I n October 2004, The Latin AmericanProgram marked the 25th anniversary of itsTransitions from Authoritarian Rule initia-

tive while launching a new comparative projectto study the progress of emerging democraciesaround the globe.

The Transitions project began at the WilsonCenter in 1979 and, over the course of several

years, sponsored a number of meetings and con-ferences to explore key questions of democratictransition and consolidation. These meetingsprompted a series of books, Transitions fromAuthoritarian Rule (Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1986), which included case studies, com-parative and theoretical perspectives, and conclu-sions by scholars from Latin America, the UnitedStates, and Europe. The series was translated intonumerous languages and, for more than a decade,was the most cited work of social science pub-lished in English. Building on the success of thisinitial project, the Latin American Program isspearheading a continuation of this comparativedebate among a new generation of scholars whowill assess the state of democracy around theworld. Guillermo O’Donnell of the University ofNotre Dame, Philippe Schmitter of the EuropeanUniversity Institute, and Laurence Whitehead ofOxford University will lead the project, as theydid the original, this time joined by LatinAmerican Program director Joseph S.Tulchin.

Transitions project scholars advocated certainprinciples they deemed at the core of transi-

Reflections on the Transition to Democracy Project 1-425 Years Later

White House Chiefs of Staff Talk About Trade Policy 4-5

Brazil Under Lula: Domestic and Foreign Perceptions 5-6

How Do We See Each Other? Perceptions and Media 6-10in U.S.-Mexico Relations

The Peace Process in Colombia with Paramilitary Groups 10-12

Embraer: Building A Globally Competitive Company 11

Brazil–U.S. Relations: 2004 and Beyond 12-13

The Role of the Media in the Consolidation of Democracy 13-14

The Hispanic Challenge? What We Know About Latino 14-16Immigration

The Economic and Social Consequences of Conflict 16-17and Peace in Colombia

Agriculture and the Environment in Brazil 17

Mexico Institute Holds Washington Policy Forums 18-19

New Project on Decentralization, Local Democratic 19-20Initiatives Launched

Creating Community 20

Legislatures, Trade and Integration: Regional Initiatives 21-23in the Americas

Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament: A Brazilian 21Perspective

Recent Publications 24-25

Staff Notes 26-27

INS

IDE

Reflections on the Transition toDemocracy Project 25 Years Later

Former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso

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 W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

tion: formal government institutions,informal cultural norms, “free and fair”elections, stable political parties, viablecivil societies, and conceptions of citi-zenship, as well as the “old standards” ofdevelopment and economic growth.Over the years, the lessons and experi-ences of different countries helpedrefine the theoretical discussion, leadingto new approaches.

When scholars of Latin America pro-posed the Transitions project in 1979, allof the nations being studied were underauthoritarian rule. Latin AmericanProgram Director Joseph S.Tulchin com-mented, “the scholars presumed—withgreat optimism—that democracy was

the natural mode of political organization and thatthis transition was impending and inevitable.”

At the October 1, 2004, Transitions anniver-sary event, former Latin American ProgramDirector Abraham Lowenthal characterized theoriginal initiative as “thoughtful wishing.” Henoted that the whole notion of democratic transi-tions seemed unrealistic at the time the project waslaunched, given the political backdrop of brutalauthoritarian regimes throughout Latin America.Rather than engage in wishful thinking, the proj-ect garnered intellectual as well as financial sup-port from the Wilson Center and incorporated theviews of practitioners, policymakers, and interna-tional academics from multiple disciplines into arigorous inquiry.

Guillermo O’Donnell characterized the project asan act of “scholarly and personal solidarity.” Hesaid the project was political in nature, with apractical interest in opposing dictatorships andpressing for their demise. Given the harsh politicalreality at the time, the academic effort began, andhas continued, under the common belief that free-dom from authoritarian rule was not only possible,but worth attaining.

O’Donnell was one of three project co-founders, along with Philippe Schmitter andFernando Henrique Cardoso, who were membersof the Latin American Program’s AdvisoryBoard. Soon after, Cardoso entered the Braziliansenate and was subsequently elected president ofBrazil. Laurence Whitehead replaced Cardoso asproject co-director.

At the anniversary event, Schmitter said theTransitions project strove to break away from themold of social science literature on democratiza-tion, which characterized the very idea of democ-ratization as highly unlikely. However, the originalproject participants were correct in their assertionthat countries would ultimately pursue a pathtoward democracy and, in fact, overestimated thedifficulty of the transition to democracy, he said.

Whitehead echoed O’Donnell’s emphasis onthe significance of the project in light of the eventsof the time. During the project’s first five years,from 1979-1984, tremendous changes took placein Latin America, including the Latin Americandebt crisis in 1982, the Malvinas War in Argentina,the Contra War in Nicaragua, and daily upheavalin Spain and Portugal. Yet some of these interna-tional events were not discussed in depth in theTransitions literature. In hindsight, Whiteheadargued, the international historical context didand continues to have more to contribute to theunderstanding of democratization.

During an afternoon working session, overtwenty distinguished scholars of democratic transi-tions and consolidation discussed the status ofresearch on democracy. Each panelist was invitedto critique existing approaches and offer freshalternatives. Those participating included: ArielArmony, Colby College; András Bozóki, CentralEuropean University; Marcelo Cavarozzi, NationalUniversity of San Martín, Argentina; StevenFriedman, Centre for Policy Studies, South Africa;Davide Grassi, University of Turin; Evelyne Huber,University of North Carolina; Jane S. Jaquette,Occidental College; Terry Karl, StanfordUniversity; Robert Kaufman, Rutgers, The StateUniversity of New Jersey; Lorenzo Meyer, ElColegio de México; Enrique Peruzzotti, TorcuatoDiTella University, Argentina; Marc F. Plattner,Journal of Democracy; Alfred Stepan, ColumbiaUniversity; Maria Hermínia Tavares de Almeida,University of São Paulo; Donna Lee Van Cott,Tulane University; Augusto F. Varas, FordFoundation; Jorge Vargas-Cullell, State of theNation Program, Costa Rica; and Kurt Weyland,University of Texas.

At a dinner on October 1, the keynote speaker,Chilean Ambassador to the United NationsHeraldo Muñoz, observed that democracy hasexpanded since the 1970s and ‘80s as a result of the

N O T I C I A S

2

Ambassador Heraldo Muñoz

influence of globalization. According to Muñoz,globalization has fostered a growing awareness ofthe value of democracy and of respect for humanrights and furthered the emergence of a globalcivil society. Another important variable was theshift in international focus after the end of theCold War from containment to democracy pro-motion. Despite these advances, Muñoz describedseveral challenges to democratic transitions:extending worldwide the idea of democracy as alegal obligation, curtailing what GuillermoO’Donnell has labeled “delegative” and self-com-placent democracies (by limiting the power ofpoliticians and promoting civic participation), andimproving democratic governance to promote abetter quality of life. In order to address these chal-lenges, Muñoz argued that the international com-munity should continue to promote democraticpractices and values, take steps to prevent thebreakdown of democracy, and suspend countriesfrom participation in international organizationswhen there has been an interruption of the demo-cratic process.

In the final session of the Transitions conferenceon October 2, panelists considered the possibilitiesfor further scholarship on democracy. Risinginequality and poverty, growing desencanto (dissat-isfaction) with the institutions of democratic gov-ernance, lack of participation or representation,and a resurgence of populist forms of governmentwere among the issues identified as warranting fur-ther study, particularly in regard to their implica-tions for the future of democratic consolidation.The time is ripe for scholars to assess what hasbeen learned from the more than two decades ofempirical research on Latin America and SouthernEurope that emerged from the Transitions projectand undertake new comparative inquiry. The newproject will incorporate further debate and a newround of case studies on countries facing excep-

tional challenges in their transitions. In addition, afellowship competition will be organized to allowyounger scholars to complete their dissertations onthe subject and add to the wealth of existingknowledge. The effort to consolidate democraciesaround the globe makes a new generation of com-parative studies even more urgent and necessary.

Former President of Brazil Fernando HenriqueCardoso, a co-founder of the Transitions Project,addressed a special session at the Wilson Center onDecember 6, 2004. He said that at the time theproject was launched, he and his colleagues hadonly a superficial comprehension of the relevanceit would have for political transitions in LatinAmerica. Cardoso said that the project was essen-tial in creating an intellectual basis for democrati-zation in the face of oppressive authoritarianregimes. In addition, the Spanish transition fromthe Franco dictatorship of 1936 – 1975 helpedmotivate and develop a network of democracyexperts and advocates worldwide.

Cardoso expressed surprise over the pace ofLatin American transitions and the new levels ofpolitical participation. The Internet, for example,has given citizens the opportunity to discuss andreact to legislation even before it reaches congress.In Brazil, prior to the approval of the recentlyenacted Fiscal Responsibility Law, there wasextensive public debate on the Internet and inother forums, adding legitimacy to the law passedin 2000.

In assessing the quality of Latin Americandemocracies, Cardoso acknowledged there havebeen varying levels of success. He said that Chilestands out as the most successful, having built a sta-ble democracy and a solid economy in the wake ofharsh dictatorship. In Brazil, marked improve-ments in the political and economic spheres havehelped attract a steady stream of foreign invest-ment. Nevertheless, inequality remains a serious

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

3

from left to right: Guillermo O’Donnell, Abe Lowenthal, Philippe Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead

problem. Cardoso noted that Argentina had beenstruggling to stabilize both economically andpolitically, but that the Argentine people appearedto have regained a belief in government. TheAndean countries, including Colombia, Bolivia,and Venezuela, face the most serious challenges inthe region. Despite the extraordinary economicpotential of Venezuela’s oil reserves, political con-ditions have seriously undermined its prospects.

In Latin America, Cardoso said, countriesstruggling to cast off authoritarian regimes andbuild strong democracies have been forced toendure the additional stress of globalization as itaffects all areas of productive, industrial, and finan-cial life. To succeed under these evolving and com-plex circumstances, Cardoso deemed it essentialfor Latin America to persevere in the strengthen-ing of democracy. In that, both domestic and mul-tilateral institutions were important.

White House Chiefs of StaffTalk About Trade Policy

The Latin American Program joined with theCouncil of the Americas to host the May 10,2004, forum “A Conversation with White HouseChiefs of Staff on the Politics of Trade,” whichgathered the chiefs of staff of four presidentialadministrations to explore the political dynamicsof U.S. trade policy.

