Reich: The United States and Uruguay, "allies in many battles"
Otto Reich, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, stated, "We do not have our own candidates" in Latin America. "We have few better friends than [those in] Uruguay: they know terrorism and the price of democracy. In the commission of human rights, it [the GOU] played an extremely positive role regarding Cuba, and [the GOU] is seen well in the United States and the rest of the world. We will change our policy towards Cuba in exchange for free elections; not to replace the head of state but the representative assembly. However, Fidel Castro does not want any challenge to total control over Cuba.

En Perspectiva Friday, 12 July 02, 8:32am local time

Emiliano Cotelo:

For the United States, the Twenty-First Century began differently than probably imagined by its people, including those in charge of the government. The attacks of September 11th marked a great change of priorities for United States’ foreign policy agenda, just at the time that President George Bush had announced that Latin America would be one of its primary focuses of attention.

What, then, is the best role for this area of the world given the United States’ new foreign policy agenda? What are the objectives guiding this policy? What is the motive for his [Reich’s] visits to Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay?

At this time, we will discuss this with Otto Juan Reich, since January Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, the most important [official] in the US government for Latin American affairs.

I was saying that the attacks on September 11th changed the priorities of the United States’ foreign policy agenda. What are the primary objectives in foreign policy and how does Latin America fit into this context?

Otto Juan Reich:

President Bush's policy that he himself has announced and reiterated several times is that the Western Hemisphere is his geographic priority. He says it is our community and that we must live in peace and prosperity in our community. He has not given any importance to the hemisphere; what has occurred since September 11th is that, as the executive of the country, the President and commander in chief of the armed forces, his main priority should be the protection of national security. Since we were attacked, we are counterattacking terrorism. As we continue with this war, which will end when it is won, we also continue with the other priorities of the government and of foreign policy. We can fight the war against terrorism and at the same time be concerned with the security, prosperity, and freedom of this hemisphere, and we will continue to do so.

EC - Where in President Bush's agenda is Latin America situated in the chapter of the war against terrorism?

OJR - Fortunately, we have fewer problems with terrorism [here] than many other parts of the world. That is very good for us because security is very important for economic development [and] for prosperity, one of our objectives. However, we cannot fool ourselves: this hemisphere has been victim to terrorism --even this country has had that experience--and we continue to be on alert to ensure that no terrorist group threaten not only the United States but also our friends and allies in the hemisphere.

EC - In particular, which countries are of concern to the United States in this endeavor? What situations? What countries are a concern?

OJR - We have information -- no secret -- that in this hemisphere people with extra-regional ties want to assist in destabilizing democracies. For example, there is recent information regarding Irish groups in Columbia training Marxist forces, the guerillas of the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces in the building of powerful bombs which, unfortunately, they have used recently. They attacked none other than a church in the Chopo region of Columbia, near the Atlantic, where 120 had been refuged, mostly women and children. The FARC fired one of these projectiles, and 120 innocent people died. We have to be very careful in all countries. They [the terrorists] must know that the United States will cooperate with democratic countries to protect us from these threats.

EC - Are those the themes that guide your trip to our region these days, through Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay?

OJR - No, however, you asked me, and I answered with pleasure. The primary objective of this trip is to make my first official visit [as A/S for WHA]. I have already been to Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and the rest of Latin America several times in other capacities, but not as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. I want to see personally what the situation is. We are concerned with the economic situation in the region. We want to inform the governments and people of these three countries, of these three democracies, that not only are we concerned but also working to find common solutions to improve the economy and the standard of living in this region. This is very important to our country.

EC - You know that your arrival to this region, Latin America, comes at a time when resentment towards the United States has been growing in many of these countries. The harshest criticisms aside, from the left or several other social movements, there is also discomfort on the government level regarding the United States’ attitude toward this part of the continent. I mention two examples. The President of Argentina, Eduardo Duhalde, stated that the main difficulty his country faces in its negotiations to receive international financial assistance comes from ignorance and lack of concern from the United States government. On his part, the Brazilian President, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, questioned President Bush and accused him of ignoring Latin America, adding that the fact that [Latin America] is irrelevant to the United States gives us the freedom to do as we wish.

