Archaeologists in Puerto Rico surprised by discovery of Indian artifacts

The Associated Press

Saturday, October 27, 2007

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico: U.S. and Puerto Rican archaeologists say they have uncovered what they believe to be one of the most important pre-Columbian sites found in the Caribbean, containing stones etched with ancient petroglyphs and graves that reveal unusual burial methods.

The stones at the site in southern Puerto Rico form a large plaza measuring some 130 feet by 160 feet (40 meters by 50 meters) that could have been used for ball games or ceremonial rites, said Aida Belen Rivera, director of the Puerto Rican Historic Conservation office.

The petroglyphs include the carving of a human figure with masculine features and frog legs. Archaeologists believe the site might belong to the Taino and pre-Taino cultures that inhabited the island before European colonization.

The plaza could contain other artifacts dating from 600 A.D. to 1500 A.D., said Rivera, whose office is receiving general reports about the findings.

"I have visited many sites and have never seen a plaza of that magnitude and of those dimensions and with such elaborate petroglyphs," said Miguel Rodriguez, member of the government's archaeological council and director of a graduate school in Puerto Rico that specializes in history and humanities. He is not involved in the project.

Archaeologists also uncovered several graves where bodies were interred face-down with the legs bent backward at the knees — a type of burial believed to be new to the region.

The site was discovered while land was being cleared for construction of a dam to control flooding in the area. Experts have called for a halt to the excavation, saying the team's use of heavy machinery has exposed the stones and possibly destroyed important evidence.

Jose Oliver, a Latin American Archaeology lecturer at University College London, called the discovery one that archaeologists come across every 50 or 100 years — if they are lucky.

"I'm convinced that a competent investigation of that site will offer us a rare perspective of our Pre-Columbian and Pre-Colonial history," Oliver, who has overseen several high-profile digs in the U.S. Caribbean territory, said by e-mail.

But he warned that the company in charge of the site is not equipped to handle such a massive and complex job.

The lead investigator for Georgia-based New South Associates, the archaeological and historical consulting firm leading the excavation, said a backhoe that scrapes inches (centimeters) at a time did break some bones, but that the same would have occurred through manual excavation.

The company switched to slower and more detailed excavation methods about two weeks ago, after the site's significance became clear and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced that it would preserve the site, investigator Chris Espenshade said.

Experts have suspected since 1985 that the area might yield indigenous artifacts because of its proximity to other archaeological sites.

The Tainos were a subgroup of the Arawakan Indians, native to the Caribbean islands. They migrated to the Caribbean from Mexico's Yucatan centuries before European colonizers arrived.

Four years after Columbus landed in Hispaniola in 1495, one-third of the 300,000 original Indian population was killed or exported. Half a century later, the Tainos there became extinct.

---

Puerto Rican Leader Backs Cuba

---

Quito , Oct 27 (Prensa Latina) Puerto Ricans are with Cuba and, as fighters for the independence of our territory, we defend self-determination and sovereignty of that country, Rafael Cancel Miranda stated in this capital Saturday. Special guest to the Fifth Continental Meeting of Solidarity with the Cuban people, Cancel Miranda talked Prensa Latina of his love for Cuba, saying that he is "a light in Latin America." "From my land, controlled by the US government, I am ready to fight Cuba , as I have done for the independence of my country," stated the leader, who served 25 years imprisonment in United States for his independentist struggle. Cancel Miranda was one of the activists that, along with Lolita Lebron and Andres Figueroa, attacked the US Congress in 1954, to demand the end of that northern country's intervention in Puerto Rico. Expressing his solidarity with five Cuban anti-terrorist fighters unfairly imprisoned by the empire, Cancel Miranda recalled that he and other independentists were also sentenced in manipulated trials full of irregularities. In addition of Cancel Miranda, nearly 20 Puerto Ricans and representatives from Venezuela, Uruguay, Argentina , Chile, Peru, Brazil , Colombia, Nicaragua and Mexico , among others, are attending the event. ef iff lgo PL-18

Ecuador wants military base in Miami

http://uk.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUKADD25267520071022

Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:38pm BST

By Phil Stewart

NAPLES (Reuters) - Ecuador's leftist President Rafael Correa said Washington
must let him open a military base in Miami if the United States wants to
keep using an air base on Ecuador's Pacific coast.

Correa has refused to renew Washington's lease on the Manta air base, set to
expire in 2009. U.S. officials say it is vital for counter-narcotics
surveillance operations on Pacific drug-running routes.

"We'll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami
-- an Ecuadorean base," Correa said in an interview during a trip to Italy.

"If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely
they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States."

The U.S. embassy to Ecuador says on its Web site that anti-narcotics flights
from Manta gathered information behind more than 60 percent of illegal drug
seizures on the high seas of the Eastern Pacific last year.

It offers a fact-sheet on the base at:
http://ecuador.usembassy.gov/topics_of_interest/manta-fol.html

Correa, a popular leftist economist, had promised to cut off his arm before
extending the lease that ends in 2009 and has called U.S. President George
W. Bush a "dimwit".

But Correa, an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, told Reuters he
believed relations with the United States were "excellent" despite the base
closing.

He rejected the idea that the episode reflected on U.S. ties at all.

"This is the only North American military base in South America," he said.

"So, then the other South American countries don't have good relations with
the United States because they don't have military bases? That doesn't make
any sense."

Sin posición Pelosi sobre el status de Puerto Rico

Dijo que, aunque cree en la autodeterminación, deberá estudiar cómo quedó el proyecto tras su aprobación en el Comité de Recursos Naturales de la Cámara.

Por NÉSTOR IKEDA (AP)
WASHINGTON — La presidenta de la Cámara de Representantes, Nancy Pelosi, dijo hoy que no tiene una posición como para sugerir a Puerto Rico la forma en que debería finalmente resolver su relación política con Estados Unidos.

“No tengo una posición”, dijo en una rueda de prensa en el Capitolio federal. “Amo a Puerto Rico: He pasado mi luna de miel en Puerto Rico y vuelvo cada vez que puedo”.

El comentario fue formulado luego que el Comité de Recursos de la cámara que preside aprobara esta semana un proyecto de ley que permitiría una consulta en la que los puertorriqueños determinarían si quieren o no continuar con su actual status territorial.

“Nunca me involucraría en un argumento entre estadolibrismo, anexionismo o la independencia allí”, dijo Pelosi. “Ése es un nivel de pasión que posiblemente nunca podamos entender en nuestra política en Estados Unidos”, agregó.

“Sin embargo, creo en la autodeterminación y sabía lo que estaba en el proyecto al entrar (al debate). No he visto la forma en que el proyecto ha quedado al salir. Pero, son fuertes los del pro y el contra en nuestro grupo (demócrata) y escucharé cuidadosamente a todos ellos”, adelantó Pelosi.

El Comité de Recursos Naturales aprobó el martes a viva voz el proyecto y en caso de que su contenido fuera preservado al pasar por las dos cámaras, las autoridades puertorriqueñas deberán conducir un plebiscito no más tarde del 31 de diciembre de 2009 sobre si desean seguir con su actual relación de ELA o cambiarla.

Si la mayoría opta por el cambio, Puerto Rico elegiría entonces una Convención o Asamblea Constitucional o iría a un nuevo plebiscito para decidir por “una opción de autodeterminación” entre las cuales figurarían convertirse en un estado de Estados Unidos o en república.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periodista colombiano abandona su país por amenazas de muerte de paramilitares

http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2007/10/74078.php

versión para imprimir - enviar por e-mail
por Telesur Thursday, Oct. 25, 2007 at 3:39 PM

A Hollman Morris le enviaron correos electrónicos que le prometían ''muy pronto'' un ataúd. El comunicador, quien desde hace años trabaja para denunciar los crímenes producto del conflicto armado en Colombia y es crítico del Gobierno del presidente Álvaro Uribe, se toma muy en serio estas amenazas. - Tercera parte de municipios colombianos en riesgo de violencia durante elecciones

El periodista Hollman Morris, destacado activista por los derechos humanos en Colombia y crítico del Gobierno del presidente Álvaro Uribe, abandonó su país junto a su familia, tras recibir reiteradas amenazas de muerte en su contra por parte de paramilitares de ultraderecha, informó su hermano.

"Él tomó la decisión después de recibir nuevas amenazas y en medio de un clima peligroso por recientes enfrentamientos del presidente (Uribe) con varios periodistas (críticos de su Gobierno) y una campaña electoral tremendamente violenta", dijo Juan Pablo Morris, hermano del comunicador.

