text:
HOUSE HEARING, 111TH CONGRESS - U.S.-BOLIVIA RELATIONS: LOOKING AHEAD
Uploaded by Scribd Government Docs
Congressional Hearing Held: 2009-03-03
Copyright: Public Domain
saveSave HOUSE HEARING, 111TH CONGRESS - U.S.-BOLIVIA RELAT... For Later
Tech085 Fin
WL Physical & Expenditure Report
UGANDA Country Report-11
Evo Morales at Columbia
Carlos Ponce Sangines, Godfather of Bolivian Archaeology
DAILY_LOG_-_2016-04-15.doc
Marc e. Sandler
HOUSE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009
MITRA settlement agreement
GovernmentDonorDialogue Issue No.62-September 2012.pdf
Us Mexico Compilation
LatAmOil Week 24
1-19-11 USAID Development Speech_0
MD March 10 Small 2
Savino Braxton Complaint
United States v. Luis Rodriguez, 392 F.3d 539, 2d Cir. (2004)
Compiled Caracol Haiti Late 2014 Leiderman
marijuana essay
SENATE HEARING, 105TH CONGRESS - DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
BOLIVIA RELATIONS: LOOKING AHEAD
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
Serial No. 1113
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 204020001
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RON PAUL, Texas
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
DIANE E. WATSON, California
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York
CONNIE MACK, Florida
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GENE GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
TED POE, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
BARBARA LEE, California
GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director
YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman
ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JASON STEINBAUM, Subcommittee Staff Director
ERIC JACOBSTEIN, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member
FRANCIS GIBBS, Republican Professional Staff Member
JULIE SCHOENTHALER, Staff Associate
The Honorable Peter DeShazo, Director, Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies ..........................................................................
Ms. Kathryn Ledebur, Director, Andean Information Network ..........................
Mr. Ivan Rebolledo, President, Bolivian-American Chamber of Commerce,
Inc. .........................................................................................................................
Jaime Daremblum, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Director, Center for Latin American
Studies, Hudson Institute ...................................................................................
Mr. Marcos Iberkleid, Chief Executive Officer, Ametex, America Textil S.A. ....
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Peter DeShazo: Prepared statement ............................................
Ms. Kathryn Ledebur: Prepared statement ...........................................................
Mr. Ivan Rebolledo: Prepared statement ...............................................................
Jaime Daremblum, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ....................................................
Mr. Marcos Iberkleid: Prepared statement ...........................................................
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere:
Prepared statement ..............................................................................................
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record ..........................................................
U.S.BOLIVIA RELATIONS: LOOKING AHEAD
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:13 p.m. in room
2172, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eliot L. Engel
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. SIRES [presiding]. Good afternoon, everyone. The chairman is
a little tied up and we will begin this hearing, and I want to make
sure I thank everybody that is here this afternoon.
We have with us the Honorable Peter DeShazo, director of Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International studies; Ms.
Kathryn Ledebur, director of Andean Information Network; Mr.
Ivan Rebolledo, president of Bolivian-American Chamber of Commerce, Incorporated; Mr. Marcos Iberkleidnice to see you again
chief executive officer, Ametex, America Textil; and Dr. Jaime
Daremblum, senior fellow, director, Center for Latin American
Studies, Hudson Institute.
I just want to welcome you all. The chairman will be here shortly. He will read his statement, and will get started. I would like
to offer the ranking member to say a few words.
Mr. MACK. Thank you very much, and I want to thank the panel
for being here as well, and the other members that are with us
today. We have got an interesting hearing and I am looking forward to hearing your insight on our relationship with Bolivia, and
I guess the over-arching question is, is there still hope for a better
relationship with Bolivia or is Evo Morales bound and determined
to continue the stance that he is in, and I really would like to, as
each one of you in your opening remarks go forward, I would like
to hear your thoughts on that.
Largely, though, I think this committee has a duty to really explore what it is, what options there are. I think we understand the
problems in Latin America. We understand that there are many,
and I think it is time now we start looking for solutions. So again,
maybe in your opening statements you can point out a few things
that you think would help.
I would offer one of the things that the United States needs to
do a better job at is reaching our hand out to our friends and allies
that have supported us, who are our friends, who are looking to the
United States for leadership, and I think there has been a void
there, and I think the more we can do that arena the better off we
will, and in fact, the void that was created is what has let Hugo
Chavez and others kind of fill that void, and I think it is important
that, again, that this committee begin to start formulating an overall arching plan for Latin America, and I believe it has to speak
directly to the people of Latin America.
If we just do this government to government, the message will
not get through; that what we need to let the people of Latin America know is that we stand with the; that we understand the challenges that they are facing; that we want to share in the responsibility in creating the hope and opportunity for everyone.
So again thank you for being here. I look forward to your opening
Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Congressman Mack. Anyone else have an
opening statement? Congressman Green.
Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
today, and I would like to welcome our panel. Last spring I had the
honor of traveling with Chairman Engel and a few of our colleagues to Bolivia, and one of the things we did while we were
there was to visit Catholic University, a site where we saw USAID
dollars at work. We were in a rural part of Bolivia and the students had computer labs and access to the Internet, thanks to the
USAID.
I also have served on the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of our Energy and Commerce Committee, and I know
our own challenges in trying to get broadband to our rural areas,
but I saw that outside the capital in Bolivia. I found it great that
our foreign assistance dollars are going toward such useful efforts
in Bolivia, and this is one of the great things that USAID was
doing with the university in a partnership.
I also had the opportunity to visit textile workers and small business owners while we were in Bolivia to see how the Andean Trade
Preferences have helped the Bolivian people. Having seen firsthand
these preferences, it seems very beneficial to the Bolivian people.
We concluded our trip with a visit with President Morales, and
I was hopeful that our relations with Bolivia would improve, but
how times have changed.
Last September President Morales expelled the U.S. Ambassador
to Bolivia, which we spent a great deal of time with, after accusing
him of supporting opposition forces. I have to admit we also met
with some of the prefects from the eastern part of the country
while we were there.
Then in November, President Morales announced an indefinite
suspension of U.S. DEA operations in Bolivia after accusing DEA
agents of espionage. In response to this, President Bush suspended
the Bolivian Trade Preferences of the Andean Trade Preferences
Finally, just last month President Morales accused the CIA of infiltrating a Bolivian state oil company. The U.S. Embassy in Bolivia strongly denies this accusation.
When President Obama was elected, President Morales indicated
that he was open to improving relations with the U.S., but his actions and rhetoric seem to dictate otherwise. I am interested to
hear from our panel and their recommendations as to how and,
even if, relations can be improved with Bolivia with President Morales as President, and I know he was just reelected and given an
indefinite term. I believe in the Bolivian people, and especially the
opportunity the trade preferences and our foreign assistance dollars can bring the Bolivian people.
I also believe that partnering with Bolivia is important to our
counternarcotics strategy in the area. For the past several years,
Bolivia has been the recipient of U.S.largest recipient of United
States foreign assistance in Latin America, and how can we continue with this given the current state of United States-Bolivian relations?
Mr. Chairman, again, I look forward to hearing from our panel
and I welcome each of them.
Mr. SIRES [presiding]. Thank you, Congressman. Congresswoman
Lee, do you have an opening statement? Congressman Klein?
Mr. KLEIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and thank you
to the guests today who will be testifying before us. We understand
the importance of relationship between our Latin America neighbors. Those of us who live in Florida, Congressman Mack and I, are
particularly sensitive because what happens in those countries, because of the family relationships, cultural relationships, business
relationships, are very important to all of us, to make sure that
they are stable.
There have been problems in recent years with the leadership of
Bolivia. There is a certain amount of foreign aid and assistance
that the United States provides to Bolivia. I would be interested in
your comments, if you can talk about that aid, the nature of the
aid, and the quantity of the aid, and give some thoughts as to are
we doing the right amount, are we doing any amount that is appropriate, and the type of aid that, as we revisit our USAID issues,
it would be most effective in reaching the people of Bolivia and to
try to re-establish a better working relationship.
It is an issue that I think is very important to the whole region,
and I think it is very important to our foreign policy in Latin
America. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I give the balance of my
Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Congressman Klein.
Ambassador DeShazo, will you please start? Try to keep your
opening statement within 5 minutes. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETER DESHAZO, DIRECTOR, AMERICAS PROGRAM, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND
Mr. DESHAZO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members. I am delighted to be here. I ask that my written
statement be introduced into the record, and I will give a brief resume.
Since the inauguration of Evo Morales as President of Bolivia in
January 2006, bilateral relations have deteriorated seriously. Morales campaign for President was peppered with anti-U.S. references, vowing that if elected he would be a nightmare for the
United States. This notwithstanding U.S. policymakers pursued a
course of seeking constructive engagement while waiting to see
how developments unfolded on the Bolivian side.
By mid-2008, however, the pace of deterioration quickened to the
point where U.S. development personnel and the Drug Enforcement Administration were forced to leave a major cocoa-growing region of Bolivia, the U.S. Ambassador was declared persona non
grata, Peace Corps volunteers were withdrawn from Bolivia, the
United States suspended Bolivia as a recipient of trade preferences,
and President Morales expelled the DEA from Bolivia altogether.
