[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. DISENGAGEMENT FROM LATIN AMERICA:
COMPROMISED SECURITY AND
ECONOMIC INTERESTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 25, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-136
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-335 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
______
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
TREY RADEL, Florida--resigned 1/27/ GRACE MENG, New York
14 deg. LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
MATT SALMON, Arizona, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina Samoa
RON DeSANTIS, Florida THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TREY RADEL, Florida--resigned 1/27/ ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
14 deg.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Otto J. Reich, president, Otto Reich Associates,
LLC............................................................ 7
Mr. Ilan I. Berman, vice president, American Foreign Policy
Council........................................................ 23
Mr. Mauricio Claver-Carone, executive director, Cuba Democracy
Advocates...................................................... 35
Mr. Michael Shifter, president, Inter-American Dialogue.......... 44
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Otto J. Reich: Prepared statement.................. 10
Mr. Ilan I. Berman: Prepared statement........................... 26
Mr. Mauricio Claver-Carone: Prepared statement................... 38
Mr. Michael Shifter: Prepared statement.......................... 46
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 68
Hearing minutes.................................................. 69
U.S. DISENGAGEMENT FROM LATIN AMERICA:
COMPROMISED SECURITY AND
ECONOMIC INTERESTS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:10 p.m., in
room 2255 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Matt Salmon
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Salmon. We have kept everybody waiting for quite some
time and so without objection, with unanimous consent, a quorum
being present, the subcommittee will come to order, and I am
going to start by recognizing myself, since I am the only one
here, and then I believe the ranking member will be coming as
well.
We just had a series of votes on the floor and it is that
time of year. But without objection, the members of the
subcommittee can submit their opening remarks for the record
and I am going to yield myself as much time as I may consume to
present an opening statement.
Good afternoon and welcome to this hearing where we will
have the opportunity to discuss the United States'
disengagement from Latin America, and what the long and short
term implications are of that disengagement.
Just 2 weeks ago, Secretary of State John Kerry testified
before the full Foreign Affairs Committee on the State
Department's Fiscal Year 2015 budget where he failed to even
mention the Western Hemisphere, our hemisphere, in his opening
remarks.
The point that I made to the Secretary was that the
administration needs to come up with a coherent strategy for
the region, one that considers our national security and
commercial interests, and one that celebrates and supports the
aspirations of individuals seeking liberty and the respect of
democratic principles.
The Secretary's failure to even mention our own hemisphere
is particularly disconcerting when we consider everything that
is going on in the region--the fact that Cuba continues to
repress its people and and has been caught violating U.N.
sanctions and shipping weapons to North Korea through the
Panama Canal, that Venezuelan President Maduro has been
violently crushing legitimate democratic protests, the wave of
antagonism to us and our interests emanating from Ecuador,
Bolivia and elsewhere that our strategic adversaries such as
Russia, Iran and China have taken of note--taken note of our
absence in the region and are establishing footholds right here
in our neighborhood.
Instead of addressing this strategic failure, the
administration is focused on climate change initiatives,
funding solar panel projects in the highlands regions of
Guatemala and elsewhere on the taxpayer's dime.
Sadly, when I mentioned these concerns to Secretary Kerry,
he spent his entire time pontificating about the environment in
the Pacific Islands and a typhoon in the Philippines, further
making my point that we are taking our eye off the ball on the
Western Hemisphere and focusing on other things and, clearly,
showing a lack of strategy for the Western Hemisphere.
Not one word in his response to me about the Western
Hemisphere. So I have convened today's hearing because I am
deeply concerned about the administration's neglect affecting
our commercial interests in that region and undermining our
ability to defend liberty and economic freedom for those in
Cuba, Venezuela and elsewhere where basic democratic rights
have been taken away in exchange for statism and
authoritarianism.
I am also concerned that our disengagement has invited the
likes of Russia to increase foreign military sales while
establishing strategic bases in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba.
It has allowed Iran to build its diplomatic and cultural
presence in an effort to skirt sanctions and establish a
presence close to our borders.
These realities should be the foremost on our minds of our
foreign policy makers at the State Department, more so, I dare
say, than the prospect of climate change.
And I don't say that to denigrate the concern for proper
stewardship of our environment. I think we all care about that.
It is about priorities. It is a major policy failure, I
believe, of this administration to prioritize climate change
projects over our strategic and diplomatic posture in the
Western Hemisphere, and it is shameful for us to stand by and
watch the violations of basic human rights and democratic
values seen in Venezuela because of the naive belief by this
administration that the OAS or other multilateral organizations
can be counted on even one time to defend freedom where it is
being threatened.
Secretary Kerry showcased this naivete when he announced
the end of Monroe Doctrine before the OAS late last year,
subjugating U.S. vital interests in the region to the whims of
an organization that has long been hijacked by the anti-
democratic populace of the hemisphere.
I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
Ambassador Reich, I deeply respect you and I appreciate your
service as our Ambassador to Venezuela. I believe you
understand better than most the corroding effect on democratic
values that the Bolivarian Revolution has had on the region.
Mr. Ilan Berman, who will testify to the presence of
external actors establishing a presence in our hemisphere, and
Mr. Claver-Carone, who has studied what has been best described
to me as Cuban cancer that metastasized around the region,
creating anti-democratic environments in certain parts of Latin
America where freedom of expression and basic democratic values
are systematically being violated.
I focus most of my attention as chairman of this
subcommittee on the positive developments coming out of the
hemisphere--the Pacific Alliance, growing trade and investment
opportunities in Mexico, Peru and elsewhere, and the real and
important prospect of energy security and independence in North
America.
However, we will squander those opportunities if we
continue to neglect the region through lack of sound, strategic
policy, policy that reflects this country's commitment to the
defense of liberty and economic freedom, and our willingness to
defend those values and our vital national interests.
As I said to Secretary Kerry when he was up on the Hill 2
weeks ago, around the world and, indeed, even in our own
hemisphere, liberty and economic freedom are being threatened
by tyrants.
People yearning for freedom are looking to the U.S. for our
leadership in defense of liberty, but instead, this
administration is offering solar panels through costly USAID
projects.
This is an affront to the U.S. taxpayer and an insult to
those seeking freedom. We can and we must do much better. I am
eager to hear how the lack of U.S. strategy and leadership in
the Western Hemisphere has affected our ability to defend these
values, while protecting our interests and the interests of our
neighbors.
In the coming weeks, this subcommittee will have the
opportunity to question the administration more directly about
Western Hemisphere policy or lack thereof during a budget
oversight hearing.
What we glean from your testimony today, Ambassador Reich,
Mr. Berman, Mr. Claver-Carone and Mr. Shifter, will be
instrumental in our ability to challenge the administration's
lack of strategic vision and offer a new way forward.
I don't typically get negative in these kinds of hearings
but I am really disgusted, I am, by the lack of any kind of
clear vision or policy in the Western Hemisphere. And while I
talk about this whole movement in the Western Hemisphere toward
more climate change issues, I am not against talking about
environmental policies at work.
I think that is prudent and smart. But on the scale of
priorities, when we are looking at people being killed in the
streets in Venezuela, when we look at arms being smuggled by
Cuba to North Korea, on the relative scale of what is important
are we really focusing our attention on the things that really
matter? That is why we are holding this hearing today.
It is not just to cast aspersions, but to actually try to
find a way that we can engage together to try to focus on our
own neighborhood and make things better for all concerned, and
I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, and thank you to the witnesses for being
here. Thank you for your patience with our vote.
I believe it is fair to acknowledge that the number, nature
and complexity of foreign policy challenges facing the United
States today is the greatest it has been since 9/11.
For the past 13 years our foreign policy mostly focused on
crises outside our hemisphere. This is perhaps no less true
today where in Eastern Europe we have Russia acting as if the
Cold War had never ended.
As foreign challenges have evolved, so too have our
diplomatic, economic, and when necessary, our military means to
respond. Nonetheless, this focus elsewhere, however
understatable, has come at the detriment of our policy toward
the Americas and the hemisphere as a whole.
As a consequence, we have not paid appropriate attention to
an area that is next door in our hemisphere. Human rights
abuses, intimidation, threats to democracy or loss of life are
no less relevant and just as wrong whether they occur in Syria,
North Korea, 90 miles south in Havana or in Venezuela.
Some experts view U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America
as adrift and far too narrow in scope. I agree that our
problems have risen. Our responses have been reactive rather
than proactive.
As bearer of democracy, liberty and economic freedom we
have failed when our foreign policy is dictated by yesterday's
news headlines. On one hand, today all nations in the
hemisphere, with the exception of Cuba, are elected
democracies.
On the other, we have witnessed a proliferation of
electoral authoritism where democratic institutions exist but
are severely abused by the executive.
We see this specifically in countries like Venezuela,
Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. We have also witnessed a unique
period of political stability and economic vibrancy that has
translated to greater regional autonomy with a diverse economic
and diplomatic portfolio. Foreign actors such as China, India
and Europe have now become significant trading partners for
some of Latin America's largest economies.
There are new regional associations such as ALBA, the
Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America-People's
Trade Treaty, and CELAC, the Community of Latin American and
Caribbean States, that not only exclude the United States but
have mostly been utilized as mediums to espouse and advocate
anti-Americanism.
