAffairs, sponsored a roundtable discussion on the“New Parameters of Partnership betweenMexico and the United States.” Approximatelysixty people, representing the two governments,the private sector, academia, and non-govern-

mental organizations participated in the off-the-record meeting. Speakers and commentatorsincluded Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow of theInstitute of the Americas; Rafael Fernández deCastro of ITAM; Riordan Roett of the JohnsHopkins University-SAIS; Demetri Papademetriouof MPI; Gustavo Mohar of Structura; DorisMeissner of MPI; and Andrew Selee and LarryHarrington of the Woodrow Wilson Center.

There was general agreement among partici-pants that the relationship between the United

FA L L 2 0 0 3

15

The Diálogos process created new linkages

among civil society organizations and

helped create a “space below” in the predom-

inantly “top-down” integration process in

North America.

States and Mexico remains intense, with a highlevel of coordination between the governmentsthat is unprecedented in history. At the sametime, there has been loss of momentum for newinitiatives in the relationship because of recentpolicy disagreements and the longer-term con-sequences of the September 11th terroristattacks in the United States. Participants gener-ally noted that the perceived crisis in the bilater-al relationship is related to elevated expectationsabout the relationship. Nonetheless, the bilateralrelationship continues to evolve, mature, anddevelop, and there will be new opportunities forcreative discussions around such issues of mutualconcern as migration, security, trade, lawenforcement, and economic prosperity.

On May 23, 2003, the Mexico Institute host-ed a seminar on the “Politics of Trade in Mexicoand the United States,” in collaboration withthe University of California, Berkeley, APECStudy Center and the Mexican Center forEconomic Teaching and Research (CIDE). Thismeeting explored the changing dynamics oftrade policy in the two countries and analyzedthe actors and purposes that trade policy serves.Antonio Ortíz Mena of CIDE argued thatMexican trade policy has passed through threephases: from a largely protectionist period dom-inated by the foreign affairs ministry in the1970s and early 1980s; to a phase dominated bythe commerce ministry and heavily orientedtoward trade as an engine of development; tothe current status where the congress and theexecutive jointly weigh in on trade policy and itis the subject of considerable debate. Isabel Studerof FLACSO-Mexico argued that theEnvironmental Side Agreements of NAFTA,though weak in and of themselves, have spurredthe growth of the environmental movement inMexico and provided a forum for environmen-tal NGOs to meet and coordinate strategiesacross the three countries.

Jeff Faux of the Economic Policy Institutepointed to the disjuncture between the deep eco-nomic integration of NAFTA and its weak polit-ical development. Today there is no doubt thatintegration will continue. But what needs to bediscussed is the terms of that integration and howit can be used to spur equitable development in

the three countries. Promoting equity requiresthe development of a continental polity withpolitical institutions that allow citizen input intothe process. Gary Hufbauer of the Institute forInternational Economics noted that the lack ofprogress on other trade agreements might openup room for creative progress with NAFTA. Thiscould involve incremental change (resolving cur-rent disputes) or a “big idea,” such as advances onmigration, security, energy, or trade policy itself.

On June 17, 2003, the Mexico Institute host-ed a seminar on “Cross-Border Dialoguesbetween the United States and Mexico.” Thisseminar was of particular importance given thegrowing impact that hometown associations,unions, environmental organizations, and othercivil society organizations that operate “acrossborders” have on the bilateral relationship. Theseminar marked the publication of the bookCross-Border Dialogues, edited by David Brooksand Jonathan Fox (La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, 2003), and was co-sponsoredby the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at theUniversity of California, San Diego, and theLatin American and Latino Studies Departmentat the University of California, Santa Cruz.

The first panel provided an analysis of theDiálogos process, which brought together socialorganizations from Mexico and the UnitedStates between 1988 and 1997. David Brooks ofLa Jornada described the genesis of the initiative,which began as a means for civil society organi-zations from both countries to share their con-cerns and opinions on binational and trinationaleconomic integration and its impact on domes-tic issues. According to Brooks, the Diálogosprocess created new linkages among civil societyorganizations and helped create a “space below”in the predominantly “top-down” integrationprocess in North America. Jonathan Fox of theUniversity of California, Santa Cruz, arguedthat this process was a critical part of achieving“globalization from below.” A range of networkshas formed as a result of this process, as well as afew coalitions, but very few transnational move-ments (other than among Mexican migrants).The Diálogos process brought organizationstogether strongly around NAFTA, but this ener-gy has not always been sustained. In fact, there is

N O T I C I A S

16

no sustained trend toward greater cohesionamong the civil society organizations in theUnited States and Mexico, except among bor-der organizations, Fox argued.

A second panel discussed the processes of“Building Linkages” between Mexican andU.S. social organizations in three arenas: theenvironment, political rights of immigrants,and cooperation among labor unions. Mary E.Kelly of Environmental Defense observed thatbefore NAFTA, there were hardly any jointefforts carried out by Mexican and U.S. groupsdealing with environmental affairs.Nonetheless, debates on NAFTA and its actualimplementation caught the attention of suchgroups and generated networks among them sothat “the discussion arrived to stay.”Concerning the political rights of immigrants,Jesús Martínez Saldaña of California StateUniversity, Fresno, and an advisor to theMichoacán state government, emphasized thefact that Mexican immigrants in the UnitedStates lack their most basic political right, vot-ing, even though approximately 90 percentmeet the requirements established by Mexicanlaws to vote. However, he noted that Mexicanmigrants already play a vital role in Mexicanpolitics, especially at the state and local level.This is leading many state governments to con-sider legislation to allow Mexicans abroad tovote in state elections, and a movement isbuilding to grant Mexicans in the United Statesthe right to vote in national elections. MarkAnderson of the Food andAllied Service Trades (FAST),an affiliate of the AFL-CIO,described the history ofincreased union cooperationbetween Mexico and theUnited States, which devel-oped as a result of the NAFTAnegotiations.