Morris explicó que su hermano recibió el pasado 26 de septiembre un correo electrónico firmado por un presunto grupo paramilitar autodenominado "Frente Patriótico", donde le decían que se había ganado la rifa para un ataúd y con la leyenda "Por guerrillero, sapo y apátrida".

Al día siguiente recibió otro mensaje. En esta ocasión se había incluido una imagen del periodista tachada con una "X" y el texto: "4,3,2, ya casi".

"Con estas elecciones como están, con esa matazón de gente y las amenazas a los periodistas críticos del Gobierno, Hollman no se sintió con garantías para seguir ejerciendo su profesión y decidió irse junto a su familia", añadió.

Hollman Morris, director del programa televisivo de investigación "Contravía", transmitido por TeleSUR, es conocido por sus críticas al Gobierno colombiano y por denunciar terrorismo de Estado y violaciones de los derechos humanos.

Fue galardonado recientemente con el premio de TV de la Fundación Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano, creada por el también colombiano Gabriel García Márquez.

Además, Hollman Morris ha sido merecedor de los más importantes reconocimientos periodísticos en Colombia, por sus trabajos sobre el conflicto interno.

Asesinados reportero gráfico y su asistente

Este miércoles se conoció que un reportero gráfico y su asistente fueron asesinados en la Cali, en hechos cuyos móviles y autores se ignoran, informó este miércoles la Federación Colombiana de Periodistas (Fecolper).

Carlos Alberto Jaramillo y su colaborador Julio César García, quienes trabajaban en forma independiente, fueron ultimados el domingo cuando se desplazaban en un vehículo hacia la localidad de Palmira para cubrir una competencia de ciclismo, señaló la Federación en un comunicado.

Jaramillo, de 50 años, "murió instantáneamente por varios disparos que lo impactaron en el pecho", mientras que García, de 43, falleció en un hospital adonde alcanzó a ser llevado con vida, agregó el reporte.

De acuerdo con la Federación Internacional de Periodistas (FIP), entre 1993 y 2006 fueron asesinados 111 periodistas en Colombia, crímenes de los cuales está plenamente establecido que 57 están directamente vinculados al ejercicio de su profesión.

Colombia y los periodistas

El director de la Felcoper y director del centro de solidaridad de la FIP, Eduardo Márquez, aseguró a TeleSUR que los profesionales de la comunicación social en Colombia "estamos viviendo una verdadera oleada de agresiones" y a su juicio, la situación "convierte a la autocensura en el chaleco antibalas de los periodistas".

En septiembre pasado, el presidente Álvaro Uribe acusó al corresponsal en Colombia del diario estadounidense "El Nuevo Herald", Gonzalo Guillén, de haber participado en la redacción del libro "Amando a Pablo, odiando a Escobar", cuya autora es una de las ex compañeras sentimentales del capo de la droga, Pablo Escobar.

En la obra se destaca la amistad entre Escobar y Uribe, quienes también, de acuerdo con el texto, fueron viejos socios de negocios.

Guillén negó los señalamientos del jefe de Estado y le envió una carta en la que denunció que las declaraciones del Mandatario lo ponían en "la mira del sicariato y en la picota pública" y, días después, ante nuevas amenazas de muerte en su contra, se fue del país suramericano.

Uribe también se enfrentó públicamente al periodista Daniel Coronell, director del noticiero independiente "Noticias Uno", a quien acusó de difamarlo por indicar en una columna que usó un helicóptero de Escobar para trasladar a su padre y hermanos, heridos en un hecho aún no esclarecido.

Coronell estuvo fuera de Colombia por un año por amenazas de muerte provenientes de paramilitares.

Márquez aseguró que "los periodistas somos puntal de las sociedades" y más en Colombia, donde "la guerrilla, grupos paramilitares, y el propio presidente de la república, hay sectores de poder que no están interesados que los ciudadanos tengan acceso a una información ajustada a la realidad".

Mexicans Miss Money From Relatives Up North

October 26, 2007

By ELISABETH MALKIN

EL RODEO, Mexico — For years, millions of Mexican migrants working in the United States have sent money back home to villages like this one, money that allows families to pay medical bills and school fees, build houses and buy clothes or, if they save enough, maybe start a tiny business.

But after years of strong increases, the amount of migrant money flowing to Mexico has stagnated. From 2000 to 2006, remittances grew to nearly $24 billion a year from $6.6 billion, rising more than 20 percent some years. In 2007, the increase so far has been less than 2 percent.

Migrants and migration experts say a flagging American economy and an enforcement campaign against illegal workers in the United States have persuaded some migrants not to try to cross the border illegally to look for work. Others have decided to return to Mexico. And many of those who are staying in the United States are sending less money home.

In the rest of the world, remittances are rising, up as much as 10 percent a year, according to Donald F. Terry of the Inter-American Development Bank. Last year, migrant workers worldwide sent more than $300 billion to developing countries — almost twice the amount of foreign direct investment.

But in Mexico, families are feeling squeezed.

Estrella Rivera, a slight 27-year-old in this stone-paved village in Guanajuato state in central Mexico, was hoping to use the money her husband, Alonso, sent back from working illegally in Texas to build a small clothing shop at the edge of her garden.

But a month ago, Mr. Rivera returned home. His hours at a Dallas window-screen factory were cut and rumors spread that he would inevitably have to produce a valid Social Security number. Now, he works odd jobs or tends cornfields. Mrs. Rivera’s shop is indefinitely delayed, a pile of bricks stacked on the grass.

Like Mr. Rivera, some of the men who went to work in the United States illegally have returned discouraged. And less work means less money to send home — particularly from the southern United States and other areas where Mexican migrants are a more recent presence.

“One out of three people in these new states who was sending a year ago is not sending it home today,” Mr. Terry of the Inter-American Development Bank said. “There are some 500,000 families who aren’t receiving this year.”

Until last year, the American housing trades absorbed hundreds of thousands of migrants, and the hardships of the trip north seemed to pale beside the near certainty of finding work.

Now, the construction slump — along with a year-old crackdown on illegal immigration at the border and in the workplace, and mounting anti-immigrant sentiment in places — has made it even harder for Mexican migrants to reach the United States and land well-paying jobs.

Many experts say it is too early to know if the negligible increase in remittances will continue. Some argue it was to be expected: much of the initial spike in money transfers had resulted from better accounting. In addition, earlier waves of migrants are returning to the houses they built, or they have managed to legalize their status in the United States and bring their families, sending less money back.

But the events of the last year in the United States, political and economic, have also clouded the prospects of many illegal Mexican workers. New walls, new guards and new equipment at the border have dissuaded many from trying to cross and raised the cost for those who try to as much as $2,800. Workplace raids and stories of summary deportations stoke fears among Mexicans on both sides of the border.

Referring to tougher measures in the United States, Primitivo Rodríguez, a Mexican immigration expert, said: “Psychologically, they lead you to save money in case of an emergency. You send less, you save more.”

The shakier economy in many states means that migrants have moved from well-paying steady jobs to work as day laborers.

“In our interviews with families, they say that migrants are now working two or three days when before they worked four or five days,” said David Skerritt, a historian at Veracruzana University.

Rodolfo García Zamora , an immigration expert at the University of Zacatecas, said money transfers to Zacatecas state fell by about 25 percent this year.

Here in Guanajuato state, remittances have created a peculiar economy in villages tucked among rolling corn and sorghum fields. There are few jobs, yet many houses have stereo systems, washing machines and three-piece living room sets.

Things are changing, though. Some of the men are back and need cash for seeds and fertilizer to plow long-neglected fields. At the microcredit association operated by a local nonprofit group, the Bajío Women’s Network, loans for agriculture, which barely existed last year, now account for 11 percent of all borrowing.

Women are finding it harder to save, said Evelyne Sinquin, the network coordinator. “The people who have come back can’t work, and the people in the United States are working fewer hours.”

Other than agriculture, the jobs here are in construction, building houses of absentee owners houses along the cobbled streets. Some are modest with a few brick rooms; others are ornate tributes to their absentee owners’ success: gold-painted balconies, the Virgin of Guadalupe etched in a window, Greek columns. Los Emigrantes carpentry shop in nearby La Cuevita sits on a traffic circle adorned with a monument showing several figures, one of them a migrant waving a fistful of dollars.

Not much else flourishes. Three months ago, Mónica Núñez closed her tortilla shop in the village of San Lucas. “Most people went to the United States and sales went down,” she said.

Her husband has been home from Houston for a year, but she has seven brothers and a sister in the United States who still send money. She is planning a new business, perhaps an Internet cafe so people can connect with relatives in the United States.