Looking forward, there is potential for repairing some of the
damage to the bilateral relationship, but there is also a real possibility that it could deteriorate further. It is in the U.S. interest that
Bolivia be stable and democratic, able and willing to meet its international obligation on matters related to regional security, including narcotics, and pursuing policies that lead to economic development and poverty reduction. U.S. policy should be aimed at advancing these goals and promoting a bilateral relationship based on cooperation and mutual respect.
The inauguration of the Obama administration provides an opportunity to reexamine the relations with Bolivia and attempt to
put them on a more positive track. For starters, however, there
must be a mutual desire to rebuild ties. The United States may undertake any number of initiatives but realistically there will be no
improvement if President Morales remains fixed in his negative
outlook toward the United States.
Nonetheless, it behooves the United States to take a first step.
This could be done by a unilateral initiative aimed at creating a
positive environment and then by a series of further measures. One
such initiative on the part of the United States could be to announce its intention to return Peace Corps volunteers to Bolivia, of
course after consultations with the Bolivian Government to ensure
that they would be welcome.
Another opportunity will come at the Summit of the Americans
meeting in April in Trinidad and Tobago where President Obama
could underscore directly to President Morales the intention of the
new U.S. administration to seek better relations based on mutual
respect and to urge bilateral engagement.
Rebuilding the relationship beyond such steps will require quiet
diplomacy and patience. A key ingredient will be Bolivian narcotics
policy and its intersection with U.S. concerns. Narcotics will continue to influence bilateral relations and both countries should seek
a common understanding in dealing with it. A means must be
found to work through the drug impasse. The Government of Bolivia needs to demonstrate to U.S. and international opinion that
is prepared to take additional steps to try to fill the gap in counternarcotics capability left by the DEAs expulsion, and indicate a rekindled desire to work with the United States.
Progress on the narcotics front could unlock the door to restoring
Bolivias trade preferences under ATPDEA. That would be a positive step that would help preserve thousands of jobs in Bolivia,
benefit working class, often indigenous families, and strengthen
Bolivias perennially weak private sector. The exchange of ambassadors between the United States and Bolivia should come at a
time when relations are clearly on the road to improvement. Ambassador Goldberg was the target of baseless accusations and his
expulsion was unjustified. There is no need to name a new U.S.
ambassador only to face similar treatment.
Regardless of the outcome of the initiatives I have just mentioned, the United States should maintain or better still, augment
its bilateral assistance to Bolivia through USAID and other mechanisms. USAID programs in areas such as infrastructure, health,
nutrition, agriculture, sanitation, the environment, democracy
building, et cetera, have built bridges between the peoples of Bolivia and the United States and supported Bolivias own development goals.
Other mechanisms exist for strengthening people-to-people ties,
including academic and professional exchanges programs, and the
Bolivian-American centers that exist and operate in five Bolivian
cities and teach English.
Bolivia will continue to be a country in flux. The implementation
of the new Bolivian constitution will present many challenges to a
political system in which confrontation often trumps consensus,
and deep ethic and religion and regional divisions exist.
The Obama administration should approach Bolivia with patience and realistic expectations, seeking constructive engagement
with its people and, to the extent possible, with its government.
The United States should work with Bolivias neighbors, Brazil
above all, to encourage moderation on the part of the Bolivian Government and an effective counternarcotics effort.
The extent to which Evo Morales is able to overcome his mistrust
and dislike of the United States, or on the other hand, the degree
to which he might translate these views into action, especially regarding Bolivias international affairs, will be key factors as the bilateral relationship evolves.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeShazo follows:]
Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.
Ms. Ledebur.
STATEMENT OF MS. KATHRYN LEDEBUR, DIRECTOR, ANDEAN
Ms. LEDEBUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that we are at an essential turning point in the possibility for improvement in relations between Bolivia and the United
States. I disagree with Ambassador DeShazo in that I feel that the
reinstatement of ambassadors is the first logical and essential step
in order to promote a channel through which productive policy dialogue can be carried out. Frequently U.S. policymakers complain of
statements and criticisms of the Morales administration that are
made to the press and not dealt with diplomatically. At the same
time Bolivians frequently complain of U.S. criticisms, which they
feel are unfounded, in official documents such as the International
Narcotics Control Strategy Report.
Along with this reinstatement of ambassadors it is important to
engage in a frank, open, broad dialogue within the framework of
a very clear Obama administration policy. Without the appointment of key Western Hemisphere officials this void in decisionmaking and implementation has created difficulty for legislators,
advocates and the Bolivian Government to know exactly with
whom they should engage in the new administration.
At the same time, the Obama administration should move away
from programs that condition aid on anti-narcotics and seek to denarcoticize the relationship. This involves the reinstatement of Andean Trade Preferences which, within a very short time since their
suspension, have led to the dismissal of almost half the workers in
small companies, and the failures of small businesses in Bolivia as
well as the United States. The justification for the suspension
through an anti-narcotics determination was based on faulty and
inaccurate information.
The certification statement made on February 27th of this year
also contained inaccurate information and internal contradictions,
making it difficult for us to understand the basis for the suspension.
At the same time the Bolivian Government must engage directly
with the United States, seek to reestablish diplomatic channels and
assume with full responsibility the daunting task of replacing the
role of the Drug Enforcement Administration, profoundly pursue
relations with neighboring countries, Brazil and Argentina, the
destination of most of the cocaine that passes through or is produced in Bolivia, and have the ability to readjust or shift these
policies if, in fact, they fail.
A focus and new opening for diplomatic relations at this period
of high tension is possible and both governments have shown signs
of willingness to do so. President Morales, soon after President
Obamas election, spoke very highly of President Obama and made
a visit to Washington in which he sought out key legislators to
begin an open and frank dialogue about possibilities for change.
In this sense, I believe that time is of the essence and that both
governments must seek through diplomatic channels a bilateral cooperative partnership, not based on conditioning or anti-narcotics
norms, but instead on a low level of cooperation of transparent programs, especially in the area of USAID, focusing on a mutual agenda of both governmentshealth, poverty alleviation and educationand move away from some of the programs that have created so much bilateral friction in the past, such as democracy promotion or regional efforts, within a framework where no legal
guidelines exist in Bolivia for transparency.
This low level of engagement until broader decisions be made is
essential in order to refocus diplomatic relations. At this point in
time, high levels of tension can be avoided and we can move forward, but first the framework for trust and understanding, and an
ability to truly listen, instead of engagement on both sides which
degenerated into a begrudging tolerance of mutual opinions, is essential.
It is important to note that although the Bolivian Government
has chosen not to work with the DEA in the Chapare region or in
the rest of the country or to work with USAID in the Chapare, high
levels of cooperation do remain on the anti-narcotics front. The
Narcotics Affairs Section, an agency three times larger than the
DEA in Bolivia, continues to collaborate closely on interdiction and
eradication issues. There is a high level of dialogue and coordination on a variety of other policy issues, and I think that these
things that are missed often in the higher levels of Washington or
in the mainstream press, where we choose to focus on the negative
aspects or the areas in which relations have in fact broken down.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ledebur follows:]
Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rebolledo.
STATEMENT OF MR. IVAN REBOLLEDO, PRESIDENT,
BOLIVIAN-AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC.
Mr. REBOLLEDO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for the privilege to be with you to
discuss a topic of such relevance this time of change both in Bolivia
and the United States. Mr. Mack, we congratulate you as a new
ranking Minority member.
In recent years, Bolivia has faced many challenges to its stability
and constitutional order that many observers have wondered how
Bolivia has avoided slipping into widespread violent conflict. Bolivia has a highly divided society where wide sectors of the population have been historically excluded from the political arena.
Presently it has very weak political parties, if any at all, that have
been unable to create national coalitions, and its political apparatus has been unable to effectively guarantee space for the resolution of conflict within existing juridical structures. A combination
of these factors has contributed to the erosion of the legitimacy of
the state, further exacerbating inter-institutional conflict and stability.
The nineties saw the strengthening of social movements that acquired important political science and that demanded a rethinking
not only of how politics operated, but of the configuration of public
policy itself. Social movements took their demands to the streets,
staging massive protests that frequently paralyzed the economy.
These contentious tactics were met with fear and disdain by the political establishment which failed to effectively respond to their demands, and it is in the backdrop of contesting political discourses
and their consequent tensions that Evo Morales won the Presidential elections. His triumph is part of what has been referred to
as Latin Americas turn to the new populous left after a wave of
the electoral contest clearly rejected the policies inspired by the
Washington consensus which had prevailed in the nineties, and
brought to power left-of-center candidates in Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Chile, et cetera.
A tactical alliance with Venezuela and Cuba has provided Bolivia
with the resources and political support, respectively, to allow Morales to move ahead with radial agendas without compromising
with the opposition.
Strong regionalism permeates social and political relations. The
question of local autonomy has become a serious threat for the
unity of Bolivia. The divide between the center of political power
in La Paz and the economic prosperity in Santa Cruz has called
into question the strongly centralized government in Bolivia. The
ethic divide that accompanies this division has resulted in indigenous population who live mostly in western Bolivia supporting
Moraless quest to retain that centralism as a feature of the new
constitution while the white and mestizo population of eastern Bolivian states, the media luna, demand greater autonomy from the
center. Morales agenda has been defined not only by the opposition
but also by the more radical sector of his party, the MAS, which
is quick to remind him of the promises he made before and during
the Presidential elections.