What do you make of this environment?

OJR - First, I met with President Duhalde in Buenos Aires two days ago; I did not hear such comments from him. We had a very constructive and warm conversation.

EC - But you have heard these comments.

OJR - I had heard these comments, in fact, but unless I hear it personally … With all the respect that their sources deserve, when one is in the government, one has to hear directly from colleagues or other officials or representatives of government before making comments. What I know personally is that I have met with President Duhalde. He knows that the United States is doing everything possible within our limits. Even though we are a very big country, we are not omnipotent. We are helping Argentina in a bilateral and multilateral manner through multinational organizations.

EC - Can you be more specific in regards to how the United States will "help" Argentina?

OJR - We have sought and found various economic ways in which to increase Argentine exports to the United States. One example is that Argentina was not included when President Bush signed steel tariffs into law. It was made an exception precisely because of its economic problems. This is an example in the bilateral area.

Multilaterally, we have been in conversations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), and the Interamerican Development Bank (IDB) and others that can help Argentina economically so that they give them the help they need more quickly, so that it has a faster and long-lasting effect. I can report that recently we have seen much progress in the talks between the IMF and Argentina. Today in Buenos Aires there is an IMF mission negotiating, talking with the Argentine government to accelerate the assistance even more.

EC - You stated in a note written for the Argenine daily La Nacion before your arrival to Argentina: "The United States is more than willing to help. For that, Argentina should commit to employing an economic plan to reestablish growth. The United States is willing to support Argentina through the IMF and other international organizations."

Is it possible that Argentina will be able to employ this economic plan in search of sustainability without counting on external help beforehand? As I understand it, that was one of the proposals made to you by President Duhalde during your meeting.

OJR - President Duhalde has said publicly -- I don’t necessarily have to repeat what he said to me privately -- but it is known because he also wrote an article for the Washington Post and another for the Financial Times/. The problems of Argentina have a national origin; because of this, the solution also needs to be of national origin. We, the like-minded nations that can have some influence over the IMF, can only help from abroad. We cannot and should not impose a solution on any country. The Argentines themselves have to find a solution to their problems. In my opinion, that which is most needed at this time in Argentina is the recovery of trust by Argentines themselves in their production capabilities. Argentina is a country rich in human talent and natural resources. There is no reason to be in this situation, unless they have followed inappropriate economic policy or there have been distortions in the economy. This should be solved by the Argentine people themselves. However, the United States and other countries are willing and able and are helping.

EC - Clearly, in the conversation he had with you in the last hours, Duhalde was worried by the future of the financial system. "A sustainable plan cannot be designed without a working financial system; that is why we need your help," he told you.

OJR - You are right. Certainly, the IMF is sending a group of experts to Argentina that includes, for example, central bank presidents from different parts of the world. President Bush has offered Argentina technical assistance and has suggested that [Argentina] obtain it not only from Europe and the United States but also from neighboring countries. There are countries such as Chile Mexico, Brazil and others that have had serious financial problems and have been able to overcome them. I am sure that Argentina will also overcome them and in a few years this will be a memory, albeit a bad memory. Argentina will be able to achieve that recovery.

EC - Aside from the explanations the you give, there is an analysis that is circulating and that many academics have come to spread, that the IMF like the United States is letting Argentina continue to fall and drown in a well. This interpretation says, first, that [Argentina] should pay dearly for its irresponsible economic management, their corrupt politics, etc. Also -- argument used repeatedly by the Uruguayan historian Alberto Methol Ferre -– the United States is interested in weakening Mercosur because it does harm and is an obstacle for the strategic relationship between Washington and Latin America and for the Free Trade in the Americas Agreement. What do you say to these criticisms?

OJR - The people who say that do not know the United States nor the reality of the world. The destabilization of any country in our community does not at all favor the United States, especially in democratic, allied countries. Argentina is an extra-NATO ally of the United States. Even if those political, strategic and economic reasons did not exist, simply from a commercial point of view, a fast and long lasting economic recovery in countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil is beneficial to us because they are great commercial partners of the United States. When those countries have economic downturns, Americans lose employment because we export and import many products to these countries. When Argentina cannot buy, the United States sells less. Then, I cannot explain to myself how someone could believe that we want Argentina or any other country to suffer these economic problems. It does not make any sense. To the contrary, what we want is more prosperity and more wealth for these countries, but wealth accompanied by social progress, education, and well being and within a political framework of respect for human rights and democracy.