Less than an hour’s drive away, the city of Querétaro is prospering, turning out home appliances for the world market. But for most people in the villages, education ended after elementary school. An unskilled factory or construction job pays little more than $50 or $60 a week.

With those prospects, the next generation — some of them as young as 15 — seemed to have few doubts about heading to the United States.

Estrella Rivera’s brother Francisco left for the first time when he was 16. Now 21, he recently came home after a year and a half in Orlando, Fla., working in construction. He earned enough to add a floor to his parents’ house, but then he struggled.

“Either there was no work or they did not want to hire somebody without papers,” he said, perched on an old Ford pickup truck with Michigan tags beside his family’s sheep and cow pens.

But he expects to go back again. “To tell the truth, it really is worth the trouble,” he said, recounting a terrifying crossing getting lost in the Arizona desert.

Mrs. Rivera’s husband is not so sure. “It’s really tough to go back,” he said. “Now they lock you up. Before, they grabbed you and sent you back. The laws were never this tough.”

Blackwater's run for the border

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/23/blackwater_border/

The notorious security contractor has plans for a military-style complex near the U.S.-Mexico border. Critics worry the firm's "mercenary soldiers" could join the U.S. Border Patrol.

By Eilene Zimmerman

Oct. 23, 2007 | There are signs that Blackwater USA, the private security firm that came under intense scrutiny after its employees killed 17 civilians in Iraq in September, is positioning itself for direct involvement in U.S. border security. The company is poised to construct a major new training facility in California, just eight miles from the U.S.-Mexico border. While contracts for U.S. war efforts overseas may no longer be a growth industry for the company, Blackwater executives have lobbied the U.S. government since at least 2005 to help train and even deploy manpower for patrolling America's borders.

Blackwater is planning to build an 824-acre military-style training complex in Potrero, Calif., a rural hamlet 45 miles east of San Diego. The company's proposal, which was approved last December by the Potrero Community Planning Group and has drawn protest from within the Potrero community, will turn a former chicken ranch into "Blackwater West," the company's second-largest facility in the country. It will include a multitude of weapons firing ranges, a tactical driving track, a helipad, a 33,000-square-foot urban simulation training area, an armory for storing guns and ammunition, and dorms and classrooms. And it will be located in the heart one of the most active regions in the United States for illegal border crossings.

While some residents of Potrero have welcomed the plan, others have raised fears about encroachment on protected lands and what they see as an intimidating force of mercenaries coming into their backyard. The specter of Blackwater West and the rising interest in privatizing border security have also alarmed Democratic Rep. Bob Filner, whose congressional district includes Potrero. Filner says he believes it's a good possibility that Blackwater is positioning itself for border security contracts and is opposed to the new complex. "You have to be very wary of mercenary soldiers in a democracy, which is more fragile than people think," Rep. Filner told Salon. "You don't want armies around who will sell out to the highest bidder. We already have vigilantes on the border, the Minutemen, and this would just add to [the problem]," Filner said, referring to the Minuteman Project, a conservative group that has organized civilian posses to assist the U.S. Border Patrol in the past. Filner is backing legislation to block establishment of what he calls "mercenary training centers" anywhere in the U.S. outside of military bases. "The border is a sensitive area," he said, "and if Blackwater operates the way they do in Iraq -- shoot first and ask questions later -- my constituents are at risk."

A spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied there are any specific plans to work directly with Blackwater. And Blackwater officials say the complex would be used only for training active-duty military and law enforcement officials, work for which the company has contracted with the U.S. government.

But statements and lobbying activity by Blackwater officials, and the location for the new complex, strongly suggest plans to get involved in border security, with potential contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, Blackwater enjoys support from powerful Republican congressmen who advocate hard-line border policies, including calls for deploying private agents to beef up the ranks of the U.S. Border Patrol. Lawmakers supporting Blackwater include California Rep. and presidential candidate Duncan Hunter -- who met last year with company officials seeking his advice on the proposal for Blackwater West -- and Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, who is sponsoring a bill to allow private contractors such as Blackwater to help secure U.S. borders.

When questioned at a public hearing with the Potrero planning group on Sept. 13 about Blackwater West, Brian Bonfiglio, a Blackwater spokesman, said, "I don't think there's anyone in this room who wouldn't like to see the border tightened up." Blackwater currently had no contracts to help with border security, Bonfiglio said, but he emphasized that "we would entertain any approach from our government to help secure either border, absolutely." Bonfiglio was responding to questions from Raymond Lutz, a local organizer who opposes the new complex. (Lutz recorded the exchange and posted video of it on Oct. 12 at CitizensOversight.org.) Lutz also asked Bonfiglio if Blackwater West would be used as a base for deployment of Border Patrol agents. "Actually, we've offered it up as a substation to Border Patrol and U.S. Customs right now," Bonfiglio replied. "We'd love to see them there."

Ramon Rivera, a spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Washington, denied Bonfiglio's claim that the agency is entertaining an offer to use Blackwater West as a substation. "I think that's just Blackwater trying to sell themselves," Rivera said.

In fact, Blackwater has been selling itself for direct involvement in border security at least since May 2005, when the company's then president, Gary Jackson, testified before a House subcommittee. Jackson's testimony focused on Blackwater's helping to train U.S. Border Patrol agents and included discussion of contracts theoretically worth $80 million to $200 million, for thousands of personnel. Asked by one lawmaker if his company saw a market opportunity in border security, Jackson replied: "I can put as many men together as you need, trained and on the borders."

The company has turned to powerful allies on Capitol Hill for support, including Hunter, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and a longtime proponent of tougher border security. Joe Kasper, a spokesman for Hunter, confirmed to Salon that Blackwater officials sought guidance from Hunter on getting Blackwater West approved for Potrero. Hunter met with Blackwater officials in May 2006, at which time Hunter recommended the firm contact Dianne Jacob, the county supervisor responsible for Potrero and one of five supervisors who would vote on countywide approval for Blackwater West. Blackwater officials then met with Jacob in May, and in June the company submitted its proposal to the county, where it now must go through an approval process.

Rep. Filner says Potrero residents have complained to him that Hunter also brought pressure locally for Blackwater West. "People in the area told me he called the landowner [of the proposed site] to urge him to sell [to Blackwater]. I don't know that he did, but it wouldn't surprise me," says Filner. "That's what people in the area are saying." (Hunter has ties to Potrero, which used to be part of his congressional district; after a redestricting in 2001, Potrero became part of Filner's district, which borders Hunter's district.)

Spokesman Kasper denied that Hunter called the landowner, whose identity remains unclear. But Kasper also said that Hunter "supports Blackwater and other private security contractors in Iraq, and he supports the training facility in Potrero."

One specific concern Potrero residents have raised with relation to Blackwater West is the high risk of wildfires in their part of the county -- a danger on display the last two days as Potrero has been ravaged by fire along with other parts of Southern California. Blackwater has in fact pushed as a selling point that the complex would be a "defensible location" during wildfires. But opponents, including Jan Hedlun, the only member of the Potrero Planning Group opposed to Blackwater West, foresee danger rather than a safe haven. As Hedlun wrote in a recent editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune, "residents state they would not flee to a box canyon with one access point and an armory filled with ammunition and/or explosives."

Ever since illegal immigration became a top issue for the Bush administration and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, there have been growing calls for the U.S. to bring private security companies into border enforcement. In September 2006, the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington released a policy paper titled "Better, Faster, and Cheaper Border Security," which urged Congress and the president to beef up forces as fast as possible. "In particular," the report said, "private contractors could play an important role in recruiting and training Border Patrol agents and providing personnel to secure the border." Late last month, one of the report's authors hosted a symposium in Washington for an updated discussion on the topic, for which Rep. Rogers -- a proponent of both Blackwater and DynCorp International, another private security contractor with personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan -- was the keynote speaker.

On June 19 of this year, during a House subcommittee meeting titled "Ensuring We Have Well-Trained Boots on the Ground at the Border," Rep. Christopher Carney, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, acknowledged "it's no secret that CPB [Customs and Border Protection] as a whole lacks the manpower to fulfill its crucial mission." Robert B. Rosenkranz, president of the government services division of DynCorp, presented a plan for putting 1,000 DynCorp employees at the border in 13 months, at a cost of $197 million.

In May 2006, the Bush administration had called for a sharp increase in manpower, at least with the existing federal force. President Bush then signed a bill into law on Oct. 4, 2006, to boost the number of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents on the ground by nearly 50 percent, from approximately 12,300 to approximately 18,300, by the end of 2008.

