[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHALLENGES TO HEMISPHERIC DEMOCRACY: ELECTIONS, COUPS AND INSTABILITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-127
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international
relations
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-849 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PETER T. KING, New York PAT DANNER, Missouri
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South BRAD SHERMAN, California
Carolina ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida
TOM CAMPBELL, California EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA LEE, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff
------
Subcommittee on The Western Hemisphere
ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
Carolina JIM DAVIS, Florida
KEVIN BRADY, Texas EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
Vince Morelli, Subcommittee Staff Director
David Adams, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Kelly McDonald, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Hon. John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.............................................. 5
Ambassador Lino Gutierrez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of
State; accompanied by Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary for
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs............ 10
APPENDIX
The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from
California and Chairman, on Subcommittee on the Western
Hemisphere..................................................... 24
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress
from New York and Chairman, Committee on International
Relations...................................................... 25
Mr. Robert Menendez.............................................. 30
Mr. John Conyers, Jr., House International Relations Committee,.. 32
Ambassador Lino Gutierrez........................................ 35
CHALLENGES TO HEMISPHERIC DEMOCRACY: ELECTIONS, COUPS AND INSTABILITY
----------
Wednesday, June 14, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:13 p.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elton Gallegly
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Gallegly. We will now go into the hearing. If the
witnesses would please come forward.
The purpose of our hearing today is to examine recent and
forthcoming events in several Latin American and Caribbean
nations to analyze how these events have or could impact
democratic gains and the overall political stability in the
region. For more than a decade, Western Hemisphere political
analysts and academic experts have pointed with optimism to the
continued growth and strengthening of democracy in Latin
America and in the Caribbean. The focal point of the
hemisphere's success story thus far has been the number of
free, fair and transparent elections which have taken place at
all levels of government over this period. Up until recently,
most elections in the region have been very successful. Yet,
most know that elections alone do not make a strong democracy.
Other elements such as well-organized civil societies,
independent judiciaries, a free press, active political parties
and militaries willing to subordinate themselves to the elected
civilian authority, are all required before any nation can
truly be defined as a strong modern democracy.
Today, the glitter of progress is beginning to tarnish in
some parts of the region as electoral processes have broken
down, such as in Haiti and Peru, where new patterns of populist
authoritarianism seem to be emerging, such as in Venezuela and
Peru, and where restless militaries, twice in the past 6
months, in Ecuador and Paraguay, have staged unsuccessful coups
d'etat. This is not to say that all parts of the hemisphere are
taking steps backward. We hope these may be only one-time
temporary setbacks.
But recent events in several countries in the region,
coupled with the inability of economic reforms initiated
earlier in the decade to adequately address pressing social
problems, have cast a dark cloud over the democratization of
parts of the region.
Today, the Subcommittee has asked the Department of State
to review these particular issues with us and to assess whether
these events can justify criticism that Latin democracy is in
decay. We have also asked the Department to provide an update
on the current counternarcotics situation in Colombia.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Gallegly. Before we go to the witnesses, are there any
Members--I see the Chairman of our Full Committee, the
gentleman from New York, who would like to make an opening
statement.
Mr. Gilman. Thank you for allowing me to make a statement.
I want to thank you for scheduling this important hearing.
The wave of democracy in our hemisphere has crested. Now to
finish the metaphor, the breakers are starting to roll toward
shore. I am pleased that Ambassador Gutierrez is here to give
us his insights. Attempted coups in Paraguay and political
violence and manipulated elections in Haiti are recurring
problems. Both countries are emerging as major centers of
narcotics-related criminal activity. The Haitian government is
becoming an increasingly repressive narco-state.
The initial hopes that surrounded the May 21st elections in
Haiti sadly have been eclipsed. This flawed electoral process
has seen among other improprieties, political killings, the use
of a politicized Haitian national police force to arrest and
intimidate opposition politicians, the manipulation of
supposedly independent electoral council by the government and
the ruling Lavalas Family Party and falsification of election
results.
The government of Haiti has been given massive resources
and every benefit of the doubt by the international community.
It is time to stop applying a double standard to Haiti.
Central America is also witnessing increasing tensions over
border disputes that could yet break into open conflict. In
Nicaragua, there are persistent troubling reports of official
political corruption and abuses of authority.
The Andean region is in turmoil. The situation in Colombia
is deteriorating by the minute. The production of illegal drugs
in Colombia and the violence that these drugs fuel are out of
control.
Just yesterday we learned that Colombian National Police
director General Rosso Jose Serrano announced his retirement.
We know General Serrano has been a true Colombian patriot. Our
Nation owes him a great debt of gratitude for the way he has
been fighting the narcotics problem. We must pay that debt by
continuing to support the reforms and effective drug fighting
capabilities that general Serrano instilled in his Colombian
National Police.
I might add that 5,000 of his narcotics police have died in
the last 10 years trying to prevent the illicit narcotics from
leaving that country and going into our Nation and other
nations.
In the wake of the collapse of Venezuela's political system
under the weight of years of corruption, that strategic nation
is now headed down an uncertain path. The situation in Ecuador,
which experienced a coup earlier this year, remain extremely
tenuous. Bolivia has done a good job of eradicating coca, but
it too is experiencing recurring unrest.
Just last month, Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori
conducted an election that the Organization of American States,
Election Observation Mission termed far from free and fair. The
OAS Mission carefully documented a number of key failings,
including the government's manipulation of key institutions,
harassment of opposition candidates, a lack of balanced access
to the media, illegal use of state resources by the government,
and the need for improved election management.
I have been a strong supporter of our engagement with Peru
on counternarcotics matters. I will continue to support our
counternarcotics cooperation with Peru. However, we cannot
ignore the fact that Peru's increasingly authoritarian and
repressive government has hollowed out that nation's democratic
institutions to perpetuate itself in power.
As a Nation, we must be prepared to respond to that
challenge. If elections in Peru and Haiti are not free and
fair, we cannot pretend that they are. We must not allow
ourselves to be lulled into any sense of complacency.
Undemocratic elements throughout the hemisphere are carefully
watching our Nation's reaction to the manipulation of those
recent elections.
In Mexico, National Democratic Institute for International
Affairs election observers have pointed out that,
``unfortunately, it is widely believed that the closeness of
the election has led to certain practices, particularly by the
ruling party, that are reminiscent of past elections.'' We
should not ignore that kind of a warning about a nation as
important to us as Mexico, our next-door neighbor.
With a few notable exceptions, the response from our
neighbors in the hemisphere to recent threats to democracy has
regrettably been muted. Brazil, in particular, has not risen to
provide sorely needed leadership in the hemisphere. What we do
here and now in the face of what is happening in the Americas
will define how we, as a hemispheric community, will respond to
the continued erosion of democratic institutions and the other
serious security and economic crises we that we are facing.