Finally, on June 10, 2003,the Mexico Institute hosted aprivate breakfast meeting withAmbassador Andrés Rozental ofthe Mexican Council onForeign Affairs, which focusedon “Rethinking the U.S.-

Mexico Agenda.” Rozental emphasized thecentral importance of migration in U.S.-Mexico relations, but suggested that it could bedealt with in stages. He also noted that ongoingcooperation in security and trade should berecognized and built upon. Key participantsfrom the State Department, National SecurityCouncil, and U.S. Senate and House staffs dis-cussed these issues with Ambassador Rozentaland representatives of the Mexican Embassy.

Argentina @ the WilsonCenter

In the midst of the worst economic and politi-cal crisis in recent Argentine history, the LatinAmerican Program launched “Argentina @The Wilson Center,” a project designed to pro-vide the Washington-based policy communitywith a deeper understanding of the causes andimplications of the country’s turmoil. Theproject also seeks to contribute to dialogueamong different groups in Argentina, bringingtogether networks of public policy experts todiscuss and debate issues of critical importanceto the country.

Since Argentina’s default in January 2002,attention abroad has focused on the debt crisisand the seemingly endless negotiations betweenthe Argentine government and the InternationalMonetary Fund. Far less attention has been paidto the country’s social tragedy and the role of

FA L L 2 0 0 3

17

Guillermo Calvo, Eugenio Díaz Bonilla, Alberto Rodríguez Saa, Fernando Riavec, Pablo Rojo, DanielMontamat, and Julio Pierkas

the state and civil society in addressing unprece-dented levels of poverty and unemployment.Accordingly, on October 30, 2002, theProject organized a conference on“Argentina’s Social Default,” combining theperspectives of policymakers and representa-tives of non-governmental organizations.During a first session moderated by Ambassador

Richard McCormack, former U.S. under secre-tary of state for economic affairs, BernardoKliksberg of the Inter-American DevelopmentBank referred to the increasing importance ofcivil society organizations in addressing thecrisis. He explained how, as society becamemore polarized, the number of NGO’s and thenumber of people involved in volunteer workhad increased. Despite the fact that the socialcontract has been broken, he argued, “the

ethical contract is stronger that ever before.”María del Carmen Feijoó, executive secretary ofArgentina’s Consejo Nacional deCoordinación de Políticas Sociales, outlinedthe programs implemented since January 2002,when President Eduardo Duhalde took office.Feijoo referred to the “Jefas y Jefes deHogar”(Heads of Households) program that,she argued, had “restored social order.”Ambassador Joseph B. Gildenhorn, chairman ofthe Wilson Center’s Board of Trustees, calledon the policy community in the United Statesto pay attention to problems of poverty andmarginalization throughout the hemisphere.Other participants included: Fabián Repetto,Instituto Interamericano para el DesarrolloSocial (INDES); Carola Álvarez, IDB; ErnestoAldo Isuani, FLACSO-Argentina; WilliamRecant, American Jewish Joint DistributionCommittee; Javier García Labougle, CARITAS;and Raul Francisco Zavalía Lagos, FundaciónProVivienda Social. The representatives ofnon-governmental organizations describedhow organized civil society has tried, withonly partial success, to complement the effortsof the state, which in turn has relied on loansfrom multilateral agencies as well as tax rev-enues to address the dramatic increase inpoverty since the recession began in 1998.

Social policies figured prominently in a sec-ond event, held on December 3, 2002, on

N O T I C I A S

18

Joseph S. Tulchin, Richard McCormack, María del Carmen Feijoó, Ernesto Aldo Isuani, Fabián Repetto, and Carola Álvarez. On thescreen, the audience at the Catholic University in Buenos Aires.

Since Argentina’s default in January 2002,

attention abroad has focused on the debt cri-

sis and the seemingly endless negotiations

between the Argentine government and the

International Monetary Fund. Far less atten-

tion has been paid to the country’s social

tragedy and the role of the state and civil

society in addressing unprecedented levels

of poverty and unemployment.

“The Road to Elections: Argentina’sEconomic Future.” Senior economic advisorsfor several of the principal presidential candi-dates were invited to discuss the economic cri-sis and the policies they would adopt on mon-etary, fiscal, trade, unemployment and devel-opment matters. The advisors agreed on theneed to simplify and reform the tax structure,and to adopt more prudent and restrictivepolicies on government borrowing. They dis-agreed sharply, however, on the key targetsand central themes of their programs. JulioPierkas, advisor for presidential candidateRicardo López Murphy, stated that publicpolicies should promote the use of market-based strategies and efficiency within the pub-lic sector. Pablo Rojo, senior economic advisorfor Carlos Menem, emphasized two mainobjectives: to restore the international com-munity’s confidence in Argentina, by stabiliz-ing monetary policy, exercising fiscal balance,and respecting private property; and to restorethe purchasing power of wage-earners. Otherparticipants included Alberto Rodríguez Saa,senior economic advisor for Adolfo RodríguezSaa; Fernando Riavec, senior economic advisorfor Patricia Bullrich; Eugenio Díaz-Bonilla,senior advisor of José Octavio Bordón; andDaniel Montamat, senior economic advisor forRodolfo Terragno. Ambassador Manuel Rocha,former U.S. ambassador in Argentina, servedas moderator.

To reflect on the debate, Woodrow WilsonCenter fellows Ariel Armony and Héctor Schamiscollaborated with the Latin American Programin organizing a day-long workshop on April 3,2003, called “Rethinking Argentina.” Thoseparticipating represented a wide variety of aca-demic disciplines and perspectives, and includ-ed Argentine author and writer Tomás EloyMartínez; Inter-American Development Bankchief economist Guillermo Calvo; MartínAbregú, Ford Foundation; Gastón Chillier,International Human Rights Law Group;Margaret Crahan, Hunter College and TheGraduate Center of the City University ofNew York; Judith Filc, Department of Spanishand Portuguese at New York University;Edward Gibson, Northwestern University; Louis

Goodman, American University; María MatildeOllier, FUNDAR; Jorge Quiroga, WoodrowWilson Center; William C. Smith, MiamiDepartment of International Studies; andJoseph S. Tulchin, Latin American Program,Woodrow Wilson Center.