Chief of staff for President George W. Bush,Andrew Card, opened the discussion by describingPresident Bush’s view that the opening of marketsand the encouragement of free trade will create abetter and safer America by strengthening theeconomy and creating jobs. Card emphasizedBush’s determination to expand free trade in thehemisphere; the President has pursued the expan-sion of NAFTA and the negotiation of CAFTAand the FTAA, at the same time concluding agree-ments with Chile, the Dominican Republic,Panama and the Andean countries. Together, thesecountries represent over two-thirds of the hemi-sphere’s GDP. Card reiterated the President’s opin-ion that economic isolationism will cheat theUnited States out of an opportunity for economicgrowth, job expansion, and hope for the future. Akey challenge, he said, is to communicate with theAmerican people and others around the world

about the importance of free trade for economicprosperity and freedom.

Moderator Zanny Minton-Beddoes, correspon-dent for The Economist, addressed the issue of U.S.leadership in the trading system and the increasedcomplexity of contemporary trade policy. Tradeliberalization creates both winners and losers, shesaid; but the losers are more mobilized in theirefforts to oppose trade liberalization, while thebeneficiaries are less visible. Several factors makenegotiating trade legislation in the United Statesmore complex, including new issues such as intel-lectual property rights and the presence of a “newreferee”—the WTO—in dispute settlement.

Considering the domestic politics of trade poli-cy, James R. Jones, former chief of staff to PresidentLyndon Johnson, asserted that it is easier for poli-cymakers to support free trade legislation whenthey are able to quantify the impact of the policieswith regard to job creation and economic devel-opment in different parts of the country. He notedthe absence of bipartisanship regarding trade poli-cy, and that what is needed is a dialogue betweenboth parties in Congress so that legislation reflectsthe concerns of both. Business associations andother civic groups that believe that free trade isimportant must also become more active on theissue. Jones urged that labor and environmentalprotections be integrated into the trade negotia-tions, to ensure that the benefits of free trade arebetter distributed.

John Sununu, former chief of staff to PresidentGeorge H. W. Bush, argued that trade is bothimportant and complicated, and that circum-stances in the United States are often not con-ducive to the promotion of free trade. Becauselosses due to trade are felt strongly by specificgroups of people while the benefits are distrib-uted in modest amounts among many, it is diffi-cult to obtain domestic support for trade liberal-ization. Sununu argued that the relationshipbetween the executive and legislative branchesfurther complicates the issue. While it is the pres-ident that defines trade policy, Congress’s role inapproving trade agreements makes it difficult forthe executive branch to further its agenda with-out congressional cooperation.

The Clinton administration shifted from a focuson traditional foreign policy issues to emphasizeeconomic development and trade, said Thomas

N O T I C I A S

4

(“Mack”) McLarty, former chief of staff toPresident William J. Clinton. Healthy trade rela-tionships and an increase in imports and exportswere elements of the strong economic perform-ance of the 1990s. McLarty asserted that openmarkets and democracy mutually reinforce eachother, as the case of Mexico demonstrates follow-ing the passage of NAFTA. He added that openingtrade with China is important not only in terms ofeconomic development, but also because it hasbrought China into world relations. McLarty iden-tified several remaining challenges, including theimprovement of communication on trade issuesand the need to deal with dislocations that occur asa result of trade liberalization.

John Podesta, also former chief of staff toPresident Clinton, added that budget and tradedeficits are troublesome for maintaining consensuson trade policy. During the Clinton administration,Congress and the American public were skepticalabout the administration’s trade policy, and it was aconstant challenge to make the case for trade liber-alization. Skepticism extends throughout LatinAmerica where 40-60 percent of people feel theyhave not benefited from free trade. Podesta statedthat promoting free trade is more than just reduc-ing barriers; fostering economic opportunities andencouraging good labor, environmental, and dem-ocratic practices are also involved.

Brazil Under Lula: Domesticand Foreign Perceptions

Much to the surprise of opponents, political ana-lysts, economists, and perhaps even loyal support-ers, Brazilian President Luis Inácio Lula da Silvaaccomplished a great deal during the first twoyears of his administration. Initially skeptical ana-lysts were mollified by Lula’s implementation oforthodox economic policies. On December 8,2004, Brazil @ the Wilson Center hosted WilliamWaack, a journalist for the Globo Network andCarlos Thomaz, a Brazilian author and lawyer, toassess Lula’s progress and the prospects for hisadministration and Brazil over the next two years.

According to Thomaz, Brazil has achievedtremendous progress over the past 10 years. Crucialmeasures were undertaken in an effort to controlhyper-inflation and modernize state administration.Many important reforms have yet to be implement-ed, however, and Thomaz believes the Lula admin-istration has a responsibility to carry them out. Heagreed that the formerly outspoken Lula has hushedeven the harshest critics, emphasizing pragmatismover leftist ideology. Brazil is currently experiencinga period of unprecedented economic growth andmore profound democratic consolidation, givingLula an opportunity to implement reforms.

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

5

from left to right: Lee H. Hamilton, James R. Jones, John Sununu, Andrew Card, Zanny Minton-Beddoes, Joseph S. Tulchin, Thomas(“Mack”) McLarty, and John Podesta

Thomaz suggested the development of a two-fold program that promoted economic stabilitythrough job creation, and fulfilled basic needsthrough social spending. Job creation relies heavilyon the continued application of appropriatemacroeconomic policies, including inflationreduction and the maintenance of a floatingexchange rate. He believes these policies should becomplemented by increased incentives for privateinvestors and the simplification of private industryregulation. Thomaz argued that fulfillment of basicneeds will require a dramatic realignment of prior-ities. Increased attention should be paid to primaryeducation and health care, he said, with clinics andimmunization programs taking precedence overcostly medical treatments. Social safety nets thatprotect and create opportunities for the poor arealso necessary.

In his review of Brazilian foreign policy, WilliamWaack argued that the popular perception of theLula administration as a coherent and unified entityis neither accurate nor historically founded. A clos-er look inside Brazil reveals an administration filledwith ambiguity. The foreign policy of Lula’s ownPartido Trabalhadores (Workers Party) has beenrefracted by the presence of several internal discor-dant voices. Waak believes that Lula has exhibited aconsiderable lack of consistency when attemptingto sell Brazil’s image abroad. In particular theadministration has sent conflicting signals whendealing with Presidents Chávez and Bush. Thisuncertainty finds echo in Lula’s social policy; despitea serious personal commitment to address hungerthrough the Fome Zero program, for example, Lula’splatform has been far from steady or effective.

Waack asserted that Brazil’s quest for increasedregional and international participation would

require a renewed national strategy and morecoherent foreign policy. This strategy must bycharacterized by an increased willingness to focuson Brazil’s relationship with the United States, astrengthened commitment to the non-prolifera-tion of nuclear arms, and a serious reassessment ofpolicies regarding global terror.

How Do We See Each Other?Perceptions and Media inU.S.-Mexico Relations

Few neighboring countries have as intense andcomplex a relationship as do Mexico and theUnited States: united by a shared border, trade,and demography yet divided by legacies of history,culture, conflict and perceptions. Even as ideas andinfluences converge and goods are exchanged,each side retains a distinctive character and a strongsense of identity while often harboring mispercep-tions about “the other side.” To explore the com-plex influence of perceptions on bilateral relations,and the role of journalists in helping interpret eachother’s societies across the border, the MexicoInstitute sponsored a series of three seminars aboutperceptions and cross-border journalism.

On February 27, 2004, the Mexico Institute andLetras Libres magazine convened journalists, diplo-mats, and businesspeople from Mexico and theUnited States to explore how both countries viewand interact with each other. Keynote speakerEnrique Krauze of Letras Libres noted that U.S.-Mexico relations follow cyclical patterns that policy-makers and cultural elites seem unwilling or unableto break out of. “Are we condemned to be victimsof our prejudices, stereotypes, and ghosts?” Krauzewondered. “Mexico has to overcome its mostancient and maligned illness, which is resentment,”said Krauze. “The United States also has to over-come its most problematic trait—ignorance of thesouthern neighbor that all too frequently leads toarrogance, to a sense of superiority that really harmsthe relationship.”

Writer Richard Rodriguez described the newgeography of North America, in which citizens ofthe three NAFTA countries are coming to termswith their proximity on the same continent.“America is an East-West country,” Rodriguez

N O T I C I A S

6

Thomaz argued that fulfillment of basic needs

will require a dramatic realignment of priori-

ties. Increased attention should be paid to pri-

mary education and health care, he said, with

clinics and immunization programs taking

precedence over costly medical treatments.

Social safety nets that protect and create

opportunities for the poor are also necessary.

noted. “The idea of the south does not come easyto us.” Christopher Domínguez, novelist and literarycritic, noted that although Mexicans tend to bemore aware of America, American authors havewritten in and about Mexico with much greaterfrequency than Mexican authors have written aboutthe United States. He argued for a new dialoguebetween the literatures of the two countries. Best-selling author Pete Hamill described the richness ofMexican popular culture and hoped that Americanscould learn from it. Jesús Silva-Herzog Márquez ofITAM described the growing professionalism of themedia in both countries in covering each other’scountry and described the role of the U.S. press inmaking Mexican leaders accountable to worldopinion during the democratic transition.

A second panel explored the challenges ofcross-border collaboration. Jesús Reyes Heroles ofGEA/Structura and former Mexican ambassadorto the United States observed that public percep-tions in both countries have become less ideologi-cally driven and more realistic in recent years.Americans tend to list poverty and cultural aspectsmost often in polls about their perceptions ofMexico; Mexicans tend to emphasize “money,work, and security” in referring to the UnitedStates, followed by “progress, power, and indus-try.” The perceptions each country’s citizens holdof the other appear to reflect real differences ratherthan stereotypes. Jeffrey Davidow of the Institute ofthe Americas and former U.S. ambassador toMexico noted that since NAFTA, more formal

structures have been established to accommodatethe daily interactions between the governmentsand businesses in both countries. However, heworried that single issues, such as drug traffickingand migration, could hijack the relationship. JoséAntonio Fernández, president of Latin America’slargest beverage company FEMSA and co-chair ofthe Mexico Institute’s Advisory Board, argued thatMexicans and Americans need “deep knowledgeand fundamental understanding” to build astronger partnership, and that this “requires both ahistorical framework and the will to build a part-nership for the long term, incorporating our dif-ferences as well as our commonality.” Brian Dyson,former vice chairman of Coca-Cola, argued that“the more we trade, the more we grow together,”but emphasized that economic and politicalchanges were not sustainable without changes invalues and outlook.

In a second meeting on April 26, 2004, theMexico Institute and Foreign Affairs en Españolbrought together U.S. and Mexican journalists todiscuss the challenges of reporting on politics andbroader social issues in each others’ countries andof covering news about the growing Mexican andMexican-American community in the UnitedStates. Roderic Ai Camp of Claremont McKennaCollege highlighted significant areas in whichjournalists could take the initiative to promote bet-ter understanding, particularly in presenting theeveryday realities of each other’s countries andanticipating new areas of policy debate.