In 2008, a record fiscal surplus and robust monetary reserves, resulting from increased taxation of hydrocarbons and mining companies and the global commodity boom, have left Bolivia with financial benefits. However, in 2009 and beyond will be much more challenging. In addition, Bolivia is now dealing with an 8.7 inflation
rate, the fifth highest in Latin America as per the World Bank. The
5.5 average growth in GDP will likely not be maintained as the
global financial crisis affects Bolivia, creating a wide ranging slowdown.
The Bolivian Minister of Finance has confirmed that Bolivian exports, including hydrocarbons, minerals, and soya byproducts have
already suffered an acute deceleration.
The 12 foreign companies that operate in Bolivia in the hydrocarbon space, already rattled by the nationalization of the countrys
gas and oil sector, are awaiting implementation of the hydrocarbons law required by the new constitution, are wary of getting
more involved.
The only United States company operating in this sector in Bolivia is Occidental. Exxon-Mobil pulled out a few years ago. The
electrical sector in Bolivia, which was a wash with U.S. investors
Duke, Econergy, PPL Globalhave dwindled to one, plus a few European investors, and they are concerned that their sector might be
next in being nationalized.
The perception of the foreign direct investor is that current government has no problem in not following contracts and that the
legal system is not up to normal standards.
For the past two decades, U.S. engagement in Bolivia and the
rest of the Andes has focused on security and counter-issuesfavoring unilateral over multilateral intervention. In the final
months of the Bush administration, U.S. relations with Bolivia
turned from bad to worse, including Bolivias expulsion of the U.S.
Ambassador Goldberg, and the United States expulsion of Bolivian
Ambassador Gustavo Guzman, as well as the subsequent expulsion
of DEA.
There are lessons to be learned from the current crisis, and there
is hope that United States-Bolivian relations might improve if the
Obama administration is open to a new approach. Obviously,
Washington has more obvious priorities than Bolivia, and the current environment in La Paz is no guarantee that conciliatory overtures from the U.S. administration would immediately be reciprocated.
All politicos in La Paz follows with the closest attention any developments in Washington that could have an impact on their
country. The opposite is true in Washington. United States relations with Bolivia rank far down in the hierarch of foreign policy
concerns. During the cold war Bolivia had at least some limited leverage, based on the possibility that La Paz might switch sides.
But in the war on terror Bolivia has limited importance, and even
in the war on drugs it is a second tier player.
On the flip side, a Morales administration that has limited hope
of securing construction relations with Bolivia may well gain domestic political capital from pursuing the opposite course since one
result can be to cast rival political parties and future candidates
in the role of disloyal instructions of an overbearing foreign policy.
As the current U.S. administration attempts to establish its eroded international soft power and to repair its tarnished reputation
as a benevolent regional power, it is essential to recognize that Morales also possesses similar assets and a legitimate democratic
mandate, which has been reaffirmed during the recent referenda
processes. U.S. policy measures designed to discipline his governments conduct are more likely to stiffen its resistance and to hurt
the Bolivian people by further reducing their desire for social
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rebolledo follows:]
Dr. Daremblum.
STATEMENT OF JAIME DAREMBLUM, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW,
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES, HUDSON INSTITUTE
Mr. DAREMBLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee.
Mr. SIRES. Can you please turn the microphone on
Mr. DAREMBLUM. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Republican Member Connie Mack, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am honored to be
speaking with you today on the topic of U.S. relations with Bolivia.
Since the election of President Evo Morales in December 2005,
those relations have steadily deteriorated. Meanwhile, political polarization on ethic tensions in Bolivia have increased substantially.
Bolivia suffers from extremely high levels of poverty and inequality, and is divided sharply along racial and geographic lines. Economic disparities, cultural resentments and repeated attacks from
democracy by the Morales government have turned Bolivia into a
bubbling caldron of instability.
Morales seems bent on copying the authoritarian leftism of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. His policies have triggered political violence and raised the specter of large-scale turmoil.
Bolivia has long been a fracture society. Indeed, it is really two
societies, one consisting of poor indigenous Bolivians who are concentrated in the western highland departments, the other made up
of mixed-race mestizos and whites who dominate the eastern lowland departments. Eastern Bolivia is the more prosperous region
and serves as the countrys economic engine even though most Bolivians live in the west. A majority of the population is indigenous.
Morales is the first Indian to ever be elected President. Bolivia is
the poorest country in South America and the overwhelming majority of its poor citizens are Indians.
Bolivia desperately needs a true national leader who can repair
its many riffs. Unfortunately, Morales is not that type of leader.
When he was first elected in 2005, a former cocoa grower boasted
fairly broad support across different racial and economic groups.
Yet he has pursued this discriminatory and exclusionary policies
designed to benefit Bolivias Indians at the expense of its mestizos
and white.
Morales has made no serious effort to bridge the countrys severe
social camps. In fact, he has done quite the opposite. He has also
eroded Bolivias democratic institutions and attempted to reduce
both the political and economic power of its wealthy eastern departments. Morales has nationalized a significant portion of the Bolivian economy, including the energy sector and is seeking to implement a far-reaching land redistribution agenda. The result is that
Bolivia today is more divided and more polarized than it was when
he first took office. Corruption has grown widespread, and the governments socialistic economic initiatives have spooked foreign investor.
Morales has embraced the political model that thrives on conflict,
on confrontation and on bullying. Much like Hugo Chavez, he uses
anti-Americanism as a political tool and spins wild conspiracy theories about the United States.
Before leaving office, President George W. Bush responded to Bolivias lack of cooperation with U.S. anti-drug efforts by suspending
its privileged trade status under the Andean Trade Preferences Act
and Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. Both require the beneficiary countries provide a certain level of cooperation to U.S. counternarcotics activities. The Bush administration
was justified in suspending Bolivias trade benefits, a suspension
that came after several warnings to the government. No doubt his
decision will have a considerable economic impact on the South
American country, and has been used by Morales domestic propaganda purposes.
In economic terms, those trade preferences mean much more to
Bolivia than they do to the United States. Before they are restored
the Obama administration should insist that the Morales government agree to a meaningful level of anti-drug cooperation. This is
what diplomatic engagement is all about. I generally do not favor
trade sanctions, but this is a special case. The terms of the Andean
trade legislation are quite clear, and Bolivia is the worlds third
largest coca producer and is a key front in the war on drugs.
U.S. interests in Bolivia go beyond counternarcotics programs.
The country has huge deposits of natural gas, and under Morales
it has boosted strategic ties with Iran, partly to aid the development of its energy sector. At a time when Tehran is expanding its
influence across Latin America, its emerging partnership with Bolivia is worrying. There is evidence that Irans warm relationship
with Hugo Chavez, the chief patron and ally of Morales, has allowed the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah to establish a
presence in Venezuela. The Bolivia-Iran connection should not be
overblown, but it should be monitored intently.
In its diplomatic efforts to shore up Bolivian democracy and build
civil society, the United States should work closely with democratic
governments from Europe and South America. It should also promote economic freedom and a more favorable business climate in
Bolivia. In its latest ranking, rankings of the best business climates
around the globe, the World Bank ranks Bolivia 150th out of 181
economies. The only countries in Latin America and the Caribbean
that rank lower are Haiti and Venezuela.
The United States should also address the plight of the poorest
in Bolivia by supporting NGOs working with the National Endowment for Democracy, NED. This would help considerable to dissipate the notion among the Indians, nurtured by President Morales, that the United States is their enemy.
A final point: Thus far President Obama has disappointed those
in Latin America who hoped he would move vigorously to boost
U.S. engagement with the Western Hemisphere. Today, Iran, Russia, China, all these countries are working to strengthen relations
with Latin America. If the United States does not make its own
hemisphere a priority, it risks losing influence there, and that
would be bad for the United States and bad for Latin America.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daremblum follows:]
Mr. Iberkleid.
STATEMENT OF MR. MARCOS IBERKLEID, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AMETEX, AMERICA TEXTIL S.A.
Mr. IBERKLEID. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here
These are difficult times for workers and for private industry in
Bolivia because of the recent suspension from ATPA. Ametex and
other firms are on the brink of collapse. Others have already closed
and thousands of jobs have been lost. Worst of all, hope is fading.
When we first began this journey, the future was very bright.
With the removal of Tariffs, Ametex and many other textile firms
were able to improve facilities, expand training programs and hire
more workers. Ametex stood as a beacon of hope, especially to El
Alto, our poorest and fastest growing city where 50,000 people
enter the job-seeking market each year.
As high-end, low-volume producer, Ametex is a reflection of our
textile industry. The ability of our workers to process orders quickly and at the highest level of quality and our commitment to the
rights of workers and working conditions has earned Ametex an
unparalleled reputation in the region.
Without ATPA, none of this would be possible. For this, we owe
a debt of gratitude to the American people. But ATPA has been
more than an economic boon, it has generated goodwill from the
people of Bolivia to the United States and its people. I witness this
attitude of working Bolivians who still look at the U.S. for their
hopes and dreams. The benefits of ATPA are proven. They have
harnessed the productive capacity of working people and enabled
the expansion of a business sector. Each of these elements is recognized as essential to democratic institutions in developing countries.
