On September 22, 2003, the LatinAmerican Program, the FundaciónIdeas para la Paz in Bogotá, and theKellogg Institute for International Studies of theUniversity of Notre Dame sponsored a confer-ence in Washington on “Conflict and Peace inColombia: Consequences and Perspectives forthe Future.” The objective was to evaluate thepolitical, economic, and military policies set inmotion during the first year of President ÁlvaroUribe’s administration, the social and humani-tarian consequences of the conflict, as well aslong-term strategies for achieving peace.

In a keynote address, Alto Comisionado parala Paz Luis Carlos Restrepo Ramírez reiterated thegovernment’s commitment to “democratic secu-rity,” based on the strengthening of democraticauthority and the establishment of the rule oflaw throughout the national territory. He under-scored President Uribe’s willingness to seekpeace with all armed actors, within the frame-work of the law, Colombia’s Constitution, andinternational treaties to which Colombia wasparty. Restrepo refered to the government’srequest to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annanto lend his good offices to a peace process withthe FARC guerrillas, based on a cease-fire and

the group’s eventual demobilization and disarma-ment. He also said that the government remainscommitted to a process of dialogue with theguerrillas of ELN, which unilaterally suspendedtalks in December 2002.

Restrepo discussed at length the peaceprocess with the Autodefensas Unidas deColombia (AUC), defending controversial draft

Conflict and Peace in Colombia 1-3

Analyzing Citizenship in Latin American Democracies 3-4

MERCOSUR and the Creation of the Free Trade Area of 4-5the Americas

Seminar of Mexican and U.S. Journalists in Tijuana 5-7

Argentina-U.S. Bilateral Relations: An Historical 7-8Perspective and Future Challenges

Changes in Cuban Society from the 1990s to the Present 8-10

Economic Orthodoxy and the Lula Administration 10

Seminars on Mexico’s Political System 11-12

Hemispheric Security: The View from South America 12-13

Combating Child Labor In Brazil 13-14

The Citizen Security Action Research Project 14

Micro Finance and Social Rights: Towards 15Better Citizenship?

Recent Publications 16-17

Staff Notes 18

INS

IDE

Conflict and Peace in Colombia

Clockwise from top left: Rodrigo Pardo, Édgar Forero, Pilar Gaitán,Carl Meacham, and High Commissioner for Peace Luis CarlosRestrepo Ramírez

N O T I C I A SL A T I N A M E R I C A N P R O G R A M N E W S L E T T E R S P R I N G 2 0 0 4

legislation (“Ley de Alternatividad Penal”)empowering the president to request the suspen-sion of judicial sanctions against members of illegalarmed groups that had committed serious humanrights abuses. He insisted that principles of truth,justice, and reparation would inform the peaceprocess, and that decisions regarding suspensionsof prison sentences would be made by the presi-dent on a case-by-case basis.

In a discussion of the political, security, andeconomic policies of the Uribe government,Rodrigo Pardo, deputy director of El Tiempo, notedthe president’s consistently high approval ratings(upwards of 70 percent). This popularity was basedin part on a new style of political leadership and onconcrete achievements in the security field, includ-ing a notable reduction in kidnappings, massacres,and homicides. Pardo underscored several futurechallenges for Uribe, including maintaining a cen-trist political position and reviving the economy.Alfredo Rangel, president of the FundaciónSeguridad y Democracia, also noted improvementsin citizens’ perception of security, citing such meas-ures as increases in the defense budget and in thesize of the armed forces and police. He warned,however, against exaggerating the advances againstthe guerrillas, which are not yet consolidated andmay be difficult to sustain. Eduardo Lora, principaladviser to the Research Department of the Inter-American Development Bank, underscored a hostof problems at the macroeconomic level, includingweak decision-making authority by the centralgovernment, increases in public spending, and agenerous but inefficient pension system. He arguedthat interest rates and the level of public expendi-ture were the two most critical variables in stabi-lization policy.