But even such an ambitious increase would do little to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, says T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents most U.S. Border Patrol agents. Bonner, himself a field agent in east San Diego County, told the House subcommittee in June, "Realistically, there is no magic number of Border Patrol agents required to secure our borders and even if there were, it would certainly be much higher than the 18,000 proposed by the administration."

Scott Borgerson, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who specializes in homeland security, says it makes sense that U.S. companies would try to position themselves to fill gaps in national security with lucrative private-sector solutions. "If I was running a company doing private security, it's definitely what I would do," he says of Blackwater's plan to locate near the border.

In an Oct. 15 article in the Wall Street Journal, Blackwater CEO Erik Prince said that the company now sees the market diminishing for the kind of security work its employees have done in Iraq. He said that going forward the company's focus "is going to be more of a full spectrum," ranging from delivering humanitarian aid to responding to natural disasters. But priorities for the Bush administration, including immigration and border security, could also figure into Blackwater's plans -- as Salon reported recently, the company's skyrocketing revenues during Bush's presidency are accompanied by the firm's close ties with influential Republicans and top Bush officials.

Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said that the notion of Blackwater vying for lucrative border security contracts is "merely speculation," and noted that the location for Blackwater West is close to San Diego's military bases, a major training market for the company. "But hypothetically," Tyrrell added, "if the government came to us and needed assistance with border security, we'd be honored."

Borgerson says there is a role for private contractors in helping keep the United States safe. "But certain jobs belong to trained U.S. government officials -- men and women in uniform who have a flag on their sleeves," says Borgerson, who was a Coast Guard officer for 10 years. "You recite an oath that says you will defend -- not Congress, not the president, not even the people -- but the Constitution. You don't sign that oath when you go to work for Blackwater."

Bonner, of the U.S. Border Patrol, remains skeptical about Blackwater getting involved, and he says others in the upper ranks of the Border Patrol are opposed to private contractors working alongside them. He sees potential problems with both training and patrolling. The much higher pay likely offered to private agents, for example, would threaten an already difficult-to-retain federal force. "It will entice people to jump over to the other side," he says, "especially if they don't have a long-term career in mind." Bonner also says it is crucial to have a single training curriculum, and a single chain of command, to help ensure effective and lawful operations. "This is a bad idea from so many perspectives," he says of potentially privatizing the force.

The issue may be linked to broader problems the U.S. is currently facing with national security. "If we weren't allocating a tremendous amount of our resources in Iraq, we wouldn't have to outsource to companies like Blackwater," Borgerson says. While securing the U.S. borders is an important priority, he adds, "I feel we shouldn't outsource our sovereignty."

-- By Eilene Zimmerman

++++++ 2/2

Justice for Some Restrictions on federal grants starve the poor of much-needed legal representation

Published on Thursday, October 25, 2007 by In These Times
(from www.commondreams.org)
by Megan Tady

When the U.S. Supreme Court refused on October 1 to hear Legal
Services for New York City v. Legal Services Corporation, a case
challenging restrictions on access to lawyers for the poor, it sent a
clear message: Courts shouldn't be bothered with the problems of poor
people.

Funny, I thought "justice for all" meant justice for every person. It
now appears an asterisk is missing from the last line of our nation's
pledge. For clarity, perhaps it should read so like this:

"…And justice for all.*

* (The validity of this clause is subject to class and race
restrictions and can be ruled null and void upon persons' failure to
comply. The government reserves the right to alter the meaning of
eligible applicants for justice at any time. The wealthy may
disregard this disclaimer.)"

The loopholes for equality are pervasive in this country. This time,
the government wiggled out of protecting poor peoples' legal rights
when Congress passed a law in 1996 that limits the work of
independent civil legal aid programs that receive federal funding.
The government's Legal Services Corporation provides grants to
independent programs that offer free legal service to low-income
people across the nation.

The rule prevents legal aid centers from using either federal or non-
federal funds to file class action lawsuits, claim court-ordered
attorneys' fee awards, or represent certain categories of immigrants.
There's one exception: Centers can do this work if they establish a
separate office with non-federal dollars.

In other words, legal aid centers around the country that take
government funding are only allowed to use private money-funds from
the state and individual and philanthropy donations-to represent a
huge group of people in a class action suit, go to bat for exploited
immigrants, or use attorneys' fee awards as a tactic, if they set up
a physically separate facility with a different staff. It's as
rational as mandating that someone trying to spend their last two
dollars on milk at the local grocery store can only buy it at a store
that's a bus-fare away. No money when you get there? No luck.

Laura Abel, deputy director of the Justice Program at the Brennan
Center for Justice, explains why the "physical separation
requirement" has a "devastating effect" on the 138 centers that
receive government grants.

"Civil legal aid programs are notoriously underfunded and they never
have even the fraction of the funds they need, so they don't have any
extra money at all," Abel says. "So they may think, `Could we open up
a separate office across the street?' But they would have to turn
away hundreds of clients a year."

The Brennan Center is currently representing three legal aid centers
that are challenging the constitutionality of the separation
requirement, saying it violates the First Amendment. The Center first
filed the lawsuit in 2001. But the Supreme Court's refusal to hear
the case will send the long-languishing case back to a district court.

The implication of the restriction is as stark as the Supreme Court's
indifference. Abel says one "glaring example" of how the rule hurts
low-income people is the current predatory loan crisis. Had legal aid
centers been able to represent entire communities suffering at the
hands of predatory lenders, the bottom may not have dropped.

"Unfortunately [legal aid centers] haven't been able to bring class
action lawsuits; all they can do is represent one person at a time,"
Abel says. "As a result…the lenders continue their practices."

If it seems like legal aid centers have their hands tied, their
mouths are gagged as well. Federally funded centers are also not
allowed to use private funds to tell people about their legal rights
and then offer to represent them, and they can't lobby on behalf of
their clients-unless of course they lease and staff another office.

Lewis Papenfuse, executive director of the Farmworker Legal Services
of New York, a plaintiff in the case, says he was "extremely
disappointed" that the Supreme Court had turned up its nose.

In 1996, rather than accept the restrictions, Papenfuse says
Farmworker Legal Services rejected any federal funding. Papenfuse and
his staff had to take a severe pay cut, and have been building up
their center ever since.

"There's so many people with so many issues-so many people not
getting paid what they're supposed to," Papenfuse says. "Access to
justice is even less for people who are invisible in society or have
no access to even getting the information."

Not every program can be as resilient. According to the Legal Service
Corporation, the agency on average endows half the budgets of the
programs it funds.

Papenfuse and other advocates have been urging the courts and
Congress to toss out the restriction for years. In 2005, 130 non-
profit organizations and philanthropies filed an amicus brief on
behalf of the plaintiffs, and the National Council of Churches and 30
faith groups appealed to legislators in a letter, noting, "The law
closes the doors of justice for many low-income individuals and
families who simply cannot afford to hire a private lawyer to help
them in civil matters."

Congress, it appears, doesn't sympathize. A 2005 editorial in The New
York Times chastised the government: "The fact that Washington
provides money for legal representation does not give it unlimited
authority to control what lawyers say or do, or to restrict the use
of private money so severely."

The Legal Services Corporation, on the other hand, feigns compassion
on its website, writing, "…our nation falls far short of meeting the
need for civil legal aid." So why has the agency repeatedly fought
and appealed the current court case?

To go to such lengths to keep certain groups of people from obtaining
legal aid speaks volumes about the government's fear of the informed
and represented masses. Abuse and mistreatment becomes trickier when
the adage "I'll see you in court" actually has weight.

Of course, what's particularly troubling about this rule is that low-
income people, communities of color, and immigrants are those groups
most at risk of being exploited and violated, from employers
withholding a worker's wages to corporations dumping toxins in entire
neighborhoods.

It should be easy, not almost impossible, for the country's most
vulnerable to seek redress. By standing firmly with this rule, we are
merely offering a cruel taunt when pledging our allegiance
to "justice for all."

Megan Tady is a National Political Reporter for InTheseTimes.com.
Previously, she worked as a reporter for the NewStandard, where she
published nearly 100 articles in one year. Megan has also written for
Clamor, CommonDreams, E Magazine, Maisonneuve, PopandPolitics, and
Reuters.

© 2007 In These Times

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share
and discover new web pages.

Billionaires Up, America Down

Published on Monday, October 22, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

by Holly Sklar

Holly Sklar is co-author of "Raise the Floor: Wages and Policies That Work for All of Us" and "A Just Minimum Wage: Good for Workers, Business and Our Future." She can be reached at hsklar@aol.com.

When it comes to producing billionaires, America is doing great.