EC - You and the Bush administration were in general satisfied with the government's decision to hold early elections. Did you ever seriously consider supporting Argentina during the Duhalde government, during this transition government?

OJR - I said that President Duhalde had put the nation before political interests to call early elections. We had absolutely nothing to do with the President Duhalde's decision. It surprised us just as it did the rest of the world. But having taken this decision as head of state we support him of course, but we are supporting the Argentine republic, Argentine democracy.

EC - What is the advantage to early elections from the point of view of the United States?

OJR - We do not have a stand on that. If the Argentines decide to call early elections that is fine; and if they don't that is also fine.

EC - What will occur during this period, until the new president is known? Isn't the waiting period too long? It is eight months.

OJR - No, that will not change; Argentina's political calendar or timetable does not change our attitude towards the country. We will continue working to raise the economic level of the country and stabilize the Argentine finances. As I said, what is convenient for us is a stable, democratic and prosperous Argentina. As long as the government is democratic, friendly, we do not decide who governs the country.

EC - You almost answered the next question I was going to ask. Is Carlos Menem the United States’ candidate for the Argentine presidency?

OJR - We do not have candidates in foreign countries.

EC - You know that is assumed that Carlos Menem is the favorite. What would the United States say if Elisa Carrio were to win, for example?

OJR - I do not know Mrs. Carrio. We do not elect; we are sufficiently busy with electing our own candidates within the United States. We do not have candidates. Of course, we are interested that the Argentine government, elected by the voters of Argentina, respect human rights and provides economic opportunities. In other words, we hope Argentina continues with economic policies that have had success throughout the world. That does interest us. Electing the person that heads the government is the responsibility of the citizens of that country.

***

EC - We have spoken enough about Argentina. I would like to include some commentary regarding Brazil, a country that has become rather complicated in recent months. This is in part due to the fear that has been transmitted from investment banks and assessment agencies over the future of the Brazilian economy. Were PT candidate Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva to win, the favorite in the polls. How does the United States see the unexpected election of Lula?

OJR - That would be a prediction; I am not in the business of making predictions. Again, the Brazilian people have to decide who will be their leaders.

EC - What would the US - Brazil relationship be like with a Lula government?

OJR - With all respect, it is a hypothetical question. At this time, there are four principle candidates in Brazil. I do not think that it would be constructive if we were to try to guess what would be the relationship with a person that has yet to be elected, with whom we haven't made the necessary contacts and with which many changes can be seen. As we know, the circumstances lead political leaders to at times change their position. I am not predicting that to be the case. However there have been candidates that have said one thing when they are campaigning and later, once in power, have seen realities that force them to take other decisions. Then, I believe that speculating over what would be the relationship given an act that has yet to occur, would not be worthwhile.

EC - Don't you believe that the United States should assume a leadership role and transmit confidence in respect to the future development of the Brazilian economy, regardless of who may win?

OJR - Absolutely, that is so. That was one of the purposes for my visit to Brazil and others that have been made by other representatives of the United States government and that will continue in the future. We are very concerned by any reverse movement in the Brazilian economy, as also with Argentina or Uruguay, because they are friends, important countries and commercial partners of the United States. We are no longer speaking of a regional power but of a global power. Brazil's is one of the ten largest economies in the world, and we are extremely interested that any problem they may have be overcome. We are doing everything possible, but a country such as the United States, that has a slightly more influence than others, has to be very careful in saying what it is doing or plans on doing, especially concerning actions that may influence the value of the currency or of the stock exchange of some country. They can be sure that we are going to do everything possible for the recovery of the regional economies.

EC - How many hours did you spend in Brazil?

OJR - Two days.

EC - However, you did not meet with President Fernando Henrique Cardoso?

OJR - No.