The discussion ranged widely over theArgentine economy, Argentina’s role in theworld, democracy and political parties, cultureand the role of intellectuals in society within thepolitical arena, civil society, the rule of law, andviolence and citizen security. A summary of thedialogue together with an introduction byArmony and Schamis will be published as a con-ference report in the Fall of 2003.

Immediately following the inauguration ofnewly elected President Néstor Kirchner,Argentina @ the Wilson Center held a confer-ence analyzing Argentina’s April 2003 presiden-tial elections. Two front-runners (both Peronists)emerged in the April 27th vote: NéstorKirchner, governor of Patagonia’s Santa Cruzprovince, and former two-term president CarlosMenem. They were to meet in a run-off elec-tion, but Menem withdrew when polls indicat-ed he would face a crushing defeat. As a result,Kirchner assumed the presidency with the 22per cent of the vote he had garnered in the firstround. The May 28, 2003 seminar was aimed atexploring the implications of Kirchner’s slimelectoral mandate for future political and eco-nomic developments, as well as the impact ofthe 2003 elections on internal developments inthe Peronist party.

Political analyst Rosendo Fraga suggested thatKirchner could turn the conditions to hisadvantage if he grasped the opportunity to

FA L L 2 0 0 3

19

The representatives of non-governmental

organizations described how organized civil

society has tried, with only partial success,

to complement the efforts of the state, which

in turn has relied on loans from multilateral

agencies as well as tax revenues to address

the dramatic increase in poverty since the

recession began in 1998.

change political culture in Argentina, makingconsensus and alliance the basis for democraticgovernance. Mark Falcoff of the AmericanEnterprise Institute indicated that Kirchner’slimited mandate could mark the beginning ofmore performance-based presidencies; if thatwere to occur, it would demonstrate growingmaturity and change in the political system.Argentine pollster Graciela Romer also arguedthat following four years of economic reces-sion, the demands of the Argentine public aremore realistic, and that to sustain governance,politicians must begin responding to thosedemands, such as creating employment, allevi-ating poverty, protecting against crime, andfighting corruption. Historian Carlos Floria saidthat Kirchner’s greatest challenge will be to

construct authority. Santiago Cantón, executivesecretary of the Inter-American Commissionon Human Rights of the Organization ofAmerican States, emphasized the need for for-eign policy coherence, which should be basedon Argentine national interests and not onautomatic alignment with any political or eco-nomic bloc. Andrés Oppenheimer of the MiamiHerald moderated the panel, adding that it wasvitally important for Argentina to take a realis-tic view of world affairs and a realistic view ofits own capacities.

Each of the conferences described above wasbroadcast live to Argentina, in partnership witheither the Universidad Católica or theEconomics Faculty of the Universidad deBuenos Aires. Newsletters summarizing eachof the events are available from the LatinAmerican Program.

Argentina @ the Wilson Center held twoadditional meetings in Buenos Aires. On

September 26-27, 2002, the project collaborat-ed with the Universidad de San Andrés in ameeting on defense and security policies in thehemisphere. On May 14, 2003, the projectjoined with the Universidad de Bologna in dis-cussing post-Iraq scenarios. Conference reportson both meetings are available from the LatinAmerican Program.

Political Crisis and the Threatto Democratic Governance

On May 20, 2003, the Latin American Programconducted a workshop to discuss political crisesin Latin America and the threat to democraticgovernance, as part of the ongoing project on“Creating Community.” The participants soughtways to identify points of crisis and suggestedprecise research that would enable the philan-thropic and policy communities to respond inappropriate and effective ways.

Ongoing political and economic turmoil inVenezuela demonstrates the fragility of demo-cratic governments in Latin America andreveals the lack of information in the UnitedStates about the roots of such crises. Joseph S.Tulchin, director of the Latin AmericanProgram, challenged the group to identify thefactors that contribute to the vulnerability ofdemocratic governance in the region andcome up with pragmatic steps to address theseissues. Members of the group reached a con-sensus as to which might be considered keyissues for study; however, several memberscautioned that it was easier to identify existingcrises than it was to predict impending ones.And, as Raúl Benítez (Universidad NacionalAutónoma de México) pointed out, the causesof some crises are indeterminate.

Nevertheless, Frances Hagopian of the KelloggInstitute, University of Notre Dame, felt thatthere were general characteristics or causes ofcrises (“destabilizing factors”) that mightemerge upon further examination, includingcitizen’s concerns about public security, corrup-tion, the impunity of elected representatives,and the absence of economic and social security.If there were destabilizing factors, Robert

N O T I C I A S

20

Following four years of economic recession,

the demands of the Argentine public are

more realistic…to sustain governance,

politicians must begin responding to those

demands, such as creating employment, alle-

viating poverty, protecting against crime,

and fighting corruption.

Kaufman of Rutger’s University suggested itwould be useful to examine the aspects thatstrengthen democratic governance and preventcrises from occurring, by looking at the coun-tries that seem to better manage their vulnera-bilities, such as Brazil and Mexico.

Participants engaged in considerable debateover the distinction between root causes ofinstability that might require changes in politicalculture requiring generations of experience, andmore immediate problems that might be moreeasily subject to correction. Jonathan Hartlyn,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,focused on this latter arena, arguing that itwould be useful to highlight the areas that couldbe most effectively addressed by a range of poli-cy options. As for specific issues that could beexamined and addressed by policy change,Genaro Arriagada of Chile’s Siete Más Siete arguedthat weak political systems and electoral process-es plague the region, and stressed that statereforms would prevent crises from occurring.Kurt Weyland of the University of Texas atAustin added that the politics of identity,including gender, race, and ethnicity, could cre-ate problems for democratic governance whengroups do not feel represented and do notbelieve in democratic means.