Dolia Estévez of El Financiero emphasized therole of journalists in generating public opinion andshaping the space for policymaking. Mary BethSheridan of the Washington Post argued that jour-nalists often report on the relationship in black andwhite terms, in part because it is easier to sell thestories to editors and the public. Pascal Beltrán delRío of El Universal/La Revista suggested that one-sided reporting may undermine the national inter-est by distorting the way that citizens view eventsin the neighboring country.

A panel on “Understanding Each Other’sSociety” addressed the challenge of reporting oneveryday issues that are not “the news of the day.”Alfredo Corchado from the Dallas Morning Newsnoted that understanding the two societies is notan easy task, particularly when working with adiverse readership. Stories frequently must cater to

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

7

Rossana Fuentes-Berain

a diverse mass audience for whom “what does itmean to me? How does it impact me?” is the centralquestion. According to Jim Cason of La Jornada, sto-ries with many shades of gray are the most interest-ing, despite the difficulty in getting them published.They are often trumped by stories with a splashierheadline. Jerry Kammer of Copley News Serviceargued that correspondents need to contribute to anunderstanding of immigration by reporting on areassuch as Georgia, North Carolina, and Illinois,which do not receive the majority of migrants.

Editors of three major news publicationsoffered thoughts on the priorities and changingtrends of journalistic coverage. Philip Bennett of theWashington Post maintained that coverage ofMexico-U.S. relations has become “de-institution-alized,” with journalists covering a broad range oftopics outside of formal politics. Mexico, likeChina, had become a country of great priority forAmerican newspapers. Mexico will also continueto separate itself from the rest of Latin America interms of journalistic coverage, he said. Rossana

Fuentes-Berain of Foreign Affairs en Español notedthat “editors are surely story tellers and in thatsense the story we have been telling is incom-plete.” Declaring that journalism is in a state of cri-sis, she noted the loss of objectivity in Americanjournalism and that Mexicans’ self-censorship andofficial silence on key matters is the result of a col-lective mentality of self-censorship pervasivethroughout the country. Alejandro Moreno ofReforma highlighted the growing number of newsstories in Mexico on the results of public opinionpolls. In 2003, Reforma conducted 150 polls, tentimes more than the New York Times and the LosAngeles Times. Showing what average readers thinkis part of a trend in which information is democra-tized and does not simply reflect the views ofpolitical and cultural elites.

A final panel on “Covering Mexicans in theUnited States” sparked a vigorous debate aboutthe coverage of immigrants, first generationMexican-Americans, and other Latinos residingin the United States. Wilson Center fellow andCornell University professor Michael Jones-Correaargued that reporters have a responsibility to con-textualize and therefore tell a complete story. Themedia often cover migrants as though most weretemporary and undocumented, whereas most aredocumented and determined to stay permanentlyin the United States. Lynne Walker of CopleyNews Service described a story she had coveredon the effects of an influx of migrants, primarilyMexican, into a small, rural town outside ofSpringfield, Illinois, and how this had trans-formed ethnic relations in the town. EnriqueGómez from A.M. León asserted that over the lastforty years, Mexican migration has been trans-forming the United States, as witnessed by thegrowth of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans asan economically and politically powerful group incities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and NewYork. The important lesson has been “the slowbut inevitable fusion of two nations across familyand economic ties.”

On September 29, 2004, the Mexico Institutehosted the launch of a ground-breaking study onPublic Opinion on Foreign Policy in Mexico and theUnited States, undertaken jointly by the MexicanCouncil on Foreign Relations (COMEXI), theCentro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas(CIDE) and the Chicago Council on Foreign

N O T I C I A S

8

from left to right: Miguel Basáñez, COMEXI and Global Quality Corporation, andCarlos Heredia

Americans were surprisingly concerned

about “fixing” immigration policies, while

Mexicans showed considerable flexibility in

collaborating with the United States on

security issues.

Relations (CCFR). By comparing American andMexican public opinions, the study presents an in-depth and comprehensive look at foreign policyattitudes of these two neighbors.

In opening remarks, Wilson Center director LeeH. Hamilton stressed the importance of public sup-port for and interest in sustaining foreign policyover time. COMEXI president Andrés Rozentalpraised the joint efforts of the three organizationsand indicated that the survey, especially on theMexican side, has already debunked some mythswhile confirming other trends. Guadalupe Gonzálezof CIDE highlighted the innovative and importantnature of the survey, which builds on the ChicagoCouncil’s pioneer efforts. Marshall Bouton, ChicagoCouncil on Foreign Relations, lauded the teameffort as an opportunity to deepen the relationshipbetween Mexico and the United States. AntonioOrtíz Mena of CIDE expressed his satisfaction withthe results despite criticisms that the Mexican pub-lic was too disinterested, uniformed, or dishonestabout foreign policy to be surveyed.

Christopher Whitney of the Chicago Council onForeign Relations and Susan Minushkin of CIDEprovided an overview of the survey results. Theypointed out that Mexicans and Americans are bothinterested in global engagement and have sharedsecurity goals, although Mexicans favor less U.S.and more multilateral intervention in internationalaffairs. Americans were surprisingly concernedabout “fixing” immigration policies, whileMexicans showed considerable flexibility in col-laborating with the United States on securityissues. Respondents in both countries wereambivalent about NAFTA, yet open to globaliza-tion more generally. Robert Pastor of AmericanUniversity emphasized the need to create a histor-ical context for this survey, primarily by makingcomparisons with previous polls. According toPastor, the survey points to the convergence ofMexican and American values and strengthenedrelations, to the surprise of cultural pessimists.Andrés Rozental highlighted the disjuncturebetween elite and public perceptions of foreignpolicy, with elites tending to adhere to historicalprinciples while the public is more pragmatic.

Antonio Ortíz Mena of CIDE provided anoverview of the findings on economic issues suchas free trade, regional integration, foreign invest-ment, globalization and employment. He high-

lighted the differences between Mexicans andAmericans, as well as those between Mexicanelites and the public and among diverse regions inMexico. The most notable difference was in thearea of foreign direct investment in the oil and gassectors. Carlos Heredia of COMEXI expressed hissurprise that Mexicans think globally, not locally,pointing to their favorable opinions of NAFTAand some forms of investment. He cautioned,however, that more precision was needed in someof the questions, in order to identify some of thenuances of opinion on these sensitive issues. SidneyWeintraub of the Center for Strategic andInternational Studies (CSIS) argued that bothMexicans and Americans are interested in worldaffairs, but their interests are distinct.

Guadalupe González of CIDE argued thatMexican and American concerns on border secu-rity issues converge around the same critical threatssuch as terrorism and chemical and biologicalweapons. Mexicans are willing to cooperate withthe United States on terrorism. However, they aremore willing to delegate power and responsibilityfor handling security threats to multilateral actorssuch as the United Nations. Jorge Chabat of CIDEfocused on the divergence between the rhetoric ofpoliticians and the opinions held by the public.John Bailey of Georgetown University questionedwhether the bilateral security relationship wasU.S.-led or an independent foreign policy ofMexico, and suggested that trust of the UnitedStates would be the strongest determinant of

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

9

from right to left: Richard Rodriguez, Christopher Domínguez, andPete Hamill

Mexican willingness to cooperate on bilateralsecurity matters.

Former Mexican ambassador to the UnitedStates Jesús Reyes Heroles cautioned about the dan-gers of making decisions based on survey data.However, he noted that it was not surprising thatMexicans have global attitudes, considering thatover 60 percent have relatives outside of Mexico.He noted that visionary leadership is needed tobring the bilateral relationship to a new level, as aquarter of Mexicans oppose a stronger relationshipwith the United States.

The Peace Process inColombia with ParamilitaryGroups

On June 28, 2004, the Latin American Program’sProject on Comparative Peace Processes held a con-ference to explore the numerous issues raised by thepeace talks in Colombia with the major paramilitaryorganization, the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia.

In a keynote address, U.S. Ambassador toColombia William B.Wood rejected the notion of“peace at any price.” While insisting that nationalreconciliation was “first and foremost up to theColombians,” he outlined several conditions forU.S. support, including whether the peace processhad a good chance of ending conflict with a par-ticular faction, would reinforce democracy, jus-tice, and the rule of law; and would reduce nar-cotics trafficking.

Ambassador Wood took aim at the prevalenceof renown narcotraffickers in the AUC leadership,referring to their historic leader, Carlos Castaño,as a “drug trafficker, terrorist, and fugitive fromU.S. justice.” Since Castaño’s disappearance inApril 2004, Wood said, the leadership of the AUCwas increasingly “in the hands of long-term narco-traffickers without even the veneer of a historicalpolitical agenda.” He said that the AUC includedsome of the “hardest-core, most cynical, mostcruel drug lords on the face of the earth,” a mixedprofile that the AUC shared with other armedgroups. Nonetheless, Wood welcomed the mid-June 2004 re-opening of peace talks with the para-militaries, in a zone subject to verification by theOrganization of American States. Wood reiteratedU.S. insistence on the extradition of Colombians

indicted in the United States on drug traffickingcharges and the imperative to bring to justice thosewho had committed major human rights crimes.He concluded that finding a balance betweenpeace and justice meant that “neither goal will beserved perfectly.”

Carlos Franco, director of the Colombian gov-ernment’s Presidential Program on Human Rights,emphasized the important role of paramilitarygroups in regional economies as well as in narco-trafficking, noting that the size of paramilitaryforces had diminished 10 percent per year underthe Uribe administration, after having grown 54percent in the previous eight years. He said thatmany in the country did not have confidence inthe state’s ability to provide security in the event ofan eventual demobilization of paramilitary groups,but that the only legitimate and valid security wasthat provided by state forces.

Taking up the issue of the legal framework fordemobilization, Senator Rafael Pardo, a key figurein the congressional and public debates over thegovernment’s proposed Alternative Penalties Law,said that a revised draft of the law was a substan-tial improvement over the original version, butthat further changes were needed. Pardo criti-cized numerous aspects of the negotiations withthe paramilitaries, noting repeated violations ofthe cease-fire declared in December 2002 and thelack of a government policy to provide securityin zones dominated by paramilitary groups.Meanwhile, he said, there was no discerniblepolicy to address the political and economicdimensions of paramilitary power. The aim of thenegotiations, he said, should be to end paramili-tarism, not recycle its leaders in a way that couldlead to worse forms of violence. By contrast,Congresswoman Rocío Arias Hoyos, sponsor of leg-islation to amend the Colombian Constitution inorder to suspend extradition requests for thosewho demobilize as part of a peace process, calledextradition an “insurmountable obstacle” topeace. She said that the desire of illegal armedgroups to seek peace requires reciprocal conces-sions from the Colombian government and fromthe United States. More than forty years of vio-lence and conflict would not end, she said, if allthat awaited combatants of left- and right-wingforces was prison time in the United States.