Russia has dubiously increased military exercises in the
region and Iran continues to expand its influence. While such
an agreement should never have come to light, President
Kirchner's decision to undo the so-called joint truth
commission with Iran is a step in the right direction.
I am adamant the U.S. must maintain pressure on Cuba's
authoritative regime, expose its continued human rights and
press freedom violations, blatant disregard for U.N. arms
sanctions and press for the release of Alan Gross.
In regards to Venezuela, I have joined my colleagues in
calling for an end to violence in supporting the people of
Venezuela's right to express their frustration to the
deteriorating economy, public safety and political conditions
in their country.
Rather than allow the space and freedom for peaceful
demonstration, President Maduro has instead utilized oppressive
Cuban tactics in silencing the media, detaining anti-government
demonstrators and opposing leaders.
Mr. Maduro and the Government of Venezuela need to address
the grievances of its people through dialogue, and respect
freedom of expression and assembly as the basic human rights
and principles of a democratic society.
It is unacceptable that various member states of the OAS
who champion their respects of human and civil rights have
chosen to ignore the abuses occurring in Venezuela and have
prevented the OAS from taking any meaningful action against the
Government of Venezuela.
These nations value Venezuela's cheap oil and petrol
dollars more than human rights and the unfortunate loss of life
that has occurred. To the leaders of these nations, I say that
the world is watching, and that the U.S. and this Congress, in
particular, will not forget.
I call on the administration to utilize and exhaust all
diplomatic and economic tools at its disposal to act
accordingly against those individuals responsible for the
unnecessary and unwarranted acts of violence against the
Venezuelan people.
U.S. inaction will speak louder than any anti-America
rhetoric espoused by blind nations on the wrong side of
history. Thank you.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Just real briefly, first off I will say that I
share the chairman's opinion that this is Venezuela's 1776
moment where you have a people that are urging and really
yearning to be free and have more self-governance.
But when we witnessed, just recently, President Maduro
encouraging Venezuelan citizens to begin Carnival early while
thousands stood in line for the basic subsistence which they
would have trouble finding on the grocery shelves, this likened
sort of to Marie Antoinette's ``let them eat cake'' statement.
It shows how out of touch Maduro is with just the basic
needs of the Venezuelans. So maybe history will show that this
is Maduro's ``let them eat cake'' moment and hopefully we as
Americans can support the folks that want to be free, and want
to govern themselves and Venezuela.
So I thank the gentlemen for being here. I know this isn't
just focused on Venezuela but that is what is on my mind today.
I yield back.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you. Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me just say
that this is a timely discussion and I want to thank the
witnesses that are here and look forward to having a dialogue
with you, doing the questions and answers and hearing your
testimony.
I got elected to Congress in 1998, and from 1998 until
today I have long said that we have not engaged Latin America,
South America, the Caribbean, and Central America in the
methods that we should.
Oftentimes we looked at our friends, our neighbors to the
south in the manner that we were looking through the prism of
when we were in the Cold War, that we had not changed many of
our policies toward them, that we had not moved forward and we
were not engaged with them and that we needed to focus on our
neighbors to the south because they are our neighbors.
We share this hemisphere. They are very important, and if
we didn't do it then others would come and they would try to
invest and influence and be involved in their matters because
we are leaving a vacuum, and that the nations in Central and
South America were looking for different types of
relationships, not a master-servant relationship but a
relationship where they were recognized for growing and moving
and trying to move toward democracy and making sure that all
people within those communities and within those countries will
have an opportunity to have their voices heard, not just
someone to be utilized by us when we thought that it would be
to our strategic interest.
We still need to be sure that we are engaging with our
colleagues and our friends and our neighbors who share this
hemisphere with us. It is absolutely important and we must talk
to them, not at them, so that we can begin to figure out how we
can work collectively together to make this hemisphere better.
Otherwise, others will take advantage. Others will try to
divide the hemisphere. It can then cause us to have some
national security interests.
So I was pleased when we have had conferences that I have
attended and seen the nations come and we have had various
groups going to talk and to try to figure out how do we do this
thing.
How do we work in a manner of bringing folks together, of
understanding to some degree some different ethnicities, some
different histories, so that we can work together to make our
hemisphere stronger.
So I say that is why I think that if we are going to have a
real dialogue, and I probably differ than many when I see, I
believe, a failed policy with reference to one of the Caribbean
countries for over 50 years, I want that regime to change. But
I want something that works because it hasn't. I think the time
for that conversation is to be had.
How do we make effective change and how do we work together
to get it done? So I look forward to hearing the testimony. I
look forward to working with my colleagues who all, I believe,
have good intentions and want to make sure that we have a good
relationship with many of the countries in the hemisphere so
that we can make a difference. I think the time has finally
come.
The time is right for us to do it and I look forward to
working collectively to get it done, and I yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
I recognize the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And I, like so many of our colleagues here, I am extremely
worried about our lack of attention to the many threats to
democracy in our own hemisphere.
In Venezuela, the death toll is at 34, and continues to
climb with nearly 60 reported cases of torture, over 1,500
people unjustly detained, hundreds more injured, and the nexus
between Cuba and Venezuela continues to threaten regional
stability. It frightens freedom-loving people who are risking
their lives for liberty, for democracy, and for justice.
The Castro brothers continue to aid and abet the Maduro
regime just as they have aided and abetted the FARC guerillas
in Colombia, and now they are pulling off this farce of peace
negotiations in Cuba and have been carrying out systematic
human rights abuses, and incarcerating opposition leaders, and
that same coalition has had a stranglehold, lamentably so, on
the OAS--the Organization for American States.
They have bullied member states into acquiescence. On
Friday, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the OAS, led by the ALBA
group, silenced a Venezuelan legislator and one of the leading
opposition leaders, Maria Corina Machado, prevented her from
speaking the truth.
Maria Corina sought to denounce the human rights abuses
occurring in Venezuela but this broken institution, led by a
cowardly Secretary General, chose to side with Maduro instead
and yet just 2 weeks ago Secretary Kerry testified in front of
our full committee that we need to work closely with the OAS in
support of democracy in Venezuela, and the OAS was capitulating
to Maduro and the Castros on Friday and throughout the years,
this ordinary session silencing the truth of what is happening
in Venezuela just a few blocks from the White House, and the
administration continued to say that the OAS believes in what
we believe in.
And I believe, Mr. Chairman, the inmates are, clearly,
running the asylum in the OAS. We are talking about a Maduro
regime that is incarcerating opposition leaders, that is
killing young people in the streets. Maria Corina may very
well, because her immunity has been voided, she could be
arrested.
She could be imprisoned under false pretenses, tried for
treason for daring to try to speak at the OAS, and on Cuba the
State Department has been trying so hard to approve more visas
for Castro lackeys and finding new ways to inject money in the
coffers of the Castro brothers that it has not observed the sad
reality that the Cuban people are suffering day in and day out.
The OAS has failed to be a venue for the people of
Venezuela, for the people of Cuba, the people of the hemisphere
to express their concerns about the lack of democracy and the
violations of human rights occurring in our hemisphere every
day.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Salmon. In the interests of time, if it is all right
with you we will just dispense with introductions. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 7, the members of the subcommittee will be
permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
official hearing record, and without objection the hearing
record will remain open for 7 days to allow opening statements,
questions and extraneous materials for the record subject to
the length of limitation in the rules.
I am going to start with you, Ambassador Reich.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE OTTO J. REICH, PRESIDENT, OTTO REICH
ASSOCIATES, LLC
Ambassador Reich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, Chairman Emeritus Ros-Lehtinen. It is good to be
here. I appreciate the opportunity to address this very
important issue. I will not be following my written testimony
but will summarize it for you.
That we have neglected the hemisphere is not in question.
All one has to do is travel in the region and we will be asked
why the U.S. doesn't care about Latin America or the Caribbean.
That disengagement carries real cost for the United States
in political, economic, security and commercial terms,
especially when it is accompanied by misguided policies that
have confused our friends and emboldened our enemies.
Believing that just by sitting down to talk with our
antagonists they will stop their hostility is not diplomacy. It
is self-delusion. As relations with Russia, North Korea, Syria
and Iran prove, wishful thinking does not make an effective
foreign policy.
The same goes for the Americas. At its outset, the Obama
administration unilaterally lifted travel and financial
sanctions on Cuba and offered a diplomatic reset to Venezuela,
Bolivia, Ecuador and other anti-American governments.
For example, the administration inexplicably joined Castro,
Chavez, Ortega and the OAS in trying to reinstate Honduras'
radical and corrupt President, Manuel Zelaya, to the presidency
even after Zelaya had been legally dismissed by the Supreme
Court of Honduras and their Parliament for violating the
constitution.
What was the reaction from our adversaries? Castro, Chavez,
Maduro, Correa, Morales, Ortega and even Argentina's Kirchner
variously at times have intensified their ties with Russia,
Belarus, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, purchased Russian weapons,
expelled American officials, put independent news organizations
out of business and generally undermined liberties at home.
Castro responded to the lifting of sanctions by increasing
internal repression and jailing a U.S. citizen on trumped-up
charges. Cuba was later caught helping North Korea to violate
U.N. sanctions on weapons transfers.