But lately the path to the future has narrowed. Before the recent
suspension, ATPA has been extended for short-term periods only,
creating an uncertain business climate. Under these circumstances,
we have barely been able to survive. We have suffered layoffs, diminished revenues, and the migration of our U.S. customers to
more secure producers. Nowadays Ametex is no longer seen as the
vanguard for job creation, but as a worsening proposition.
With the suspension of Bolivia from ATPA, we have experienced
the final heartbreaking blow. Since the suspension, we have been
forced to let go of 1,800 direct and indirect workers from all areas
of the firm. We have had to send the remaining workers, nearly
1,000 employees, on paid leave because there is no work. Our projected annual revenues from the United States have been reduced
by half, and we have lost most of our U.S. customers.
It is true that Bolivian authorities have stated their intention to
secure other markets to replace those in the U.S. that were lost as
a result of the suspension. I have been told that Venezuela is now
in the process of establishing a preferential trade benefit for Bolivia which would allow us to export our goods to their market. But
our relationship with American brands is not easily replaced. We
have become very well suited to the U.S. market and its sophisti-
cated customer base. In contrast, the alternative markets are less
demanding, and therefore we are less competitive.
Chairman Engel, with all that happened last year I believe the
chairman and the members of the committee who visited us last
year would barely recognize the company they visited only last
February. If I could offer a recommendation for the Obama administration, it would be for the United States to stay engaged with
Bolivia by reinstating the benefits and thereby helping the private
sector maintain the jobs that took us so long to build.
With the price of commodities coming down, minerals and gas no
longer seem the solution they did for Bolivia only months ago. We
also see remittances being substantially reduced. With manufacturing now limited due to ATPAs suspension, I foresee more Bolivians migrating to illegal sectors that might bring harm to both Bolivia and the United States.
I believe in the ability of the Bolivian people to build a sustainable life. They have proven they are up to the challenge. On this
path, the United States has been our greatest ally and champion
and we, the workers of Ametex, yours as well. My company and I
stand at the ready and are willing to whatever we can do to help.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for
your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Iberkleid follows:]
Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, and I thank
everybody for their statements and I apologize for not being here.
I had something that I could not help. I want to thank Mr. Sires
for stepping in. I do not want him to get too used to the chair, but
thank you for stepping in, and I know that the testimony was very,
very important.
I am going to ask some questions, but I just want to make a couple of comments that I would have made had I opened the hearing.
Mr. Iberkleid, as you know, I visited your business when I was
in Bolivia, the factory, and I was very heartened to see a leading
example of tens of thousands of jobs that ATPDEA had created. In
fact, it was at your factory that I became convinced that this program was really helping the poor in Bolivia. It is one thing to read
about it. It is another thing to actually see it, and I know that you
are either the largest employer in Bolivia or certainly one of the
largest employers in Bolivia.
Bolivia is the poorest country in South America, and it is a country where 54 percent of the population lives in poverty with a third
earning less than $2 a day, and let us think about that, $2 a day.
So if you look at this program that we have, ATPDEA, it has provided quality jobs to the countrys poor, including many indigenous
women who are among the most historically marginalized members
of society in Bolivia and throughout the Andean region. In fact, Mr.
Iberkleid, we saw some of these indigenous women when we visited
your factory, and, of course, when we spoke with Evo Morales, he
made a point to say that he wanted to do whatever he could to help
the indigenous and he is part of that group.
As everyone knows, Bolivia was suspended as an ATPDEA beneficiary country this past fall, and I am told that since that time,
Mr. Iberkleid, you have been having tremendous financial difficulties, and there have been massive layoffs and you may even be
forced to shut down.
Let me say that there is no one in the Congress more than me
who wants to see improved relations between the United States
and Bolivia, and the reinstatement of Bolivias ATPDEA benefits.
I have met with President Evo Morales twice: Once in La Paz
and the second time in my office right here in Washington, so within the past year I have met with him twice face to face. My message to him in our meetings has been consistent, please help me
to help you. I really want to be an advocate for Bolivia in Washington, but President Morales expulsion of the U.S. Ambassador,
the Israeli Ambassador, and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents, DEA agents, over the past 6 months make it increasingly difficult for me to help.
In particular, our ambassador in Bolivia, Phil Goldberg, I have
known him for many years, even before he was ambassador of Bolivia. So I know him personally. He is a fine career diplomat, not
a political appointee, and knows how to conduct himself, and when
I visited him, he told me that the Bolivian Government was accusing him of everything under the sun, and that these charges were
all false and made up, and trumped up, and I believe that the Bolivian Governments allegations against him were completely unfounded. Both Bolivia and Venezuela did the same thing, charged
our career diplomats, who were our ambassadors, with all kinds of
nonsense, and then expelled them.
I was particularly troubled also by President Morales statement
at a Summit of Latin American Leaders in Brazil just this past December, 3 months ago, and he said, and I want to quote it because
I just came back from the region and other leaders have told me
that he said this, and when we looked it up, this is what we came
up with. Morales said,
We should give the new Government of the United States a
deadline in order to end the embargo on Cuba. If a newly elected U.S. Government does not lift the economic embargo, we
will lift their ambassadors out of our countries.
So he is telling the other countries in Latin America that if the
United States doesnt lift the embargo against Cuba, that everyone
should break relations with the United States, and he is still saying this. He is his own worst enemy. This kind of rhetoric certainly
does not help, especially as the Bolivian Government now attempts
to reach out to the Obama administration and says it wants
ATPDEA benefits, and yet on the other hand every chance Morales
gets to thrash the United States he does it.
And I said to him when he came here, I said, what were you
thinking? You know, you throw out our ambassador, you throw out
our DEA agents, drugs are a problem, and then you want
ATPDEA. Well, you know, your actions have a reaction. It makes
it difficult for me to help you, even though I would like to help you,
but people say, well, is he not the guy who threw out our ambassador and our drug agents, and now he is telling everybody else to
break relations with us?
So it is a problem. I mean, I would like to see both of our countries move quickly to improve relations, but my message to the Bolivian Government is that it takes two to tango. So I would urge
the Morales and the Obama administrations to immediately initiate a high-level bilateral dialogue, and I urge that, which would
result in an exchange of ambassadors, a renewed strategy for joint
counternarcotics efforts, and in turn the reinstatement of ATPDEA
benefits for Bolivia.
But again, it takes two to tango, and I certainly recognize that
Bolivia is a sovereign country, and they are not required to have
our DEA agents present. I know that. But I also believe that the
way in which the agents were expelled is regrettable, very regrettable. And as we look to restore relations and reinstate ATPDEA
we have to find a way to rebuild trust between our leaders and our
two governments, and we must move beyond the constant suspicions, especially in La Paz, where the most negative inference is
drawn from every action and reaction. And even if our two governments do not agree on every detail, there are certainly enough
intersections of our mutual interests to allow more effective cooperation on counternarcotics and other matters.
As I mentioned before, and then I am going to stop, Evo Morales
is Bolivias first indigenous President and is committed to lifting up
impoverished people in his country. He made it a point when we
first met him to say that, and I applaud him for that. I mean, those
are great goals and he should do that, and we should help him. I
congratulated him for his personal achievements, and his commitment to Bolivias poor each time we met.
I come from a labor background, my family, a working class
background, and I would certainly like to help President Morales
and other leaders in Latin America roll back poverty and create
jobs. Yet, I truly believe that President Morales commitment to Bolivias poor could in part be shown by a renewed effort from his
government to improve relations with the United States, which I
believe would, in turn, lead to the return of Bolivias ATPDEA benefits.
So I want to thank you all for your testimony, and I know Mr.
Burton wanted to make a statement, so I am going to let him make
a statement now.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Engel follows:]
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not speak for very
long, it will be very brief.
First of all, I want to apologize to our good friends whom I have
known for so long when I was chairman and then ranking member
for the problems that are being created there in Bolivia. But President Morales and the President of Venezuela seem to be committed
to a Bolivarian kind of revolution which will lead to a socialistic
government and control of all of Latin America, if they have their
I have met with the Vice President of Bolivia. We have talked
face to face and heart to heart, and I think they understand that
the United States is for freedom, democracy and human rights, and
we are not for a socialistic kind of economy that is going to destroy
Bolivia, create more unemployment and exacerbate the problems of
poverty that they have down there right now, and so I do not know
if there is anybody here from the press in Bolivia, but the United
States, in my opinion, at least from my perspective, cannot and will
not support that government down there when they are so repressive as far as economic conditions of that country are concerned,
and their policies can only lead to more poverty and more problems.
So I hope that message gets back to Mr. Morales. We would like
to work with him. I know the chairman feels that way and the
ranking member feels that way, but to support a government that
they are all trying to model on Cuba is not the answer, and I for
one will do everything I can to help the people of Bolivia where we
can, but to oppose the governmental policies of Morales.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Burton.
Let me ask anyone who cares to answer from our witnesses: The
United States and Bolivia in the past have had close relations, but
obviously, as we have mentioned, the relations have deteriorated.
Our USAID programs, particularly those dealing with alternative
development in the Chapare region, and democracy promotion have
been under constant attack. Yet, at the same time, Bolivia remains
one of the largest recipients of United States foreign assistance in
Latin America. In Fiscal Year 2008, Bolivia received an estimated
$100 million. So let me ask you this.