In exploring the social and human costs ofColombia’s conflict, Édgar Forero, special advisorto the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees in Bogotá, explained how the phenom-enon of displacement has grown more complex,in that armed actors have opted for permanent dis-placement of target populations in order to controlterritory and illicit economies based on drugs andarms trafficking. He also emphasized the growinggap between the number of persons forcibly dis-placed by conflict (between 2 and 3 million peo-ple) and the resources (both national and interna-tional) devoted to addressing their needs. Verónica

Gómez of the OAS Inter-American Commissionon Human Rights detailed a number of the mostserious human rights abuses committed by actorsin the armed conflict, including the recruitment ofminors, the victimization of vulnerable groups,and the targeting of social, political, trade union,and human rights leaders. Referring to the Ley deAlternatividad Penal, she cautioned againstamnesty laws that impede effective and thoroughprosecution of human rights violations. CarolineMoser of the Overseas Development Institute inLondon emphasized “bottom up” perspectives onconflict resolution, distinguishing between politi-cal violence and the more pervasive economic andsocial violence experienced by local communities.Arguing that micro-level trust and social capital isas important for sustaining peace as are politicaland economic factors, she argued for capacitystrengthening initiatives at the local level, even ifnational level peace processes remain paralyzed.

A final panel considered future perspectives onconflict, peace, and bilateral U.S.-Colombian rela-tions. Hernando Gómez Buendía, coordinator of theNational Human Development Report onColombia for the United Nations DevelopmentProgram, underscored the difficulty in measuringthe costs of conflict, given different statistics andmethodologies employed by various institutions.The Human Development Report nonetheless dis-cusses three kinds of costs: victimization (includingkidnappings, displacement, massacres, and deaths incombat); direct costs, including life expectancy, lev-els of education, and income as a percentage ofGDP; and indirect costs, including the correlationbetween drug cultivation and the intensity of con-flict, the restriction of democratic rights, and theimpact of the conflict on Colombia’s internationalinsertion. Juan Manuel Santos, president of theFundación Buen Gobierno, outlined three factorsthat will impact the future of the armed conflict: thecorrelation of military forces and its impact on theintentions of the parties to the conflict; the politicallegitimacy and popular support enjoyed by the gov-ernment; and the nature of the country’s interna-tional alliances. Arguing that the conditions for anegotiated settlement are not currently present, heoutlined several paths to achieve it, including a pro-longed stalemate that exhausts the parties but at atremendous cost to society. Finally, Carl Meacham,professional staff of the U.S. Senate Foreign

N O T I C I A S

2

Relations Committee, noted that President Uribe’ssuccess in expanding government control over thenational territory has bolstered congressional sup-port for Plan Colombia and the Andean RegionalInitiative, which includes Colombia’s neighbors. Heasserted that the U.S. commitment to assistingColombia in the arenas of counter-narcotics andcounter-terrorism is without question; nonetheless,policies toward Colombia must be continually eval-uated, as the U.S. Senate, while encouraged by theprogress thus far, remains far from satisfied.

A publication based on the conference, Conflictoy Paz en Colombia: Consecuencias y Perspectivas para elFuturo (Alfaomega, 2004) is available from theLatin American Program.

Analyzing Citizenship inLatin American Democracies

Citizenship in Latin America is in crisis. This wasthe overwhelming consensus of scholars at the con-ference “Analyzing Citizenship in Latin AmericanDemocracies,” held on November 14, 2003, toidentify the current challenges in the developmentand study of citizenship in Latin America.

Frances Hagopian of the University of NotreDame presented an overview of democracy litera-ture and trends in democratic theory. She assertedthat the current practice of looking at democracyand citizenship as separate issues provides an inad-equate assessment of the quality of democracy andcitizenship in Latin America. In order to improvethe study of citizenship in democratic contexts,the two issues must be thought of as interrelatedand connected. Furthermore, she argued that asuccessful democratic state depends upon the ruleof law and the application of democratically-estab-lished norms.

A panel on “Conceptions of Citizenship”addressed broad questions of citizen inclusion, cit-izenship articulation, and participation, andincluded Deborah Yashar, Princeton University;James Holston, University of California, San Diego;and Ariel Armony, Colby College. Each emphasizedthe need to look at citizenship not only in terms ofthe rights afforded citizens but also in terms of cit-izen responsibility and action.