Addressing the practical issues involved in para-

N O T I C I A S

10

military demobilization, Gustavo Villegas, directorof the Peace and Reconciliation Program of theMedellín mayor’s office, provided a detailed profileof the 868 members of the paramilitary BloqueCacique Nutibara that demobilized in Medellín inNovember 2003. He said that the vast majority ofindividuals were between the ages of 18 and 25,and that close to forty percent had previously beeninvolved in criminal activities. Because of thecomplex mix of political and criminal violence,Villegas said, his program had striven to devise anew model of intervention that takes into accountnot only guerrillas and autodefensas but also otherprimary actors in the conflict, especially localgangs. As a result of municipal and national assis-tance programs, Villegas reported that crime ratesin Medellín’s most dangerous neighborhoods hadfallen dramatically in the early months of 2004.

Michael Beaulieu, liaison between the secretary-general of the Organization of American Statesand its Mission to Support the Peace Process inColombia, outlined the various steps leading tothe OAS decision to participate in verifying thecease-fire, demobilization, and reintegration of

AUC fighters. A January 2004 resolution estab-lishing the OAS mission contained a broad man-date to support negotiations with guerrilla groupsas well as paramilitaries, Beaulieu said, shouldtalks with the insurgents go forward and theColombian government request assistance. TheInter-American Commission on Human Rights,meanwhile, is mandated to provide advice to themission on human rights issues. Beaulieu empha-sized funding concerns, noting that in mid-2004, six regional OAS offices had only one totwo staff persons.

State responsibility for the existence of paramil-itary groups had to be acknowledged andaddressed, argued former peace adviser DanielGarcía-Peña, who questioned whether the purposeof the peace talks with the AUC was to end para-militarism or to demobilize specific combatants.He allowed that the paramilitaries’ social baseowed much to the guerrilla tactic of kidnappingand other attacks on the civilian population;nonetheless, he said, there was little evidence of a“war” against the paramilitaries, leading some inColombia to reject the notion of a peace process

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

11

At a May 4, 2004, meeting of the Brazil WorkingGroup, Maurício Novis Botelho, president and CEOof Brazilian aerospace manufacturer Embraeraddressed the company’s ascent to the position offourth largest aircraft manufacturer in the world.As Brazil’s largest exporter, Embraer holds an

important share of theglobal market for 30-110seat aircraft.

Given that the UnitedStates produces 73 percentof Embraer’s aircraft com-ponents and is also the pri-mary importer of Embraerplanes, the company has animportant place in the U.S.-Brazilian bilateral trade rela-tionship. In 2003, Embraer

posted a net revenue of over $2 billion, 95 percentof which came from exports. Currently, the com-pany provides civil and defense aircraft to 58 coun-tries on five continents.

Embraer’s strategy is grounded in the use oftop-of-the-line components and a well-trainedworkforce. Botelho explained that Embraer’s suc-cess had much to do with a capacity to identifymarket niches and design aircraft that optimize acombination of cost, range, and seat availability.After suffering an initial reduction in the demandfor its aircraft following September 11, 2001,Embraer discovered a new market niche for themid-size aircraft it was already positioned to offer.Botelho foresaw a demand of 8,450 30- to 120-seat jets through 2023, and expressed optimismthat his company would be able to fulfill most ofthat demand.Maurício Botelho

Embraer: Building A Globally Competitive Company

centered on a political agenda. Meanwhile,according to García-Peña, the political conditionsfavoring a peace process with the ELN guerrillaswere unprecedented. He cited President Uribe’shigh levels of popular support, the armed forces’regaining of the military initiative, and the mili-tary’s success in seizing of the banner of coun-terinsurgency from the AUC.

Director of the Bogotá office of the U.N. HighCommissioner for Human Rights Michael Frühlingargued that ending impunity, particularly for casesinvolving crimes against humanity, was critical toovercoming the armed conflict, and that allowingimpunity for serious human rights crimes wouldonly promote more crime. Insisting that the peacenegotiations needed structure and content, he saidthat questions of human rights and internationalhumanitarian law should be prominent in thenegotiating agendas with all armed groups.Moreover, victims’ rights to truth, justice, andreparations had to be honored. He argued for a“decontamination” of the Colombian state,emphasizing that severing the links between para-military groups and public officials was the statedpolicy of the Colombian government. The inter-national community, he said, should supportColombia in this and other efforts to improvehuman rights.

OAS involvement in the peace process with theAUC was to be welcomed, said Human RightsWatch/Americas director José Miguel Vivanco, buthe cautioned that to remain credible, the OASmission must protect its independence and resistidentifying with any of the actors in the process.Vivanco criticized the revised Truth, Justice andReparations law presented by the Uribe govern-ment as too lenient with respect to such issues asjail time and the return of illegally-acquired assets,and that it concentrated too much power in thehands of the president. While extradition was onlyone tool in the effort to secure justice, in theColombian case the threat of extradition to theUnited States constituted the only leverage in theprocess with the AUC, in that it was widely fearedby paramilitary leaders.

A report based on the conference, The Peace Talks inColombia with the Autodefensas Unidas deColombia—AUC, was published by the LatinAmerican Program in February 2005.

Brazil–U.S. Relations: 2004and Beyond

On December 3, 2004 Brazil @ the Wilson Centerhosted a rare public dialogue between two sittingambassadors, when U.S. Ambassador to Brazil JohnDanilovich and Brazil’s Ambassador to the UnitedStates Roberto Abdenur met to discuss all areas of thetwo countries’ bilateral relationship.

Abdenur and Danilovich repeatedly emphasizedthat relations between the United States and Brazilare better than publicly perceived. Both con-trasted Brazil’s economic stabilization over the lasttwo years with the many dire predictions thatBrazilian President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva wouldderail macroeconomic and fiscal reforms put inmotion by the previous administration.

Both made positive reference to the“Community of Nations” initiative launched inDecember 2004, which constitutes a renewedeffort to promote trade agreements and physicalintegration in South America. Danilovich praisedthe initiative as a constructive step for SouthAmerica, and reiterated the U.S. commitment to

N O T I C I A S

12

clockwise from top left: Ambassador William B. Wood,Representative Rocío Arias Hoyos, Senator Rafael Pardo, andDaniel García-Peña

free trade. Danilovich expressed optimism regard-ing the continuing negotiations for the Free TradeArea of The Americas (FTAA) and expressed hopethat Brazil and the United States, as co-chairs,would produce an agreement in 2005.

Both ambassadors acknowledged conflictingvisions on some foreign policy issues. Abdenurhighlighted Brazil’s strong commitment to thepromotion of democracy but cited differenceswith the United States as to how to best promotethat ideal worldwide. Recognizing that agri-cultural subsidies have been a stumbling block inthe trade agenda, Danilovich reaffirmed the U.S.commitment to address this issue during 2005 inorder to create the conditions for a free trade area.At the same time, Danilovich noted that theUnited States also expects Brazil to “put [issues] onthe table” such as intellectual property rights, serv-ices, and government procurement.

Other points of divergence emerged over therole of multilateral organizations in world affairs.Abdenur reaffirmed Brazil’s strong view that theUnited Nations is an “unavoidable necessity forinternational order,” in contrast to some in theUnited States who question its relevance.Abdenur expressed Brazil’s support for an expan-sion of the U.N. Security Council to include equalrepresentation from developing nations, a currentpriority of Brazilian diplomacy.

Addressing the widely-reported controversyover the issue of inspections at Brazil’s new urani-um enrichment facility at Resende, Rio deJaneiro, Danilovich affirmed that the United Statesconsiders the issue of nuclear inspection in Brazilfully resolved. Referencing what it called its excel-lent record on non-proliferation over the last tenyears, which includes membership in the Treatyon the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons(NPT), the Brazilian government reached a satis-factory agreement with the International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA).

Abdenur concluded by summarizing hisnation’s priorities for the bilateral relationship in2005, mentioning Brazil’s hope for a Bush visitperhaps scheduled at the time of the SouthAmerican presidential summit to take place inBuenos Aires. Abdenur also stressed the desirabili-ty of additional interaction between Brazilian andU.S. legislators, as well as between the communi-cations and commercial sectors.

The Role of the Media in theConsolidation of Democracy

On November 15, 2004, the Latin AmericanProgram co-sponsored with the Inter-AmericanCommission on Human Rights of theOrganization of American States (OAS) a confer-ence on “The Role of the Media in theConsolidation of Democracy.”

Eduardo Bertoni, OAS Special Rapporteur forFreedom of Expression, identified both traditionaland non-traditional threats to freedom of the pressin the Americas, including judicial harassment ofand physical aggression against journalists, eco-nomic pressures faced by publications, mediadependence on government-sponsored advertisingand subsidies, and ethical self-control. CynthiaArnson, deputy director of the Wilson Center’sLatin American Program, noted that respectedpolls conducted in the region reflected high publictrust in the broadcast media, even though the pub-lic continued to believe that de facto powers includ-ing the media—not the public interest—drove eco-nomic and political systems throughout the region.

Carlos Eduardo Lins da Silva, PATRI, Inc.,Brazil, argued that the role of the media in demo-cratic consolidation should not be overestimatedgiven a general lack of economic independenceand political autonomy. He expressed concern thata decline in newspaper readership is not beingreplaced by an increase in ‘quality media’ con-sumption; internet blogs, radio talk shows, andentertainment masquerading as news will not suf-fice to fill the gap. Pablo Halpern, Halpern &Companía, described three phases in the role ofthe media and Chile’s transition to democracy.During the democratic transition between 1988and 1994, the media functioned as an importantand active arena for public debate. Between 1995and 2000, the number of media outlets—andhence, competition—expanded as a result of eco-nomic growth, inadvertently producing greaterpolarization among viewpoints. Finally, a crisis ofpublic confidence in the media erupted as journal-ists aggressively investigated official corruption andother scandals, at times appearing excessively andeven erroneously to target public figures. JuliaPreston of the New York Times observed that one ofthe main challenges faced by the Latin American

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

13

news media is achieving greater independence andhigher quality by building commercially successfuljournalism enterprises.

Alejandro Junco de la Vega of Mexico’s GrupoReforma emphasized the immense growth in pressfreedoms and journalistic ethics over the course ofthe last generation. A decade ago, for example,ethics and integrity were virtually unknown con-cepts in Mexico’s compromised system of journal-ism. He described the role of community leadersin serving on editorial boards of his paper, arguingthat such boards help ensure that the public setsthe agenda for the newspaper, not vice versa. PeterEisner of the Washington Post discussed the politi-cization of news coverage in the United States, tothe point that publishing the names of the dead inIraq is considered a political statement. He saidthat many journalists from Latin America did notunderstand the distinction between reporters andeditorial writers at newspapers such as the Post,and viewed the Post as reflecting the policies andpriorities of the U.S. government. However, heagreed with Latin Americans who argued thatminimal press coverage of the region reflected thepolitical priorities of policymakers in Washington.