Should the United States cutback on foreign assistance to Bolivia
or should we maintain funding in spite of anti-U.S. rhetoric and actions? Are there any particular areas of U.S. assistance to Bolivia
that should be cut? Are there any areas that should be increased,
and what type of assistance works best in the current environment? Anyone who would like to answer, I am happy to call on
Ambassador, why dont we start with you.
Mr. DESHAZO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As I mentioned in my remarks, I am very much in favor of aid
programs, that I think USAID has played a very important role
over the decades in promoting development in many areas in Bolivia. I would very strongly support enhancements of those programs, especially in areas that are most substantially needed, including health, the environment, and particularly agricultural programs on the Altiplano. There are programs that help create jobs
in indigenous areas, such as El Alto, that have been very successful. In the past, there have been important democracy-building programs conducted by USAID and a very wide variety of other programs. I think the USAID program in Bolivia has been successful
over the years and deserves full support. Thank you.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Ms. Ledebur.
Ms. LEDEBUR. Thank you. It is my assessment that the USAID
funding and projects have become a point of contention in Bolivia
during the Morales administration. It is essential to create a basis
of trust and transparency within which both governments can be
I think that the amount of aid does not need to continue without
restructuring or refocusing that can be agreed upon by both governments. I would suggest that programs that generated a great
deal of conflictand I think it is important to note that I have
been in Bolivia for 20 years,and I have worked in the Chapare region on the ground in the coca growing region and evaluated
USAID projects for the past 10 yearsthat it is important not to
just maintain a quantity of projects without looking at their nature.
I do have concerns with the way that USAID projects work in
terms of the contractors and the flow of information that reaches
Washington. We do not necessarily have a precise view here of exactly what happens as the information makes its way up the bureaucratic channel.
I would propose that Bolivia and the United States arrive at an
agreement of a low level of cooperation through USAID, with transparency measures incorporated, on issues that are of concern of
both the Obama and Morales administrations, such as education,
healthcare, and poverty alleviation. This is the key to build trust
through lower-level cooperation instead of programs that have generated a great deal of friction, including regional assistance to departmental governments, when there are no transparency measures to regulate their relationship with the central government,
and democracy promotion programs, which have also generated
friction. I do not perceive this as a punishment for Bolivia. I do not
perceive this as a result of friction with the Morales administration, but I perceive this as a way to start forming a new foundation, little by little, in a way that both governments can feel satisfied and comfortable. I think that at a point in time where there
is a severe economic crisis within the United States, that we should
begin to focus our priorities in a way that we can improve relations
with Bolivia, but also economize at home.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. When we were there, there was very real
talk about the possibility of Bolivia splitting in two actually. Are
any of you concerned about that or has that subsided by now? Has
that gone back a little bit? Anybody want to take that on? Just
wondering if anybody has a feel for that. Yes.
Ms. LEDEBUR. I think that there has been friction as a result of
regional issues, but that lowland governments and the governments that are seeking autonomy are most specifically seeking a
way to confront Morales to strengthen their power base and regional power. They would actually have very little to gain from seceding from Bolivia, and I assume that that is something that
would not happen in any case happen. In fact, these hydrocarbon
rich departments would have to export their hydrocarbons through
Bolivia to other nations in order to achieve this.
I think it is important to understand the nature of conflict in Bolivia and regional conflict, and the way that the autonomy issue
has been used to reestablish a balance of power within the Bolivian
state, but the prospect of real genuine division would leave these
departments without any leverage against Evo Morales.
Mr. ENGEL. Let me ask one last question, and let me ask this
to Mr. Iberkleid, and then I will turn it over to Mr. Mack.
If Bolivia were to be reinstated as an ATPDEA beneficiary country, could your business recover? And what if Bolivia were to be reinstated say half a year from now, 6 months to 1 year from now,
what are the circumstances? How long does it take to go down the
pipeline?
Mr. IBERKLEID. Chairman, thank you very much.
It will take some time, the damage has been done. We have lost
most of our customers. It is a matter of seeing where the market
is. Right now there is a negative market. The market is
downsizing, and I believe an effort could be made but it will take
1 year or 2 years to reestablish an acceptable size market. It will
not be immediate. It is not like a switch.
Mr. ENGEL. It does not move that fast.
Mr. IBERKLEID. It does not move. It will not move that fast now.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Mack? I think he had a response.
Mr. ENGEL. Oh, Mr. Daremblum. I am sorry
Mr. DAREMBLUM. Some of the issues that you have raised before.
I do not believe it is possible to look at trade preferences or USAID
or any type of cooperation independently of basic diplomatic, modicum relationship, cooperation between Bolivia and the United
States. I feel, however, that we cannot be optimistic in terms of
what is going to happen in the relationship between Bolivia and
the United States, and, of course, we will have to wait until we see
that there is an active engagement between the two of them.
But the dynamic that Mr. Morales has evidenced, not too different from that of Mr. Chavez, it really runs against that basic relationship with the United States as well as with important sectors
of his own society. I do not think we can be optimistic about him
in general, and I think that we have to test whether or not it is
possible to advance diplomatically with Mr. Morales more than has
been possible until today. Thank you.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mack.
Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be here with
you again. I offered to take the chair when you were not here, but
for some reason your side was not too happy about that. [Laughter.]
Mr. ENGEL. We can dream, Mr. Mack. What can I tell you?
[Laughter.]
Mr. MACK. It is good to be with you. Thank you.
You know, as I was listening a question kept coming to mind as
I listened to each one of you speak, that, you know, we have heard
about doing some low-level stuff to keep communications open, but
my question is, would we be better off, as you look at Latin America as a whole, if Evo Morales does not want a relationship with
the United States, would we be better off to take those resources
and support our allies and others that may be in a position, that
want to have a relationship with us?
Because if it is so heated right now, maybe the best thing to do
is say, hey, look, let us take a timeout, let us have a cooling off
period, and we can take those resources and go somewhere else
where we might get more bang for the buck, where we can start
developing relationships with people, and then we can come back
and visit this, because, first of all, the idea that somehow it is the
United States is the bad guy in all of this when it is clear that
Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales and Fidel Castro are all playing
from the same playbook. I mean, it is the steady drum beat. You
know, it is predictable at this point.
So the question is would we be better off looking at the Western
Hemisphere as a whole, to take those resources and support our
friends and allies that need it? Anyone? No one wants to touch
that?
Mr. DESHAZO. I would be happy to respond. I think we have
long-term interests in Bolivia in reaching out to the people of Bolivia regardless of their government. I believe that the kinds of programs that the United States has engaged in over time, especially
related to addressing issues of poverty, education, health, and governance, are matters that have long-term importance for the
United States, and therefore the maintenance of them, I believe,
promotes a positive image of the United States among the people
of Bolivia. We also have other long-term interests that involve the
counternarcotics section of our Embassy and others that are there.
I think that maintaining a base presence of the United States,
a basic presence of support, or even enhancing that support and
looking for other ways to improve long-term people-to-people relations with Bolivia is a very positive thing to do. We may have
short-term difficulties and controversies with one government or
another, but generally I think the policy of long-term engagement
is a good one. Thank you.
Mr. REBOLLEDO. Mr. Mack, thank you.
I think abandoning Bolivia at this point in time or disengaging
would be an enormous error. If we look at the abandonment of Afghanistan in the early eightiesI am sorry?
Mr. ENGEL. The microphone?
Mr. REBOLLEDO. It is on.
Mr. ENGEL. It is on?
Mr. REBOLLEDO. Yes.
Mr. ENGEL. Pull it a little closer if you can.
Mr. REBOLLEDO. Okay. Sorry. So as I was saying, disengaging
with Bolivia at this point in time I believe would be a serious error.
The primary issue between Bolivia and the United States as I
see it is our U.S. counternarcotics policy. I strongly believe that we
should slowly begin to migrate U.S. efforts in this arena to the
multilateral arena with institutions such as the European Union
and the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. They are seen as much
more neutral and could contribute to a better bilateral relationship.
This would obviously mean more funding by the U.S. Government
to U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime.
Having just come back from La Paz, I Had the opportunity to
meet with EU ambassadors, and they are all very concerned with
the departure of DEA, particularly the Brazilians where we are beginning to see a flowwell, we have been seeing a flow of cocaine
smuggling through Brazil to Africa and to Western Europe. But
they also are beginning to come around to this idea of perhaps giving a more important role to the multilateral agencies and having
this whole certification process fall to them. Thank you.
Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Mr. Sires.
Mr. SIRES. Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you for your comments.
I do not know who wants to take this, but with the situation in
the world like it is, you have a country like Bolivia that depends
on foreign investment, trying to promote keep jobs and create for
the people. You have Bolivia is nationalizing. Why would I, if I am
a foreign country, invest in Bolivia when I see the relationship with
Tehran, Venezuela, Cuba? Why would I invest in a country with
the rhetoric that is coming out of Bolivia? Anyone want to answer?
Mr. REBOLLEDO. I will take a stab at it. I think it all has to do
with competitive advantage. So if you
Mr. SIRES. I am sorry?