The group discussed several other issues thathave serious short-term consequences and are ofmajor concern to the public: decentralizationand the effectiveness of local governments,mechanisms of representation, the quality ofinstitutions, and informal power and the influ-ence of the wealthy. Root problems such aspoverty, inequality, and income concentration,have broader implications for the region; butrather than trigger crises of governance, theconsensus was that these problems constitute abase on which other issues grow to become pre-cipitants of a crisis. The group proposed a deep-er, geographically-specific examination of theissue areas that could lead to the outbreak ofcrises in the region, as well as broader, long-term research into the linkages between coreproblems and specific destabilizing factors. Theworkshop helped to define several lines ofresearch the Latin American Program will pur-sue in the year ahead.

Brazilian EnvironmentalPolicy under Lula

The appointment of Marina Silva as Brazil’sminister of the environment is testimony tothe evolution of environmental politics inBrazil. Silva’s background—from her begin-nings with the rubber tappers’ movement andfounding of the Central Workers union in theAmazon state of Acre, to her rise through theranks of local and federal government—reflects the Lula administration’s reach beyondtraditional elites for cabinet-level appoint-ments. Silva spoke at the Wilson Center onMay 1, 2003, outlining the administration’splans to promote economic developmentwhile simultaneously respecting and preserv-ing the environment in Brazil. Silva outlinedthree broad agendas—known as “brown, blue,and green”—that form the basis of govern-mental environmental policy.

The brown agenda is mainly concerned withthe processing and disposal of solid wastethrough sound environmental practices. TheLula administration is devising a national solidwaste policy aimed at promoting social inclusionand creating jobs.

The blue agenda is focused on air pollutionand the recovery of rivers and riparian buffers.The agenda includes a joint program with theministry of cities, which addresses urban pollu-

FA L L 2 0 0 3

21

Marina Silva

tion problems and will attempt to improve envi-ronmental conditions for disadvantaged popula-tions in urban centers. Additionally, a nationalpolicy for water resources will include a newprogram that provides water through a cisternnetwork in regions where potable water may

not be readily available. Thirty thousand suchcisterns have been built with the help ofFEBRABAN (the privately-owned BrazilianFederation of Banks) in the arid BrazilianNortheast. An additional 200,000 are plannedfor next year, with the ultimate goal of 1 millionby the end of Lula’s tenure.

The green agenda emphasizes agriculturaldevelopment while respecting forest conserva-tion. Silva underscored the success of policiesadopted during the former administration andnoted that henceforth, the approval of agricul-tural projects will depend on assessments of theirenvironmental impact.

Basic principles for pursuing these agendasinclude: 1) coordination of policy at the stateand federal levels; 2) the inclusion of environ-mental criteria in the formulation of all gov-ernment policy, with the goal of minimizingnegative environmental impacts; 3) stimulatingthe participation of civil society in formulatingenvironmental policy; and 4) the designing ofrealistic policies that do not preclude the eco-nomic development of a country rich in natu-ral resources, which is striving to provide a bet-ter standard of living for the 50 millionBrazilians who live below the poverty line.Silva concluded by simultaneously highlightingsustainable development and the importance ofsocial inclusion of the millions of Braziliansliving in poverty.

Presidential Candidate LucioGutiérrez

Lucio Gutiérrez, at the time a candidate for presi-dent of Ecuador, spoke at a luncheon co-spon-sored by the Latin American Program and theInter-American Dialogue on November 1,2002. Gutiérrez won the first round of presiden-

tial elections in October 2002with 20.4 percent of the vote.The runner-up and his opponentfor the second round elections,Álvaro Noboa, finished with17.4 percent of the vote.

In his speech and throughouthis visit to the United States,Gutiérrez reiterated his desireto listen to suggestions and tocreate a bilateral dialogue. Heasked for international cooper-ation in resolving Ecuador’sproblems, which he identifiedas corruption, poverty, and alack of competitiveness.

Gutiérrez proposed to begincombating corruption by de-politicizing the judiciary andcreating a fourth branch of thestate for control and accounta-bility. To combat poverty, he

N O T I C I A S

22

The Woodrow Wilson Center launches MexicoInstitute

On March 2, 2003, the Woodrow Wilson Center inaugurated the LatinAmerican Program’s Mexico Institute to focus attention on Mexico andU.S.-Mexico relations. The Mexico Institute hosts conferences, seminars,and workshops; carries out major studies of U.S.-Mexico relations andMexican politics; publishes timely analyses of the bilateral relationship; andsponsors public policy scholars.

Center Director Lee H. Hamilton named a distinguished advisoryboard for the Mexico Institute with thirty leaders drawn from academia,the private sector, and public life. The advisory board, chaired by RogerWallace, chairman and CEO, Investamex and José Antonio Fernández,chairman and CEO, FEMSA, met on March 2 and 3 for the first time toinaugurate the Institute. They provide direction to the Institute’s workand to its fundraising efforts.

The Institute co-sponsors a public policy scholars program with theMexican Council on Foreign Affairs, and will be hosting four Mexicanscholars during the 2003-2004 academic year.

Silva concluded by simultaneously high-

lighting sustainable development and the

importance of social inclusion of the mil-

lions of Brazilians living in poverty.

also proposed investing more in education andhealth and creating jobs in new, non-oil sec-tors such as tourism and mining. According toGutiérrez, many steps were needed to improveEcuador’s competitiveness, including investingin hydroelectric power to lower the country’senergy costs, reducing the amount of bureau-cratic red tape, and lowering interest rates. Hesaid that foreign investors should viewEcuador as a serious alternative for investment.Gutiérrez pledged that his administrationwould work to insure citizen security, judicialsecurity, social security, environmental securi-ty, and food security for all Ecuadorans.