Darian Pavli of the Open Society Institute’sJustice Initiative addressed media-governmentrelations and their implication for press freedom.He said that the less repressive governmentsbecome, the more likely they are to revert to lessobvious forms of control, such as the withholdingof government advertising. Unlike U.S. newspa-pers, which rely heavily on private advertising,some Latin American newspapers depend on gov-ernment advertising for up to 60 percent of totaladvertising revenues.

In a keynote address, Columbia UniversityPresident Lee Bollinger addressed press freedom inthe United States, arguing that it was largely aninvention of the 20th century, and more specifi-cally, of the last 40 years. He recalled World War I-era legislation that made it a crime to criticize thewar, citing the conviction of even a presidentialcandidate. He called the 1964 Supreme Court caseof New York Times v. Sullivan an important bench-mark in the effort to define constitutional limitson press freedom. These time frames are importantto keep in mind when thinking about transitionaldemocracies in Latin America. Academic researchwithin universities, meanwhile, has become too

abstract and theoretical, he argued, making jour-nalism an important vehicle for bringing outsideissues into an academic setting. Universities cancontribute to the quality and character of journal-ism, just as they do in any other profession.However, journalism schools have spent too muchtime on ‘skills’ training, to the neglect of trainingthat gives students a deeper understanding of theissues they will be covering.

The Hispanic Challenge?What We Know About LatinoImmigration

The Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute organizedtwo events dealing with immigrants and immigra-tion. The first seminar, in Washington, D.C., dealtwith immigration from Latin America while thesecond, in Houston, Texas, addressed the politicsof immigration reform.

The March 29, 2004, roundtable organized bythe Migration Policy Institute and the WilsonCenter’s Mexico Institute and Division of UnitedStates Studies raised fundamental questions aboutthe nature and significance of Latino immigrationto the United States. The program was organizedin part as a response to the publication of SamuelHuntington’s “The Hispanic Challenge,” a contro-versial article which appeared in the March/April2004 issue of Foreign Policy.

Philippa Strum of the Wilson Center andDemetrios Papademtriou of the Migration PolicyInstitute reminded the audience of both the cru-cial place of immigration in American history andthe distaste and disrespect for immigrants that hasalways been part of the collective American con-sciousness. The long-standing trends toward racialstereotyping, as well as the perpetual fear of “theOther” throughout American history, provide animportant context in which to assess current reac-tions to Latino immigration.

In the last decade, according to Roberto Suro ofThe Pew Hispanic Center, Latino immigrantshave come from more diverse occupations andhave settled in areas of the United States that pre-viously had seen few such immigrants. This haschanged the shape of the debate in the UnitedStates, as immigrants are integrated into more sec-

N O T I C I A S

14

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

15

tors of American society. The influx of workershas resulted in a flattening of wages for both long-standing U.S. residents and new immigrants, creat-ing an atmosphere in which immigrants are, ironi-cally, chastised for working too hard and therebytaking jobs away from native-born Americans.

Elizabeth Grieco of the Migration PolicyInstitute presented a demographic analysis ofimmigration to the United States, highlighting theeffect of the dispersion of Latino immigrants.Grieco drew on U.S. Census data to show thatHuntington’s suggestion that huge numbers ofMexicans have immigrated to the United States isan exaggeration. The foreign-born accounted foronly 9 percent of the total U.S. population in 1990and 11 percent in 2000. While the rate of Latinoand particularly Mexican immigration to theUnited States has increased in recent years, in 2000only 9.2 million of the country’s foreign-bornpopulation was Mexican, out of 31.1 million totalforeign-born American residents and a total popu-lation of 281.4 million. The absorption of theseimmigrants, however, is not uniform nationwide,with some states disproportionately faced with thechallenge of integrating and acculturating new-comers to the United States.

Condemning Latino immigrants for failing tolearn English and earn advanced degrees whilesimultaneously voting to eliminate bilingual edu-cation and affirmative action programs was incon-sistent, said David Gutiérrez of the University ofCalifornia, San Diego. Moreover, as RicardoStanton-Salazar of the University of SouthernCalifornia noted, maintaining and encouragingbilingualism in young Americans, particularly inpublic elementary schools, produces significantresults for educational attainment. He cited datashowing that bilingual students, regardless ofsocioeconomic status, tend to earn higher gradesand are less likely to drop out than their English-only counterparts. Students who retain capabilityin their native language, he suggested, are moreable to make use of the support structures in theirethnic communities and are therefore less likely tobecome disaffected.

Gutiérrez also stressed the difference betweenAmerican immigration problems and Americanimmigrant problems. Barring a mass repatriation ofthe 38 million Latino Americans already residingin the United States, he reminded the audience

that issues of integration, both linguistic and cul-tural, are here to stay. And, added Michael Jones-Correa of Cornell University, so are the immi-grants. Despite the ease of maintaining ties tohome countries, there are still strong disincentivesfor immigrants to return to their nations of origin.Stressing the contribution of Latino immigrants tothe American economy, Jones-Correa pointed outthat while remittances of Latino immigrants tofamily and communities left behind accounted fornearly $30 billion in 2003, that figure representedonly 4.5 percent of Latino income in the UnitedStates. Thus even though a large amount of moneyflows back to Latin American economies, it is byno means a major part of the wages earned byLatino immigrants to the United States, most ofwhich is reinvested in the American economy.

A few weeks later, the Wilson Center’s MexicoInstitute and the University of Houston’s Centerfor Immigration Research sponsored a seminar on“Immigration Reform: Lessons from the Past,Directions for the Future,” in Houston on April22, 2004. Participants included Néstor Rodríguez(University of Houston), Rodolfo Cruz (El Colegiode la Frontera Norte), Katharine Donato (RiceUniversity), Joseph Vail (University of Houston),Karl Eschbach (University of Texas, Galveston), andAndrew Selee (Wilson Center).

The panelists agreed that many of the immigra-tion reforms of the past have produced unintendedconsequences, often distorting the goals that theywere intended to achieve. President Bush’s immi-gration proposal, while far from complete, offersan important opportunity to engage in a seriousdebate around the kind of immigration policiesthe United States should pursue that would regu-larize undocumented migrants currently in thecountry and reinstate a more cyclical flow ofimmigrants to and from the United States. At thesame time, there is an important opportunity tocoordinate policies with the Mexican government,since Mexico is now the leading source of both

The panelists agreed that many of the immi-

gration reforms of the past have produced

unintended consequences, often distorting

the goals that they were intended to achieve.

legal and undocumented migration. By institutingsensible, well-debated policies and pursuing coor-dination with Mexico, the United States couldachieve greater productivity, ensure a more inclu-sive society, and avoid the current loss of life asso-ciated with undocumented migration.

The Economic and SocialConsequences of Conflict andPeace in Colombia

In 2003, both the World Bank and the UnitedNations Development Program (UNDP) pub-lished lengthy studies of economic and social con-ditions in Colombia and their relationship to thearmed conflict. To redress the relative inattentionto these issues in the Washington policy debateover Colombia, the Latin American Program con-vened representatives of both institutions on May13, 2004, to explore “The Economic and SocialDimensions of Conflict and Peace in Colombia.”They were joined by a senior official of theInternational Committee of the Red Cross, whoaddressed Colombia’s urgent humanitarian needs.

The World Bank’s resident representative inColombia, Alberto Chueca Mora, expressed opti-mism regarding the outlook for economic devel-opment in Colombia, noting that the country’sgrowth rate of 3.64 percent in 2003 was the sec-ond highest in Latin America. Chueca Moraattributed economic improvements to interna-tional factors including the recovery of the U.S.economy, as well as domestic factors, particularlyan improved security situation as a result ofPresident Uribe’s democratic security policy. Heunderscored the conflict’s impact on growth (esti-mated at 2 percent of GDP annually) and itshuman costs, reflected in the number of deaths,internally displaced persons, and emigration, par-ticularly of highly educated Colombians. ChuecaMora noted the approval of necessary but insuffi-cient tax, labor, pension, and other public sectorreforms. Of the many challenges ahead, heemphasized the need for higher growth as well asmechanisms to reduce inequality and generatesocial capital formation.

Hernando Gómez Buendía of the UNDP dis-cussed the multiple roles of Colombia’s guerrillaand paramilitary organizations, which function as

armed bureaucracies, local powers, actors in socialconflicts, and criminal organizations, among otherroles. Underscoring the need for both a militaryand political response to the country’s armedactors, he outlined several policy priorities,including enhancing citizen security, providingwidened humanitarian assistance, preventingrecruitment into illegal armed organizations, andreducing drug trafficking. He emphasized localstate capacity building, addressing social conflictsover land and labor issues, and “rediscovering pol-itics” as keys to human development in the midstof conflict.

According to Jean Pierre Schaerer of the ICRC,since the collapse of the Pastrana government’speace process with the FARC in 2002, the meth-ods of the armed actors have radicalized and polar-ization increased. He condemned the armedgroups’ “total disregard” for the distinctionbetween civilians and combatants, stating thatpressure to participate actively in the conflictexposed the civilian population to greater violenceand retaliation. The unwillingness of the armedactors to recognize the applicability of interna-tional humanitarian law was exacting an unaccept-able toll on the civilian population, as differentarmed groups attempted to control large segmentsof territory through terrorizing the local popula-tion. The peace process between the governmentand paramilitary groups, meanwhile, had led toreductions in certain kinds of violations, but thenumber of selective executions, indiscriminateattacks, disappearances, and forced displacementremain unacceptably high.

N O T I C I A S

16

from left to right: Alberto Chueca Mora, Hernando Gómez Buendía

A Latin American Program Special Report,“The Social and Economic Dimensions ofConflict and Peace in Colombia,” published inOctober 2004, contains a more detailed summaryof each of the presentations.

Agriculture and theEnvironment in Brazil

Brazil @ the Wilson Center hosted two seminars oncritical questions of agriculture and the environ-ment. On February 6, 2004, the Project joinedwith Embrapa, the joint U.S.–Brazil USDAARS/LABEX research program, and the WilsonCenter’s Environmental Change and SecurityProject to explore Brazil’s sustainable agriculturerevolution. The seminar focused on world popula-tion growth and the need to make current foodproduction systems more sustainable.