Until 2005, multimillionaires could still make the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans. In 2006, the Forbes 400 went billionaires only.

This year, you'd need a Forbes 482 to fit all the billionaires.

A billion dollars is a lot of dough. Queen Elizabeth II, British monarch for five decades, would have to add $400 million to her $600 million fortune to reach $1 billion. And she'd need another $300 million to reach the Forbes 400 minimum of $1.3 billion. The average Forbes 400 member has $3.8 billion.

When the Forbes 400 began in 1982, it was dominated by oil and manufacturing fortunes. Today, says Forbes, "Wall Street is king."

Nearly half the 45 new members, says Forbes, "made their fortunes in hedge funds and private equity. Money manager John Paulson joins the list after pocketing more than $1 billion short-selling subprime credit this summer."

The 25th anniversary of the Forbes 400 isn't party time for America.

We have a record 482 billionaires - and record foreclosures.

We have a record 482 billionaires - and a record 47 million people without any health insurance.

Since 2000, we have added 184 billionaires - and 5 million more people living below the poverty line.

The official poverty threshold for one person was a ridiculously low $10,294 in 2006. That won't get you two pounds of caviar ($9,800) and 25 cigars ($730) on the Forbes Cost of Living Extremely Well Index. The $20,614 family-of-four poverty threshold is lower than the cost of three months of home flower arrangements ($24,525).

Wealth is being redistributed from poorer to richer.

Between 1983 and 2004, the average wealth of the top 1 percent of households grew by 78 percent, reports Edward Wolff, professor of economics at New York University. The bottom 40 percent lost 59 percent.

In 2004, one out of six households had zero or negative net worth. Nearly one out of three households had less than $10,000 in net worth, including home equity. That's before the mortgage crisis hit.

In 1982, when the Forbes 400 had just 13 billionaires, the highest paid CEO made $108 million and the average full-time worker made $34,199, adjusted for inflation in $2006. Last year, the highest paid hedge fund manager hauled in $1.7 billion, the highest paid CEO made $647 million, and the average worker made $34,861, with vanishing health and pension coverage.
The Forbes 400 is even more of a rich men's club than when it began. The number of women has dropped from 75 in 1982 to 39 today.

The 400 richest Americans have a conservatively estimated $1.54 trillion in combined wealth. That amount is more than 11 percent of our $13.8 trillion Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - the total annual value of goods and services produced by our nation of 303 million people. In 1982, Forbes 400 wealth measured less than 3 percent of U.S. GDP.

And the rich, notes Fortune magazine, "give away a smaller share of their income than the rest of us."

Thanks to mega-tax cuts, the rich can afford more mega-yachts, accessorized with helicopters and mini-submarines. Meanwhile, the infrastructure of bridges, levees, mass transit, parks and other public assets inherited from earlier generations of taxpayers crumbles from neglect, and the holes in the safety net are growing.

The top 1 percent of households - average income $1.5 million - will save a collective $79.5 billion on their 2008 taxes, reports Citizens for Tax Justice. That's more than the combined budgets of the Transportation Department, Small Business Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Tax cuts will save the top 1 percent a projected $715 billion between 2001 and 2010. And cost us $715 billion in mounting national debt plus interest.

The children and grandchildren of today's underpaid workers will pay for the partying of today's plutocrats and their retinue of lobbyists.

It's time for Congress to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy and close the loophole letting billionaire hedge fund speculators pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries.

Inequality has roared back to 1920s levels. It was bad for our nation then. It's bad for our nation now.

Venezuela Seeks Puerto Rican Partnership

By DANICA COTO Associated Press Writer

© 2007 The Associated Press

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — The head of Puerto Rico's state-owned power company welcomed a Venezuelan delegation to the U.S. territory on Tuesday, downplaying verbal assaults by their leader who has called the American president the devil.

Jorge Rodriguez, the top official with the Electric Energy Authority, said tensions that Caracas might have with Washington did not carry over into discussions about trade and energy with the Caribbean island.

"That doesn't stop us from having a relationship" with Venezuela, Rodriguez said. "The meeting was very good, very fruitful."

Venezuela wants to strengthen economic and political ties with the self-governing, Spanish-speaking island, said Jorge Valero, the South American country's ambassador to the Organization of American States.

He said delegates promised to introduce Puerto Rican mayors to Venezuelan educational and health programs, inviting some to visit Venezuela to establish sister-city agreements.

Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has rallied opposition to U.S. policies throughout the hemisphere and frequently ridiculed President George W. Bush, calling him "the devil" in a speech last year at the United Nations.

Asked Monday if Puerto Rico's status as a U.S. commonwealth would dissuade increased cooperation, Valero said Chavez wants to begin a "new era" in diplomatic relations between Venezuela and the U.S. territory.

A message left Tuesday with a spokesman for the State Department, which has responsibility for the island's external affairs, was not immediately returned.

Democrazy in Puerto Rico

Soft Spot for the South Bronx

October 21, 2007
Soft Spot for the South Bronx
By ANNE BARNARD



Henry Lajara is mapping out where to install a rain barrel in his manicured South Bronx backyard, to show his neighbors how they can channel storm water to feed their gardens and keep runoff from flushing sewage into the Bronx River.

Lenard Ramsook, 20, glides down that river in a wooden boat, teaching local high school students how to row. He shows them the ospreys and leaping fish that share the estuary with concrete plants and expressway bridges, making the point that environmentalism is not just for the rich.

Across the South Bronx, residents are beginning cooperatives to create jobs and tend to their communities' social needs and physical health. One will recycle demolition debris. Another sells fruit and vegetables. A third will provide childcare for working families.

Behind all these projects is a man who has called President Bush "the devil," embraced Iran's firebrand leader as a fellow crusader against "the U.S. empire," and vowed to help the poor and disenfranchised everywhere, even - or, perhaps, especially - in the world's most powerful country.

That man, Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela , began his love affair with the Bronx during a visit in 2005. Since then, he and his socialist government have funneled millions of dollars of aid to the South Bronx, home to New York's poorest Congressional district, through Citgo Petroleum, the American subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company.


It is an unlikely flow of largess, from an oil-rich South American country where much of the population lives in poverty to one of the neediest pockets in the seat of American capitalism.
Citgo started its outreach in 2005 with a 40 percent discount on heating oil for poor households and expanded it in August to finance social and economic development. The company has committed to donating $3.6 million over the next three years to nine Bronx initiatives that would use the money to create jobs, foster community empowerment and clean up the urban environment.

The program has made Mr. Chávez the talk of the South Bronx .

"He came in here and took over - like a Spanish Napoleon!" Lucy Martinez said.

Ms. Martinez, 57, said Mr. Chávez has helped the needy residents she meets while working the front desk at Nos Quedamos, a nonprofit community development corporation. However, she knows, too, that his philanthropy has chafed some American politicians.

Patrice White-McGleese, 37, an employment counselor who saved $160 to $300 a month during the past two winters through the discounted oil program, said she knows why Mr. Chávez's actions have rankled.

"It's a sore point because it took what most people would consider a third world nation to help the U.S.," she said. "Which is kind of a slap in the face because we're supposed to be one of the superpowers; why can't we help our own?"

Some people in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, have the same question for their own government, said Leopoldo López, mayor of the downtown district of Chacao and a leader of the Venezuelan opposition.

"Why is the government giving away money to the richest city in the world?" he asked.
Mr. López said Mr. Chávez should first tend to the needs of Venezuelans who lack shelter, sewage and drinking water.

He said Mr. Chávez was giving the money to the Bronx to win support around the world while distracting attention from his moves to crack down on the opposition at home.

So the program has made Bronx residents, who are trying to solve the most local of problems, party to a global dispute. They are caught between Mr. Chávez, who markets his populist platform as a counterweight to the worldwide influence of the United States, and the Bush administration, which contends that Mr. Chávez's stress on racial and economic equality masks a dictatorship-in-the-making.

Mr. Chávez began clashing with Venezuela's corporate leaders and the United States shortly after being elected in 1998. In 2002, military officers staged a coup to oust him. The Bush administration quickly recognized the new government. However, Mr. Chávez returned to office days later after a wave of street protests, and he accused the United States of aiding the coup.

He turned his attentions to the Bronx in the fall of 2005, when he visited South Bronx community organizers with Representative José E. Serrano, the Democrat who represents the district. Those meetings led to the discounted heating oil program.

By the winter of 2006-7, the program had doubled to deliver 100 million gallons to 1.2 million people from Alaska to Vermont. Citgo said it expected to supply 110 million gallons this winter.