EC - Earlier, I cited some criticisms of the United States made by Cardoso. Was that the reason? Did you seek a visit with the president?

OJR - No; our embassy simply announced that I would be there, we did not request a meeting with the president. Of course, if the president had wanted to meet with me, with pleasure. However the purpose of the trip was primarily to visit Itamaraty. I met with other representatives of government, not only with the chancellor, but also with the minister of agriculture, who is very worried by subsidies among other things. It was a series of excellent meetings. We have great communication with the government of Brazil. President Bush often speaks with President Cardoso, as with President Battle, and considers their opinions to be very important.

EC - In Uruguay, you met with President Battle, in Argentina you met with Duhalde. How can it be interpreted that you did not meet with Cardoso?

OJR - Honestly, I do not even know if the president was in Brasilia. I was only in Brasilia; it is possible that he was not there. I do not see it as any kind of rejection. After all, I am not a head of state, I am extremely honored to have been received by President Battle. I had some very interesting and pleasant conversations. I learned a lot about the history of Uruguay and the current situation of the country during the time I enjoyed with President Battle, who is an enchanting and intelligent, knowledgeable person. He spoke in five different languages throughout the course of the conversation, but after all I am an Assistant Secretary of State and not the head of state, I am not even the Secretary of State. I consider it an honor and a privilege that President Battle and President Duhalde met with me, but the Brazilians have their priorities and, as I said, it is very possible that President Cardoso was not even in the city.

EC - What subjects were covered yesterday with President Batlle?

OJR - We spoke, of course, of the financial and economic situation of Uruguay, and we explored the areas in which the United States can help. As it is known, we have a commercial and investment agreement by which we are attempting to find different ways to stimulate the economy of this country and find new markets for its products, even though I believe that you are very capable of doing this. I found out here that [Uruguay is] exporting more computer software than do other countries such as Brazil. In other words, Uruguay may be a small country, but it is a giant in certain areas.

EC - In any event there are certain segments in which the government and the entire country are interested in increasing access to the US market.

OJR - Yes, of course. And we are very interested that you enter the market and increase exports to the United States. We honestly believe that commerce has to be a two-way road; it cannot be one-way. Because of this, we continue to be convinced that the FTAA can and should take place in the year 2005. The entire region would benefit, as we have seen, for example, in our recent experience with Mexico and Canada, with whom we have a free trade agreement. The free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada began in 1995; since that year, only seven years ago, Mexico has risen from number 36 in world exports to number 8; it has become the second commercial partner of the United States. We believe that example can continue in other parts of the region, that will help all of the Americas.

EC - That was one of the topics in the conversation with President Batlle. Which were your other priorities in this visit to Uruguay?

OJR - We discussed the challenges to democracy; we [also] discussed terrorism, regional problems such as those facing Columbia, a democratic country deserving the support of the regional democracies, and we discussed international affairs. During dinner, after my press conference, we discussed many other topics. In the press conference that took place before dinner with President Batlle, [the reporters] asked me various questions: if I had spoken of this or that. At that time we had not yet spoken, but the dinner lasted several hours and we discussed several topics.

EC - You mentioned the challenges for democracy in Latin America and a couple of countries, one of them Venezuela. In particular, in relation to Venezuela, there are accounts that say you are taking measures to create an anti-Chavez movement in this area of the world. What do you say?

OJR - Venezuela is one of the countries facing serious threats to democracy. We are not creating nor suggesting an anti-Chavez front; on the contrary, we are trying that the Chavez government and the opposition sit down at a dialogue table to resolve their problems peacefully. In this sense, we have tried to help.

EC - According to the United States government, what is the solution for Venezuela? This is delicate question, taking into account that when the coup took place in April, several newspapers said the White House had been involved through fluid dialogue in the days and week before [the putsch] with those involved in the attempt.