Dirceu Gassen, manager of the Brazilian agricul-tural cooperative Cooplantio, discussed “no-tillage”agriculture in Brazil, a method used since the1970s with increasing success. Gassen outlined thetechnique’s numerous benefits, including a 96 per-cent decrease in the rate of soil erosion, a 60 per-cent reduction in fuel needs, reductions in equip-

ment and fertilizer needs, significantly reducedcrop tending time, increased microbial activity inthe soil, and improved water infiltration and reten-tion. The approach helps the environment byreducing emissions of carbon dioxide (a green-house gas normally associated with tillage). Inaddition, the surface level organic matter (detritusfrom previous crops) that is left in place reduceswater runoff and pollution while increasing thesoil’s nutrient retention.

Participants argued that the United States andBrazil stand at the forefront of advancements inagricultural technology and will play decisive rolesin the future of agricultural production andagribusiness in the Western hemisphere. Despitetheir roles as competitors, the ability and willing-ness of both nations to share experiences anddesign cooperative research and developmentstrategies will profoundly affect the future of thisvital sector.

In a second meeting on June 21, 2004, co-sponsored with the Wilson Center’s EnvironmentalChange and Security Project and The John HeinzIII Center for Science, Economics and theEnvironment, the director of Brazil’s InstitutoNacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA), JoséAntônio Alves Gomes, discussed his organization’srole in promoting sustainable development in theBrazilian Amazon. INPA is the largest scientificresearch organization devoted to the environmentalconservation and sustainable development in theAmazon basin. Its unique approach takes intoaccount human welfare, culture, economics andnational security issues in generating and dissemi-nating scientific and technological knowledge.

INPA has worked for over 50 years with localcommunities to implement projects that make useof the Amazon’s resources without depletingthem. To that end, INPA has introduced goodsfrom the region, including new food products,juices, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and variouswood products. According to Gomes, INPA hasambitious plans to improve its administration,facilities and overall impact in the next threeyears, in order to increase knowledge on biodi-versity issues. He emphasized the need for inter-national collaboration not only to develop theeconomic potential of the region but also to con-serve its resources.

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

17

José Gomes

Mexico Institute HoldsWashington Policy Forums

The Mexico Institute held several WashingtonPolicy Forums over the course of the year address-ing democratic change and the future of Mexico’srelations with the world. Mexico’s presidentialelections in 2000 marked the end of a period ofrapid democratic change; however, it also generat-ed new challenges for deepening democracy anddeciding Mexico’s role in hemispheric and worldaffairs. These forums allowed key actors andobservers of these processes to present their opin-ions on current debates in Mexico.

On April 23, 2004, the President of Mexico’sFederal Electoral Institute, Dr. Luis Carlos Ugalde,discussed the future of Mexico’s democracy.Ugalde noted that Mexico has successfully consol-idated an electoral process that is trusted by mostcitizens, but the country still faces challenges thatwill affect the quality of the democratic process.Ugalde was cautious in venturing a prognosis onpolitical reform in Mexico; however, he notedthat there was basic consensus between the Foxadministration and key political parties on impor-tant elements of a reform that could emerge fromCongress in the near future. He worried about thelogistical difficulties of allowing Mexicans abroadto vote, but underlined that this is a political deci-sion to be made by the Congress and executive.

The Mexico Institute hosted a book launch ofthe book Opening Mexico: The Making of aDemocracy, by Pulitzer Prize winning journalistsJulia Preston and Samuel Dillon on May 13. Prestonand Dillon, New York Times bureau chiefs inMexico City from 1995-2000, argued thatalthough the defeat of the long-governingInstitutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in 2000was revolutionary, there were significant internalevents taking place in Mexico that had been revo-lutionizing the country for years. They stressed therole of civil society organizations and oppositionpolitical parties, in particular, in creating the con-ditions for political change.

Manuel Angel Núñez Soto, governor of Hidalgoand a self-declared presidential candidate, spoke ata June 7, 2004, event. Addressing political andeconomic reforms, Núñez Soto argued thatMexico needed to change the prohibition on

reelection in Congress and pursue key structuralreforms to improve the country’s competitiveness.He acknowledged that the quest for the consolida-tion of Mexico’s democracy continues eventhough Mexico has undergone dramatic transfor-mations in the last two decades.

On July 1, 2004, the Mexico Institute hostedMaría Marván Laborde, president of the Councilfor the Federal Institute for Access toInformation (IFAI), to discuss the Federal Lawfor Transparency and for Access to GovernmentalPublic Information, approved by the MexicanCongress. According to Marván, the law wasdesigned to promote a culture of transparencyand accountability. The Mexican Congress hadpassed the Transparency and Access toInformation Law, providing citizens for the firsttime with access on demand to federal govern-ment documents in 2002. While journalists werethe first to make use of the system, now academ-ics, lawyers, and businesspeople are increasinglyrepresented among the requesters.

Deputy Secretary of Foreign RelationsGerónimo Gutiérrez addressed a Director’s Forumon May 3, 2004, in representation of SecretaryLuis Ernesto Derbez, who was forced to cancel atrip to Washington to address mounting tensionsin Mexico’s relationship with Cuba. Gutiérreznoted that the two countries have come a longway since the days that they considered each other,in journalist Alan Riding’s phrase, “distant neigh-bors.” Today, he said, the countries are in the

N O T I C I A S

18

from right to left: Governor of Hidalgo Manuel Angel Núñez Soto andAmbassador James Jones

process of becoming “strategic partners.” Thispresents an opportunity to “construct commonvisions between friends, neighbors, and partnerson the common challenges we have.”

New Project onDecentralization, LocalDemocratic InitiativesLaunched

The Latin American Program launched a newinitiative on decentralization, local initiatives,and citizenship in Latin America in 2004 with aninternational research team from six countries.The project, carried out in conjunction with theInter-American Foundation and with the sup-port of the Tinker Foundation, explores innova-tive municipal strategies for improving demo-cratic governance and examines whether thesepolicies are sustainable, replicable, and can havean impact in improving democratic outcomes atthe national level. The research team includesGabriel Murillo (Colombia), Marcus Melo (Brazil),Enrique Peruzzoti (Argentina), Roberto Laserna(Bolivia), Leticia Santín (Mexico), and Luis Mack(Guatemala).

The project held a first meeting in MexicoCity on June 20, 2004, with the Grupo deEstudios para el Desarrollo Institucional.Panelists included Leticia Santín of FLACSO,Tonatiuh Guillén of El Colegio de la FronteraNorte, Enrique Cabrero and Mauricio Merino ofCIDE, Carlos Rodríguez of the Centro deEstudios Municipales, and Luis Pineda of EquipoPueblo. Participants agreed that municipalitiesare experimenting extensively with new mecha-nisms for encouraging citizen participation andensuring government transparency. However,few of these experiences appear to be sustainedover time since the institutional structure ofMexican municipalities does not create incen-tives for citizen engagement.

On September 10-11, 2004, the research teammet at the Wilson Center to plan a future publica-tion. The team agreed to focus its attention onseveral innovative experiences of participation andaccountability in the region, including participa-tory budgeting (Brazil and Argentina), municipal

development councils (Guatemala), participatoryplanning (Mexico), the redesign of public space(Colombia), and the Popular Participation Law(Bolivia). The team is particularly interested in thequestion of whether these innovations lead to asubstantively different kind of democratic gover-nance and, if so, under what conditions they pros-per or fail.

On December 17, 2004, the project held athird meeting in Buenos Aires to examine partici-patory budgeting as well as initiatives to promotetransparency in Argentina. Hosted by FundaciónPent, the meeting included presentations by localand national government officials, non-govern-mental organizations, and leading scholars.Leonardo Avritzer of the Universidade de BeloHorizonte, Brazil, and Roberto Laserna of theUniversidad de Cochabamba, Bolivia, providedcomparative perspectives. The meeting foundencouraging signs that some municipalities areattempting to construct institutional channels forcitizen participation in decision-making and forgovernment reporting of decisions to citizens.However, these experiences were mostly recentand still fragile.

In August the Latin American Program alsolaunched the book Decentralization, DemocraticGovernance, and Civil Society, edited by PhilipOxhorn, Joseph S. Tulchin, and Andrew Selee(Woodrow Wilson Center Press and The JohnsHopkins University Press). The book examinesdecentralization experiences in six countries inAfrica, Asia, and Latin America (Chile, Mexico,South Africa, Kenya, Philippines, and Indonesia).A second volume, Decentralization and DemocraticGovernance in Latin America, was released inDecember as a Wilson Center publication. Editedby Tulchin and Selee, it examines decentralization

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

19

The meeting found encouraging signs that

some municipalities are attempting to con-

struct institutional channels for citizen

participation in decision-making and for

government reporting of decisions to citi-

zens. However, these experiences were

mostly recent and still fragile.

in five Latin American countries (Mexico,Guatemala, Venezuela, Brazil, and Argentina).Both volumes are concerned with the impact ofdecentralization on democracy.

Creating Community

The project of the Latin American Program ded-icated to international relations and security poli-cy entered a new phase in its activities, with therenewal of its core support from the FordFoundation. Creating Community now is focusedon two related problems: 1) how traditional issuesof national security (state threats, militarydefense, etc.) and the newer non-traditional secu-rity threats (such as drug trafficking, terrorism,and money laundering) are related to securityissues previously understood as domestic ques-tions, such as citizen security and human security;and 2) how the nations of Latin America can playroles as rule makers on the global level, theregional level, and the sub-regional level withoutentering into an adversarial relationship with theUnited States that reduces international relationsto a zero sum game.

To deal with the first issue, Raúl BenítezManaut, a member of the Creating Communityteam (along with Luis Bitencourt, Lilian Bobea,Ricardo Córdova, and Rut Diamint), put together aframework of analysis that considered securityon different levels, from internal or domestic toglobal, and suggested that threats, traditional andnon-traditional, might be perceived differentlyby the same set of policy makers as they play outon different levels. In other words, security mustbe understood as a multi-level game in whichoutcomes can be expected to vary. This meansthat countries in the region can seek ways tocooperate with one another and with nationsoutside the region on any of the levels on whicha security threat might appear. Benítez’s essaywas published as a Latin American ProgramReport on the Americas, Mexico and the NewChallenges of Hemispheric Security. He presentedhis argument to an October 2004 special meet-ing in Mexico of the OAS on security matters.In addition, Benítez and team member RutDiamint made presentations on behalf ofCreating Community at the Summit of Defense

Ministers of the Hemisphere, in Quito, Ecuadorin November 2004.

Team member Lilian Bobea served as rappor-teur at a special conference on regional securityco-sponsored with the Frederich EbertFoundation in Jamaica in September 2004; andLuis Bitencourt made the Creating Communityframework a central part of the discussions at aconference in Brasilia, also co-sponsored by theEbert Foundation in July 2004. The entire team,joined by Arlene Tickner of the Universidad de losAndes in Bogotá, made presentations of the proj-ect at the LASA meeting in September 2004.