Some recipients bridled in September 2006, when Mr. Chávez stepped up to a United Nations podium - one that President Bush had used the day before - and declared that he smelled traces of "the devil."



"It smells of sulfur still today," Mr. Chávez added.

Said Mr. Serrano: "Was it tacky? Yes." However, he said, Mr. Chávez was just being emotional.

Meanwhile, Citgo and Venezuelan officials made follow-up visits to the Bronx . During one of them, Mrs. White-McGleese said she wanted to thank Venezuelans for their generosity. Within weeks, in April 2006, she and 62 people who had received the discounted oil were on a plane to Caracas as Mr. Chávez's guests.

A band met them at the airport. They watched an African-Venezuelan dance performance. In addition, they visited Mr. Chávez at Miraflores Palace, the president's official residence. A few of the American guests - including Pamela Babb, a vice president of the Mount Hope Housing Company, a nonprofit group that provides low-income housing in the Bronx - appeared on Mr. Chávez's weekly television show.

"It was pomp and circumstance," said Ms. Babb, 47.

She said she remained suspicious of Mr. Chávez's efforts to expand his presidential powers. ("I question that," she said.) In addition, a Mount Hope tenant, Lenice Footman, noticed children playing in garbage on Caracas's streets and came away "grateful for what we have."

But many of them were impressed when a Philadelphia woman told Mr. Chávez of the lack of jobs and services in her neighborhood and the Venezuelan leader declared it was time to aid development in poor United States communities.

"And all these ministers started writing things down," Ms. Babb said. "It shows you what happens when a visionary person starts to do something. And I was there."

Ms. Babb said Citgo officials visit the Bronx more often than the other corporate donors she works with. They have asked community groups what kinds of grants they need, awarding one to Mount Hope for a childcare cooperative. In addition, they celebrated with the locals in Hunts Point Riverside Park over Venezuelan food - arepas and carne mechada - and Latin American music.

The Citgo donations are a tiny percentage of its annual budget. It does not have to disclose financial statements because it is not a publicly traded company. Citgo, which sold 25.1 billion gallons of petroleum products last year, estimates that last winter's oil program cost it $80 million, according to a Citgo document provided by Bernardo Alvarez Herrera, the Venezuelan ambassador to the United States.

That is about the same amount that Exxon Mobil - the largest publicly traded Oil Company, with roughly 10 times the revenue of Citgo - reported spending on philanthropy in the United States in 2006.



"We are not trying to impose," Mr. Alvarez said, "or to intervene in the politics here."

United States petroleum industry officials are not happy, however, with Citgo's program.
It is "designed to embarrass us," Larry Goldstein, the president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, an industry-supported analysis group in New York, said when it was launched in 2005.

"It's not designed to help poor people," he said. "Chávez is astute, clever, with a major political agenda, largely to get under our skin, and he does that everywhere and anywhere he can."

On the ground, Citgo's money seems to come without strings - or even much branding.

At Rocking the Boat, the Bronx River education program, Mr. Ramsook, who left behind a fisherman's life when he moved to the Bronx from Trinidad, said he could not place Mr. Chávez's name. "It sounds familiar," he said. He was more enthusiastic about taking seniors from Bronx Guild High School on the water to learn the history of the river.

"There are no sharks, right?" asked Shawnisha Roebuck, 19, as she settled into the stern. On shore, an iron claw lifted metal scraps from one pile to another. However, on the river, gulls stalked the banks, and the movements of small fish made the water flicker. An osprey plunged to the water, but came up empty.

Citgo's $210,000, three-year grant has allowed the group to expand the high school program and hold free Saturday rowing lessons that have drawn 500 people since August.

A $230,000 grant is helping Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice build rain barrels, plant rooftop vegetation and reshape gutters to feed sidewalk trees. In addition, the South Bronx Food Co-operative will use its $49,000 to open a storefront to sell affordable produce.

Anna Vincenty of Nos Quedamos, who is working on a program to improve the diets of elderly residents, said she takes Mr. Chávez's good will, as if she does with all politicians, with a grain of salt.

"He says he wants to help people over here," she said. Yet her Venezuelan friends have told her "some of the people over there are afraid of him."

On the other hand, she said, in the United States, "one of the most generous countries in the whole world," pervasive inequality is on display.

But no matter what one thinks of Mr. Chávez, she said: "If your child is cold and hungry and someone offers to help, do you care if it's Moe or Larry or Curly? I don't think so."

Just Say ¡No! The folly of Puerto Rican statehood.

By Mark Hemingway

Excited by the prospect of adding two new senators and seven new representatives to Congress, all of them Democrats?

That’s exactly what will happen if Puerto Rico becomes the 51st state. A surprising number of Republican congressmen — and the White House — think it’s a good idea. What’s more, they want to make this happen against the wishes of the majority of Puerto Rican people.
Since Eisenhower conferred commonwealth status on the territory in 1952, the Puerto Rican people have voted four times to reject pursuing statehood, including once in 1993 and again in 1998.

But H.R. 900, a new bill working its way through the House (it’s scheduled for mark-up on Tuesday), would force another vote on the statehood issue in Puerto Rico. However, the way the bill is written, the referendum would be structured in such a way that it would stack the deck against Puerto Ricans who wish to vote to maintain their existing commonwealth status.
There are three factions in Puerto Rico, in order of popularity: those that favor maintaining the status quo commonwealth status, those that favor pursuing statehood, and those that favor independence. In recent decades, surveys have shown consistently that around half or just under half of Puerto Ricans prefer preserving the island’s current relationship with the United States. Support for statehood tops out at around 46 percent, with the remainder favoring independence.

In the 1993 plebiscite on the island, 48.6 percent of voters favored existing commonwealth status, while 46.3 favored statehood. A 1998 plebiscite on the matter had statehood grabbing an almost identical 46.5 percent of the vote.

Statehood lost these referendums despite some powerful political backing. In 1993, the party in favor of statehood had recently won an electoral landslide. A sizable majority in the island’s house, senate, and the governor were all in favor of statehood.

“So even though the statehood party had all this strength and all these resources, statehood lost,” according to Eduardo Bhatia Gautier, executive director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration. Bhatia officially represents Puerto Rican Governor Aníbal Acevedo-Vilá in Washington, D.C.

Bhatia and Gov. Acevedo-Vilá do not support the statehood cause, and are upset by what they call the manipulative tactics used by pro-statehood forces.

Statehood supporters forced another referendum in 1998, only this time they used a new tactic. Voters were given four options for determining the island’s status with all four choices defined by pro-statehood forces. Naturally, this excluded altogether the choice of maintaining the status quo. Only by judicial requirement was a fifth option — “None of the above” — added. “None of the above” garnered over 50 percent of the vote, and the status quo was preserved. Even this vote didn’t stop statehood forces.

“The lesson for the statehood supporters in Puerto Rico was that statehood will never come requested by the people of Puerto Rico,” Bhatia tells National Review Online. “The statehood lobby got really involved in what I consider to be a shift in strategy. The strategy became if the people of Puerto Rico are not going to ask for statehood then why don’t we get Washington to limit the options of the people of Puerto Rico. That will force statehood on the people of Puerto Rico.”

And forcing statehood on the people of Puerto Rico seems to be exactly what H.R. 900 is designed to do. Instead of one up or down vote on Puerto Rican statehood, the bill’s “federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico” would require two votes.
The first vote would not be a straight up or down vote on statehood, as in the past. Instead, the vote would be a direct vote on the commonwealth status. The thinking is that statehood forces and independence supporters would both vote against the status quo. If the choice of the largest plurality (and nearly a majority) of citizens is not part of a three-way vote, but is pitted against the two other factions bundled together as one choice — it might be edged out at the ballot box.

“So what will happen on that first vote is that you will get 46 percent from the statehood, 5 percent from the independence side. You will get 51 percent. You knock off the table the plurality which is 49 percent [in favor of commonwealth],” Bhatia says.

This would then force a second vote — with the only remaining choices being statehood and independence. Given just these two options, statehood would likely win by a landslide.
But that’s not all. “The bill is so absurd that it says that if commonwealth loses there should be a vote every eight years,” Bhatia notes.

Aside from permanently upsetting the balance of power in the U.S. Congress (“I can guarantee that they will all be Democrats — that I can tell you right now,” Bhatia says), there are other potential problems with making Puerto Rico a full-fledged state.

For one thing, America would become officially bilingual overnight. “There hasn’t been a Spanish-speaking state,” Bhatia says. “There a lot of issues involved, and there is a lot of nationalism in Puerto Rico. There will be resistance. At a minimum it will be the same resistance Quebec has, and at a maximum it could be greater.”