Chiapas: The Dilemmas of theCurrent Conflict andNegotiation

The Latin American Program and the NorthAmerican Studies Center (CISAN) of theNational Autonomous University of Mexico(UNAM) hosted a full-day seminar in MexicoCity on October 30, 2002, to focus on the con-flict in Chiapas and questions of indigenousrights in global perspective. The seminar includ-ed leading political actors and scholars fromMexico, Guatemala, Canada, and the UnitedStates, and took place at a time when the peacenegotiations to resolve the conflict between theMexican government and the Zapatista Army ofNational Liberation (EZLN) showed little signof being renewed.

Three keynote speakers—Luis H. Álvarez(the federal government’s peace commissionerfor Chiapas), Samuel Ruíz (emeritus bishop ofSan Cristóbal), and Emilio Zebadúa (secretaryof government of Chiapas)—agreed that his-torical factors such as the lack of rule of law,near-feudal structures of political and econom-ic power, unresolved land claims, racism, andintra-communal conflict had led to a situationof great tension which impeded progress in thepeace process.

However, Bishop Samuel Ruíz stressed thatthe national government had not lived up to itsagreements under the 1996 San Andrés Accordson indigenous rights, and that the neo-liberal

policies that the administration of PresidentVicente Fox was pursuing only worsened theconditions that gave rise to the conflict in thefirst place.

Luis H. Álvarez, on the other hand, expressedthe Fox administration’s willingness to restartthe dialogue and stressed the importance ofrebuilding channels of communication. Hepointed out that the EZLN had broken off thedialogue and had maintained complete silencedespite the government’s willingness to open thedoors to the Zapatistas’ peace caravan in 2001.He argued that the government was seeking toaddress the underlying causes of the conflict byimplementing social programs in the indigenouscommunities of Chiapas.

At the same time, Emilio Zebadúa, in represen-tation of Chiapas Governor Pablo Salazar, notedthat the conflict has several different dimensionsthat go beyond the state level and that there arenational political obstacles that impede findingsolutions. Nonetheless, he emphasized that therehave been positive advances in ending theimpunity with which paramilitary organizationsoperated since the first democratically electedgovernment took office in 2000. However, healso recognized that the state government waslimited in its capacity to reform the justice sys-tem and ensure public security.

Álvaro Pop, a Guatemalan indigenous leader,emphasized that his country has made signifi-cant advances in the social and political recogni-tion of indigenous rights since the peaceaccords of 1996, but he noted that the indige-nous movement pursues multiple strategiesrather than speaking with a single voice onmany issues. Will Kymlicka of Queens

FA L L 2 0 0 3

23

Andrew Selee, Cynthia Arnson, Will Kymlicka, Raúl Benítez

University mentioned that many liberal democ-racies have successfully implemented regimes ofminority rights despite inherent tensionsbetween group rights and individual rights. Thishas been particularly important in light ofgrowing demands for recognition from ethnic,cultural, and linguistic groups around the world.Donna Lee Van Cott of the University ofTennessee at Knoxville compared the experi-ence of indigenous movements elsewhere inLatin America, noting that indigenous rightshave been recognized only when expansive statereform processes have taken place. MiguelConcha of the Fray Francisco Vitoria HumanRights Center described the evolution of thenotion of human rights from one that addressesonly individual rights to one that embraces theidea of collective rights as well.

Luis Hernández Navarro of La Jornada criti-cized the Fox administration for failing to usethe “democratic bonus” he had when first elect-ed to make real changes. Hernández said thegovernment had no strategy for peace, and hadfailed to address the needs of the indigenouscommunities and prevent the reemergence ofparamilitary groups. Similarly, Guillermo May ofthe National Indigenous Congress and GonzaloItuarte of the parish of Ocosingo suggested thatthe conditions that gave origin to the Zapatistauprising have not changed substantially.

Senator Felipe de Jesús Vicencio (PAN) was pes-simistic about the possibilities for restarting thepeace process. He noted that there is no agree-ment about which key actors should be in thepeace process, what the causes of conflict were,or what possible strategies for negotiation mightlook like. Congressman Jaime Martínez Veloz(PRD) was more optimistic, suggesting thatconditions existed for Congress to reevaluate thecontroversial indigenous law that had beenpassed in 2001 and approve additional reformscloser to those agreed on between the govern-ment and the EZLN.

Miguel Álvarez of Serapaz saw few opportuni-ties in the current political climate for reestab-lishing the dialogue between the governmentand the EZLN, however. He emphasized thatthe nature of the conflict had changed pro-foundly since 1994 and that the forms of medi-

ation and dialogue needed to be revised radical-ly to adjust to the current conditions.

A report on the Chiapas conference, edited by CynthiaArnson, Raúl Benítez Manaut, and Andrew Selee,was published by the UNAM in August 2003.

Promises and Disillusionment:Affirmative Action and RaceRelations in the United Statesand Brazil

As the culmination of the 2002 Brazilian PublicPolicy Scholars Program, jointly sponsored bythe Brazil Project and Brazil’s Ministry ofCulture, three Brazilian Public Scholars dis-cussed “Racial Comparisons between Brazil andthe United States” on August 21, 2002.

Paulo Menezes, a lawyer from São Paulo andauthor of Ação Afirmativo no DireitoAmericano, discussed the evolution of affirma-tive action in the Brazilian legal system, contrast-ing it with similar provisions in other countries.Well known activist Diva Moreira contrastedBrazil’s experience with that of the UnitedStates, arguing that the lack of solidarity amongsocial movements and a smaller federal govern-ment obstruct the future development of affir-mative action in Brazil. Rosana Heringer, Directorof the Center for Afro-Brazilian Studies atCandido Mendes University in Rio de Janeiro,noted that the U.S. commitment to diversity,conflict resolution, long-term outreach pro-grams, and education of the workforce provideda positive example for Brazil. Ron Walters of theUniversity of Maryland underscored the impor-tance of this comparative research for the effortto improve the implementation of affirmativeaction policies in both countries.