Leaders in countries who not long ago looked to our Nation
to help them recover their own nations' democracy need to think
hard about this critical juncture in our history. They should
join with our Nation in defending democracy. By the same token,
our own administration cannot afford to coast until November.
The wake-up call is well upon us. I thank you again, Mr.
Chairman, for taking a hard look at these hemispheric problems.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilman appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Ambassador Gutierrez for agreeing to come speak with us on a
very important topic, which is, I believe, very timely: The
challenges to hemispheric democracy. The fact that we have a
lot to talk about today is both discouraging and telling. Of
the fact that democracy is threatened, let there be no doubt.
What I hope we can begin to do is twofold: First, I hope we can
stop measuring democracy by elections alone. We all have said
it and heard it before, elections alone do not a democracy
make.
But we continue to measure democratic advance by the number
of free and fair elections held. We should measure instead the
responsiveness and accountability of executives and
legislatures, the independence and fairness of judiciaries, the
strength and representative nature of political parties, the
freedom of expression in the media, and the public at large,
the level of real civilian control over the military, and the
organizational strength of and level of participation allowed
civil society. Most important, these democratic institutions
and processions must be supported through continued and
enhanced technical support programs.
Second, we must recognize that the underlying threats to
democracy--poverty, injustice, lack of universal education,
lack of access to land and corruption--remain constant, not
having improved measurably in the last 20 years. Unless and
until these factors are addressed, and at the same time that
weak democratic institutions are strengthened, there can be no
lasting democracy.
We should also remember that Latin Americans recognize the
threats, too. We are not alone in raising this red flag.
Shortly after Secretary Albright's tough speech at the Council
of America's annual conference on May 1st, commentators
throughout the hemisphere raised their voices in agreement.
Writing in newspapers from Santo Domingo to Santiago, Caracas
to Quito, observers expressed a collective sense of doom.
Alarmed over a general ``democratic deficit,'' ``lack of strong
parties,'' ``outdated oligarchies,'' and conditions ripe with
``totalitarian temptations,'' recent commentary has reflected
an awareness of the public's growing dissatisfaction with
``low-quality democracy.'' At the same time, comments from our
south also show a certain resentment toward the United States,
with many observers offended by the only passing reference
Latin America seems to be getting in the U.S. Presidential
campaign; and by the lack of a clear policy toward the region.
In their own recognition of the challenges they face, Latin
Americans are clearly reacting to the fact that, while
electoral democracy in Latin America has advanced in the past
20 years, reductions in poverty and corruption have not. Two
decades ago, more than half of the countries in the region were
under authoritarian rule including all but four outside of the
non-English speaking Caribbean. Today, only one country has not
had even one democratic election. At the same time, however,
poverty has remained constant, even gotten slightly worse. This
year, more than 36 percent of households in Latin America are
living in poverty. In 1980, the figure was 35 percent.
There does seem to be some correlation between economic
progress and democratic progress. Certainly Argentina, Chile,
and Uruguay have recently consolidated their relatively strong
democracies with elections that are beginning to be called, as
was the case recently in Argentina, ``boring.'' This is good
news and it corresponds to the southern cone region's relative
prosperity. In these three countries, fewer than 20 percent of
households live in poverty, and this compares favorably to the
rest of the region where an average of more than 40 percent of
the population is poor.
There is not always a direct correlation though between
riches and democracy. Venezuela with its oil and Colombia with
its abundant natural resources, should be relatively wealthy
and should have built up a middle class over the years.
Corruption, bankrupt judicial systems and the history of power
by oligarchy have prevented this. Meanwhile, poor central
American countries have faired relatively well lately on the
democratic scale.
Let me close by saying that I believe that poverty does
not, in and of itself, prevent the establishment and
strengthening of democratic institutions. However, we are
seeing a situation where any progress that has been made in the
past 20 years on the democratic front is threatened by the lack
of movement on the economic front. People are discouraged
because greater electoral democracy has not given them a
greater say in the political process, or a fair hearing in the
courts or an end to corruption--the necessary ingredients for a
more just economic pie. In turn, democracy's promise becomes
disillusionment.
Recent polls conducted throughout the hemisphere are
particularly disheartening and should be heeded. One poll
showed that in no Latin American country do the majority of
citizens feel they live in a true democracy. In Mexico,
according to this poll, over 10 percent of Mexicans believe
they live in a democratic system. The opinion research shows a
``worrisome indifference'' to democracy.
So I hope to hear from you, Mr. Ambassador, what the United
States is doing and will continue to do, working with Democrats
in Latin America to combat this worrisome indifference. If we
have spent a fortune during the 1980's in promoting democracy--
particularly in areas that you have been privileged to
represent this country in--it is amazing to me that we would
not take the necessary steps to cement the democratic
underpinnings that we have first created and that now could
flourish in this new century of opportunity. It is a great
challenge to us, and we need to pay a lot of attention to our
neighbors to the south because the only time we pay attention
is when we have problems. Then it is too late. We need to pay
attention now when we can create an opportunity of hope and
prosperity for the entire region.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. Next we will turn to
our colleague and good friend from the State of Michigan, Mr.
John Conyers who was part of a congressional observation team
that just recently attended the elections in Haiti. Welcome,
Mr. Conyers.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much, Chairman Gallegly. As a
neighbor of mine in the building and as a colleague on
Judiciary, I have appreciated working with you across the
years. It is my honor to testify before your Subcommittee in
this particular important Committee. I was deeply impressed by
the statement of our colleague, Mr. Menendez, who I think has
described a much larger circumstance that is still an ongoing
challenge in trying to bring constitutional government to other
nations. We have to observe that even in our process, we are
working on improving that same objective in our own country. Of
course, my friend, Mr. Bill Delahunt, who was one of the
designated international observers from the Congress to go on
May 21, Sunday, for the first and very important elections
there, I am happy to make a brief report. I have a statement
that I would like to have included in the record.
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection.
Mr. Conyers. I would also like to make sure that everyone
has a copy of it. Because I am going to merely summarize from
this statement, because when I know that Ambassador Gutierrez
is coming up and has been waiting and we have our good friend
Ambassador Steinberg here also in the room, I want to be
available for any comments or questions that the Committee may
have. I want to observe in the beginning that I have enjoyed
the good relationships with Chairman Ben Gilman of this
Committee on the subject of Haiti who, when I first began going
there, he was already a frequent visitor to this small,
beleaguered, struggling nation, trying to make things work. I
believe that he still is.
On May 21st, the Haitian people showed their strong desire
for democracy. It was clear in the early hours of the morning,
5:30 a.m., that dozens of voters were waiting at the first
sight we had been assigned to attend, waiting to cast their
ballot at a polling station that wasn't going to open until 7
a.m. So we were very pleased about this being the general
circumstance across the country and across certainly the half
dozen or more polling sights that our congressional CODEL and
staff had been assigned to visit.