Mr. REBOLLEDO. It all has to do with competitive advantage. So
if you look at the issue, for example, of lithium right now, which
is an integral part in batteries for hybrid-powered cars, everyone
is now interested in lithium reserves in Bolivia. President Morales
was just in France where he met with various investors
Sumitomo of Japan, Mitsubishi, LG, a South Korean company,
Bollore, a French company. So in their vision the risk is probably
But obviously for the rest of the private sector the lack of transparency in the judicial system and the way the new constitution
deals with foreign direct investment is a major problem.
Mr. SIRES. Anyone else like to take a stab at it? Ambassador?
Mr. DESHAZO. Well, clearly the response to the Morales administration has been a large drop off in foreign direct investment. I
think probably the key area here has been the hydrocarbons sector,
where foreign investment has tailed off substantially, leading to
problems with production, which coupled with lower prices for natural gas, will mean a difficult economic situation for the Morales
administration as it moves forward.
Bolivia has the second largest natural gas reserves in Latin
America. It was poised to be a gas hub for the entire region, and
now it cannot honor its contracts with some of its foreign clients.
So it has been an opportunity that up until now has been lost, and
it has been lost largely because of lack of investment, and there is
a tremendous potential there. Thank you.
Mr. REBOLLEDO. I would like to add one more thing if I may. It
is interesting to see as well that President Morales is now focusing
on state-to-state investment in Bolivia. We are seeing a possible
GAZPROM investment, PDVSA (Venezuelan state oil company) investments, the Iranian National Oil Company. So far the only positive state-to-state investment that he has had and that has thrived
is Petrobras, and even that relationship is a tenuous one. Thank
Mr. SIRES. You know, somebody mentioned before that we should
be going away from an anti-narcotic relationship and evolve into
another relationship. What other relationship could we get involved
in other thanfine, I will let you
Mr. IBERKLEID. Our suggestion is to help Bolivians have a better
life, to create an opportunity for themselves.
Mr. SIRES. We have been doing that all along though, have we
not?
Mr. IBERKLEID. We have, but we have pulled the carpet under
the floor in the last couple of years because ATPA was a great instrument to build that, and we no longer have an ATPA.
Mr. SIRES. But that our reaction to an action.
Mr. IBERKLEID. Yes. Yes. However, I must say that it is through
the private sector that we can build these opportunities and it is
the private sector who is hurting right now because of these reactions. That is why we are asking for a reconsideration of this policy
Mr. SIRES. Anyone else?
Ms. LEDEBUR. I think it is essential to note that the conditioned
role of narcotics policy and the central focus on counternarcotics in
Bolivia has focused a great deal on the elimination of the coca leaf
and coca leaf eradication. I would suggest that moving away from
that, and looking at poverty alleviation, education and health care
is a way to stimulate other economic opportunities to focus on
something that is viable for both nations.
It is important to note that, not only has the counternarcotics
focus created great friction, but it has also impeded progress in
many, many other areas. The certification process and the way that
it is carried out tends to generate a great deal of friction throughout Latin America.
I also agree with Ivan. De-narcoticizing the relationship and focusing on areas of common concern, a multilateral approach, using
European partners and the U.N. are important. But also looking at
the Andes as a region and how to deal with things regionally, to
not focus solely on coca production are essential to improve relations. It is important to note that while the relations have been focused on anti-narcotics, coca production for the last 20 years has
continued to rise in the Andean region. We have not been meeting
our goals and we have not improved relations as a result of the policy that has been implemented.
Mr. ENGEL. I think Dr. Daremblum
Mr. ENGEL. Dr. Daremblum, I think, wants to answer
Mr. DAREMBLUM. About private investment, the conditions that
exist seem to be in the immediate future in Bolivia are not conducive to foreign investment in the country in terms of certainty
about the judiciary, certainly about the political stability of the
country itself.
I do not believe, and I have to go back to our initial discussion,
but prior to talk about stimulating private investment and to helping in this and any other field in Bolivia, it is important to establish a framework on what the relationship of the United States
with Bolivia is going to be. The only way of creating that or agreeing on that framework, which of course is a prerequisite of all the
others, is something that should be handled at the highest level
and as soon as the Obama administration is ready to engage in the
Western Hemisphere.
On the other hand, I do not believe that the United States should
not have a diplomatic presence in Bolivia. They are friends of the
United States. There are sectors in which the United States can
carry on an engagement, important sectors of Bolivia society, and
therefore I do believe that the presence of the Embassy and a basic
type of presence of the United States in Bolivia continuing is very
important. Thank you.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good being with
you again. I am sorry you were late. I understand you had a little
difficulty getting in.
Mr. ENGEL. I did, but I must say it seems strange not having you
in your usual seat.
Mr. BURTON. Well, you have got a good man sitting next to you.
His dad and I were good friends. We watched Chariots of Fire in
my living room floor when he was a kid.
But let me start off by saying it is really nice being with you
guys, and I would love, I would love to be able to be very optimistic
about our relationship with Bolivia. When I was here in the
eighties and I remember the Communist and the Leftist, Fidel Castro, and Nicaragua and everybody in thethe FLMN in El Salvador was trying to move everything to the left, and Ronald
Reagan and his administration did everything we could to create
democracy in the Central and South America, and as a result we
saw democracy flourish all over Latin America and Central America.
Now we have seen with Mr. Chavez everything is starting to
move to the left. He has taken an awful lot of his oil money and
used it not to enhance the lives and quality of life for his people
there in Venezuela, but he has used it to try to cause revolution
in South America and Central America, his Bolivarian goals, and
Mr. Morales is going along with him.
They have kicked out the DEA and our ambassador. They have
kind of roughed up, at least metaphorically speaking, our Peace
Corps people, and you know, they are moving to the left, and I cannot understand, and I am very sympathetic to you and your textile
business and the kind of problems that you are encountering. My
gosh, you have been a good trading partner. But the problem is not
with you, it is with the government, and when I see these countries
moving to the left, as they did back in the eighties, it seems like
a repeat of an old movie, and I do not want Raul Castro to emulate
his brother, and I do not want Chavez to be able to use the oil
money to promote revolution and move to the left and destroy democracies and move toward socialism, and I want to see Mr. Morales, along with Mr. Chavez and Mr. Ortega in Nicaragua continue to push everything to the left because that is destructive not
only of their countries but of all of Latin America.
I understand what you are saying about we really need to do
something to help the people down there and we should do it
through USAID, but you have got to do that with the governments
help. You cannot do it with him opposing us on everything that we
are trying to do.
You know, those who do not profit from history are destined to
have the same result over and over again, and I have used this
comparison many times and I know it is not this severe, but I remember when I was going to school, and we read about Lord
Chamberlain going to Munich to try to appease Hitler and say, hey,
we want to get along with you. What do we have to do to get along?
And we ended up with 5060 million people being killed.
Now that is probably not going to happen in Latin America, but
we could see an awful lot of additional poverty and strife down
there, and maybe more war like we saw in Nicaragua and El Salvador if we continue to let these Leftist governments move the way
they are, the way they have been moving, and we ought to be doing
everything we can, in my opinion, to bring about some positive
change as they did during the Reagan years, toward democracy,
and allowing Mr. Chavez and Mr. Morales and other countries
down there that are moving to the left to continue to be able to get
what they want and to negotiate with them on their terms is to encourage them and to encourage the movement to the left that Fidel
Castro was pushing so hard for during his reign in Cuba.
I am just concerned about giving our money to governments like
the one of Mr. Morales. I am very concerned about working with
them when they are showing nothing but animosity toward the
United States. And you have talked about our economic problems
here in the U.S., and I believe we ought to be very concerned about
the U.S. economy first, and then be concerned about the rest of the
world. Charity begins at home, and then we should help the rest
of the people in this world that are our friends, and the ones that
continue to oppose us, in my opinion, should get zip, and we should
let them know that if they want our help, if they want to work with
us, we want to work with them.
We will negotiate with them, we will talk with them, and we will
do everything we can to help them and their economies as long as
they are willing to talk, but when they kick our ambassador out,
kick the DEA out, bully our people that are working in the Embassy down there and our Peace Corps volunteers, I cannot see
why in the world we should do anything, and I apologize to the
businesses down there that are trying to flourish, but I do not
know how to help them as long as Morales has the attitude he has,
and I am very sympathetic to you, I really am. I wish the dickens
we could do something, but we cannot do it with that government
in power unless they are wiling to talk and negotiate with us.
Mr. ENGEL. Would you like anyone to comment, Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. You are welcome to comment.
Mr. ENGEL. If notsee, after Mr. Burton speaks everyone is
speechless. [Laughter.]
If not, we will ask Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. It is really good to hear your
testimony. I think that it is a great tribute to Bolivia that for the
first time in its history they have elected an indigenous person to
lead the country, and I do believe that to try to right wrongs of the
past is not necessarily the worst thing in the world to do. As a mat-
ter of fact, if we try to accentuate the positive, the foreign minister,
I think, recently said that Bolivia wants to construct a positive relationship with the United States, and we are talking about reestablishing our ambassador, he said, and went on to congratulate
the U.S. for eliminating Guantanamo Bay base, and said this is a
step in the right direction.
As a matter of fact, even Senator Lugar, who is from Indiana,
good friend of Mr. Burtons, said that if our two countries can continue to speakand this was only about 3 or 4 weeks agocontinue to speak to one another respectfully, and if we can each designate ambassadors, yet another step would be taken to ensure
that these developments represent a positive new stage in the relationship between the United States and Bolivia.