The other problems are largely economic. The drive for congressional representation for Puerto Rico is largely based on getting federal revenue for Puerto Rico, which is likely to be a huge drain. “The reality is that close to 45 percent of the families in Puerto Rico or 1 million families live under the poverty level according to the U.S. census,” Bhatia observed. “So you have twice the poverty level of Mississippi, the poorest state in the union. Puerto Rico could become the greatest welfare state in the nation. ”

At the same time, statehood would deprive Puerto Rico of its comparative economic advantage.

“There’s not a single economist anywhere in the world that says what Puerto Rico needs to create jobs and get people out of poverty is more federal taxes. Puerto Rico can attract business that are going offshore because it has a different tax structure than the United States — companies in Puerto Rico that create jobs do not have to pay federal taxes,” Bhatia says. “Puerto Rico’s economic model depends a lot on making sure that the tax regime of the United States doesn’t apply.”

Yet despite these obvious problems, Puerto Rican statehood enjoys a great deal of Republican support. In December 2005, working with Puerto Rico’s non-voting congressional representative and statehood supporter Luis Fortuño, the Bush Administration produced “The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico.” In recommending Congress set another new voting procedure for the island, task force member and deputy assistant Attorney General Kevin Marshall, said that the voters “had not spoken clearly” about Puerto Rico’s status in previous referendums — despite four votes with the same result.

In February 2006, the “Task Force Report on Puerto Rico” was roundly condemned in a New York Times op-ed by none other than Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former ambassador to the United Nations. Kirkpatrick declared the report was “on a path to stir up problems where none existed.”

Fortuño has continued his efforts toward statehood by helping introduce H.R. 900 in April and lobbying hard for the bill since then. Fortuño is aligned with the GOP in Congress, and 55 of the bill’s 129 co-sponsors are Republican.

NRO contacted the offices of several of the Republican co-sponsors to ask them why they supported the bill. No one offered an explanation for their support of the legislation.
Bhatia thinks Republican support amounts to an electoral gambit. “I think somehow they got the wrong message — that by supporting statehood for Puerto Rico they’re going to get the blessing of Hispanics or Puerto Rican Hispanics and that is absolutely wrong,” he says. “There are about 500,000 Puerto Ricans who have moved into Florida over the last 12 years. They have a right to vote and they have not actively participated in the last two elections for whatever reason, and I think [Republicans] are trying to court them.”

An October 2004 poll conducted in central Florida by Puerto Rico’s El Nuevo Dia newspaper shows the views of mainland Puerto Ricans don’t differ significantly from their island counterparts. According to the poll, 48 percent of Puerto Ricans in central Florida support commonwealth status, 42 percent support statehood and 5 percent support independence.

In the meantime, opponents of statehood are offering up an alternative to help settle the question once again. Sponsored by Rep. Nydia Velázquez, a Puerto Rican Democrat representing New York, H.R. 1230 would call a constitutional convention in the territory to address statehood. Currently, the bill only has 48 co-sponsors.

The governor of Puerto Rico obviously favors this approach. “We’re happy to hold that convention,” Bhatia says. “Everybody should agree on the process and then come with one voice to the Congress.”

— Mark Hemingway is an NRO staff reporter.

— Mark Hemingway is a writer in Washington, D.C.

Women gaining power in Latin America

Posted on Sat, Oct. 20, 2007

BY JACK CHANG

Defying Latin America's longtime reputation as a bastion of machismo, women in South America are winning political power at an unprecedented rate and taking top positions in higher education and even, albeit more slowly, in business.

The election last year of Michelle Bachelet to Chile's presidency and the all-but-certain victory of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in Argentina's presidential balloting Oct. 28 are the most visible examples of the trend.

South American women also are leading important social movements and are earning, studying and speaking out more than ever. For the first time, women are forcing their traditionally male-dominated societies to confront such issues as domestic violence and reproductive health.

''I think there's been a general change,'' said Elena Highton, who in 2004 became Argentina's first female Supreme Court judge appointed by a democratically elected government. She promptly headed a commission on domestic violence.

''This is the time of the woman, and people want to try something new,'' Highton said. ``Women are seen as more believable, more honest, more direct. And in this world dominated by men, we've seen lots of failures.''

It's a fundamental shift in a region long ruled almost exclusively by men, where the influence of women was relegated to the home or, in public life, to supporting roles for powerful spouses.

Such perceptions changed for good, many say, with Bachelet's election last year in one of the most socially conservative countries in the hemisphere. A single mother and an atheist with no family member already in power, Bachelet, 56, won support from male and female Chileans in her historic election.

Public opinion polls in neighboring Argentina show similar widespread support for Kirchner, a longtime politician and current senator who's expected to win the contest to succeed her husband, Néstor, in this country's top job.

Women are considered possible successors to the top spot elsewhere in South America.

In Paraguay, former education minister Blanca Ovelar is a top candidate to represent the long-ruling Colorado Party in next April's presidential race. In Brazil, presidential chief of staff Dilma Rousseff has emerged as a possible front-runner for the presidency in 2010. They follow women who were elected president in Central America in the 1990s, Violeta Barrios de Chamorro in Nicaragua and Mireya Moscoso Rodríguez in Panama.

The emergence of what's been called a ''feminine bloc'' in the Western Hemisphere's Southern Cone is yet more evidence of the historic changes that have opened doors for millions of women.

Latin American women also have taken charge in more humble circumstances. Soledad Puebla, 54, runs a bustling daycare center in the slums of Santiago, Chile's capital. She's also the activist heart of her neighborhood and a confidante of legislators in Bachelet's government.

Puebla grew up desperately poor on the city's periphery and worked for years as a nanny before she joined a local Lutheran church and became a community organizer. She eventually was appointed the church's regional coordinator, which sent her around the world.

Speaking tearfully in her cramped office, she seemed astonished by her latest accomplishment -- earning a college degree in social work, something that was unimaginable to the poorly educated grandparents who raised her.

''When I grew up, we didn't even have a mattress to sleep on,'' Puebla said. ``So this is what I tell people now: When you want to rise as a woman and value your life, you can. But you have to be true to what you think and fulfill the agreement you make with yourself.''

Latin American women still trail men in key measures of social well-being, according to the World Economic Forum, which ranks gender equality in 116 countries based on education, health and economic and political participation. Of Latin American countries, Costa Rica ranked the highest, 31st of 116 countries, and Bolivia, the lowest, at 88th.

But women are steadily catching up, United Nations statistics show. In many instances, the gaps are closing much faster than they are in the United States.

WAGES ON RISE

For example, the average wage of urban Latin American women has grown from 70 percent of men's in 1990 to 90 percent this year, and they're expected to reach parity by 2015, U.N. figures show. For comparison, U.S. women earned 77 percent of what men earned working full-time, year-round jobs in 2006.

In the business world, women make up as much as 35 percent of the managers in private companies, also a dramatic increase from just a decade ago, according to the International Labor Organization. However, they still account for only 10 percent of company presidents and vice presidents, according to a seven-country survey by the U.S.-based think tank Inter-American Dialogue.

Women have made some of their biggest advances in politics, where thousands of women are reaching public office, many for the first time.

About a quarter of all Latin American local council members are women, more than double the percentage from a decade ago.

Women also make up more than a quarter of the Cabinet ministers in the region and more than a fifth of lower-chamber national legislators in Costa Rica, Argentina, Peru, Guyana, Suriname, Ecuador, Honduras and Mexico, double the regional rate in 1990. By comparison, only 16 percent of the U.S. Congress is female.

In the eyes of Ana María Romero de Campero, who was Bolivia's top human rights official, women are riding the same democratic wave that's empowered other marginalized groups, such as indigenous people and the poor working class.

It's no coincidence, she said, that women are making gains at the same time that her country elected its first indigenous president, Evo Morales, or neighboring Brazil chose Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former factory worker, as its president. Both leaders were the first presidents in their countries not to come from white, privileged backgrounds.

''This democratic process is raising the question of the rights of different people,'' Romero de Campero said. 'And people are asking, `Do women have the rights of equality along with human rights?' ''

Fourteen countries in Latin America have passed quota laws requiring that as many as 40 percent of the candidates for political posts be women. Similar laws require that women fill a minimum number of union leadership posts and even executive-branch positions.

That has produced dramatic results in countries such as Argentina, the first in the region to implement quotas. Women now make up 35 percent of the lower house and 43 percent of the Senate. Only nine countries claim higher percentages of female lower-house legislators, and two of those are in Latin America -- Costa Rica and Cuba. The other seven are Rwanda, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain.