Some of our teams had been assigned to distances so far
away that we didn't see them until we were getting ready to
depart. The afternoon that they left, they finally showed up in
a very timely fashion, I would say. Of course, we would have
waited for them. But the fact of the matter is that people were
dispersed to work with OAS and other delegations, the
Caribbean, CARICOM had people there, the European community had
representatives there, and other countries had independent
observers there. So it is my view that we were literally
flooding the country with outside independent eyes and ears to
help determine whether or not these elections would and could
come off in a manner that would attain a level of credibility.
With me was Mrs. Corrine Brown of Florida, and Mr. Bill
Delahunt of Massachusetts and a number of our staff. We
witnessed dedicated poll workers, we witnessed party observers,
we witnessed the opening and counting of ballots. We visited
the provisional electoral counsel which administered the
election process a number of times. Its president, Mr. Manus
and our group got to know each other on a first-name basis. It
seemed to me that what we saw was very refreshing, with the
exception of one possibly election related death, outside of
some pushing and shoving at the polling stations, there was a
very low level of disorderly conduct and no violence.
We all had met and we were briefed very expertly by our
embassy who themselves were working with other organizations,
but most particularly the OAS to make sure that what we all saw
and heard could be compared. There was a tremendous turnout on
Election Day. It is calculated, as the results have not been
concluded, still somewhere between 50 to 60 percent is the
repeated estimation of voter turnout. I think that the
registration rates were cards, registration cards, and with
laminated photographs were issued in color, went up to
somewhere about 80 percent. What determined for me was that the
getting of the cards for registration was not just to be the
proud possessor of a color ID, which for many was their first,
but they really, as we saw on Election Day, really wanted to
participate.
It was wonderful to visit some polling places that were
crowded, people were standing in line close together, in the
hot sun, and then in the evening when we came back, there were
children playing in this school yard, there were a few elders
standing around, and they were getting ready to count the
votes. Everybody had been taken care of. That was not the case,
of course, in all the voting regions. In Grandanse they just
had an election last week that had, by decree of the CEP, been
put off until a later date. Those elections are still being
counted.
So what we have here is I think a very important turning
point in which the election procedures and constitutional
issues involved have been and are still being approached in a
very intelligent way. 29,000 candidates, Mr. Chairman, competed
for 11,000 local regional and parliamentary offices. So this
was a very important milestone. We now are confronted with the
circumstance in which there was a difficulty about the count
which took place after we left.
We have been receiving reports that the method of
calculation, the one that we would traditionally use, is
different from the one they have customarily used in the
preceding elections. We have a letter that went to the OAS
explaining that, that has been translated for us. We feel that
the Haitian National Police deserve a great deal of credit
along with the Election Commission for making sure that the
election itself ran as fairly as it could.
I do appreciate that there have been arrests for gun law
violations and other activities that followed, that occurred to
political leaders, including some members of Famni Lavalos. But
we want to remember that during that period, motorcycle use was
prevented, the carrying of gun permits was revoked, and other
safety precautions were enacted merely to make sure that had as
a nonviolent, nondisruptive election as possible.
So we are still awaiting the results. We are hopeful that
the CEP will consider the criticisms of the OAS and that they
will reach some harmonious point of conciliation so that they
can both move into a position for the announcement of the
results of the election, and then the passing of judgment on
the elections in terms of whether they have reached a
sufficient level of credibility. All that I can attest to you
is that from what we saw on the day before the election, the
day of the election, and the day after the election, we were
very satisfied that both the police, the Electoral Commission,
and most of all, the citizens of Haiti, were very much
concerned about restoring constitutional government to their
land.
I would merely conclude by pointing out that your colleague
on the Committee, Don Payne, the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Africa, has been enormously helpful with us in
dealing with this subject matter with this almost small
bipartisan Haiti caucus that has been formed in the Congress we
wish to be of any assistance to your Subcommittee and the
larger Committee of which you are a part. Thank you for
allowing me to make these remarks before Ambassador Gutierrez.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you for your testimony. It appears that
you certainly have been impressed, and as you said, satisfied
that it looks as though we are making progress there. Is that a
fair assessment?
Mr. Conyers. Yes, it is. Because you know, we are making
progress, I am also disturbed about things that could have
happened that didn't happen. We were disturbed about ballots
that were late and were found strewn around after the vote. We
didn't know whether they had been counted or not. There were a
number of things that are important, but the overall thing to
me, Chairman Gallegly, is that Haiti is at a very critical
point. They are moving toward restoring--being restored to the
family of nations and operating under constitutional
governance. This election is very critical to move on to the
runoffs which, as you know, are less than 2 weeks away. They
are likely to go much more smoothly because the mass of
thousands of pieces of candidates and hundreds of pieces of
paper which was pretty daunting since the great majority of the
population, the citizenry is not literate, that we would be
moving into a much easier circumstance. In that sense, we feel
that the May 21st elections were absolutely critical to any
movement toward reaching the goal of constitutional governance.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much. Does anyone else have a
question or comment for Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Delahunt. If I may, Mr. Chairman. Not being a Member of
this particular Subcommittee, I want to thank you for allowing
me to speak.
Mr. Gallegly. You are among friends.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you very much. It is my understanding,
and I know that it is the understanding of Mr. Conyers, that
the most recent election that was held this past Sunday, in the
department of the Giandance was also held without any violence,
a large turn-out, and seemed to be successful which I think
underscores the observations that have been made by Mr. Conyers
as to the overall success with some exceptions in terms of the
May 21st elections.
Mr. Conyers. You are absolutely right, Bill. That election
was postponed by mutual consent and has taken place without any
violence at all that has been reported, at least since we have
been back. It is consistent with the overall trends and the
effort on everyone's part. I think Pierre Denize, the national
police chief, with no military and whose forces were being
retrained by the Department of Justice specialists, and who has
gone through tremendous challenge in terms of maintaining law
and order nationally as well as conducting an election at the
same time, needs to have a word of compliment lifted up for him
as well.
Mr. Delahunt. If I can make one additional observation, Mr.
Chairman. I think what was, particularly for Mr. Conyers and
myself, a rather poignant and symbolic experience, was that he
and I observed at a particular polling place that earlier in
this decade was a polling place where a massacre of some 30-odd
Haitian citizens who went to vote were assassinated by members
of the Haitian military, which no longer exists since it has
been abolished. I think we were both euphoric that our
observation indicated that the elections were free, they were
without any undue influence, and they clearly were well
monitored by the Haitian National Police, and there was not any
indication of any violence or any duress whatsoever.
So while there is much to do in Haiti and I don't mean to
overstate the case, it clearly stood in stark contrast to what
occurred earlier in this decade.