Further confusing our friends, the administration delayed
for 3 years the ratification of free trade agreements with
Colombia and Panama while slowing the implementation of the
Merida Initiative, an anti-narcotics program with Mexico.
Our disengagement is evident at the Organization of
American States where this month alone a majority of the
members voted to support Maduro's violent repression. One
economic consequence of U.S. policy is an uneven playing field
where U.S. firms cannot win some major contracts in Latin
America because their competitors are bribing foreign decision
makers.
This is one result of our Government not implementing our
own visa sanctions against corrupt officials coming to the
U.S., opening bank accounts and owning property here.
We must pay special attention to Cuba and Venezuela since
these two countries have provided most of the muscle and money
for the anti-American subversion of the past 15 years. Cuba is
a totalitarian military dictatorship controlled by the
Communist Party of Cuba.
It is on the State Department's list of state sponsors of
terrorism and is run by an organized crime family whose head,
Fidel Castro, has made so much money he was listed on Forbes
register of the world's richest people.
The Castros have been involved in illicit businesses such
as narcotics trafficking, kidnapping, bank robbery and money
laundering. With the help of Hugo Chavez and later Nicolas
Maduro, Castro has remade Venezuela in his image.
This is not just my opinion. Listen to what Chavez's one-
time ideological mentor and main cabinet minister, Luis
Miquilena, said recently:
``Venezuela today is a country that is practically
occupied by the henchmen of two international
criminals--Cuba's Castro brothers. They have introduced
in Venezuela a true army of occupation. The Cubans run
the maritime ports, airports, communications, the most
essential issues in Venezuela. We are in the hands of a
foreign country.''
By Cuba, Venezuela has become an organized crime state.
Politicians and military officers have been implicated in drug
trafficking, support of terrorism and other illicit activities.
Corruption runs rampant with huge fortunes illegally acquired
by government officials and the so-called oligarchy.
The U.S. Treasury Department has designated a dozen senior
Venezuelan officials as ``significant foreign narcotics
trafficker'' under the Drug Kingpin Act. They stand accused of
``materially assisting the narcotics trafficking activities''
of the revolutionary armed forces of Colombia, the FARC,
designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State
Department and European counterparts.
Under the influence of the Cuba-Venezuela alliance, ALBA,
which has been mentioned here along with other anti-American
governments are repressing their populations, eliminating free
enterprise, destroying press freedoms and other liberties and
supporting terrorists and racketeers.
Moreover, they are now bringing their illicit activities to
the United States. To prevent what Mr. Miquilena correctly
calls criminals, from consolidating their dictatorships or
exporting violence, we must actively defend our interests and
our security.
This does not entail military force. One of our most
effective tools and one that the U.S. is finally using against
the Russian oligarchs as a result of the Crimea annexation are
targeted visa and financial sanctions aimed at those government
officials who repress their people and of the business
accomplices who help keep the dictatorships in power and who
profit from its corruption.
Also, instead of constantly putting out fires in our
neighborhood, we should put the arsonists out of business. The
chief arsonist in this hemisphere for the past half century has
been a Castro. We know where he lives and where he hides his
money.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Reich follows:]
----------
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
Mr. Berman.
STATEMENT OF MR. ILAN I. BERMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
FOREIGN POLICY COUNCIL
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today. Let me begin simply by making
two general and rather uncomfortable observations.
The first is that Latin America does not rank on any given
day very high on the list of the United States foreign policy
priorities and that that is especially true today when you see
international attention being rivetted to the Middle East, to
Ukraine, to Crimea, and to the Indian Ocean.
But by virtue of its geography, by virtue of its strategic
position and its proximity to the U.S. homeland, Latin America
is important. Indeed, it is vital to the United States on both
economic and security grounds.
This is, I think, a general observation that everybody
understands but I don't think it can be stressed enough.
The second observation, which we are beginning to learn at
our great detriment, is the fact that nature really does abhor
a vacuum and a retraction of interest, a retraction of presence
on the part of the United States, will inevitably be filled by
others, and that is precisely what is happening today.
Even as the U.S. has disengaged systematically from the
region, other actors have stepped in and done so in ways that
are deeply detrimental to American security. Let me start by
explaining what Russia is doing.
Russia recently announced plans and made considerable news
by doing so at the end of February to establish overseas
military bases in eight countries including three Latin
American ones--Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.
This represents a rather substantial expansion of Russian
policy in the region. Over the last several years, Moscow has
devoted, I would say, significant political equities to
building diplomatic ties, to building economic ties and even a
strategic foothold of a sort in the Americas.
Notably, in keeping with its ideology, the regimes that the
Kremlin has focused on in this outreach are those that share a
broad expansionist and anti-American outlook.
Moscow's attention is focused primarily, although not
exclusively, on Nicaragua, on Venezuela and on Cuba, and
through official visits, arms sales and military cooperation
Russia has succeeded in creating what can be called
legitimately a strategic beachhead in Latin America.
And this is a policy that is being driven by a number of
things, some of them practical and some of them less so. The
Kremlin has recently focused on counternarcotics, and pursuant
to a 2013 plan that was unveiled by the Kremlin, it is in the
process of expanding counternarcotics cooperation with a number
of Latin American states. Nicaragua being chief among them,
this has already begun to net dividends including a bust of
more than $1 million that was carried out jointly by Russia and
Nicaragua last year.
The Russians have also built a fairly significant arms
trade relationship with the region, focusing in large part on
Venezuela, which now makes up more than three quarters of the
arms that Russia sells in the region to the tune of--in excess
of $14 billion so far.
But above all, and I think it is useful to point out here,
Russia's activities are both strategic and opportunistic. Latin
America is by any measure very far outside Moscow's core areas
of interest, which are the post-Soviet spaces of Central Asia
and the Caucuses, the Arctic, Eastern Europe, what have you.
Latin America is very far afield. But precisely because it
sees the United States withdrawing, it sees the United States,
or at least perceives the United States, to be disinterested,
Moscow is taking full advantage of what it now sees as an empty
region.
There is a Russian adage that says that a sacred space will
not remain empty for long and I think that is very much
applicable not only to Latin America, but also to Latin America
in terms of how Russia is approaching it.
And I would add parenthetically here that what you are
seeing over the last several weeks has been a rather worrying
evolution of how Russia thinks about Latin America because in
the announcement that was made at the end of February by the
Russian defense minister about the possibility of bases in
Latin America, it was made clear that the negotiations that are
now underway are to allow for aerial refuelling, for long-range
reconnaissance aircraft.
This is very much a throwback to the type of activities
that the Russians, at that time the Soviets, used Latin America
for.
The second actor I think worth noting is Iran. We in the
United States, and particularly in the Washington Beltway, have
focused on Iran relatively recently. Only since the botched
attempt to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. by
Iran's Revolutionary Guards back in October 2011 has there
really been sustained attention to this presence.
But the presence actually extends far further back in
history, at least a decade with regard to the modern
contemporary outreach that you see the Iranians carrying out,
and this outreach essentially focuses along three main lines.
First, Iran sees Latin America as an arena for political
and economic outreach because of the presence of sympathetic
regimes in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and elsewhere.
Second, Iran seeks to acquire strategic resources in the
Americas including, but definitely not limited to, the
acquisition of uranium ore for its nuclear program.
Finally, Iran has made Latin America an arena of asymmetric
activity through its contacts with regional radical groups, and
also by building infrastructure in the region such as the
Regional Defense School for the Bolivarian Alliance of the
Americas that Iran partially funded, which is located outside
of Santa Cruz, Bolivia.
Iran's presence in Latin America tends to be minimized by
some because its level of activity is comparatively low, and
because a majority of the economic promises that it has made to
regional states so far haven't materialized.
But it is useful to remember that Iran's contemporary
outreach is new. It is less than a decade old and Iran is in a
much, much better position strategically in Latin America than
it was 10 years ago, and this is in part because the U.S.
Government still does not have an implemented strategy to
compete, contest, and/or dilute Iranian influence in the
Americas despite the fact that it clearly constitutes an
incipient threat to American interests.
Finally, let me say a couple of words about China. Unlike
Iran and Russia, China's presence in the Americas is mostly
economic in nature but it is significant nonetheless because
China's legitimate economic outreach, and it is very
significant, has been mirrored by more questionable activities
including cooperation with Argentina on nuclear issues, the
launch of reconnaissance satellites for Venezuela and for
Bolivia, and its much discussed plan to build an alternative to
the Panama Canal in Nicaragua, which is by all accounts a very
costly boondoggle but also one that will provide regional
regimes with the ability to skirt U.S. oversight for containers
if it is concluded.
There is a commonality here between China on the one hand
and Iran and Russia on the other. Beijing, like Moscow and
Tehran, is seeking to take advantage of America's disengagement
for the region for its own purposes, be they economic or
strategic, which gets us to where we are.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, last fall Secretary of
State Kerry announced that the era of the Monroe Doctrine is
over, effectively, in the region. By doing that, he effectively
served notice to regional regimes that they are allowed to
curry favor with external actors and served notice to external
actors that America will no longer contest and compete with
those external actors when they reach into the region.
Moscow and Tehran and Beijing were doubtless listening when
the Secretary spoke and what they likely heard was an
invitation to further deepen the involvement that they are
already pursuing in the region.