The second problem – how to get LatinAmerica to assume more active roles in global andregional affairs without entering into an adversari-al relationship with the United States – was thesubject of a special seminar conducted with theMinistry of Defense of Argentina. Joseph S.Tulchinand Robert Litwak of the Woodrow Wilson Centermade presentations to an audience that includedmore than 200 civilian and military leaders of theArgentina policy community.

The interrelationships between sub-regionaland global security issues was the subject of aseminar conducted by the Centro de Estudios deInformación de la Defensa in Havana inDecember 2004, at which Joseph S. Tulchin gavethe keynote address on the changes in the interna-tional system. A regional seminar, co-sponsoredwith the Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá inOctober 2004, explored Colombian and regionalsecurity, the linkages between regional, hemi-spheric, and global issues, and the ways in whichU.S. unilateralism affects the national interests ofcountries throughout the region. A policy bulletinresulting from the conference, “PercepcionesHemisféricas sobre la Crisis Colombiana,” waspublished in February 2005. In addition, ArleneTickner is preparing a volume of papers from theconference to be published as a special edition ofColombia Internacional.

Over the coming year, the project will hold aseries of sub-regional meetings to discuss keyelements of the analytical framework with poli-cymakers, local analysts, and the media. In thisway, we hope to influence the policy process inmany countries of the region and to have animpact on the academic debate on securitythroughout the hemisphere.

N O T I C I A S

20

Legislatures, Trade andIntegration: RegionalInitiatives in the Americas

On July 12-14, 2004, the Wilson Center’s LatinAmerican Program and Brazil @ The Wilson Center,with support from the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank, hosted a delegation of seniorBrazilian legislators—seven representatives andone senator—to meet with their counterparts inthe U.S. Congress. In welcoming the group,Brazilian Ambassador to the United States RobertoAbdenur noted that this was the most senior dele-gation from Brazil’s Congress ever to have visitedWashington. Inter-American Development BankPresident Enrique Iglesias underscored the impor-tance of the exchange in helping Brazilian andAmerican lawmakers achieve a better understand-

ing of their respective legislative processes andtrade negotiations.

At an opening briefing at the Wilson Center,speakers discussed regional trade and trade agree-ments from the perspectives of international finan-cial institutions and various U.S. stakeholders.Participants, including chief U.S. Free Trade Areaof the Americas (FTAA) negotiator AmbassadorRoss Wilson, (Office of the United States TradeRepresentative - USTR), and Paul Drazek, for-merly of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,emphasized that trade agreements are not popularin the U.S. Congress, particularly during an elec-tion year. Agreements can be inhibited by con-gressional polarization, vocal labor unions, and, asDrazek remarked, the growing belief among U.S.farmers that they cannot compete in the globalmarket without assistance. Ambassador Wilsonexpressed his belief that trade agreements should

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

21

In partnership with the Wilson Center’s Divisionof International Studies and the Los AlamosNational Laboratory, the Brazil Project hosted aMay 14, 2004, seminar to explore the controversysurrounding Brazil’s nuclear program. Brazil’s newambassador to the United States and former repre-sentative to the International Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA) Roberto Abdenur framed contem-porary concerns in the context of Brazil’s nuclearhistory, in which an advanced nuclear sector hasdeveloped in tandem with the government’s acces-sion to the nonproliferation treaty regime.

Article IV of the NPT provides for access bynon-nuclear weapons states to nuclear technologyfor peaceful purposes (such as energy generation).The U.S. fear has been that some signatory states,notably Iran and North Korea (and Iraq underSaddam Hussein) have exploited the Article IVprovision in order to acquire technology and fissilematerial for a clandestine nuclear weapons pro-gram. Against this backdrop, the Bush administra-tion was pushing for limitations on access tonuclear fuel cycle technology and for the adoptingof a heightened IAEA inspection regime.

Ambassador Abdenur statedthat, contrary to some pressreports, the question was notwhether Brazil would acceptsafeguards for its new urani-um enrichment facility atResende, but rather how theywill be implemented.

The challenge, accordingto Abdenur, was to strike abalance between the IAEA’sresponsibilities and Brazil’slegitimate right to protectproprietary commercial information related to itscentrifuge technology. He also felt that, in addi-tion to focusing on Article IV, the United Statesand the other nuclear weapon states recognized bythe NPT should do more to fulfill their commit-ment under Article VI to achieve nuclear disarma-ment. Ambassador Abdenur argued that develop-ments such as the Bush administration’s NuclearPosture Review document, which underscores thecontinued utility of nuclear weapons, appear toerode that commitment.

Roberto Abdenur

Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament: A BrazilianPerspective

be considered of vital importance to both theUnited States and Brazil. He argued that it wouldbe impossible to reach an FTAA agreement byJanuary 2005 because of two major hurdles:Brazilian inflexibility on the intellectual propertyissue, and the United States’ changing positionregarding market access.

Several meetings on Capitol Hill exposed theBrazilian legislators to the staff support and servicesavailable to their American counterparts. AngelaEllard, counsel to the House Ways and MeansCommittee, explained the role of Congress in tradenegotiations— in particular as it pertained to thepassage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)—while underscoring concerns with the complexitiesof a “two-track FTAA.” Ellard and BrazilianRepresentative Yeda Crusius both highlighted aninteresting byproduct of the congressional debate toapprove the TPA: although the bill was meant toempower the executive branch, it also promptedlawmakers to become more involved in trade issues.

Staff from the Congressional Research Serviceand the Government Accounting Office discussedthe roles of their organizations in the legislativeprocess. In debates with political advisors and cam-paign experts, the Brazilian legislators garnered anew perspective on the manner in which tradenegotiations operate in the context of politicalcampaigns in the United States.

At a subsequent meeting that included fourteenU.S. lawmakers, Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) stressed

the importance of economic and trade issues inNorth-South relations, within a broader contextdefined by social policy and cultural understanding.He highlighted the role of Congress in the approvalof trade agreements, making U.S. lawmakersimportant arbiters of trade policy.

Brazilian Senator and Chairman of theCommittee on Foreign Relations Eduardo Suplicydescribed how his Congress is still struggling toattain a more active role in trade negotiations, ref-erencing the TPA’s Brazilian counterpart, SenateBill 189. According to Senator Suplicy, Bill 189 isbased on the premise that “Brazilian participationin international trade negotiations should be guid-ed by the premise of using trade for economic andsocial development.” Suplicy also highlighted the“human aspect” of trade, and suggested models foreradicating poverty and creating wealth.

The final meeting witnessed an extraordinaryexchange between members of both legislativebodies. Chaired by Representative Cass Ballenger(R-NC, Chairman of the Subcommittee on theWestern Hemisphere of the Foreign AffairsCommittee), Representatives Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Donald M. Payne (D-NJ), Collin C. Peterson(DFL-MN), Charles W. Stenholm (D-TX), and JerryWeller (R-IL) emphasized cooperative bilateralrelations between Brazil and the United States,even in the face of critical disagreements over par-ticular provisions in the trade negotiations.

Ballenger noted that “a democratic and pros-perous Brazil is a necessary part of U.S. interests,”and that “U.S.-Brazil relations are stronger thanever” after the initial meetings between PresidentBush and President Lula. The legislators raised keydisagreements over such issues as the decision ofthe World Trade Organization to condemn subsi-dization of the U.S. cotton industry; some of theU.S. legislators participating argued that Brazilcontributed to this outcome by reverting to litiga-tion instead of negotiation.

Thomas Nonô, Brazilian House MinorityLeader, responded by explaining that Brazil hadrequested WTO arbitration only after all efforts atbilateral negotiation were exhausted. “As it wasclear that we had failed at the bilateral level, wemoved to the multilateral level,” said Nonô. “Wedon’t see the WTO as a battleground,” he contin-ued, “but as neutral ground where the position ofeach side can be examined fairly.”

N O T I C I A S

22

from left to right: Cresencio Arcos, Ramón Daubón

Brazilian Representative Luiz Antonio Fleurypointed out that the Brazilian and U.S. economiesare complementary and suggested the formation ofan inter-parliamentary group to promote betterunderstanding and facilitate partnership betweenthe two countries. Fleury emphasized that in orderto make bilateral trade relations mutually advanta-geous, “we must learn from each other.”

Several other issues unrelated to trade emergedduring the discussion. The Brazilian legislatorsclarified Brazil’s positions on non-proliferation,the environment, Cuba, and human rights. Theyportrayed their country as a strong defender ofnon-proliferation and nuclear disarmament,implying the need for more assertive positions andleadership from the current nuclear powers.

On questions of the environment, theBrazilians summarized political and technologicalinitiatives that—despite implementation prob-lems—have made Brazil a leader in the area ofenvironmental legislation since 1992. Taking issuewith their U.S. counterparts, the Brazilian delega-tion maintained that the best strategic policytoward Cuba and Fidel Castro should not be oneof isolation and embargo, but instead should pro-mote assembly and engagement with democraciesin the region. Brazil’s policy of non-interventionprecludes open criticism of the domestic policiesof other nations, they said.

In a related event on trade policy, the MexicoInstitute joined with the Hispanic Council onInternational Relations on October 19, 2004, to

hold a forum on “Integration in the Americas:Trade, Investment, Development and Security.”Anne Alonzo from the National Foreign TradeCouncil argued that trade is needed to promotedevelopment, but that labor and environmentalconcerns are important to address. Ramón Daubónof the Inter-American Foundation argued forexpanding trade in the context of political reformthat gives everyone access to its benefits, or at leasta level playing field to compete in the market.Cresencio Arcos of the Department of HomelandSecurity argued that in the long term, the mostimportant issue will not be the movement ofgoods, but rather the movement of people; thus,the challenge is to find ways of harmonizing mul-tiple objectives at the border, especially security,trade, and the flow of people.

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

23

from right to left: Brazilian Senator Eduardo Suplicy and members of theBrazilian Congressional delegation

N O T I C I A S

24

Books

Robert R. Kaufman and Joan M. Nelson, eds. Crucial Needs,Weak Incentives (Baltimore, MD:Woodrow Wilson Center Press and The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004).

Joseph S. Tulchin and Ralph H. Espach, eds. América Latina en el nuevo sistema internacional(Barcelona: Ediciones Bellaterra, 2004).

Woodrow Wilson Center Reports on the Americas

Raúl Benítez Manaut, Mexico and the New Challenges of Hemispheric Security, No. 11, September2004.

Joseph S. Tulchin and Andrew Selee, eds., Decentralization and Democratic Governance in LatinAmerica, No. 12, December 2004.