Mr. Conyers. You are certainly correct, it was very moving,
that one particular polling place itself a school and you know
we couldn't help but think that there were many people voting
there who knew exactly what we knew that this had been the site
of an Election Day massacre by the Haitian military. It was now
perfectly peaceful all-day long; it was crowded, and when we
returned, people were preparing the ballots, the various
political parties were there, the parties had their observers
witnesses and each ballot was opened up, and the numbers called
off and the recording of the balloting went on.
There were spirited challenges from time to time, but it
was a very encouraging process. I think we are taking this
first giant wobbly step forward. I want to thank, from the
bottom of my heart, all the Members of the International
Relations Committee for the concern and cooperation they
visited on us as CODEL after CODEL, including members of the
Committee, and others not on the Committee, were permitted to
go back to Haiti to work and struggle for this common
objective.
Mr. Delahunt. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be
incumbent on us, and we would be remiss if we did not
acknowledge, that members of our staffs volunteered to come and
to accept what was a dangerous challenge, and I would
specifically point out, Ms. Cynthia Martin from Mr. Conyers'
staff, and Charisse, from Don Payne's office, and my own Cliff
Stammerman as well as Sean Carroll. They were extraordinary in
terms of their commitment, they worked hard, it was 18-hour
days, and there was much concern about their safety, but the
end result was a very positive one.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Bill. The gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and I will be
very brief. I am not a Member of the Committee. I appreciate
the opportunity to say a word or two. Primarily I want to
compliment Mr. Conyers on the continued respect that he has in
Haiti, and in other areas, but he is very well respected there.
There is always an out pouring of people to visit with him.
Also, I would like to indicate what a great addition to the
House Mr. Delahunt is, especially his interest in Haiti and his
going down there several times with Mr. Conyers. I was on one
trip with him. I was unable to get there the week of the
election but I went the previous week, wanted to make sure that
everything was taken care of everything was in hand. We didn't
want them to run into any kind of trouble.
Mr. Delahunt. It was John the Baptist leading the way.
Mr. Payne. But I did have a chance to meet with the
President and former President Aristide and the Election
Commission and OAS representatives, and the opposition party
people. We did feel some apprehension about whether all those
ballots were going to get there in time and all those photo
ID's were right. As Mr. Conyers said, there were, of course,
enough errors to go around, but if you take a look at the
overall election, I think that it was a step in the right
direction, moving toward democracy, any kind of impediment did
not necessarily impact the overall outcome, and I think that is
what we looked for.
I also would like to compliment Ambassador Steinberg, who
really kept us very prepared and briefed. Having worked in
Angola, Haiti is easy for him in comparison. But finally, as
you know, the police department for of all of Haiti, 8 million
people or more, is about 4,000 people. The same population of
New York City, has 10 times as many policemen. They have 40,000
policemen in New York City. We saw recently in Central Park, a
few people got out of hand with large numbers of policemen
being unable to prevent this from happening.
When we do look at that, and we hear the criticism of, I
think Mr. Conyers made it clear, this was not the greatest
election in the world, but it was certainly, I think, a very
great step in the right direction. When you look at 4,000
policemen for the entire country of Haiti, like I said, as
opposed to 40,000 in New York alone, I think when we keep
things in its proper perspective, we can be appreciative.
Finally, Mr. Menendez, as you note, was a Ranking Member of
this Committee during the last session, and much of what we see
happening and moving forward at this time certainly did not
just happen over night, and that his shepherdship of the
Committee and what was going on in Haiti during the previous
Congress, I would like to also thank him for the interest that
he has shown in the area.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Thank you, John, for
your testimony, and we appreciate your being here this
afternoon.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, sir, very much.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Secretary. We welcome Ambassador
Gutierrez here this afternoon, and with that, we would welcome
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR LINO GUTIERREZ, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE
AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; ACCOMPANIED BY RAND BEERS,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, it is a
pleasure to be here. In the interest of time and brevity and to
allow for your questions, I would like to touch briefly upon
the seven areas you asked me to address in my testimony. I have
prepared a comprehensive written statement that I have
submitted to the Subcommittee for its consideration.
Mr. Gallegly. It will be made a part of the record of the
hearing in its entirety without objection.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, recent events show
that democracy remains vulnerable in some countries in the
hemisphere. It is important to remember, however, that
democracy is a continuing process, not a final achievement. I
would argue that despite some setbacks, democracy in the
hemisphere continues to flourish. Thirty-four of the 35
governments in the region came to power through the ballot box.
Our relationship with our neighbors is excellent. Regional
integration and interdependence are strong and continuing to
increase. As a result, our interests in the Western Hemisphere
are vitally important to the United States, vitally important
to our security, to our economic well-being and to the future
of our children. It is essential that the Administration and
Congress continue to work together actively to manage and
resolve challenges and to take advantage of opportunities in
the Hemisphere.
Turning to the situation in the seven countries, the
Subcommittee has asked me to address, Peru's experience with
democracy is checkered. Despite requests from the Organization
of American States, the U.S. Government and the national
community to postpone the second round of presidential,
elections in order to verify conditions for a fair contest,
President Fujimori chose to go ahead with a contest on May
28th. Opposition candidate Alejandro Toledo decided not to
participate in the elections and called on supporters to
boycott or to cast null votes. Domestic and international
observers, including the OAS, did not monitor the contest.
President Fujimori won the May 28th election with 51
percent of the votes cast, but the results underlined the
country's political polarization. About half either cast votes
in favor of Toledo, about 17 percent, or deliberately spoiled,
their ballots, 32 percent. Tens of thousands protested the
contest across Peru with minimal violence.
The OAS Electoral Observation Mission called the electoral
process flawed. We support their findings. The elections were
not free and fair. The resolution approved by the OAS General
Assembly last week reflects our concerns regarding the
credibility of the electoral process and represents an
important building block for restoring democratic institutions
in Peru. It asks that OAS Secretary General Gaviria and
Canadian Foreign Minister Axworthy go immediately to Peru to
develop recommendations and an action plan to reform the
judiciary and electoral systems and to strengthen press
freedom. The Mission will report back to the OAS Foreign
Ministers for endorsement of the plan and to ensure active OAS
followup.
We support this OAS Mission. It is in the U.S. Government's
interest to give this initiative time to prove itself. Yet we
have specifically warned that the U.S. reserves the right to
respond appropriately to the progress made by the Government of
Peru. We also share the concern expressed by Congress in Senate
Joint Resolution 43 and are preparing to review our bilateral
programs. Any eventual decision on sanctions will be influenced
by Peru's response to the OAS Mission and the reforms
undertaken.
Haiti is the second country that faces a challenge to
democracy. Indeed, since the January 1999 dissolution of
Haiti's parliament, most of the country's local and national
governmental bodies have either been absent or unable to
fulfill their critical role in helping Haiti address its most
severe challenges. To end this irregular situation, the United
States--including many dedicated Members of this Subcommittee--
has devoted considerable effort to bringing about a free, fair
and transparent election.