If history is any judge, if the last decade is any judge,
that deepened involvement is going to come in ways that are
going to have profound security and economic implications for
the United States.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berman follows:]
----------
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
Mr. Claver-Carone.
STATEMENT OF MR. MAURICIO CLAVER-CARONE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
CUBA DEMOCRACY ADVOCATES
Mr. Claver-Carone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
members of the subcommittee.
It is really a privilege to be here today to discuss this
important and consequential issue regarding Latin America which
directly affects the national interest of the United States.
My testimony can be summarized as follows: The Cuban
dictatorship is working systematically against democratic
institutions in Latin America. Autocracies like Cuba's work
systematically using subterfuge, coercion, censorship, and
state-sponsored violence including lethal force and terrorism.
Thus, the regions democracies, led by the United States,
must also work systematically to protect and promote its
democratic institutions, and democracies work systematically by
holding human rights violators accountable, giving voice, legal
assistance and protection to the victims, economic sanctions
and diplomatic pressure and by promoting successful evidence-
based aid programs to break the cycle of poverty and
instability, and obviously that is an issue for another
hearing.
Allow me to elaborate a bit on this. In the 1980s, it was
commonly stated that the road to freedom in Havana runs through
Managua, alluding to a cause-effect from an end to the Cuban-
backed Sandinista dictatorship of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.
In the last decade, this statement has morphed into the road to
freedom in Havana runs through Caracas, referring to the Cuban-
backed Bolivarian Governments of the late Hugo Chavez and
Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.
Undoubtedly, both roads represent noble and important goals
albeit temporary short-term solutions, the reason being that
the Sandinista Government of the 1980s and the Bolivarian
Government of today are symptoms, not remedies, of a greater
illness.
The fact remains that no nation in Latin America will enjoy
the long-term benefits of freedom, democracy and security so
long as the dictatorship of the Castro brothers remains in
power in Havana.
As such, a more accurate statement would be the road to
long-term freedom, democracy and security in Latin America runs
through Havana. The Castro regime remains as resolute today to
subvert democratic institutions, to direct and sponsor violent
agitators and support autocrats throughout the region and the
world as it did in the '60s, '70s and '80s.
Granted, its tactics and scope have been diminished, mostly
due to the economic realities stemming from the end of massive
Soviet subsidies through 1991, but its antagonistic aims are
unwavering.
No wishful thinking or accommodation policy, which I
believe are interchangeable, will make this go away. Moreover,
to underestimate the skill, diligence and effectiveness of
Cuba's intelligence and security forces is a grave mistake, the
proportions of which we are witnessing today in Venezuela.
After all, the erosion of Venezuela's democratic
institutions and its government's repressive practices are the
result of a protracted systematic effort spanning over a decade
of penetration and control by the Cuban dictatorship, and
Ambassador Reich mentioned what Luis Miquilena, a former mentor
to Hugo Chavez, said.
Thus, it should be a priority for all democracies in Latin
America, led by the United States, to support the democratic
forces in Cuba working to end the dictatorship of the Castro
brothers. That is the remedy.
Unfortunately, that has not been the case and last month
Latin America's democratically-elected leaders paraded through
Havana for a summit of the CELAC, which is an anti-U.S.
concoction of Hugo Chavez.
Currently, the organization's rotating presidency is,
ironically, held by General Raul Castro. Similarly, these
elected leaders were not interested nor concerned that Cuba's
regime had threatened, beaten and arrested hundreds of the
island's democracy advocates who had tried to plan and hold a
parallel summit to discuss the lack of freedom and human rights
in Cuba.
This trend is reversible, but the leadership of the United
States is vital. Undoubtedly, the democracies of Latin America
need to step up to their own responsibilities, but in the cost
benefit analysis that all political leaders make, they need to
be left with no doubt that the benefits of standing up for
freedom and democracy in Cuba outweigh the cost.
Whether we like it or not, only the United States can tip
that balance, hence, the title of today's hearing. To be clear,
United States is not the cause of Latin America's problems.
To the contrary, it represents the solution. U.S.
leadership in the region should be public, unquestionable and
unwavering, particularly in regards to shared values of
freedom, democracy and security.
Our democratic allies in the region should know and
anticipate the benefits derived from embracing and promoting
democratic practices, and likewise, autocrats should know and
anticipate the consequences of undemocratic practices and
illegal acts.
Unfortunately, currently neither is the case. We are
witnessing the first with Venezuela. The silence of Latin
America's leaders amid the violent suppression of dissent by
the government of Nicolas Maduro is scandalous. The reasons for
their silence amid the arrest, torture and murder of Venezuelan
students is similar to the rationale for embracing the Castro
dictatorship by the CELAC summit in Havana--how instead of
leading and encouraging the region's democrats and holding
Maduro's government accountable, the United States is
unwittingly, and I don't think it is purposefully, contributing
to their silence.
For example, this past Friday the Panamanian Government
ceded its seat at the Organization of American States to
Venezuelan legislator Maria Corina Machado, a leading
opposition figure, to renounce the human rights abuses of the
Maduro government.
I remind you in 1988-89 Venezuela's democratic government
had supported Panama's democratic opposition and did the same
for them, thus Panama's democrats remain grateful.
The U.S. should have applauded this gesture by Panama and
it did so after the fact but, unfortunately, the United States
initially sought to dissuade the Panamanian Government from
accrediting Maria Corina Machado to speak at the OAS. That is a
lamentable fact and I would urge the subcommittee to ask the
State Department for its rationale.
In the interest of time, the U.S. should also be making the
benefits of supporting Venezuela's democratic institutions
absolutely clear and not muddying the message.
In the same vein, the consequences for undemocratic
practices and illegal acts should be absolutely clear and there
is no better opportunity to do so than regarding the Castro
regime's recent smuggling of weapons to North Korea in blatant
violation of international law.
As you know, in July 2013 the North Korean flag vessel,
Chong Chon Gang, was intercepted with weaponry hidden under
200,000 bags of sugar. This month, the U.N.'s panel of experts
released its official report on North Korea's illegal
trafficking of weapons in conjunction with Castro's regime.
The panel concluded that both the shipment in itself and
the transaction between Cuba and North Korea were international
sanctions violations. Let me emphasize this shipment
constituted the largest amount of arms and related material
interdicted to or from North Korea since the adoption of the
U.N. Security Council's resolution, and as for Cuba, it is the
first time a nation in the Western Hemisphere was found in
violation of U.N. sanctions.
The report noted similar patterns by other North Korean
ships. Thus, similar ships have simply gotten away, and such
egregious practices should not be inconsequential. Thus far, it
would send a demoralizing message to Panama, which put up its
resources and reputation, and but moreover, it would show that
inaction breeds impunity.
And as my time is over, I would just finally state a third
factor, it is essential that the United States lead, and once
again it all goes back to leadership, of the region's defense,
promotion and application of the Inter-American Democratic
Charter.
Otherwise, it will become irrelevant and no other nation in
the hemisphere will do that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Claver-Carone follows:]
----------
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
Mr. Shifter.
STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL SHIFTER, PRESIDENT, INTER-AMERICAN
DIALOGUE
Mr. Shifter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Sires, other members of the subcommittee. I appreciate
this opportunity to appear before you today to talk about U.S.
policy toward Latin America.
The U.S. relationship with Latin America has changed in
fundamental ways in recent years and has become more distant,
more so in South America than in Mexico and Central America.
The reasons for this are deep and many and cannot be traced
to any single administration or policy. The main explanation
is, ironically, Latin America's economic, social, even
political progress over the last decade.
The region is more politically confident and independent on
the world stage. It continues to expand its global ties. The
United States too has changed over the same period. The 2008
financial crisis hit hard.
We have endured two draining wars. Our highest-level
officials have been distracted elsewhere. The presence of non-
hemispheric actors in Latin America has grown. In the era of
globalization, this is natural.
China is involved through trade, financing and, to a lesser
extent, investment. Of greater concern are the roles of Russia
and Iran. Over the past dozen years, Russia has sold arms to
the region at an estimated $14.5 billion--it has been said over
three-quarters of that to Venezuela.
The recent statement by Russia's defense minister about
intentions to increase their presence in Venezuela, Nicaragua
and Cuba was probably mostly posturing for domestic political
consumption, but especially given what is happening today in
Ukraine they need to be followed very closely and very
carefully.
Iran's activities too should be carefully monitored. There
is ample information about money laundering operations. But so
far, there has been no credible proof of threats posed by Iran-
linked groups.
The Obama administration, in my judgment, has been vigilant
about these questions and needs to marshal resources to follow
what is happening as closely as possible in the region. At the
same time, there is little indication today that such actors
pose a serious danger or threat to U.S. interests.
There is great concern about Venezuela as well there should
be. Even minimal human rights and democratic safeguards have
eroded. The government's repression of protestors, persecution
of political opponents and restrictions on press freedom are
even worse than during the Chavez era.
In such a polarized country, anything can happen. Venezuela
shows how difficult it is for the United States to exercise
leadership in the current environment. During the Chavez years,
Venezuela gained allies through lavish spending. The intent was
to curtail the influence of the United States in this
hemisphere.
Fortunately, ALBA, the anti-U.S. group that Chavez created
and led, has become weaker even before Chavez's death in March
of last year. The deep economic and continuing crisis in
Venezuela has hurt ALBA's capacity to act throughout the
region.