Brazil @ The Wilson Center continued itspartnership with the Ministry of Culture in2003, and over the summer hosted three newscholars. Liv Sovik of the Federal University ofRio de Janeiro, Katia Santos from the Universityof Georgia, and Debora Carrari from NovaSoutheastern University studied “The Influenceof Race and Social Inequality on Brazilian and

N O T I C I A S

24

American Cultures,” presenting their findings ata seminar on August 13th. The seminar waswebcast and included a live teleconference withan audience at the Ministry of Culture in Brazil.The webcast is available for viewing atwww.wilsoncenter.org/brazil.

Creating Community

The Latin American Program has been workingon the issue of hemispheric security for over adecade. The series of activities, known as“Creating Community” covers the areas of for-eign and defense policy and explores theincreasingly murky distinctions between nation-al security and hemispheric security. In severalcountries in the region, organized crime andtransnational criminal activities have made itimpossible to draw a clean line between domes-tic police work and international securitythreats posed by such actors as terrorist groups,drug traffickers, gangs of car thieves, andmoney launderers. While traditional securitythreats—armed conflicts between symmetricalstate actors—may be fewer or much reducedfrom what they were perceived to be in theimmediate aftermath of the Cold War, the mis-sions of the armed forces in the region stillreflect those threats. And over the past decade,there has been considerable debate over thecapacity of civilian authorities to manage thearmed forces, the budgets allocated to them,and the uses to which they are put within thenation’s frontiers or overseas as part of multilat-eral peacekeeping. Creating Community hasplayed an important role in promoting thedebate and in building civilian capacity to dealwith the armed forces within the framework ofcivilian, constitutional institutions. On July 14,2003, Creating Community sponsored a seriesof panels by members of its research team with-in the framework of the 51st InternationalCongress of Americanists in Santiago, Chile.The next day, the team, which consists ofCarlos Basombrío (Peru), Raúl Benítez(Mexico), Luis Bitencourt (Brazil and theWilson Center), Lilián Bobea (DominicanRepublic), Rut Diamint (Argentina), Cristina

Eguizábal (Ford Foundation), Francisco Rojas(Chile), and Joseph S. Tulchin (Wilson Center),met to plan its activities over the coming year.In addition to writing a set of papers on thecurrent security environment to be published atthe end of the year, the group will sponsor aseries of sub-regional workshops to explore thefeatures of national and international securitypeculiar to each sub-region. These workshopswill involve prominent policymakers as well asexperts from around the hemisphere andencourage a comparative analysis of the securityagenda in each area. The first of these work-shops was held in Mexico City on September19, 2003, sponsored jointly with CISAN, theCenter for North American Studies of theNational Autonomous University of Mexico.

The Geopolitics of Oil: Iraqand Venezuela

On March 19, 2003, the Wilson Center’sDivision of International Studies, the MiddleEast Project and the Latin American Programco-sponsored “The Geopolitics of Oil: Iraq andVenezuela,” with specialists Alberto CisnerosLavaller, Universidad Central de Venezuela, andJames Placke, Senior Associate, CambridgeEnergy Research Associates. The panelistsexplored the implications the Venezuelan crisisand the war in Iraq could have for the oil market.

Cisneros Lavaller referred to social unrestand political polarization in Venezuela and

FA L L 2 0 0 3

25

BackRow: Luis Bitencourt, Rafael Hernández, Lilián Bobea, Joseph TulchinFront Row: Cristina Eguizábal, Raúl Benítez, Rut Diamint, Carlos Basombrío

The Latin American Program

The Latin American Program serves as a bridge between the United States and LatinAmerica, encouraging a free flow of information and dialogue between the two regions.The Program also provides a nonpartisan forum for discussing Latin American andCaribbean issues in Washington, D.C., and for bringing these issues to the attention ofopinion leaders and policy makers throughout the Western hemisphere. The Programsponsors major initiatives on Decentralization, Citizen Security, Comparative PeaceProcesses, Creating Community in the Americas, U.S.-Brazilian relations and U.S.-Mexican relations.

suggested three possible outcomes: the currentadministration stays in power, the oppositionfinds an institutional exit, or the stalemate isresolved with violence. Cisneros Lavallerdescribed the effects that the national strike inVenezuela had already had on the oil market,including a 16 percent decrease in oil exportsto the United States. The strike also had had anegative impact on both the international andU.S. economies and had unsettled oil demand.The price of crude had increased by 30 per-cent, reaching $32 per barrel for the bench-mark West Texas Intermediate (WTI).According to Cisneros Lavaller, simultaneousdisruptions in both Venezuela and Iraq couldlead to export shortages, and a longer lag timeto respond to demand in a timely manner. Hepredicted that a spike in oil prices could reach$80/b WTI.

James Placke said that an immediate conse-quence of war in Iraq would be that Iraqi oilwould be off of the market for some time. Headded that U.S. plans had been to let the Iraqipeople manage their oil after the U.S. militaryintervention. Further, Placke stated that “todaythere isn’t shortage but low stocks, which has todo with severe winters and Venezuela’s conflictin December. That’s why the price [of oil] todayis high.” Placke said that the anxieties generatedby a major disruption such as the war will keepprices high. The crisis in Nigeria could also trig-ger further disruption. Placke stated that Iraqwill need foreign investment to increase its oilproduction beyond levels maintained until 1991.Neither he nor Cisneros Lavaller consideredlikely what they called a “worst case scenario,” inwhich supply from both Venezuela and Iraq felland stayed low for a period of several years.

N O T I C I A S

26

The Latin American Program has been fortunate to have the assistance of an impres-sive group of interns throughout the year. We would like to take this opportunity tothank them for their invaluable help.

Fall 2002 Luis Rodríguez, Universidad IberoamericanaFernando Molina, University of Maryland

January 2003 Kristen Berger, Amherst CollegeCarolina Dallal, Amherst College

Spring 2003 Paul Florence, Georgetown University, School ofForeign ServiceSofía Sebastián, Georgetown University, School ofForeign Service

Summer 2003 Andrew Stevenson, Georgetown University, School ofForeign ServiceDominic Nahas, University of California-Riverside

We also bid a fond farewell to Junior Scholars Carolina Fernández of theUniversidad Torcuato di Tella and Giselle Cohen from the Universidad de BuenosAires, who researched U.S.-Argentina relations in collaboration with the Program andassisted with activities of the project Argentina at the Wilson Center. At the same time,we warmly welcome Junior Scholar Tamara Taraciuk, who holds a law degree from theUniversidad Torcuato di Tella. A former Fellow at the Inter-American Commissionon Human Rights, Tamara will contribute to the Latin American Program’s work onArgentina, Citizen Security, Creating Community, and Colombia.