On May 21st, the first round of the long overdue local and
parliamentary elections was held. Voter turnout was high as
Haitians from all walks of life embraced this democratic
exercise.
The post election period has been beset with serious
problems, however. The most prominent problem thus far is the
possible use by the Provisional Electoral Council of a
methodology that fails to tabulate all ballot votes cast in the
Senate races, as prescribed in the election law. This
alternative methodology would seriously distort the outcome of
those races. The Organization of American States Electoral
Observation Mission has requested a retabulation of votes fully
consistent when the guidelines. We support the OAS position.
The stakes in Haiti's electoral process are high. This
process, which anticipates a runoff election on June 25th, the
seating of a parliament in mid July, and Presidential elections
in November is the means through which democratic and fully
responsible government can be restored and empowered. The
expectations of Haitians must be validated by a process that is
fully credible, free, fair and transparent from its start on
the day of the vote to its end when the votes are tabulated and
the newly elected officials are installed into office.
Let me turn to Venezuela where a lengthy political
transition continues. The Supreme Tribunal, Venezuela's Supreme
Court, postponed the country's Presidential legislative, state
and municipal elections scheduled for May 28th. It did so in
acknowledgment of continued serious technical problems in the
automated voting system. It was the right decision.
The Tribunal acted in response to a petition from concerned
NGO's, a positive sign in our opinion. The engagement of civil
society in highlighting the need for postponement was a sign of
mature democratic process. So was the decision of the
Venezuelan authorities to support their request before the
Tribunal.
The election officials responsible for the problems have
now been replaced by well-respected, apolitical individuals
nominated by a variety of nongovernmental institutions and
vetted by a roundtable of representatives of civil society. The
interim legislature has not yet set a new date, but July
elections are still possible. The U.S. Government provided
financial support for both an OAS election monitoring mission
and a Carter Center mission, which played constructive roles
during the campaign. We anticipate providing the same level of
support in the upcoming elections as well.
In Mexico, voters will go to the polls on July 2nd to elect
a new President and new Congress. It is not an exaggeration to
say that these elections are a potential watershed in Mexico's
democratic evolution. The campaign has been the most open in
Mexico's history and we expect the vote itself will be too.
There has been public speculation in Mexico and elsewhere
about the possibility of electoral fraud. Frankly, I would be
surprised if there were no allegations of irregularities after
the vote. But a vast and impressive array of safeguards has
been created over the past 6 years to prevent systemic fraud
and to guarantee the integrity of the Mexican vote.
We have confidence in Mexico's independent Federal
Electoral Institute, the IFE, which is charged with organizing
and managing the elections. It has done a great deal already to
level the political playing field and set the stage for free
and fair elections.
Mr. Gutierrez. [Continuing.] I saw this firsthand during a
recent trip to Mexico. Since 1994, in midterm congressional and
local elections the opposition has made unprecedented inroads.
Over a third of all Mexicans live in states run by opposition
Governors, and the PRI no longer has a majority in the Mexican
Chamber of Deputies.
We expect there will be a number of international observers
in Mexico for the election. The Mexican government, the IFE and
the political parties themselves have welcomed this. The U.S.
is funding an electoral observation mission organized by the
International Republican Institute and the National Democratic
Institute, and various other U.S. NGO's are also sending
observers.
Ecuador is another country that faces threats to its
democracy. The situation, however, has improved dramatically
since January, when field-grade Ecuadorian military officers
and indigenous leaders attempted to install a new government.
As this revolt developed and both the military and police
declined to enforce public order, the United States, Ecuador's
neighbors, and the OAS Permanent Council immediately issued
strong statements rejecting any interruption in the democratic,
constitutional order. Facing the prospect of political and
economic isolation, on January 22nd President Mahuad urged the
country to support Vice President Gustavo Noboa as his
constitutional successor and Congress confirmed Noboa that day.
Ecuador is not out of the woods, but it is making progress.
The Noboa government has been able to pass through Congress
badly needed economic reforms and to begin the process of
implementing those changes. The Noboa Administration has met
with indigenous communities and sought to initiate social
programs targeting the poor. Military leadership has been
changed, removing those who did not act in support of Ecuador's
constitution or its leaders. An amnesty to those who were
involved in the coup has created the possibility of
reconciliation and has helped defuse a potentially explosive
situation while allowing military authorities to impose
administrative sanctions against participants.
On May 25th, the Noboa Administration announced fiscal
reforms. Protests have so far been muted. An IMF team is
currently in Ecuador to examine the fiscal implications of
these measures, as well as banking sector developments, and
other issues in the context of its first bimonthly review of
Ecuador's IMF Standby Program.
The next few months will be critical to the success of
Ecuador's economic reforms. President Noboa has been making the
right political and economic moves and recognizes that these
strict reforms are necessary to improve economic conditions and
opportunities for all of Ecuador's citizens.
Turning to Paraguay, where the unsuccessful coup attempt of
last May 18th and 19th demonstrates that Paraguayan democracy
continues to face serious challenges. These include corruption,
economic stagnation, rural discontent and some anti-democratic
elements among the middle and lower ranks of the military.
There are significant factional divisions within both parties
in the governing coalition as well as within the opposition.
These challenges have complicated the government's ability to
govern effectively.
It is important to note the lack of military, political, or
popular support for the unsuccessful uprising, which was led by
supporters of former general and convicted coup plotter Lino
Oviedo. The military leadership and the vast majority of
military units demonstrated their commitment to democracy,
civilian control and the constitutional order. Since the
assanation of Vice President Argana in March of last year,
Oviedo appears to have lost much of his public support, and he
remained a fugitive from Paraguayan justice until his recent
detention in Brazil.
Nonetheless, much of the population lacks hope and few see
the current situation as acceptable. We continue to urge
Paraguay's leaders to agree on a vision for the country, to
take sustained action against criminal activity and corruption
and to implement economic reform. These steps are necessary if
Paraguay's democracy is to be secure.
Finally, let me also comment briefly on events in Colombia.
In the Pastrana Administration, the U.S. has a full and
committed partner that shares our counternarcotics goals.
Delays in implementing the U.S. assistance package for Colombia
will not only adversely affect the counternarcotics efforts
made by the government of Colombia but also our own efforts to
upgrade the government's ability to counter this threat. Ninety
percent of the world's supply of cocaine is grown, processed or
transported through Colombia. Because of this, we appreciate
the House's rapid action in response to the Administration's
supplemental request for Colombia.