Unfortunately, however, at a regional level where there is
so much polarization and fragmentation, there has not been much
will to act regarding Venezuela. The OAS has all the
instruments at its disposal to apply pressure but unfortunately
the will isn't there for both economic and for political
reasons.
The Venezuelan crisis shows how critical it is for the
United States to become more engaged than it has been in
regional affairs. It can do this in several ways.
The United States cannot, unfortunately, act alone. It
needs to act in concert with others. I do believe that the
United States should be more involved in the OAS, not just
saying what the OAS needs to do but actually coming up with
ideas, proposals and reforms and mobilizing support and allies
around those proposals.
The U.S. efforts on strengthening human rights have been
commendable but there has been no energy and no hard work, as
far as I can tell, on the political side. The U.S. has been
withdrawn and disengaged. The effort has not been made.
The second way is to deepen our relationship with Brazil.
This is very difficult in the short term--we all realize that.
But U.S. policy will be limited in this hemisphere, in this
region, unless there is sustained focus on relations with the
region's preeminent economic power.
Third, strengthen relations with Mexico, Colombia, Peru and
Chile. The administration is doing this, to its credit, but
especially with Mexico it is hard to make progress without
immigration reform and progress on other items on the domestic
agenda in the United States.
The failure to do this hurts our efforts to reengage with
Mexico and also with other countries in Latin America. And
finally, we cannot reduce our engagement and cooperation on
Latin American security issues.
These need to be sustained not only in Central America and
Mexico but even in Colombia, which has been a success story for
U.S. policy in this hemisphere that we should not forget. But
we need to continue to invest with a strategic ally that
reflects our commitment to the region.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shifter follows:]
----------
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Shifter.
I am going to yield myself 5 minutes to ask questions and
then I will yield time to the ranking member.
Ambassador Reich, I would like to start with you. As
Assistant Secretary for WHA in the early 2000s, what was your
approach to developing strategy and policy to deal with
countries in Latin America that were antagonistic to our
interests and to democratic principles?
And if you were back in the chair today or at the NSC, what
would be your top priorities in support of our interests in the
region? And then finally, how would you instruct your diplomats
on the ground to deal with the threats of expulsion we have
seen in places like Ecuador and Bolivia?
Ambassador Reich. Yes, sir. I had a slightly different
approach than the current administration. In fact, I had the
advantage that I think the entire administration did. We did
not preemptively give the other side anything they wanted.
In fact, quite the opposite. I will give you an example.
The Cuban Government refused a visa for the person we had
selected as the head of our interests section in Havana. They
didn't give a reason. They just didn't like him and they
weren't going to allow him in.
Instead of trying to reason with them, since I know,
unfortunately, from personal experience a little bit about that
government, I simply asked where the head of their interests
section was. At the time, I was told that he was in Cuba on
vacation and I said just simply tell them that he is not coming
back. Forty-eight hours later we had the visa for our man in
Havana.
Diplomacy is not just sitting down and talking to people.
You can talk to your friends. We did talk to our friends. We
had very good relations with our people.
Mr. Shifter correctly says--with our friends, I should
say--that Colombia is an example of U.S. success, and it is
bipartisan, by the way. I would like to say that it wasn't just
the Republican administration behind Colombia that enabled
Colombia to survive a Communist-supported, including Cuban-
supported, insurgency over many years was made possible by both
Democratic and the Republican administrations in the late '90s
and in the 2000s.
We should deal with countries in the way that they deal
with us. I mean, we have seen recently in Ukraine the error of
trusting people who have other agendas than we think they have
or even what they say.
The same thing applies in this hemisphere and there are
many other examples that I can give you. What I would do today
is I would support, for example, the resolutions in the House
and Senate that would revoke the visas and freeze the accounts
of those people responsible for the violence in Venezuela, and
not only the government officials, but what the NSC spokesman
said, the oligarchs in the case of Ukraine and Russia.
There are a lot of private-sector people in Venezuela and
other countries in the region that have become billionaires,
with a B, as a result of corruption from these left-wing anti-
American populist governments that are in office.
They are investing their money in the United States. There
are some of those people who have huge assets in the United
States. They come and they spend the weekends here. I don't
understand why we allow that when their actions are undermining
our national interests.
Mr. Salmon. One other question. I get really, really
frustrated with the toothlessness of the OAS and I have heard
testimony from the entire panel, and anybody that wants to
address it, I would be interested in your thoughts as far as
how do we motivate them to do the right thing.
I know we are paying about 40 percent of the funding for
the OAS and we get little return, if any, and I don't know how
we continue to justify this to the taxpayers. It looks just
like we are throwing money down a rathole. They don't
accomplish anything for us, and I would be interested in your
thoughts.
Ambassador Reich. Again, my experience from having been in
the U.S. Government for 15 years, including at international
fora, although I prefer the bilateral rather than the
multilateral relationship, is that we don't--we tend to treat
governments who do things to us like we just had done--and I
say we in this case, those governments that support democracy
in the region--and I should say that in the case of not
allowing Maria Corina Machado to speak at the OAS, if I am not
mistaken--now, correct me if I am wrong--the United States,
Canada and Chile and Panama--sorry, there were 11 countries--11
countries that supported Ms. Machado being able to speak, and
there was precedent for this, I think we should support those
countries.
The other 14, the countries of the English-speaking
Caribbean with the exception of Barbados which abstained, which
I personally don't think abstention is a very honorable course
in this case but much more honorable than voting with the
Government of Venezuela to shut up an elected representative of
the people of Venezuela who represented the peaceful dissident
movement, and the other countries--Brazil, Argentina and the
others that sided with Venezuela--I think that we should not
just deal with them on the multilateral forum.
Our Ambassador to the OAS should not be the only one that
would express discontent with what they did. I think that there
should be a cost to relations with the United States overall--
economic relations. We are the most powerful economic nation in
the world. There is a reason for that.
Our economy is based on freedom--individual freedom, free
markets, individual initiative. That freedom is being destroyed
by Venezuela, has been destroyed by Cuba, is being destroyed in
other countries in the region--Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, et
cetera.
I think we need to side with the countries that support
freedom. We need to actively oppose the countries that destroy
freedom, and whether they vote one way or another in a forum we
should pay attention to that.
Mr. Salmon. Our fault. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, is an amen out of order there?
Mr. Salmon. I recognize Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, the State Department's budget was cut. Now, in
turn, we have a cut in the Western Hemisphere about 21 percent.
How detrimental is that in dealing with the Western Hemisphere
as we reduce money to be able to work with some of these
countries? Anybody? Mr. Shifter.
Mr. Shifter. Thank you. I think it is, clearly, not helpful
and it does undermine our ability and our capacity to act
effectively.
There is no--and it is hard to put a number on it exactly
to--but, certainly, and of course more than anything I think
the amount of money it sends a message. Latin Americans see
this.
They see that we are cutting, we are trimming, we are
pulling back and I think that is not a reassuring message for
our friends who want to see--who think that there is a lot at
stake for the United States, the relationship deepen.
So I think it is a negative message and signal that is
being sent. I understand why we need to cut budgets up here but
that, I think, is a consequence and a reality that we need to
deal with.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Berman, what do you think some of the
consequences will be?
Mr. Berman. It is a good question, sir, and I would like
to, if I may, broaden the question beyond simply the State
Department because I would note, and I noted in my written
statement, that there has been what amounts to a substantial
budgetary draw down on, for example, the operating budget and,
as a result, the horizons of combatant commands like Southern
Command.
Southern Command, the posture statements over the last
several years, reflect a clear trend in which the acting
commander at the time has said we are no longer in the
business--and, obviously, I am paraphrasing--we are no longer
in the business of competing and contesting the activities of
actors such as Iran, for example, and South America.
We have essentially retracted northward and now sit in
Central America and our concerns are mostly with arms trade and
with narcotics trafficking. This is a preemptive, I may say,
ceding of the battlefield if the understanding is that what
Iran is doing, what Russia is doing--these are countries of
particular concern, certainly, to this hearing--what they are
doing in the region can be contested, can be diluted in its
effectiveness if the United States is down there both in an
economic sense but also in a military sense--in a concrete
military sense.
And I think it is worth pointing out that this is a trend
line that consumes not only the State Department but it is also
one that is affecting the Defense Department as well with long-
term effects for both our ability to see what is happening in
the region but also to counteract it if we choose to do so.
Ambassador Reich. Mr. Sires, it is an important question. I
hate to keep going back to my experience but I will take the
opportunity since the question was asked by the chairman about
what did I do. I happened to be the first Assistant Secretary
for the Western Hemisphere after 9/11 and we had a serious
reduction in our resources as a result of the fact that we had
to move a lot of--we, the United States Government, moved
people and money to where there was a war, logically, and I
defended that publicly.
Resources are extremely important to the State Department,
to our foreign policy establishment, but they are not
everything. What I think is very important is to have the
support of other parts of the government, to have the support
of the President, the National Security Council and again,
understand the fact that we represent in those positions not
just a department of the United States Government but we
represent the entire United States and we should think of our
resources in a more comprehensive way than just the limited
budget that we have.
Mr. Sires. Can somebody talk a little bit about what is the
major obstacle preventing the OAS from being an effective
organization?