Cynthia J. Arnson, ed., The Peace Process in Colombia with the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia—AUC, No. 13, February 2005.

Fernando Lorenzo and Marcel Vaillant, eds., Mercosur and the Creation of the Free Trade Area of theAmericas, No. 14, February 2005.

Conference Reports

Human Rights in the International System: Enforcing Global Governance, July 2004.

The Hispanic Challenge? What We Know About Latino Immigration, Philippa Strum and AndrewSelee, eds., August 2004.

Special Reports

Cynthia J. Arnson, ed. The Social and Economic Dimensions of Conflict and Peace in Colombia,October 2004.

Woodrow Wilson CenterUpdates on the AmericasUpdates on the Americas are available fordownload online atwww.wilsoncenter.org/lap under ourPublications section.

Rut Diamint and Arlene B. Tickner,Creating Community, No. 16, “PercepcionesHemisféricas sobre la Crisis Colombiana,”February 2005.

RecentPublications

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

25

Woodrow Wilson Center E-Updates on the AmericasE-updates on the Americas are available fordownload online atwww.wilsoncenter.org/lap under ourPublications section.

Philip Oxhorn, E-update on the Americas,No. 1, “Decentralization, Local Initiatives,and Citizenship in the Andes and SouthernCone,” June 2004.

Tamara P. Taraciuk, E-update on theAmericas, No. 2, “Toward a More EngagedCitizenry: A Citizen Security Action-Research Project,” September 2004.

Thinking Brazil

Thinking Brazil Updates are available for download online at www.wilsoncenter.org/brazil

Brazil Update, No. 9 “Sowing the Seeds of Sustainability: Brazil’s Next AgriculturalRevolution,” February 2004.

Brazil Update, No. 10 “Trade Agreements in the Americas: MERCOSUR and the Creation ofthe FTAA,” March 2004.

Brazil Update, No. 11 “Legislatures, Trade and Integration: Regional Initiatives in theAmericas,” August 2004.

Brazil Update, No. 12 “Brazil-United States Relations: 2004 and Beyond,” November 2004.

Brazil Update, No. 13 “Cardoso Commemorates 25th Anniversary of Transitions fromAuthoritarian Rule,” December 2004.

Brazil Update, No. 14 “Brazil Under Lula: Domestic and Foreign Perceptions,” December 2004.

U.S. Mexico Policy Bulletin

U.S. – Mexico Policy Bulletins are available for download online at www.wilsoncenter.org/mexico

Peter Andreas, U.S. – Mexico Policy Bulletin, No. 1 “U.S. – Mexico Border Control in aChanging Economic and Security Context,” January 2005.

Program Reports

Latin American Program Interim Report 1999-2004

Mexico Institute Report 2003-2004

Brazil @ the Wilson Center Report 2003-2004

N O T I C I A S

26

We bid a fond farewell to Program Associate Meg Ruthenburg, who headed up our programs oncitizen security, decentralization, and citizenship. Meg most recently edited the forthcoming vol-umes Toward a Society Under Law: Citizens and Their Police in Latin America and Citizenship in LatinAmerica and assisted with the forthcoming Citizens and Democracy: Participatory and DeliberativeExperiences in Mexico.

Cristina Jiménez joined us as a Program Assistant in January 2005. A recent graduate of theUniversity of Michigan, Cristina has experience working with Colombian refugees and was anintern with the Organization of American States.

Interns and Researchers

The Latin American Program is been fortunate to have had the assistance of several very capableinterns during the summer and fall of 2004. We thank the following for their many contributionsto the Latin American Program:

Jessica Varat, Wellesley College Jorge Guzmán, University of California at BerkeleyKelci Lowe, Georgetown UniversityKristen Jancuk, George Washington University

We also welcome Alana Parker of the University of Texas at Austin to our internship programduring the spring of 2005.

Fellows

Jonathan Fox and Mark Ungar joined the Wilson Center as Fellows for the 2004-2005 academic year.Jonathan Fox is professor of Latin American and Latino Studies at the University of California,

Santa Cruz. His research compares reforms in international organizations and Mexican socialpolicy. The project is entitled “Testing the Power of Sunshine: When Does Transparency Lead toInstitutional Accountability?”

Mark Ungar is associate professor of political science at Brooklyn College, City University ofNew York. His project is entitled “Creating Change: Citizen Security Reform in LatinAmerica.”The volume that will result from his research will explain why urgently needed policeand security reform in Latin America is being undermined and will propose specific ways toovercome the obstacles faced.

Public Policy Scholars

Jesús Velasco Grajales joined us as a Mexico Institute/Consejo Mexicano de AsuntosInternacionales (COMEXI) short-term scholar from July – December 2004. He is professor ofinternational relations at the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE) in MexicoCity. While in residence, he worked on a project entitled “The Influence of Neo-Conservatismon American Foreign Policy during the Reagan and George W. Bush Administrations.”

Arturo Alvarado Mendoza joined us from El Colegio de México in Mexico City as a Mexico

StaffNotes

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; JohnW. Carlin, Archivist of the United States; Bruce Cole, Chair, National Endowment for the Humanities; Margaret Spellings,Secretary, U.S. Department of Education; Condoleezza Rice, Secretary, U.S. Department of State; Lawrence M. Small,Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. DesignatedAppointee of the President from within the Federal Government: Peter S. Watson. Private Citizen Members: Joseph A. Cari, Jr.,Carol Cartwright, Robert B. Cook, Donald E. Garcia, Bruce S. Gelb, Charles L. Glazer, Tamala L. Longaberger

Wilson CouncilBruce S. Gelb, President. Elias F. Aburdene, Jennifer Acker, Charles S. Ackerman, B.B. Andersen, Russell Anmuth, Cyrus A.Ansary, Lawrence E. Bathgate II, Theresa Behrendt, John Beinecke, Joseph C. Bell, Steven Alan Bennett, Stuart Bernstein,Rudy Boschwitz, A. Oakley Brooks, Donald A. Brown, Melva Bucksbaum, Richard I. Burnham, Nicola L. Caiola, Mark Chandler,Peter B. Clark, Melvin Cohen, William T. Coleman, Jr., David M. Crawford, Jr., Michael D. DiGiacomo, Beth Dozoretz, ElizabethDubin, F. Samuel Eberts III, I. Steven Edelson, Mark Epstein, Melvyn J. Estrin, Sim Farar, Susan R. Farber, A. Huda Farouki,Roger Felberbaum, Julie Finley, Joseph H. Flom, John H. Foster, Charles Fox, Barbara Hackman Franklin, Norman Freidkin, JohnH. French, II, Morton Funger, Gregory M. Gallo, Chris G. Gardiner, Bernard S. Gewirz, Gordon D. Giffin, Steven J. Gilbert, AlmaGildenhorn, David F. Girard-diCarlo, Michael B. Goldberg, Richard N. Goldman, Roy M. Goodman, Gretchen Meister Gorog,William E. Grayson, Ronald Greenberg, Raymond A. Guenter, Cheryl F. Halpern, Edward L. Hardin, Jr., John L. Howard, Darrell E.Issa, Benjamin Jacobs, Jerry Jasinowski, Brenda LaGrange Johnson, Shelly Kamins, James M. Kaufman, Edward W. Kelley,Jr., Anastasia D. Kelly, Christopher J. Kennan, Willem Kooyker, Steven Kotler, Markos Kounalakis, William H. Kremer, RaymondLearsy, Dennis A. LeVett, Francine Gordon Levinson, Harold O. Levy, Frederic V. Malek, David S. Mandel, Jeffrey A. Marcus,J.W. Marriott, John Mason, Jay Mazur, Robert McCarthy, Linda McCausland, Stephen G. McConahey, Donald F. McLellan,Charles McVean, J. Kenneth Menges, Jr., Kathryn Mosbacher, Jeremiah L. Murphy, Martha T. Muse, John E. Osborn, Paul HaePark, Gerald L. Parsky, Jeanne L. Phillips, Michael J. Polenske, Donald Robert Quartel, Jr., Bruce Ratner, John L. Richardson,Margaret Milner Richardson, Larry D. Richman, Carlyn Ring, Edwin Robbins, Robert G. Rogers, Juan A. Sabater, Roger Sant,Alan M. Schwartz, Timothy R. Scully, J. Michael Shepherd, George P. Shultz, Raja W. Sidawi, Kenneth Siegel, Ron Silver,William A. Slaughter, James H. Small, Shawn Smeallie, Gordon V. Smith, Thomas F. Stephenson, John Sitilides, Norman KlineTiefel, 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, Richard S. Ziman, Nancy M. Zirkin

W I N T E R 2 0 0 5

27

Institute/Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales (COMEXI) short-term scholar forwork on his project, “Constructing the Rule of Law: Public Security, Justice, and DemocracyBuilding in Mexico.” He was in residence in November 2003 and from May – June 2004.

Senator Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy joined us from January – February 2005. Senator Suplicy ispresident of the Foreign Relations and National Defense Committees of the Brazilian Senate.His project is entitled “The Gradual Introduction of the Citizen’s Basic Income in Brazil.

We welcome Jacqueline Peschard, a professor at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México(UNAM) and former citizen counselor of the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) in Mexico. She isalso a Mexico Institute/Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales (COMEXI) short-termscholar and will be working on “Electoral Federalism in Mexico” during her stay from January –June 2005.

Ambassador Emilio J. Cárdenas of Argentina joins us as a short-term scholar fromFebruary to April 2005. He currently serves as co-chair of the Human Rights Instituteof the International Bar Association. He has served as Argentina's ambassador to theUnited Nations and is former president of the International Bar Association. While atthe Center, he is working on a project entitled “Administrative Screening Mechanisms toCounter Possible Corruption Among Federal Judges.”

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 DirectorThe Center is the living memorial of the United States of America to the nation’s twenty-eighthpresident, Woodrow Wilson. Congress established the Woodrow Wilson Center in 1968 as aninternational institute for advanced study, “symbolizing and strengthening the fruitful relationshipbetween the world of learning and the world of public affairs.”The Center opened in 1970 underits 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 founda-tions, corporations, and individuals. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Center publicationsand programs are those of the authors and speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of theCenter staff, fellows, trustees, advisory groups, or any individuals or organizations that providefinancial support to the Center.

The Latin American ProgramThe Latin American Program serves as a bridge between the United States and Latin America,encouraging a free flow of information and dialogue between the two regions. The Program alsoprovides a nonpartisan forum for discussing Latin American and Caribbean issues in Washington,D.C., and for bringing these issues to the attention of opinion leaders and policy makers through-out the Western hemisphere. The Program sponsors major initiatives on Decentralization, CitizenSecurity, Comparative Peace Processes, Creating Community in the Americas, U.S.-Brazilianrelations and U.S.-Mexican relations.