They agreed that the study of democracy andcitizenship can be significantly enhanced by focus-

ing on social cleavages. Holstonand Armony noted that civil dis-junction becomes most visible atpoints of broad social inequality,manifesting itself through perva-sive violence, injustice, andimpunity. A multi-faceted ap-proach, based on both quantita-tive and qualitative analyses, isnecessary to adequately assess citi-zenship in Latin America and toaddress behavior such as clien-telism, patronage, and the activeexercise of rights. Similarly, giventhe accepted view that the “thirdwave” of democracy has led to anincrease in public insecurity, incorporating socialphenomena in the study of citizenship becomeseven more necessary. In his comments, Universityof Toronto political scientist Joseph H. Carens arguedfor the creation of more constructive dialoguebetween political theorists and scholars of compara-tive politics within the academic community.

In discussing challenges for citizenship, PhilipOxhorn of McGill University maintained thatdemocracy in Latin America has been shaped byauthoritarian-influenced neopluralism—a form ofgovernment which has adversely affected citizen-ship through growing economic and physical inse-curity and the fragmentation of civil society. As away of combating such obstacles to the develop-ment of citizenship, relationships between leadersand the electorate must be reevaluated andimproved. That is, citizens must be viewed asagents of mediation and change, and not as objectsof elite political designs. Claremont McKennaCollege professor Roderic Camp discussed the socio-political gender gap among Mexicans andMexican-Americans. He argued that the internal-ization of insecurity and inequality has had aneffect upon national politics vis-à-vis popularnotions of what democracy should entail. In partic-ular, he stressed that political trust and expectationsin Mexico appear to be linked to concepts of pro-cedural democracy.

Luis Bitencourt, director of the Brazil Project atthe Wilson Center, made a similar case in his dis-cussion of urban crime in Brazil, noting that anysuggestions for improved public policy must takeinto consideration the social realities of the country

S P R I N G 2 0 0 4

3

Frances Hagopian

and its diverse cities. Christopher Sabatini, NationalEndowment for Democracy, commented that pan-elists treated issues of state-centric democracy,interest articulation, and citizen obligation asunique challenges for citizenship. In response, headvocated continued and expanded “bottom-up”action, so as to foster a greater sense of responsibil-ity among citizens in Latin America.

A final panel on promoting active citizenshipincluded representatives of citizenship advocacyorganizations from three Latin American coun-tries and the United States: Carmen Beatríz Ruíz,the National Ombudsman in Bolivia; CarlosMarch, executive director of Poder Ciudadano inArgentina; César Montúfar, executive director ofParticipación Ciudadana in Ecuador; and HarryC. Boyte, co-director of the Center forDemocracy and Citizenship at the University ofMinnesota. Ruíz contended that building bridgesof communication between a government and itscitizens is fundamental to formulate mechanismsthat can respond effectively to citizen complaints.She nevertheless maintained a practical view ofstate-citizen relations, noting that aspects of citi-zenship about which perceptions diverge (i.e. howcertain issues and rights are perceived by the state

and the citizen) will require significant dialogue inorder to arrive at a joint understanding. CarlosMarch noted that people do not trust systems ofjustice or political parties in Argentina; as a result,broad disillusionment is a key factor influencingthe current “crisis of democracy” in the country.In César Montúfar’s view, parties have attemptedto re-legitimize themselves at the local level inEcuador. Ecuadorian democracy currently suffersbecause political actors have privileged access tothe state, and many leaders legitimize their influ-ence by claiming to represent the interests of thepeople. Montúfar suggested that the solution iseffective representative government via active citi-

zenship. Limits to active citizenship—including alack of transparency and state accountability, aswell as poverty and inequality—are present, how-ever, and need to be addressed by all politicalactors. Harry C. Boyte argued that scholars andpolicy-makers need to break free of traditionalcategories of analysis. He said that democracyshould be closely scrutinized, and indeed prob-lematized, if new strategies for fully engaging cit-izens are to be envisioned.