Mr. Shifter. I will try. First of all, it is important to
have some perspective. I think the OAS has always had more than
its share of problems.
Mr. Sires. They don't do anything.
Mr. Shifter. What?
Mr. Sires. They don't seem to----
Mr. Shifter. But if you go back those are the criticisms,
you know, 15 or 20 years ago about being irrelevant, not
credible, marginal. Some of those same terms were used a long
time ago.
I think the main obstacle, to answer your question
directly, is that politically the hemisphere has changed a lot
in the last 10 years. It is much more fragmented. It is much
more polarized.
The OAS operates by consensus and it is very hard, and
there was a consensus in the early 1990s at the end of the Cold
War. The governments went from military governments to civilian
governments. There was a move there when people came together
supporting democracy and markets, and then things started to
unravel. Chavez came in 1998.
He was a polarizing figure, and it is very hard for an
organization that deals with that kind of politics unless you
really get in there and fight and make deals, and I think the
United States hasn't done as good a job as it should.
So, now, you could try to say the Secretary General could
do a better job and you could point to other factors, and I am
not denying that. But I think the main obstacle is just a very
complicated landscape.
Just to finish, I spoke to the previous Secretary General
in Colombia who was the President of Colombia, Cesar Gaviria,
and asked him what he thought about the OAS. He said, you know,
I was glad that I was in the OAS in the 1990s and not now
because I think I would have a much harder time. He realizes
the politics are much, much more difficult.
Mr. Sires. So is it obsolete?
Mr. Shifter. I don't think it is obsolete. I think the
United States has a role to play and I think the other
countries have to step up.
But I think there has been a lack of political commitment
and political engagement in doing the hard work of really
making an effective organization. We have to understand we went
through a big period with the Chavez thing.
Now I think we are entering a somewhat, even though we have
this crisis in Venezuela we are entering, a different period.
There aren't going to be these sort of super populist leaders.
Maduro doesn't have the money that Chavez had. He can't do what
Chavez did during that period.
Things have become more complicated. I think there's
another opportunity. I think it is a mistake to give up on it.
The United States is not involved in any other multilateral
organization in this hemisphere except the Summit of the
Americas. As it has been mentioned, the United States is not a
member of CELAC and MERCOSUR. I think we need to be part of
these organizations and do the hard work to make them more
effective.
Mr. Sires. Can somebody talk to me a little bit about why
it seems that Cuba has its tentacles everywhere and yet people
are sceptical of the meaning behind these efforts that Cuba is
making in all these countries? Can somebody talk a little bit
about that?
Mr. Claver-Carone. I can take that. In particular, because
I think we have an opportunity right now and we are concerned
about thinking forward. We are concerned about Russia.
We are concerned about Iran and we talk about all these
things but there are current events and I think we can't
underestimate enough what we are currently seeing in regards
to, because I think it is a perfect example, the concern of
inaction breeding impunity, and it is the shipment of weapons
to North Korea.
This isn't just a small shipment of weapons to North Korea.
As I mentioned, it is the largest amount of arms that has ever
been interdicted to North Korea since the Security Council's
resolution, the first time a nation in the Western Hemisphere
has violated international norms.
This would have been the biggest shipment of MiGs to North
Korea since 1999, a sale that Kazakhstan did, and it would
have--these were mint condition RPGs that would have affected
our forces, U.S. forces in Korea--put our guys in danger in
Korea. This was the shipment that got caught, but even the U.N.
panel of experts shows that things have gotten away.
If we, the United States, let this pass and essentially not
do anything, and I understand that the current rationale of the
State Department is that this is a multilateral issue since
these are international sanctions, but if we are going to allow
essentially the Security Council to have Russia decide what we
are going to do in this regards. Obviously, China protects
North Korea in that regards, nothing is going to happen.
And therefore, all of our concerns that we think about and
anticipate in regards to Venezuela and Ecuador with Iran and
with Syria, et cetera, Russia, et cetera, then the message
right there that is sent, if United States doesn't say that
this is unacceptable, something so egregious, the message that
is going to be sent is at the end of the day we are always
going to be protected from doing so and we are going to green
light those activities in regards to our future concerns.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
this hearing.
Ambassador Reich, your comments were spot on and I
appreciated the last exchange. But how do we export freedom?
And that is rhetorical, I know, but I think about Colombia, and
when the gentleman from New Jersey and I were there back in the
spring of 2012 at the Summit of the Americas we met with some
members of the Colombian congress and I remember them saying,
and I can't remember verbatim, but we talked about the economic
prosperity that Colombia was experiencing.
And one thing they said were low taxes, limited government,
free markets. And I said, wait a minute, that is the foundation
of what this country was founded on, and they were getting it.
They were actually saying just enough government to support the
free market.
I thought that was amazing to hear that from a leader in
another country telling me the principles that actually made
America great. And so I would ask just take a minute. What
should we or could we do to export the things you talked about
earlier? What can we do?
Ambassador Reich. Well, for example, I would say, first of
all. But even that is not enough. Going back a few years I
think we made a mistake, I am going to make a personal judgment
call, on doing away with the U.S. Information Agency.
There was a separate U.S. Information Agency. Yes, it
probably wasn't as effective as it could have been. But rather
than making it more effective, what was done was it was
incorporated into the State Department with positions called
public diplomacy positions.
As a result we don't have an open and overt information
agency in the U.S. Government that talks about all the things
that the United States does for the rest of the world.
One of the things that I think we should do besides setting
an example for the fact that this economy works and free
economies work and unfree economies do not work is we need to
repeat that. It becomes very obvious.
People should know. They should look at Cuba. They should
look at Venezuela. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in
the world. Venezuela should be one of the most prosperous
countries in the world.
Today, the Venezuelan people are standing in line and
housewives are literally fighting, fighting in supermarkets
over a loaf of bread. Why? Because they are run by people who
still believe in Marxism. After nearly 100 years of failures of
systems based on Marxism you still have these people in Cuba,
Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and other places trying
to make it work.
It is not going to work. But we need to reinforce that. I
think we have a responsibility as the leader of the free world
to promote freedom much more actively.
Mr. Duncan. Well, it works for those that are in power
and----
Ambassador Reich. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. They just continue pushing those
policies because it supports their positions and their economic
benefit.
Mr. Berman, last summer the State Department delivered a
report to the U.S. Congress that essentially said that Iran's
influence in Latin America is waning and it was a result of a
piece of legislation that I passed.
However, in your testimony you suggest that in fact that is
not the case, citing the warm and personal relationship that
was formed between former President Chavez and Ahmadinejad.
Now that they are both exited from the stage, do you expect
this close relationship to continue under Maduro and Rohani and
if not what do you expect will be the net effect on Iran's
long-term plans in Latin America?
I would just love to kind of start a dialogue about Iran.
Is it still a threat here and can you speak of that?
Mr. Berman. I can, sir, and I would say speaking for myself
I think it is absolutely still a threat and the dialogue over
Iran with regard to its presence in the Americas is quite
misleading because people tend to look at Iran's deliverables
with regard to the region rather than Iranian intentions, and
Iran has signed over 500 trade and cooperation pacts with the
various countries of the region since it entrenched itself back
in 2005 or began to entrench itself in 2005.
Most of those trade agreements and cooperation agreements
save for the ones that it signed with Venezuela have been
undelivered and they really remain unrealized, and as a result,
people have taken to thinking that what Iran is doing is
essentially simply a dalliance in the Americas.
And I would make the point that if you look at long-term
Iranian strategy to use various regions including Latin America
as a way to circumvent sanctions, which was very important to
them up until last fall when they started the Geneva process,
but I would argue it is still important to them now.
And looking at Latin America as an area where they can
marshal support for a revisionist radical world view and garner
the support of regional regimes and lessen their isolation that
way, I think what you are seeing is an Iranian presence that is
qualitatively and quantitatively far more significant than it
was a decade ago and it is one that will continue as you look
forward into the future because there are a number of strategic
opportunities that Iran is likely to seize upon in coming
years.
Mr. Duncan. I would say two decades ago, if you go back to
the AMIA bombings in Buenos Aires. And so we have established
the fact that you and I agree that Iran is a threat in this
hemisphere so let me ask you this. What should the U.S.
strategy be?
Mr. Berman. Well, sir, I think a good start would be to
actually implement legislation that was passed and in this
particular case I refer to the act that you sponsored, with
regard to recognizing that there is a problem.
And as you know, where the U.S. discourse is with regard to
Iran and Latin America is essentially frozen as of last summer.
Last summer, I had the privilege of testifying before the House
Homeland Security Committee on this precise issue, on where
Iran's footprint in the region is, and I am sorry to say that
we had just come off of a disclosure by the State Department of
what was objectively, I think, a very feeble assessment of the
intelligence surrounding what Iran has been doing in the
region, and nothing has been done since because there was the
August recess and then there was sequester and what have you.
And the aggregate result is that U.S. policy toward Latin
America, with regard to Iran, is precisely where it was last
summer. There isn't a strategy to go down there, to compete and
contest and dilute in economic terms, in political terms, to
rally sympathetic regional governments in sort of
constellations like, for example, the Pacific Alliance that
have the ability to dilute Iranian influence.