''We women in the Congress have managed to be respected, but the road here was a long road, and there were many acts of discrimination along the way,'' said Argentine Sen. Silvia Ester Gallego, who helped lead the push in 1991 to pass the quota laws.

But the shift isn't just a political one, said Lidia Casas Becerra, a law professor and women's rights activist in Chile. Traditional notions about gender roles are changing, and women, as well as men, are taking on new responsibilities.

One sign of the change: The big hit on Chilean television this year was a soap opera called Papi Ricky about the misadventures of a widowed young man raising his daughter alone.

''This is still a very machista country, and it's hard to make that cultural transformation, but Bachelet was a beginning,'' Casas Becerra said. ``Chileans are, in fact, much more liberal now than their political elite.''

NEGATIVE SIDE

Not everybody sees the changes as a step in the right direction.

Argentine community leader Mónica Carranza said the breakdown of the traditional, male-headed household is to blame for the abandonment of thousands of women and children on the poor outskirts of Buenos Aires, where she runs a network of shelters and a soup kitchen.

''For me, the man had his home, his family, his children, and the man was the strong machine, and the woman took care of her children and her man, and now everything has been turned around,'' Carranza said. ``I think the changes have been lamentable.''

Others see it differently.

'Things have changed a lot since our parents' generation,'' said Rodrigo Delgado, 31, who was picking up his son from a Santiago daycare center while his wife worked. ``There are more women working now because that's what we need to do to survive. And at home, we share the responsibilities.''

---

© 2007 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com

Bank of the South, championed by Venezuela, begins to take form

RIO DE JANEIRO: The idea from Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan president, of creating a Bank of the South to finance regional development projects is moving forward, aided by the tacit approval of Brazil, which has South America's largest economy.

But doubts persist about the need for such a bank, which many economists and analysts continue to see as a political move by Chávez to try to spread his influence and carry out his crusade against Washington-based multilateral institutions like the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.

Seven South American countries are expected to inaugurate the new bank at a ceremony on Nov. 3 in Caracas, Venezuela's capital, where it will be based. At a meeting here last week the countries - Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela - agreed to create an institution with up to $7 billion in initial capital, paving the way for the bank to begin operating as early as 2008.

An eighth country, Colombia, said last week that it wanted to be included as well. Its president, Álvaro Uribe, said that his country would join as long as the new bank was an "expression of solidarity and brotherhood," and not a rejection of the international lending institutions.

The Bank of the South will be designed to promote investment in infrastructure and could help stimulate greater regional trade and integration. Chávez sees it as an alternative financing institution to the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund, all of which have significant Washington involvement.

"The idea is to rely on a development agency for us, led by us," Rodrigo Cabezas, the Venezuelan finance minister, said last week.

The bank's formation comes at a time when South America is awash in development money, both public and private, and when most of its economies have raised their credit ratings to levels that make the cost of borrowing cheaper than during the past two decades.

That is one reason that Chile, which has the continent's best credit rating, has not signed onto the project.

"The macroeconomic picture in Latin America is as good as it has ever been," Luis Alberto Moreno, the president of the Inter-American Development Bank, said. Still, he said, "there is plenty of room for everybody. The challenges of development in Latin America are very big."

Brazil has sent mixed messages about its support for the institution. It declined to give its support until clarifying that the bank's role would be limited to aiding investment in the region, and would not create an emergency fund to bail out countries in economic crisis as the IMF does, which Chávez had set as an initial goal.

"Brazil has shown less interest because it has the greatest credit capacity," said Guido Mantega, the country's finance minister. But, he said, "we continue to support the project because it will benefit our commercial partners and Brazilian businesses."

Several issues remain unresolved about how the Bank of the South would function, including how much capital each country would commit, what its lending conditions would be and whether the members would have equal voting rights.

Mantega, Brazil's finance minister, said it was still unclear whether Brazil and Venezuela would enter the bank with higher capital levels. Brazil appeared to make a major concession recently, however, when Mantega said that each country would have voting rights in the bank's administrative council.

Meanwhile, development banks already based in the region, like the Corporación Andina de Fomento in Caracas, are waiting to see how an institution more closely aligned with Chávez's political objectives will compete in granting loans.

The new bank could struggle to be competitive with the Inter-American Development Bank, especially, which has investment-grade status in the international markets due to the participation of the United States and other developed nations, and thus obtains resources at relatively low cost.

None of the future partners of the Bank of the South borrow on terms readily available to rich, industrialized nations.

Simon Romero contributed reporting from Caracas.

Plan Mexico and the Billion Dollar Drug Deal

A Bonanza for Boeing
By LAURA CARLSEN

U .S. drug czar John Walters heaped praise on Mexico's drug war this week, to prepare the ground for a billion-dollar counter-narcotics aid package expected to be announced within days.

The latest statistics purported to show that the street price of cocaine has doubled in some cities and that purity has decreased, indicating restricted supply. According to Walters, the United States and Mexico are winning the drug war, and " the real challenge is to continue it."

Walters presented a preview of the highly secretive document that will set out terms for the multi-year package. According to press reports, the plan includes objectives in the areas of gathering and sharing intelligence, interdiction at ports of entry, aerial monitoring and intervention, investigation and legal processing, measures against money laundering, and cooperation with Mexico.

If that sounds vague it's because it is. Almost no details have been released about the deal. So far, the public has only been told that the money will be for intelligence equipment, wiretapping, and military and police training programs.

Buzzwords-like fumigation, arms, and foreign agents-have been left out of public statements, although they will most likely not be left out of the package itself.

Fumigations have been a social and environmental disaster and proved ineffective in Colombia, leading to dead rivers, devastated lands, and contributing to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers. Opening up the flow of U.S. arms is a sticky subject between the two nations. The Mexican government has protested uncontrolled illegal arms shipments from the United States to Mexico, and the suggestion of more weapons feeds Mexican civil society's fears of militarization. These fears have heightened dramatically with the active participation of the Mexican army in the drug war under Calderon's administration.

Both Mexican and U.S. officials have gone to great lengths to explain that the Mexican counter-narcotics plan will not be a repeat of the disgraced Plan Colombia. While ignoring the overall failure of that plan, they have emphasized that Plan Mexico will not include U.S. troops in Mexico. Concern in Mexico on this point has run so high that Minister of Foreign Relations Patricia Espinosa has repeatedly made public statements denying that U.S. troop presence forms part of the new package.

While it is unlikely that U.S. troops will be sent into Mexico due to political sensitivities, troop presence is a relatively minor part of the problem with the Plan Colombia model (recall that even Plan Colombia maintained a tight cap on direct military presence). Greater U.S. presence in Mexico will occur, at U.S. taxpayers' expense and to Mexican citizens' chagrin. DEA agents have already requested offices in two more Mexican cities and it is very unlikely that all the proposed training will take place in the United States.

But the real threat to Mexico lies in the fact that the plan proposes that the U.S. government be the funder and co-designer of a cornerstone of the nation's national security strategy. Already it claims to be working with Mexico to build a central command to coordinate the work of internal agencies and facilitate binational coordination.

It's no coincidence that the new plan concentrates on measures in Mexico, despite the obvious fact that the U.S. market drives the drug trade and illegal drugs couldn't make it to the streets there unless organized crime and the complicity of government agents existed in the United States as well.

But it's better business to attempt to remove the speck from your neighbor's eye than the log from your own. Although Mexico's drug problem is far more than a speck (the General Accounting Office recently reported that it accounts for as much as a $23 billion-dollar a year business), the new deal will offer up lucrative contracts to U.S. military and intelligence equipment firms, long-term maintenance and training contracts, and related services. In a recent Washington Post article, Misha Glenny cites a GAO report on Plan Colombia that finds that 70% of the money allotted never leaves the United States.

The billion-dollar drug deal may be a bonanza for Boeing, but the pay-off to the U.S. taxpayers who have to foot the bill is much less obvious.

Despite Walters' claims, a tremendous amount of evidence exists to show the consistent failure of the supply-side model of drug war that relies primarily on military and police enforcement measures. When that model goes international, it becomes even more problematic, feeding conflict as it starves social investment.

This policy approach would seem to warrant at the very least a cautious attitude toward applying it in other countries-especially one as geographically and economically close as Mexico. A more sensible approach would involve creation of mechanisms of cooperation and intelligence sharing with each nation responsible for its own security policies and focused on the problem within its own territory and among its own populace.

Laura Carlsen (lcarlsen(a)ciponline.org) is director of the Americas Policy Program in Mexico City where she has been a writer and political analyst for two decades.