So I do think, in my opinion, that we can, with the new administration, move toward perhaps a new beginning.
I do not think it is necessarily bad that a country moves to the
left. You know, France moved to the left at one time. We did not
stop relations with France. We see some countries have elections
that move to the right, the new elections in Israel that moved to
the right. That is fine. That is what the people wanted. If the people in Bolivia wanted to move to the left, then that is what they
want. I think we need to learn to work with countries and try to
have some assistance.
Let me just finally say about the Peace Corps being expelled, actually a Peace Corps volunteer admitted that he was asked by the
U.S. Embassy in Bolivia to basically spy, to see whether there were
Cubans or Venezuelan doctors or anyone else in the country. He jus
said the Embassy told him to do that.
So, you know, sometimes when these actions happen, I think we
have got to be fair about the way that we disseminate information.
Now, I hope that Bolivia would be pro-democracy, love America,
do the right thing, but I do think too by the same token that we
have a responsibility to have the facts out straight, and I think our
goal should be to try to see if we can forge relationships and to try
to lower the rhetoric and try to see where there can be ways in
which our two countries who for so many years have had a good
relationship, can continue to have a decent relationship.
So since we are going to have a vote soon, I will just kind of conclude that I would hope that we can move in a positive way to
seeand the other thing is a lot of the money that we are spending
there, of course, is to try to eradicate the drug problem, the coca
problem, and I wish we could. However, there would be no big market for it if Americans were not buying it all. We are the ones with
the money. It is everybodys problem to work on this whole thing,
and I would rather see us spend money on education for Americans
and other people using it, and we do not need to waste a lot of
money on eradication. Thank you.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Mr. Meeks.
Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think I am late getting here, but I heard you say that it takes two to tango, and I
agree, on both sides. Bolivia has to do its side and we have to do
our side.
I recently read where a quote of a person from Bolivia says,
With my humble vote, I am creating a little bit of hope for my
children. That is what Imira, an Indian woman, said after voting
in January for Bolivias new constitution.
People are looking at, and I am one who has favored working and
trading with Bolivia, and I think we have to find a way to do that,
but on a different platform from which we have in the past. When
you look at the bright side of things, democracy does live in Bolivia.
The people voted. The people voted. That is what democracy is all
about. Not the United States to come in and say, well, you did not
vote the way we want you to vote, or you are not moving the way
we tell you to vote. People do not want to be told. They want an
honest answer, respect us. The people of Bolivia talking. So why
cant their vote be respected? It is their country, and it is our job
to figure out how to work collectively with them.
Many of these individuals have never had an opportunity to have
a voice in government before. Now they have a voice. I think that
is a good thing. Democracy is not something that you just throw
around and jus say it happens. It took us a long time to do it right
here. I mean, I can recall that just a few years ago, you know, it
is not hard for me to remember that we had to amend our constitution. It is called the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution that prohibited discrimination against voters, and it
was ratified in 1870. But even in this great country it was not until
1965, with the Voting Rights Act, that African-Americans began to
have true freedom and exercise the right and responsibility to vote.
As we all say, we did not have a democracy.
There is a democracy going on in Bolivia. There is a democracy
going on in other places. If you talk to other leaders on the hemisphere, that is what they like. You talk to President Lula as I
have. When he was in New York, he recently said while he was sitting alongside President Morales that we will not have lasting
prosperity if all our South American brothers do not have prosperity as well. That is what we should wish for them. But we
should not say that you come in and jus do what I tell you to do
because I am the United States of America and I am bigger than
you. I have more military power than you.
I think that is why we are looked at in a bad way, and I am
hopeful that there is a new message that is being sent by the new
administration; that we are going to be moving in a different direction. Foreign policy is not going to be conducted the same as it has
been for the last 8 years, and to me that is a positive because when
we work together, as we have in the beginning until we get into
these rhetoric conversations, is beneficial for the Bolivians and it
is beneficial for the United States of America, and that is what we
have got to look at for that compromise. Down the middle. We can
talk to one another and figure out how we can do together.
I think, for example, when it comes to economic ties we must figure out how to address the ATPDA with Bolivia. This program has
proven successful in Bolivia; has created jobs and given hope to
1,000 of hard-working Bolivians. I look forward to working with a
new path on the ATPDEA and drug cooperation this year.
But I conclude with a statement that was made by a little boy.
It was an article that I read just a few minutes ago on the way
here and reading. It was from a boy from a remote farm in Bolivia
whereand he was an indigenous boy, and he told reporters, Now
we can be equal to the others. Now there should be no more discrimination.
That young boy has hope for a better tomorrow because people
were able to participate in a democracy, and for the first time individuals who for decades did not have a voice in their own government finally has a voice. That is a good thing. They are proud of
the fact that they have an indigenous President who not only represents them, but represents the old country just as I am proud of
the fact that in the United States of America I have President
Barack Obama who happens to be an African-American but represents all of the people of the United States. It is democracy at
work, and we should applaud that.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Meeks.
We have a vote so I am not going to prolong the hearing, but I
just want to throw out a couple of things, and these are things to
think about. President Bush, in September, decertified Bolivia by
adding it to the list of countries that failed to live up to their obligations under the International Narcotics Agreements, and one of
the things we need to think about is if President Bush decertified
Bolivia, is it something that we should negotiate now with the Bolivian Government to see if they would change their policies and
perhaps would not be decertified.
The other thing is that President Obama has the authority to
unilaterally reinstate Bolivia as an ATPDEA beneficiary country
anytime, and so the question will be should he do it, should it be
without preconditions and immediately, or should the reinstatement of ATPDEA be contingent upon either an exchange of ambassadors and/or the return of U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration,
DEA personnel, and the recertification of Bolivia, someone cooperating with us in the fight against drugs. These are all questions
that we are going to have to look at, and hopefully will be answered in the not too distant future.
I want to thank our guests for testifying. The testimony was certainly very interesting. Obviously, this is going to continue and
United States-Bolivian relations are going to be something that we
can continue to monitor, and talk about.
I want to just say that when we are looking at the decertification, ATPDEA, and the removal of our ambassadors, we also ought
to look at the Peace Corps. I think, was it Mr. Payne who mentioned the Peace Corps, the Peace Corps unilaterally, Peace Corps
left Bolivia citing growing instability, and announced the suspension of its operations in Bolivia, and there was a removal of 113
U.S. volunteers that came shortly after the expulsion of our ambassador, and the question is was it tit for tat? Should it be tit for tat?
Should we use the Peace Corps as a tool in diplomacy, or was this
just something that really didnt have anything to do with the removal of the ambassadors? That is also something that we will continue to monitor and something that is very interesting for us to
So I want to thank our witnesses. I want to thank you very
I want to announce that either on March 18 or March 19 this
subcommittee, in conjunction with Representative Cuellar, who
chairs a subcommittee on the Homeland Security Committee, will
be having a joint hearing on Mexico, and the problems with the
drug cartels and the ongoing violence and the increase in violence
in Mexico involving drugs. There is an article in todays Washington Times on the front page which talks about the drug cartels
in Mexico having 100,000 soldiers that it controls, and the Mexican
Government only has a little bit more than 100,000. So this is very,
very serious when the drug cartels have as many people as the entire Mexican Government in terms of soldiers, and we look at the
possible destabilization of that country.
Our subcommittee just came back from a trip to Mexico where
we had discussions with President Calderon for a long, long time.
And so that will be on March 18 or 19. We are still finalizing the
time and the place, but that will be with Congressman Cuellar, and
it will be both our subcommittees, so I hope people will come, and
we can get to the core of the problems in Mexico.
So, again, thank you for testifying
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ENGEL. Yes, Mr. Meeks.
Mr. MEEKS. I would like to submit my entire opening remark for
the record, without objection.
Mr. ENGEL. Without objection, so ordered. His entire remarks
will be part of the record.
Thank you, again. Thanks, Mr. Mack and all the witnesses for
testifying, and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
MATERIAL SUBMITTED
HEARING RECORD
[NOTE: The annexes included with the prior material are not reprinted here but
are available in committee records.]