We express our sincerest gratitude to Audrey Yao. Audrey, a former intern, and cur-rent graduate student at Georgetown University, served as a consultant on many LAPprojects. She worked in the U.S. Embassy in Paraguay over the summer of 2003 beforereturning to her second year at Georgetown.

FA L L 2 0 0 3

27

Interns &Researchers

N O T I C I A S

28

Books

Joseph S. Tulchin and Andrew D. Selee, eds., Mexico’s Politics and Society in Transition(Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002).

Hugo Frühling and Joseph S. Tulchin with Heather Golding, eds., Crime and Violencein Latin America: Citizen Security, Democracy and the State (Johns Hopkins UniversityPress and Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2003).

Woodrow Wilson Center Reports on the Americas

Cynthia J. Arnson, ed. El Salvador’s Democratic Transition Ten Years after the Peace Accord,March 2003.

Conference Reports

Peace and Security in Colombia (WWC, U.S. Institute of Peace, and InternationalCrisis Group), March 2003.

Allison M. Garland, Heather A. Golding, Meg Ruthenberg, and Joseph S. Tulchin,eds., Crime and the Threat to Democratic Governance, March 2003.

Políticas de Defensa: Desafíos Externos y Restricciones Internas, May 2003.

Cynthia J. Arnson, Raúl Benítez Manaut, and Andrew Selee, eds., Chiapas:Interpretaciones sobre la negociación y la paz (UNAM, CISAN, WWC), August 2003.

Woodrow Wilson Center Update on the Americas

Decentralization, No. 5, “Decentralization and Democracy: A ContinuingChallenge for Venezuela,” September 2002.

Creating Community, No. 7, “Hemispheric Collective Security in the Post ColdWar Era,” September 2002.

Creating Community, No. 8, “Armies in Times of Peace: The Division of LaborBetween Armed Forces and Police,” October 2002.

Creating Community, No. 9, “Mexican Security and Defense Doctrines: From the19th to the 21st Centuries,” November 2002.

RecentPublications

FA L L 2 0 0 3

29

Creating Community, No. 10, “Controlling the Armed Forces in DemocraticTransitions: Cases from Latin America,” December 2002.

Creating Community, No. 11, “Seguridad hemisférica: Debates a inicios del sigloXXI,” April 2003.

Creating Community, No. 12, “The Politics of Health Sector Reforms: Cross-National Comparisons,” May 2003.

Creating Community, No. 13, “The Politics of Education Sector Reforms: Cross-National Comparisons,” June 2003.

Mexico, No. 4, “Democracy in Action: Four Visions of Mexico’s Process,” January2003.

Argentina, No. 1, “A Social Contract Abrogated: Argentina’s Economic Crisis,” June2002.

Argentina, No. 2, “After Default: Argentina’s Role in World Affairs,” June 2002.

Argentina, No. 3, “Getting out of the Economic Crisis,” June 2002.

Argentina, No. 4, “Políticas de defensa: desafíos externos y restricciones internas,”October 2002.

Argentina, No. 5, “Políticas de seguridad pública en una sociedad democrática:perspectives comparadas,” October 2002.

Argentina, No. 6, “Argentina y el default social,” November 2002.

Argentina, No. 7, “Camino a las elecciones 2003: el futuro económico de laArgentina,” December 2002.

Argentina, No. 8, “Relaciones bilaterales Argentina-EE.UU.: perspectiva histórica yfuturos desafíos,” May 2003.

Argentina, No. 9, “Analizando las elecciones argentines,” July 2003.

Argentina, No. 10, “Interpretaciones acerca del escenario de posguerra,” August 2003.

“Prevention and Response to Urban Crime and Violence in Latin America and theCaribbean,” August 2003.

N O T I C I A S

30

Fellows

We bid farewell to our 2002-2003 Fellows Ariel Armony, Assistant Professor ofGovernment, Colby College; Héctor Schamis, Assistant Professor of Government,Cornell University; and Alfonso Quiroz, Professor of History, Baruch College andGraduate Center, City University of New York. Their presence at the Center greatlyenriched the work of the Latin American Program.

We extend a warm welcome to our incoming Fellows for the 2003-2004 aca-demic year.

Marcos Cueto, Professor, School of Public Health, Universidad Peruana CayetanoHeredia, “Global Bodies: Malaria, International Health, and Latin America.”

Enrique Peruzzotti, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science andInternational Relations, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, “Enforcing the Rule of Law,Controlling Corruption: The Politics of Social Accountability in Latin America.”

Public Policy Scholars 2002-2003

Jorge Quiroga, former President of Bolivia, “Political Engineering in Post-’Neoliberal’Democracies in Latin America”

Hugo Frühling, Professor, Universidad de Chile, “Police Reforms and CrimePrevention in South America”

Maria Elena Ducci, Professor, Universidad Católica de Chile, “The Role ofMetropolitan Central Markets: The Case of Santiago, Chile”

Raúl Benítez Manaut, Researcher, Center for Research on North America (CISAN),Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, “North American Security: Challengesat the Beginning of the 21st Century”

José María Ramos, Professor, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, “The U.S. BorderSecurity Policy: Impacts on the Transborder Cooperation with Mexico”

Debora Carrari, M.A. Candidate, Nova Southeastern University, “The Influence ofRace and Social Inequality on Brazilian and American Cultures”

Katia da Costa Santos, Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia, “African-AmericanWomen, Afro-Brazilian Women, and the Construction of Knowledge”