Latin America is still an open playing field for Iran and I
think you are going to see in coming years that Iran is going
to take full advantage of that playing field.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Well, my time is up. I appreciate
that. I would love to delve into at future hearings or just in
conversations, Mr. Chairman, about whether we need to mimic
that piece of legislation now with regard to Russia and their
involvement in this hemisphere. And with that, I will yield
back.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I have
any questions but maybe I will get through my statement because
I want to make sure the record is clear where I stand.
Number one, I think the OAS is a very important
organization. I think that we need to engage with the OAS now
more than ever. Who is the OAS? It is one of our allies.
Everyone is sitting there.
So if somebody dares say something that we don't like we
are going to disassociate ourself with them and say that they
don't need to exist anymore? That is part of the problem. Some
of us would like to, Ambassador Reich, the same policy that we
had 30 years ago and utilized them in South America you want to
still use the same thing.
One man said if you believe the same way you believed 30
years ago today you have wasted 30 years. Things have changed.
This world is a much smaller place today than it was 30 years
ago.
There is more democracy--you want to talk about democracy?
There is more democracy in South America today than there was
30 years ago. There are more countries that are electing
Presidents and governments through a democratized process today
than there were 30 and 40 years ago.
When we would prop up dictators, we propped them up for the
benefit of our country, not thinking about others. We forget
that history. Yes, I have got problems when people are not able
to come up and stand and protest, as I said, at a recent
hearing that took place on Venezuela.
I got problems because I know the history of me and my
country. Just as I had problems when our Government struck down
and beat individuals like my colleague, John Lewis, who sits in
this Congress.
But if I thought the same way I thought back then 40 and 50
years ago I would have a big problem sitting here as a Member
of Congress today. I had to recognize the changes and the
differences, and so we need to do that also with Latin America.
I was there.
I saw it earlier in 1998 when I got elected. I recognized
what I saw when Hugo Chavez got elected. There was a bipartisan
delegation of individuals who were down there talking, trying
to work it out with policies, Ambassador Reich, that you could
have said we don't like them.
And there was a coup d'etat clear and simple in Venezuela,
and half an hour after it we recognized the coup government,
not the government that was elected democratically.
Yet we say we love democracy. We have got to understand
from which we come in this and try to figure out how we can
work together to make a difference--this administration and the
State Department.
I have yet to hear people talking about what are we doing
and how we can make a difference. I heard Mr. Shifter say
something that I thought was significant, that we are now
living in a global economy and that our economies are
connected.
No one talked about how we got Chile and Mexico and Peru
all partnered with us in TPP. Nobody talks about how the fact
or whether or not some of our allies--I heard someone shout
down Brazil. Well, Brazil is a country that is developing and
is great, has its own population, have a lot to give with
reference to energy.
We have got to recognize that and not just say we got to--
because they don't agree with us 100 percent we are going to
put them away. We condemned, and I have problems with some of
the decisions that President Morales of Bolivia has and the
position that he has taken there.
But we never recognized that for the first time the people
of Bolivia decided they would elect someone who is indigenous.
And the people that he represents, the people of Bolivia and
what their thought pattern was and is and to at least give them
some semblance of respect that they democratically elected a
President who looked like many people who had historically
before that never been able to get involved and have a voice in
their government. Those things have to be recognized.
We have to deal with those realities if in fact we are
going to have a harmonious relationship here on this
hemisphere. To listen to what I have been listening to thus
far, we blame everything, the whole world and everything that
is all wrong because of the influence that Cuba has on
everything.
Yet we don't change anything. Nothing has changed, so that
can't mean that it is a success. So we do the same thing over
and over and over and over again and then complain and complain
and complain. We should learn something so that we can get a
different result instead of having it going over and over
again.
No one talks about what we have had--well, somebody
mentioned our good relationship with Colombia. Go talk to the
President of Colombia and ask him what he thinks, since he is
our good ally.
Ask him what he thinks we should do and how we should move.
We can't do things bilaterally or unilaterally, rather. If we
are going to resolve certain things we got to do things
multilateral and that is why the OAS is tremendously important.
I know I am out of time and I wish I had a question. I had
some but I want to make sure that I am clear on the record, and
I will end as I began.
If we want to be serious about working with our neighbors
to the south, we have got to do so in a different way, not as
my way or the highway, not that I don't consider what you do or
anything of that nature.
We have got to do it in a multilateral way in a way that is
respectful. I end it with this. I remember President Clinton.
He was leaving the presidency. I asked him what is the
difference between what he thought was important when he got
elected President and when he left, and he said that, I don't
care how small the country--we could use our military might but
that won't change them.
It is giving some respect and working together. Yes, we
have got the biggest military in the world and we know how to
use it when we need to.
But we have got to talk to folks and we got to figure out
how we do things in a multilateral way and not just do it
unilaterally.
I yield back.
Mr. Salmon. I thank the gentleman.
I recognize the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I
apologize for my back and forth. We are doing some hallway
appointments--democracy in action.
And coming from an enslaved Communist regime where my
family had to flee, and 50 some years later we still don't have
democracy, and the OAS remains as silent as it always has when
it comes to supporting democracy. I love getting interrupted by
our democratic process so I never mind scooting in and out of
committee rooms.
Now, some would like to defend the OAS. I see it as a
failed institution and I hurt that our money is going to this
institution--40 percent of its budget--and what did the OAS do
just on Friday?
Maria Corina Machado, who has now been stripped of her
legislative immunity, is a legislator in the National Congress.
She was invited by Panama to speak in favor of human rights and
democracy. Can you imagine?
What nerve to speak in favor of democratic principles in
the OAS, and there is the Secretary General, a buffoon who just
continues to silence the opposition, refuses to hear that there
are any problems--see no evil, hear no evil--and so they do
nothing, and this wasteful institution is gobbling up our
money.
What an insult. The Obama administration would like us to
believe that our region is stable and prosperous but it fails
to acknowledge the ongoing threats to our national security,
our stability and the challenges that we face in promoting
democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.
And, you know, a democracy is more than holding an
election, even a fraudulent election at that, because we had an
election, free and fair. Can you say that about the other
countries that have had elections? Really, Maduro?
I presented to Secretary Kerry evidence of the electoral
fraud in Maduro's case. Nothing has been done, and Ortega, he
changes the constitution so that he can get reelected. There is
no separation of powers. But a democracy is more than an
election.
A democracy is ruling in a democratic way. It is making
sure that the opposition, the minority, has a voice. Maduro's
acts are those of a coward and a bully, and if the
administration continues to allow his actions to go not even
talked about then it is only going to embolden him.
Throughout the past 6 weeks we have witnessed this ongoing
democratic crisis in Venezuela go further and further and all
we hear from the Obama administration is words and hardly even
words, hardly even that.
Why? I thank the members of our committee who have co-
sponsored a bill that would sanction those individuals who are
committing human rights abuses in Venezuela. I am disappointed
in the action of the OAS on Friday.
To see democracies like the Dominican Republic, Colombia,
other democratic nations that are democracies because they
govern in a democratic way making the mistake of siding with
the repressive regime in Caracas, not in solidarity with the
people who are yearning for democratic change, that hurts me
extensively.
And we know about the ties between the Castro brothers and
the Maduro regime. We have seen the Cuban troops who are there.
More Cuban troops are coming every day. Military advisors are
sent to Caracas to help Maduro oppress his own people.
I cited how many deaths have occurred. Who has got the arms
in Venezuela? Is it the students or is it the national guard
and all of the thugs of Maduro? If these violent acts were
occurring in other regions, Mr. Chairman, I think that we would
act. But we choose to do nothing in Latin America. I think
these countries are hurt by their proximity to the United
States.
Now, the President has correctly issued an executive order
to sanction those in Russia who have undermined the democratic
process and threatened the security of Ukraine. I applaud him
for that.
But no similar order has been signed for Venezuela. Those
officials in Venezuela are killing young people on the streets.
There have been tortures happening in the prisons. Young people
have disappeared, and at the beginning of the Ukraine crisis
many observers might have missed this interesting footnote, Mr.
Chairman--that the Russian defense minister stated that Russia
was in discussion with eight foreign countries, seeking
overseas military facilities including three in our own
hemisphere--Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
And Russia continues to bolster its military in front of
our faces. Last month the Russian spy ship--as we know, it was
in the press--it was spotted allegedly in the Port of Havana.
Just 2 years ago, a Russian submarine was spotted off Florida
waters.
Russia had sent three navy ships to our region that were
docked in Venezuela and Nicaragua in 2008, and in the earlier
part of this decade the Russians withdrew from the Lourdes
intelligence facility in Cuba, in my native homeland, but they
can always come back.
And what about China? Not only is Russia there, not only is
Cuba there but China is in Latin America as well. Chinese
investors are looking to build a canal in Nicaragua where
opponents believe that this tactic is just a way to funnel
money to Daniel Ortega and his cronies.
And we see, as Mr. Berman had pointed out, Iran, Hezbollah,
other foreign terrorist organizations that are using narco
trafficking to fundraise with their illicit activities abroad.
So we can't properly address these issues if this
administration does not put more resources and more attention
to Latin America. We must not turn our back on the people of
the Americas because this will allow rogue regimes to fill the
void that American leadership has left behind.