OJR - Neither the White House nor the State Department played any role in the events of April in Venezuela. Whoever wishes can say otherwise, but we know the truth. The problems of Venezuela are the problems of the Venezuelan people; its solutions have to come from the Venezuelan people. We are trying to foster international help; we know that the internal polarization is so acute. We believe that the OAS can and should play an important role because, after all, it is a regional organization, an association completely dedicated to democracy, especially after the letter of democracy was signed in Lima, Peru on September 11th, the same day the United States was attacked by terrorism. I really love Venezuela. I was the United States Ambassador in that country for three years, and I have many friends there. I know President Chavez. What I have urged him and the opposition is that the democratic process be followed. It is a democratic country: Chavez was elected democratically, but when he returned to power on the 14th of April, he himself stated that he had been wrong in many of his actions and wanted to reestablish dialogue with the opposition and reach national reconciliation. That is what we want to see.

EC - How did you see the steps taken by ex -President Carter in Venezuela?

OJR - Apparently, they were not as successful as expected, but the good that came of this is that the opposition and the government of President Chavez have both said that they are willing to accept the OAS role as a facilitator. This is positive.

EC - We started speaking of Venezuela because of your meeting with President Batlle last night. I would like to consult something more related to Uruguay. Given the role played by our country in the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations this year, driving the motion over Cuba, and in light of the support that Uruguay received from the IMF and other multilateral lending organizations, various analysts understand that Uruguay is the United States' regional ally. Do you have this impression? In any case, what is the role that the Bush administration and your office in particular assigns to Uruguay?

OJR - We can have few friends better than Uruguay, because this country knows what it is to fight for democracy and the price of democracy. It also knows terrorism. The role taken by Uruguay in the Human Rights Commission was extremely important, and it is well seen by the United States and the rest of the world. Remember that for the first time the majority of the Latin American countries supported the motion made by Uruguay. It was not an anti-Cuba motion, as many have stated, but instead a motion for the human rights of the Cuban people. The entire commission approved it. Unfortunately, Cuba is the sole example of a dictatorship remaining in this hemisphere, the only exception to democracy. There is no reason for Cuba to be an exception. It should be a democratic country and should again join the family of nations, ceasing to be a danger to its own people and to the other people of the region. Fidel Castro has supported terrorism in all countries of this hemisphere. There does not exist a single country that hasn't suffered deaths due to terrorists trained and supported by the government of Castro.

EC - But curiously, although Uruguay drove this motion, President Batlle in particular has been against the embargo and blockade. You, on the other hand, are a fervent supporter of the blockade or embargo.

OJR - That is what some say in the press.

EC - How do you describe yourself?

OJR - First, there is no blockade, because a blockade is an act of war by which the ports of other countries are blocked. There is a unilateral embargo, an economic sanction maintained, almost symbolically, by the United States. In reality, President Batlle -- I heard this because I was present at the meeting with President Bush at the White House -- very consistent with his values, told President Bush that he was not in favor of this embargo.

EC - Was that topic also discussed last night during your conversation with President [Batlle]?

OJR - Briefly, honestly it was not one of the principle topics. But since you have asked, we would be willing to change our economic policy toward Cuba. President Bush has made the offer, simply in exchange for free elections in the country, not even for an election to replace the head of state but only elections for the popular assembly. But Fidel Castro's reaction was completely negative because he does not want, as the totalitarian that he is, any obstacle to his complete control over the Cuban people.

EC - Returning to the question that lead to the analysis of Cuba, what role does the Bush administration and the office that you head assign to Uruguay? Taking into consideration those frictions or differences developing in Argentina and Brazil, what role does Uruguay play in the region?

OJR - Uruguay has played a very consistent role with its democratic history and values. As I said, President Batlle does not agree with the American politics of economic sanctions, but at the same time Uruguay played a protagonist role, along with a great number of Latin American countries, in terms of human rights for the Cuban people. That is extremely consistent…

EC - My question went further than Cuba: what role does it play in the US - Mercosur relationship.

OJR - We see Uruguay as a country more important than its size represents. It has moral value and a much greater position than normal for a country with 3.2 million people. I believe that precisely because of its history of defending democracy and human rights. We consider Uruguay to be a friend, a country with whom we share all democratic values…

EC - How do you see the term "regional ally" used by some analysts?

OJR - We are allies in many battles. Actually we are allies in a battle against terrorism, against corruption, in favor of human rights and free trade. We are not military allies but political allies.

Return to Home l Back