Documents Similar To HOUSE HEARING, 111TH CONGRESS - U.S.-BOLIVIA RELATIONS: LOOKING AHEAD
Moel Yadi
Gemechis Teferi
Ranita Lakra
MaileCannon
RecordTrac - City of Oakland
The Valley Indy
Erald Qordja
Edgar Contreras García
yakly
citypaper
leiderman
USAID@SARI
aimthm
MDSep2008
USG - Af-Pak Regional Stabilization Strategy
Integrating Gender throughout a Project's Life Cycle: A guidance document for international development organizations and practitioners
SolutionMUS
Pierre Verger by Revue Noire
NayaneFontes
More From Scribd Government Docs
Wilson v. Dowling, 10th Cir. (2017)
Consolidation Coal Company v. OWCP, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Kieffer, 10th Cir. (2017)
Harte v. Board Comm'rs Cnty of Johnson, 10th Cir. (2017)
Brown v. Shoe, 10th Cir. (2017)
Greene v. Tennessee Board, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Olden, 10th Cir. (2017)
Coyle v. Jackson, 10th Cir. (2017)
THI of New Mexico at Vida Enca v. Lovato, 10th Cir. (2017)
City of Albuquerque v. Soto Enterprises, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Garcia-Damian, 10th Cir. (2017)
Pecha v. Lake, 10th Cir. (2017)
Apodaca v. Raemisch, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Roberson, 10th Cir. (2017)
Payn v. Kelley, 10th Cir. (2017)
Northglenn Gunther Toody's v. HQ8-10410-10450, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Voog, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Workman, 10th Cir. (2017)
Webb v. Allbaugh, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Muhtorov, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Kundo, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Windom, 10th Cir. (2017)
Robles v. United States, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Magnan, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Henderson, 10th Cir. (2017)
NM Off-Hwy Vehicle Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Kearn, 10th Cir. (2017)
Farrell-Cooper Mining v. DOI, 10th Cir. (2017)
2010 Government Waste: Earmarks
Levitator
Flava Works vs. Myvidster, Marques Rondale Gunter, Salsa Indy, LLC. Disclosure Statement Filed by Attorney Joseph C. Gratz for Google Inc. and Facebook, Inc
Miles v. Hays County Jail - Document No. 4
The Accusation That Salafis Are the Neo Murji'Ah
Abdul Kareem Ibn Ozzie
STOKES, Music and Global Order
Carlos Cavallini
Unit 4 Rain.pdf
NaGamani KanDan
gender performativity project
CV Tarun Das for PFM Expert July 2016
Professor Tarun Das
Conclusions and Invitation to Comment
ThamesWater
We The Educators - Literature Review (ENGLISH)
We The Educators
Constitutional Law revewer
George Mikhail Erandio
Wake Forest Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee report on Koch Foundation funding
Edilion, Adm. Case No. 1928
jerushabrainerd
IHRM unit 4
chowmow
Australian Privacy Law & Practice - Pt2
joanabud
Alcantara vs. Director of Prisons
John Johns
Independent Candidates Run Against Voter Apathy
votejohnrichardson
QandA Magna Carta
Realyn Austria
Elizabeth Crowley's letter regarding Maspeth Homeless Shelter
crainsnewyork
Stephen Sills
Statutory Construction Agpalo
Hazel Anne Mariano
Gender Role Portrayal...
soknaran
Promotion of Philippiune Micro Hydropower Technology in Region 4A.pptx
coeng2
HOUSE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - LEGISLATION RELATED TO TRADE WITH CHINA
The American Labor Movement at a Crossroads - Labor_conference_agenda_final_copy_0
GilbertHuber
LET Reviewer in Philippine Government and Constitution With Taxation Part 2
Cruz L Antonio
Brazil and the Nuclear Issues in the Years of The


RY is Australia's biggest online beauty retailer with premium beauty brands across skincare, haircare and makeup. Based on the Gold Coast, They are proud to be an authorized retailer for all brands sold on RY.
6% cash back on New Bodycare.
5% cash back on Existing Bodycare.
1% cash back on Technology.
Click a Coupon or click Start Shopping to earn Up to 6% Cash Back at RY.com.au.


*2016 Elantra. Stock #H1160. 36 month lease 10,000 miles per year. $3280 plus 1st payment due at lease inception. Includes 1,750 Retail bonus cash & 500 valued or competitive owner coupon. Plus tax, doc, fees and freight. With approved credit. Financing thru HMFC.


text:
Alfred Vincent Kidder, född 29 oktober 1885 i Marquette, Michigan, död 11 juni 1963, amerikansk arkeolog.

Arkeologer började studera sydvästra USA på ett systematiskt sätt 1913. Nels C. Nelson och Alfred V. Kidder genomförde stratigrafiska utgrävningar för att klargöra den kulturella kronologin. I An introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology (1924) ställer Kidder upp den första kulturhistoriska syntesen för något område i USA. Studien publicerades året före Childes The Dawn of European Civilization. Kidder behandlar däri arkeologiskt material från nio flodområden och delar in dem i fyra efter varandra följande perioder av kulturella utveckling:

 korgmakare
 efterkorgmakare
 prepueblo
 pueblo

Varje period kallas kultur medan regionala variationer längs flodsystemen också benämns kulturer: Chihuahua Basin, Mimbres och Lower Gila. Trots att termen kultur ännu inte fått någon fix betydelse började något att utvecklas som påminde om begreppet arkeologisk kultur. Men det var Kidders kronologi som intresserade andra arkeologer.

Externa länkar
 Biografi över Alfred V. Kidder

Amerikanska arkeologer
Personer från Marquette, Michigan
Födda 1885
Avlidna 1963
Män

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Proposed lobster ban spurs outcry
Updated Apr 01, 2019; Posted Jul 23, 2010
2009 ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE PHOTOLobstermen work last summer off Matinicus Island, Maine. A proposed ban on lobster fishing in large parts of the Atlantic has the lobster industry up in arms.
A proposal to ban lobster fishing over a vast stretch of the East Coast would do "almost biblical" damage to the industry just as the species seems to be rebounding, lobstermen said yesterday.
Dozens of lobstermen traveled to Warwick for a meeting of the board that advises the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission on lobster rules.
The board is considering ways to help a species that's been struggling since a population crash a decade ago, including a possible five-year moratorium on lobstering from south of Cape Cod to North Carolina. A decision is expected by late this year.
Lobstermen told the American Lobster Management Board the species was in far better shape than scientists say and argued it should give less severe conservation measures time to work.
"What we have now, there is no disaster," said Bart Mansi, a lobsterman from Guilford, Conn. "The board is making a disaster."
The moratorium was recommended by the board's technical committee in May. The commission will consider other options — including no change to the current rules, which include measures that protect smaller lobsters and reproductive females — before making a final decision, expected by the end of the year.
WEIGHING OPTIONS
Yesterday, the board discussed commissioning a peer review of the science behind the recommended ban, though some said a ban shouldn't even be considered because it would kill the industry.
"The board needs to confront the reality of destroying the fishery to save the lobsters," said Bill McElroy, a Rhode Island lobsterman and board member. "It doesn't really do anybody any good."
Carl Wilson, head of the lobster board's technical committee, said the group was keenly aware of the effect a ban would have on the industry. The panel wouldn't have recommended it if the stock wasn't in such dire condition, he said.
During a presentation yesterday, Carl Wilson, head of the lobster board's technical committee, said the moratorium aimed to give a generation of lobsters a chance to rebound. He added five years might not be long enough to allow that, which prompted grumbling in the room.
The region under review is called the southern New England region, although it extends from south of the tip of Cape Cod to North Carolina. It accounts for 5 percent to 7 percent of the Northeast's lobster catch; the rest is trapped north of Cape Cod to Maine. Roughly 2,000 to 3,000 full- and part-time lobstermen work in the southern New England region, according to the commission.
The area once accounted for as much as a quarter of the Northeast's catch, and its lobster population peaked at about 35 million in the late 1990s. But the stock sank to about 13 million by 2003 and is estimated at about 15 million today.
UNKNOWN CAUSES
Scientists cannot explain the recent population crash, but possible factors include overfishing, a 1996 Rhode Island oil spill and a disfiguring shell disease.
In its May report, the technical committee said warmer water may be holding back stocks, since that drives lobsters to cooler, deeper waters — away from prime spawning grounds and to places where more predators lurk.
Lobstermen suggested the downturn may be cyclical. They said they're seeing more and bigger lobsters.
"I don't know how we woke up thinking there was this picture of doom and gloom," said Joe Horvath of Belmont, N.J. "I've been fishing for 40 years. ... I don't see any crash of the fishery."
Albert Rosinha of Westport, Mass., said, "I'm seeing a totally different picture in my traps."

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Johannes Fritsch Seminar
Content not available. Access may granted for research purposes at the discretion of the UC San Diego Library. For more information please contact the Digital Library Development Program at dlp@ucsd.edu
Restricted to UC San Diego use only
between 1973 and 1990
Concerto da Camera (excerpts)
Concertos (Violin with string ensemble)
Partita (excerpts)
Electronic and viola music
Violectra (excerpts)
Synthesizer and viola d'amore music
Center for Music Experiment Recordings Archives
Fritsch, Johannes
University of California, San Diego. Center for Music Experiment.
View formats within this collection
Digital Object Made Available By
Digital Library Development Program, UC San Diego, La Jolla, 92093-0175 (https://lib.ucsd.edu/digital-library)
Under copyright (US)
Use: This work is available from the UC San Diego Library. This digital copy of the work is intended to support research, teaching, and private study.
Constraint(s) on Use: This work is protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Use of this work beyond that allowed by "fair use" requires written permission of the copyright holder(s). Responsibility for obtaining permissions and any use and distribution of this work rests exclusively with the user and not the UC San Diego Library. Inquiries can be made to the UC San Diego Library program having custody of the work.
Johannes Fritsch


We calculated distance with our calculator and with the help of International map agencies and distance between Sant Agostino Milan Metro and Milan Malpensa Airport MXP is 120 km.
If you go from Sant Agostino Milan Metro to Milan Malpensa Airport MXP, with normal traffic conditions and non-stop driving, you reach final destination in 1,5 hours.
Depend on car conditions and fuel quality, to travel from Sant Agostino Milan Metro to Milan Malpensa Airport MXP with car transport, you need 7 gallons gallons of petrol, which will cost around 10 $ with average prices.