So I wanted to ask the panelists, if I might, Mr. Chairman,
about two issues--the North Korean ship from Cuba carrying
illicit military equipment that was stopped by the Panamanians
in the canal and the Colombian peace talks with the FARC that
is taking place, in a bitter irony, in a state sponsor of
terrorism country, Cuba.
And I am sorry if you had discussed those before while I
was in and out.
Mr. Claver-Carone. We did.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. What was the conclusion?
Mr. Claver-Carone. Very briefly, we keep speculating about
all these issues that are upcoming whether it is Iran, whether
it is Russia, et cetera, and we have an opportunity to draw a
line, and the line that we are going to draw right now in
regards to North Korea.
These shipments weren't, as I said, just a few arms that
were being sent. It was the largest violation--I am sorry to be
repetitive--the largest violation of U.N. sanctions to North
Korea ever since it was----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. What do you think is going to happen now
that we know that and they have issued their interim report?
Mr. Claver-Carone. The U.N. panel of experts took it to,
obviously, now to the Security Council. They said that there
was obviously a conscious violation of international sanctions
and now the Security Council there is going to decide and they
are going to see there are individual entities that should be
sanctioned, et cetera.
Obviously, we know for a fact that the Cuban military's
conglomerate, GAESA, had something to do with it because every
single transaction that had to do with the shipment involved
GAESA which, by the way, is headed by General Luis Alberto
Rodriguez Lopez-Callejas, which is Raul Castro's son-in-law and
runs the entire tourism industry in Cuba as well, which we are
also continuing to feed into.
That being said, whether the U.N. Security Council is going
to in any way sanction GAESA or any of these individuals, I
wouldn't hold my breath. At the end of the day, as I mentioned,
obviously, Russia plays a part in this.
China, which protects North Korea, plays a part in this.
Thus, if the United States does not draw a line in the sand in
regards to these weapons sales, which is extraordinarily
egregious with the facts that I mentioned in my testimony, we
are welcoming the speculation in regards to Russia, I should
say.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. And would you say that now I think
the biggest problem that we might face is a move by some folks
to take Cuba off the state sponsor of terrorism list?
They have sort of decided they don't have the votes because
of a lot of the hard work that we have done in Congress and so
now, lamentably, we didn't put that in Helms-Burton so that is
a decision that is made by the executive branch.
That is why I worry about these Colombia peace talks with
the FARC taking place in Cuba. If an agreement is reached it
would be used by saying hey, Cuba is no longer a terrorist
country because it was the site of this honeymoon even though
they just broke international sanctions with North Korea with
this illegal shipment of arms. Do you see the move now to take
Cuba off the state sponsor of terrorism?
Mr. Claver-Carone. Obviously, the biggest effort that is
being made by folks that advocate normalized relations with
Cuba is to take them off the state sponsor of terrorism list.
This is what is being pressed mostly because it is a
unilateral decision of the President. But there is legislative
guidance to it, and in the legislative guidance to it
essentially what they would need to qualify is that there needs
to be a commitment from the Cuban Government that the United
States accepted that they would not be involved in any of these
acts in the future.
Now, the fact that they have been caught red-handed and the
fact that the U.N. panel of experts has shown that they have
been involved in some of these shipments in the past and there
is a lot of speculation into because there was a lot of these
patterns, well, pretty much clearly shows that they cannot be
trusted in that regards.
And in regards to the FARC, I would note that there was
just recently indictments in Federal court in Virginia against
other low-level FARC individuals who are now in Cuba as part of
this extraordinarily large delegation.
Now, this delegation keeps getting larger and larger and
larger with lower and lower-level officials because, you know,
guess what, they are being indicted here in the United States
for terrorism and for some egregious acts and now they are
going to be in Cuba.
Are they going to ever come and face justice here? Probably
unlikely. The fact as well that Joanne Chesimard was named to
the top 10 most wanted terrorist list is what also makes it
very difficult to justify their removal from that list. A
recent BBC documentary on Gaddafi brought about--they refound,
rekindled Frank Terpil. Who is Frank Terpil, many of you
recall, was the rogue CIA agent who sold nuclear material, who
led Gaddafi's hit squads and they interviewed him once again
guess where? In Cuba.
Frank Terpil is still around and, obviously, we know what
he did. So all these things adding up makes it, I think, would
make it very difficult to justify the removal of Cuba from the
state sponsor list.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Ambassador Reich.
Ambassador Reich. You are the chairman of the Western
Hemisphere--I mean, sorry, the Middle East Subcommittee so--
sorry about that, madam.
I think that, to make a comparison, to have the talks
between the FARC and the Government of Colombia in Havana would
be the media equivalent of having talks between Hamas and
Israel in Tehran. That is about how much sense it makes.
Let me give you also an anecdote about Colombia that goes
to a lot of the statements that have been made here, and I am
very sorry that Mr. Meeks left because I really wanted to
engage him in a little dialogue about some of the facts that he
apparently has gotten wrong about what happened in Venezuela
because I was Assistant Secretary when some of those things
that he claims happened did not happen.
But on Colombia, in 1991 then President Bush 41 pulled me
out of retirement, one of my many retirements, and asked me to
go to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. That was the
year that the first Gulf War started.
In fact, it was the day that the first Gulf War started. We
were trying to get the Latin American Governments, among other
things--that was my job, several continents including Latin
America--to support several human rights declarations. One of
them was on Cuba.
The Colombian Ambassador to the Human Rights Commission and
I became friends. Over a period of weeks I tried to lobby him
to support a very simple resolution asking for a special
rapporteur from the U.N. Human Rights Commission to examine the
conditions of Cuban jails, which Castro has never allowed
examination by international bodies.
And finally, after 4 weeks of lobbying him, he admitted--he
lost his patience with me and in a very friendly manner said,
you know, collega--he said, my colleague, he says, you know
that Colombia could never accompany the United States in this
project, as he called it, this resolution, he said, because you
know what Fidel Castro is able to do and has done in my
country. And I said what is that.
I knew, but I wanted to hear him say it. He says, he has
killed, he has kidnapped, he has supported the terrorists. He
says, we cannot vote against Cuba at the United Nations.
Now, I reported that. That is in the annals of the State
Department somewhere in that huge warehouse where the Raiders
of the Lost Ark is stored--or the Ark itself, I should say.
And in the files of the State Department there is that
conversation and it is an incredible admission by a strong
democratic government that they could not vote against Cuba, as
he put it, even on a human rights resolution at a multilateral
forum, and this is why, to go back to Mr. Sires' question why
does the OAS not work?
Not because it is the OAS but because it is a multilateral
forum and the countries' personalities change when they are
surrounded by other diplomats who get together every afternoon
and talk to each other day after day and have drinks and
reinforce each other's prejudices, one of which is that they
don't like the United States.
I, frankly, have to say that I am so happy I was never
asked, except for that--twice the President asked me to go to
Geneva for the Human Rights Commission.
I think multilateral fora are inherently corrupt,
intellectually corrupt, and so that is why we need to do our
effective diplomacy at the bilateral level.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. They are afraid of Castro for that reason
and Maduro they don't want to vote against him because they
like the cheap or free gas.
Ambassador Reich. Again, Madam Chairman, I said in my
remarks that Cuba is an organized crime state. It is run like
the Mafia is run. When Castro doesn't like somebody, what
they're doing to them--like for example, Pinera in Chile.
Pinera's problems with the student movement in Chile was
not coincidental. It was aided and abetted by Castro as a way
to keep Pinera from moving Chile too far to the center. After
20 years under the coalition of the socialists and the
Christian Democrats, finally Sebastian Pinera, a conservative,
was elected, and guess what?
All of a sudden there is all of these problems with the
students that completely divert President Pinera's agenda from
doing what he wanted to do. If you were to ask the CIA to give
you information about Cuban involvement in the student movement
rebellion, if you want to call it that, against Pinera,
unfortunately, I am now out of the government so you can't
share it with me but I would urge you to do that----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Ambassador Reich [continuing]. As well as other examples
that I would be happy to tell you about.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. And thank you, Mr. Ambassador. So sorry I
ran over time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Salmon. You know what? This has been so important and
so intriguing and we have got such a wonderful panel. I have
not used the gavel at all today. I have let everybody go over.
It was an incredibly important issue that we talked about
today. I continue to believe that we have woefully neglected
this hemisphere and I share with the gentlewoman frustration
with some of these multilateral organizations and I think,
Ambassador Reich, you have summed up a lot of my feelings.
I think that a lot of these multilateral organizations are
inherently corrupt in fact, not only do we not get value, it is
actually counterproductive and it is very, very frustrating to
me.
There is an old axiom that you either act or you are acted
upon, and I think that right now, and you said it, Mr. Berman,
that nature fills a vacuum. Nature abhors that vacuum and fills
that vacuum. We have neglected the hemisphere.
I think foreign policy in general in the entire world has
been neglected but here it is in our own neighborhood and it
has been woefully neglected and someday we are going to pay the
price.
I don't think anybody expected a few months ago that Russia
would do what it did with Ukraine. We didn't expect that they
would do what they did with Georgia.
But it has happened and it is happening, and if we keep
falling asleep at the switch as we have been for the last
several years, not just the United States but the world is
going to pay a hell of a price, and that is why I have let
everybody say what they said today and thank you and thank the
panel.
And without any other business, this subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the RecordNotice deg.
\\ts\