Liv Sovik, Professor, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, “Cultural Policy andRacial Equality in Times of Change”

Pamela Starr, Professor, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, “Why FoxFailed: Implications for Mexico, the United States, and the North American Ideal”

FA L L 2 0 0 3

31

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsLee H. Hamilton, President and Director

Board of TrusteesJoseph B. Gildenhorn, Chair; David A. Metzner, Vice Chair. Public Members: James H. Billington,Librarian of Congress; John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United States; Bruce Cole, Chair, NationalEndowment for the Humanities; Roderick R. Paige, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education; ColinL. Powell, Secretary, U.S. Department of State; Lawrence M. Small, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution;Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Private CitizenMembers: Joseph A. Cari, Jr., Carol Cartwright, Donald E. Garcia, Bruce S. Gelb, Daniel L. Lamaute,Tamala L. Longaberger, Thomas R. Reedy

Wilson CouncilBruce S. Gelb, President. Diane Aboulafia-D'Jaen, Elias F. Aburdene, Charles S. Ackerman, B.B. Andersen,Cyrus A. Ansary, Lawrence E. Bathgate II, John Beinecke, Joseph C. Bell, Steven Alan Bennett, RudyBoschwitz, A. Oakley Brooks, Melva Bucksbaum, Charles W. Burson, Conrad Cafritz, Nicola L. Caiola,Raoul L. Carroll, Scott Carter, Albert V. Casey, Mark Chandler, Peter B. Clark, Melvin Cohen, WilliamT. Coleman, Jr., Michael D. DiGiacomo, Sheldon Drobny, F. Samuel Eberts III, J. David Eller, MarkEpstein, Melvyn J. Estrin, Sim Farar, Susan Farber, Joseph H. Flom, John H. Foster, Charles Fox, BarbaraHackman Franklin, Norman Freidkin, Morton Funger, Gregory M. Gallo, Chris G. Gardiner, Steven J.Gilbert, Alma Gildenhorn, David F. Girard-diCarlo, Michael B. Goldberg, Gretchen M. Gorog, WilliamE. Grayson, Ronald Greenberg, Raymond A. Guenter, Edward L. Hardin, Jr., Jean L. Hennessey, EricHotung, John L. Howard, Darrell E. Issa, Jerry Jasinowski, Brenda LaGrange Johnson, Shelly Kamins,Edward W. Kelley, Jr., Anastasia D. Kelly, Christopher J. Kennan, Michael V. Kostiw, Steven Kotler,William H. Kremer, Raymond Learsy, Abbe Lane Leff, Perry Leff, Dennis LeVett, Francine Levinson,Harold O. Levy, David Link, Frederic V. Malek, David S. Mandel, John P. Manning, Jeffrey A. Marcus, JayMazur, Robert McCarthy, Linda McCausland, Stephen G. McConahey, Donald F. McLellan, J. KennethMenges, Jr., Philip Merrill, Kathryn Mosbacher, Jeremiah L. Murphy, Martha T. Muse, Della Newman,John E. Osborn, Paul Hae Park, Gerald L. Parsky, Michael J. Polenske, Donald Robert Quartel, Jr., J. JohnL. Richardson, Margaret Milner Richardson, Larry D. Richman, Carlyn Ring, Edwin Robbins, RobertG. Rogers, Otto Ruesch, B. Francis Saul, III, Alan Schwartz, Timothy R. Scully, J. Michael Shepherd,George P. Shultz, Raja W. Sidawi, Debbie Siebert, Thomas L. Siebert, Kenneth Siegel, Ron Silver,William A. Slaughter, James H. Small, Thomas F. Stephenson, Norma Kline Tiefel, Mark C. Treanor,Anthony G. Viscogliosi, Christine M. Warnke, Ruth Westheimer, Pete Wilson, Deborah Wince-Smith,Herbert S. Winokur, Jr., Paul Martin Wolff, Joseph Zappala, Nancy M. Zirkin, Richard S. Ziman

Honorary Wilson Council MembersHushang Ansary, Bill Archer, James A. Baker III, Jack S. Blanton, Sr., José Cancela, Richard L. Carrión,Jean Case, Stephen M. Case, William S. Cohen, Jerry Colangelo, Norm Coleman, Philip M. Condit,Denton A. Cooley, Gray Davis, Arturo Díaz, William H. Draper III, David Efron, Dianne Feinstein, LuisFerré, Charles Foster, Esq., Sam Ginn, Richard N. Goldman, Slade Gorton, Allan Gottlieb, Dennis J.Hastert, Roger Hertog, Roy M. Huffington, Ray L. Hunt, Bobby Inman, Dale M. Jensen, E. FloydKvamme, Joseph P. Lacher, Dan Lewis, Howard Lincoln, Thomas Loeffler, Robert J. Lowe, Donald B.Marron, John McCain, Michael S. McGavick, Robert A. Mosbacher, Sr., Peter Munk, Marilyn CarlsonNelson, George E. Pataki, Nelson Peltz, Alex Penelas, Richard Perry, Robert Pincus, Lee R. Raymond,William T. Solomon, James R. Thompson, Jr., R. E. (Ted) Turner III, Paul A. Volcker, Thomas W.Weisel, David H. Williams, Reba Williams

N O T I C I A S

ONE WOODROW WILSON PLAZA, 1300 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-3027

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsLee H. Hamilton, President and Director

The Center is the living memorial of the United States of America to the nation’s twenty-eighth president, Woodrow Wilson. Congress established the Woodrow Wilson Center in1968 as an international institute for advanced study, “symbolizing and strengthening thefruitful relationship between the world of learning and the world of public affairs.” TheCenter opened in 1970 under its own board of trustees.

In all its activities the Woodrow Wilson Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, sup-ported financially by annual appropriations from Congress, and by the contributions of foun-dations, corporations, and individuals. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Center publica-tions and programs are those of the authors and speakers and do not necessarily reflect the viewsof the Center staff, fellows, trustees, advisory groups, or any individuals or organizations thatprovide financial support to the Center.