With the delay in funding, Colombia's drug production can
be expected to continue its massive expansion. In 1999, the
U.S. sprayed over 42,000 hectares of coca and over 8,000
hectares of poppy. Despite this, coca cultivation in Colombia
reportedly increased by over 20,000 hectares during the same
year. Yet we now actually have had to cut back our aerial
fumigation operations by 50 percent and lay off spray pilots
because of funding shortfalls. This means nearly 5,400 acres
per month are today not being taken out of cultivation that
would have been if the cutbacks were not required. We also have
been unable to begin a significant planned expansion of
eradication capability. Left unchecked, skyrocketing trends in
Colombian production will also reverse impressive progress in
Bolivia and Peru where coca cultivation has gone down 55
percent and 66 percent respectively since 1995.
We have also had to suspend forward deployment of the UH-1N
helicopters intended to provide air mobility to the first
counternarcotics battalion because of the lack of funding for
additional flight hours, training, repair parts, fuel and other
logistic support. Without these helicopters, the Colombian
army's first counternarcotics battalion--specifically created
with U.S. funds to go after drug targets--has not been able to
complete its training to be fully prepared to conduct effective
operations.
In the field of drug interdiction, the delay will result in
no upgrades for detection and monitoring aircraft before
January, 2001, derailing a project that promises to have
immediate results. The Colombia national police will also be
denied critical force protection improvements to its existing
forward bases, secure communications and an additional air
mobile unit.
Other important interrelated programs to be funded by the
Colombia emergency supplemental package are also on hold,
including those that would strengthen the justice system, local
government and civil society, as well as increasing our
assistance to internally displaced persons.
Mr. Chairman, let me close by acknowledging the tremendous
challenges faced by the countries of the region. The roots of
democracy in our hemisphere, while widespread, are still
shallow. Events in Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador and elsewhere
reflect the vulnerability of democracy in some countries.
However, the overall democratic trend is positive. Never have
as many citizens of the Hemisphere freely elected their
leaders, been able to read free newspapers, join
nongovernmental organizations and freely express their views
without fear of persecution. Nations today cooperate with each
other as never before to address threats such as narcotics and
arms trafficking, corruption, and money laundering--issues
which respect no borders. Those who would attempt to subvert
the democratic process in the Americas will face a united
hemisphere opposing them.
This is not to say that democracy in the region is home
free, far from it. There will be occasional setbacks, and there
is no question that we must remain engaged. But I am convinced
that the citizens of Latin America and the Caribbean will fight
to preserve the freedom that took so long to achieve. The
Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to do
our very best to help them.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gutierrez appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Gallegly. I just have a couple things that I want to go
over before I defer to Mr. Menendez.
With respect to the election in Peru, the coup in Ecuador
and the attempted coup in Paraguay, can you tell me what these
say about the depth of the democratic values in Latin America
and the stability of the region? Do you see it as a systemic
problem or is it an Andean situation?
Mr. Gutierrez. I think the conditions vary throughout the
Hemisphere. As I said, the roots of democracy are not as deep
in every country; and recent events have shown that.
I also agree with statements made here before me that
democracy is more than holding free elections. Institutions
have to be strengthened, we have a long way to go in achieving
that. But I would not say this is a systemic problem throughout
the Hemisphere. It differs from country to country.
Mr. Gallegly. Would you say that we are slipping back a
little bit, or do you think this is just an ongoing issue, for
which we have to continue to be vigilant?
Mr. Gutierrez. I think democracy in the Hemisphere is a
process, and there will be some setbacks, but I think the
overall trends remain very positive. I think the Hemisphere is
better prepared to deal with events like we have witnessed
before.
For example, had the Paraguayan coup attempt taken place 10
years ago, you might have a military government now in place.
But the fact that the Hemisphere stands united and ready to
react to these interruptions of constitutional order I think is
a very positive development.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ambassador, I have the greatest deal of respect for
you, having had some time with you when you served a fellowship
in my office. However, you know that when it comes to
questions, I don't restrict myself, even though I have a great
deal of respect for you.
So let me start off by noting that, in your statement you
say 34 of the 35 governments in the region came to power
through the ballot box. But would we not eliminate from those
34, at least for now, Paraguay, Ecuador, and Peru? The present
governments came in through some unconstitutional process; and,
in the case of Peru, while there was an election, we, from your
own statements, question that election.
So it seems to me that the numbers of democracies are in
flux, and we need to recognize that. We may have at some time
seen elections, but in the present set of circumstances those
countries in my mind cannot fall within the context of saying
that they have achieved democracy at the ballot box; and we
know that even that, in and of itself, is not the true test of
democracy.
My second point is, you state at page 12 something that I
thoroughly agree with. You say that the stabilizing threats
posed by income inequality and poverty must be addressed. You
say that, through improving basic social services, health care
and education, governments can help to broaden the reach of
economic opportunity by providing opportunities and incentives.
Many elements of society can be pulled into the political and
economic mainstream and thereby strengthen democracy. I agree
with that fully.
But what I cannot understand, when we have you and we have
Ambassador Romero and so many others from the State Department
come before the Committee and speak in such terms that you--you
meaning the Department--oppose the Latin American Development
Fund. Every time that we in fact seek to promote efforts for a
Latin American Development Fund, which aims, in essence, to
create a funding floor and to ensure that regional funds for
developmental purposes don't get stolen whenever there is a
global emergency, we have opposition from the State Department.
Trade alone cannot possibly deal with the 40 percent or so of
those people who are below the poverty level in the Southern
Hemisphere; you cannot tell a Brazilian child that trade is
going to lift his or her future.
We need to have the State Department begin to engage with
us in understanding that some of the development issues that we
have within the Hemisphere need to get better attention or we
will continue to find ourselves in this discussion of democracy
without the underpinnings necessary for that democracy to fully
flourish. Your statements are right on the mark, but your
Department continues to oppose us in developing a Latin
American Development Fund. We need such a fund so that we can
begin to move forward.
The Chairman of the Subommittee has expressed in the past
very sincere interest on illegal immigration, but we are not
going to stop illegal immigration coming through the borders of
the Southern Hemisphere unless we change the quality of lives
in the Southern Hemisphere and the economic realities that they
face. We are not going to stop the flow of drugs into the
United States until we have sustainable developments that
sustain a family growing crops in Colombia that are not coca
crops, because that is the most available and the most worthy
economically for them to sustain their families. Yet we are
going to do this all through trade?
So my second point to you is, why do we not have the
Department being supportive of development assistance that is
enhanced and that is particularly focused on Latin America?
The third point that I would like your remarks on is the
election in Peru, which I think is a real concern. The Clinton
Administration first called Mr. Fujimori's victory a threat,
and then I have sensed a back-pedaling from that. We are
seeking a strong, collective response, which is fine, at the
OAS, but my sense is that there is little sign of the members
from those respective states who want tough sanctions on Mr.
Fujimori's Peru, much less a new election.
What is at risk here? I mean, if all we are going to do is
rattle our sabres about democracy, permit what is even a
questionable election, what message are we sending in the
hemisphere? I would like to hear whether the State Department
considers that a constitutional validly third term?
We will rattle our sabres about democracy, but if you have
an unconstitutional third term, if you have a lack of the type
of elections that are fair and free, if you permit a process to
take place that doesn't provide for truly representative
democracy at least in the first instance, then where are we
going?
If you read the Senate resolution which calls on the
Administration to review and modify, as appropriate, its
political, economic and military relations with Peru, presuming
that the OAS mission doesn't come back and really give us a
sense that there is a meaningful response, are we talking about
an action that some would consider a sanction?
Mr. Gutierrez. Congressman, let me just reciprocate and say
I have the upmost respect for you. As a matter of fact, when I
was a fellow in your office, I worked on the predecessor of the
Latin American Development Fund. I understand the concept. I
believe on that issue the objection of the State Department is
to any earmarkings of that type. But let me just say that we
agree with the spirit of what the Latin American Development
Fund is trying to accomplish in the region, and we are
certainly willing to work with you on those objectives.
Mr. Menendez. We hope the spirit will move you and the
Department.
Mr. Gutierrez. On the 34 out of the 35 elected governments
in the Hemisphere, your point is well taken. One would argue
semantically that the Vice Presidents of Ecuador and Paraguay
were elected freely to their previous positions--which put them
in line for the presidency, and Mr. Fujimori has not yet been
inaugurated for a third term, but we may have to adjust those
numbers in the future. We take that point.
On Peru, I would say that, in general, I think that the
Hemisphere has reacted well to Peru. We went up to the Windsor
OAS General Assembly with three objectives. We sought an
endorsement of the Stein report. Mr. Stein was the former
Foreign Minister of Guatemala who went to Peru and uncovered
all the irregularities. We wanted some sort of followup
mechanism, some high-level delegation to go to Peru and
facilitate a dialogue between government and opposition.
We did not want this report buried in the way many actions
get buried in some of these organizations, so we wanted the
Commission to report back to foreign ministers. I would argue
we got all three objectives--the Hemisphere spoke with a united
voice, they sent Mr. Axworthy in his capacity of Chairman of
the General Assembly, and Mr. Gaviria. They gave them a mandate
to go to Peru and talk with the government about much-needed
democratic reforms--reforming the judiciary, reforming the
electoral system, maybe reforming the way deputies are elected,
et cetera. They will carry that mandate to Peru, and we support
that mission. They will come back and report to the foreign
ministers of the Hemisphere.
Now we have not ruled out taking some unilateral actions on
our own should we not be satisfied with the report of this
Commission, and we are beginning to look at some possible
unilateral actions should they be called for. But at this time
we support the OAS Mission. We would like to give the OAS
Mission a chance to see what it can accomplish in Lima.
At the same time, I would point out that the opposition--
the Peruvian opposition--supported the findings in Windsor and
are very much supportive of this process. So I think we ought
to let this process play out before deciding on what the next
step should be.
Mr. Menendez. Two last questions, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
Number one is, does the Department, since it doesn't support
earmarks, not support the Development Fund for Africa?
Mr. Gutierrez. I will have to get back to you on that,
Congressman. That is--my Bureau was not, as you know, involved
in those decisions, but I will I think----
Mr. Menendez. Please get back to me. Because we have a
Development Fund for Africa. We seek to fund it annually, and
we do fund it annually, and I think it is important. As the
former Ranking Member of the African Subcommittee I support it.
But I do not see how you can say that an African fund is
supported by the Department, which I believe it does, and then
say the Latin American Development Fund--for development here
at the doorstep, at the front porch, at the very entrance to
the United States, with direct relationships on questions of
biodiversity, questions of immigration, questions of drug
interdiction, questions about developing greater markets,
questions of movement of health problems across borders--makes
less sense.
My second question is maybe a point more than a question.
Not only am I concerned about this election in Peru and what
has happened--I didn't hear you answer me on whether or not the
Administration believes that this is a valid third
constitutional period; that is a period of three consecutive
elections is valid under the Peruvian constitution. I would
like to hear the Administration's answer to that.
I am also concerned by several examples of the
authoritarianism I have seen happening in Peru over the last
several months leading up to this election. American companies
working in Peru are finding themselves increasingly with rather
authoritarian nontransparent decisions being rendered against
them. We have an airline whose existing licenses are
potentially being arbitrarily withheld. We have another
American company that legitimately exported a product out of
Peru and now finds itself with literally millions of dollars
being held arbitrarily by the Peruvian government as it relates
to certain taxes that are normally refundable, but that now
they don't wish to refund.
I think there are some serious concerns about what is going
on in Peru, both in the context of its electoral process--
whether or not this is a valid third term that anyone could
have had under the constitution--how American companies--and,
therefore, I would assume other companies as well--but at least
American companies, are having difficulties in dealing in Peru
while obeying all of the laws and arbitrarily being treated in
ways that would defy a series of both countries' treaties as
well as GATT provisions as well as other international norms.
My sense in this is that we are dealing rather gingerly
with them; and my question is, for how long are we going to
take that approach? I hope that we are just not going to
acquiesce in the process to an election that is highly
questionable, a third term that is really in doubt, and
ultimately for American companies to be treated through such an
authoritarian manner which violates their very rights.
This is where we need to speak up, and I hope we will do
so. I understand the desire to have collective speaking on
behalf of the hemisphere's nations, and I hope they will do it
strongly, but if not there are American interests that
sometimes have to be promoted and that we have to stand, if
necessary, unilaterally to do so.
Mr. Gutierrez. We have spoken out quite a bit on the
Peruvian elections. We stand by every statement we have made
throughout this process. The OAS found that this election was a
flawed election, and we agree with that assessment. So it is
critical that this mission succeed and come back with measures
that will enhance democracy in Peru, and we support this
mission going down there.
On American companies, we stand ready to aggressively
support them in any problems they might have with the Peruvian
government. I am not aware of these instances that you have
mentioned, but I would be glad to look into them. Certainly we
stand ready to support American companies with any problems
they might have in Peru.
Mr. Menendez. Is this a constitutional third term?
Mr. Gutierrez. Not being a Peruvian legal expert, let's say
that many observers have questioned whether, in fact, Mr.
Fujimori legally could run for a third term. For whatever
reason, Peruvian legal authorities decided that he could. I
think right now the focus must be, however, on supporting the
OAS mission going down there and seeing what they can
accomplish and facilitating a dialogue between the government
and the opposition.
Mr. Menendez. Considering that he fired the three judges
that were in opposition to the third term, I don't know how it
is valid.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you Mr. Menendez.
If we could move over to Colombia just for a second, Mr.
Ambassador. You commented that the situation in Colombia it
looks fairly bleak and that the situation is likely to get
worse rather than better. I guess that confuses a little bit
about the impact of our supplemental.
You also mentioned that the fumigation flights have been
cut back 50 percent, but weren't these flights fully funded or
are they appropriations in the supplemental budgeted for fiscal
year 2000? If that is the case, why are we running out of money
already?
Mr. Gutierrez. With your permission, I have asked Assistant
Secretary Rand Beers from the Bureau of International Narcotics
and Law Enforcement to assist me in some of these questions.
Mr. Gallegly. That is fine.
Mr. Beers. Thank you, sir.
With respect to the second half of your question, first let
me speak specifically--if you will recall, sir, with respect to
fiscal year 1999 and the funds available to the State
Department, the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, in
addition to regular funding, had been made available to the
Department at that particular point in time. With those funds
we were able to mount in fiscal year 1999 a very robust
program. When we came upon fiscal year 2000, we were faced with
the funds allowed being lower or less than the funds that were
available in fiscal year 1999, but we were moving in the
direction of requesting supplemental funds, and then we finally
did request those funds.
In that context, I know the Front Office, together with the
members of the Country Team, made a strategic decision to try
to sustain the level of effort that had been mounted in fiscal
year 1999 into year 2000 with the expectation that we would be
receiving supplemental funds for Plan Colombia in a timeframe
of May or June. As it became apparent in the discussions and
deliberations between the two Houses earlier this spring that
that assumption was no longer valid, we chose to pull back to a
funding level that would allow us a level amount of funds
remaining available until the end of the fiscal year.
What that essentially amounted to was a 50 percent
reduction from the time it began, which was the beginning of
May, until such time as funds from Plan Colombia are available,
a 50 percent reduction in the amount of eradication effort that
we were able to mount and a pullback from the UH-1N in air
mobility components of the counternarcotics battalion that we
were prepared to support, fund and put in the field. Those two
principal elements represent the core of our inability to move
forward at previous levels with existing funds. In short, we
had more money in fiscal year 1999 than we had in fiscal year
2000 without Plan Colombia supplemental funds.
With respect to the first question, it is our strong belief
that the funds that could be made available under Plan Colombia
represent the single most important investment that Congress,
and the United States has the opportunity to make on behalf of
our citizens in the struggle against drugs in this Hemisphere,
certainly during my entire tenure as a counternarcotics
official which stretches back over 12 years and three
administrations.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much.
As you have heard, there is a vote on the Floor, a
conference report.
So, Bill, did you have anything you wanted to add quickly?
Or, Mr. Menendez, would you like to come back or do you want to
try to wrap this up?
Mr. Delahunt. I will be real brief, Mr. Chairman. I just
want to echo some of the observations by Mr. Menendez in terms
of dealing in the long term with Latin America and Central
America.
When I hear the Ambassador speak to the issue of earmarks,
that really doesn't address the need. I mean, we earmark in a
variety of ways. Significant amounts of assistance go to Egypt
and Israel. I think it has been very clear that our level of
engagement--and I am not speaking of you and those that are in
attendance here, because I know of your commitment to Latin
America and what is occurring in this hemisphere. But I have to
say that the engagement with this hemisphere really doesn't
pass muster. It really doesn't. We have to make an effort, for
the reasons enumerated by Mr. Menendez, to reengage with Latin
America.
We are missing opportunities, and the advances that have
been made in terms of democracies I think I would suggest are
at risk. It can't be simply by trade. I really do support his
concept of a Latin American Development Bank; and we can't,
simply accept the fact that the administration doesn't, believe
or embrace earmarks. We have got to talk about substantial
investment as well as trade.
It is just my observation that, the idea of nurturing
democratic institutions and independent judiciary and
legislative bodies in terms of increasing their capacity to
deal, because the democracies that exist have very significant
executive authority. We are discussing democracies today that
are elected, but some have expressed concerns, whether it be
Venezuela, whether it be any of the democracies, there seems to
be an imbalance between the traditional branches or components
of democratic institutions. I really believe we have got to
make a substantial investment in terms of assisting these
nations as far as their judicial systems, as far as their
legislative assemblies, as well as the executive.
While I have an opportunity to just address one question I
would address it to Ambassador Beers. Do you have any reports
for us in terms of the status of the peace process in Colombia
or in terms of discussions that I understand are just under way
with the ELN and any reports in terms of the peace process as
it relates to it.
Mr. Gutierrez. If I may, Congressman, make a quick couple
of points. I just returned as Ambassador to Nicaragua for 3
years. I can tell you we do have significant programs in the
region in helping judicial sectors, Administration of justice
programs, police training programs, institution building
programs, helping legislatures, helping corruption watchdogs,
et cetera. So we are engaged in the Hemisphere; and, not only
that, we are also poised to respond in times of emergency. I
was in Nicaragua when Hurricane Mitch struck, and the response
from the American Congress and the American public was indeed
generous. It was timely. Our money got there more quickly than
any other.
Mr. Delahunt. I don't dispute that, and I know that the
American people and this Congress and this Administration
respond in terms of emergency. But what I am talking about is
really the nurturing and development in the long-term basis of
democratic institutions because I believe, that that is the
intelligent investment so that we don't have these crises and
that we continue with what I agree with is a trend in the right
direction.
Mr. Gutierrez. I can assure you we are doing it, and in
Haiti----
Mr. Delahunt. I think it is a question of degree,
Ambassador. We can't do this on the cheap. We just can't do it
on the cheap.
Mr. Gutierrez. We can always do more, Congressman. You are
right. But in Haiti, for example, we spent $16 million in
ensuring that these elections take place, which is quite a
significant achievement.
Mr. Delahunt. Again, I want to be clear I want to
compliment. But some suggested in Haiti, for example, that we
have poured billions of dollars into Haiti. The reality is that
we have poured--a great substantial piece of that billions of
dollars was to--was in the aftermath of the coup, was to house
people in Guantanamo, was to pick up refugees, the sending of
some 20,000 American troops to Haiti.
So when we talk about building institutions I dare say it
is a more intelligent investment to do that rather than to be
responding to crises such as occurred in Haiti in the aftermath
of the coup and prior to the return of Aristide and democracy
to Haiti. Because that cost us a lot of money. That was a
billion plus.
Mr. Gutierrez. We are doing quite a lot, but I think we can
always do more.
Mr. Beers. Sir, with respect to your question, the peace
process--the ELN portion of the peace process is still not
settled. Discussions continue. The FARC on-again, off-again
peace process I guess you could say is on again. There is not
much different from what you are seeing in the public domain.
But if you would like to have a more detailed discussion of
that in private we would certainly be happy to have someone
come up and sit down with you and good over that in detail. I
know your strong interest in that subject.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much for your attention today.
Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for your testimony; and, Secretary
Beers, thank you for being here.
With that, we will adjourn the Subcommittee.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
June 14, 2000
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5849.025