MERCOSUR and the Creationof the Free Trade Area of theAmericas

On February 26, 2004, the Latin AmericanProgram and the MERCOSUR EconomicResearch Network (RED MERCOSUR) co-sponsored a full day conference on trade issues, inconjunction with the launch of an edited book,MERCOSUR and the Creation of the Free Trade Areaof the Americas.

Marcel Vaillant, Universidad de la República,Uruguay, discussed trade liberalization strategies,emphasizing the fundamental importance of bilat-eral U.S.-Brazilian relations given the two coun-tries’ roles as co-chairs of the negotiations. SilviaLeans, Centro de Investigaciones Económicas,Uruguay, focused on the impact that the FTAAwould have on MERCOSUR countries, specifi-cally assessing the welfare effects associated withthe complete elimination of trade barriers.

Exploring governmental perspectives, KarenLezny, office of the U.S. Trade Representative,underscored the complex challenge of designing acomprehensive trade agreement among countrieswith enormous asymmetries. She advocated arenewed focus on the development of modernservices, technology, and government procure-ment. Alejandro Casiró of the Argentine Embassyin Washington, D.C., emphasized the importanceof MERCOSUR as a negotiating platform for theFTAA. A common southern market would repre-sent more than improved trade for Argentina andits neighbors; it would be an extraordinary politi-cal and strategic accomplishment. Casiró alsounderscored the need to analyze the FTAA processin the context of other world trade agreements.Given the regional trade structure, agriculture

N O T I C I A S

4

Relationships between leaders and the

electorate must be reevaluated and

improved. That is, citizens must be viewed

as agents of mediation and change, and not

as objects of elite political designs.

continues to be the main issue for both Argentinaand MERCOSUR in terms of market access,export subsidies, and economic sustainability.Brazilian Ambassador Rubens Barbosa outlined thestrategic nature of MERCOSUR for Brazil,which favors a balanced and comprehensiveFTAA. Barbosa observed that the United Stateshad altered its approach by pursuing bilateralagreements instead of negotiating multilaterallywith the thirty-four democratic countries of thehemisphere. He expressed an additional concernregarding the tabling by the United States of suchcritical issues as agricultural subsidies, on thegrounds that it preferred to discuss subsidies onlyin the World Trade Organization (WTO). Barbosaalso contrasted the strategies of former BrazilianPresident Fernando Henrique Cardoso—whodeclined to block intermediary steps of the negoti-ation regardless of disagreement, deferring thedecision to join until the agreement was final-ized—with current President Luis Inácio “Lula”daSilva’s commitment to exhaustive debate regardingevery step of the negotiations.

A third panel considered sectoral perspectives,addressing the industrial dimension of the goodsand services sector. Andrés López, Centro deInvestigaciones para la Transformación, Argentina,focused on the petrochemical industry, highlight-ing the major increase of intra-industry and intra-regional cooperation in the sector. Julio Berlinski,Instituto Torcuato Di Tella, Argentina, stressed theimportance of the relationship between goods andservices, recommending further study of theeffects of liberalization and deregulation on thecompetitiveness of traded goods. Discussing thedifferential patterns of openness in MERCOSURcountries, Sherry Stephenson of the Trade Unit ofthe Organization of American States, suggestedincreasing transparency in the service sector toallow more effective analysis of the progressachieved during negotiations. Finally, SalazarXirinachs, Director of the OAS’s Trade Unit, high-lighted the importance of furthering sectoralresearch by increasing linkages between academicsand practitioners.

The political economy constraints of the nego-tiations were addressed by Carol Wise, University ofSouthern California, with an emphasis on the U.S.position. Describing the asymmetries between theUnited States and MERCOSUR countries, Wise

classified the relationship as one of “hegemonicobstructionism.” Fernando Masi, Centro de Análisisy Difusión de la Economía, Paraguay, described thevarious positions of MERCOSUR countries vis-à-vis the FTAA negotiations, presenting alternativescenarios to integration. For Masi, the success ofmore ambitious accords will depend on the abilityof the United Sates and Brazil to agree on a mutu-ally beneficial trade liberalization strategy, as well asthe capacity of Argentina and Brazil to redefineMERCOSUR’s role in the larger regional integra-tion scheme. Finally, Álvaro Ons, Universidad de laRepública, Uruguay, described the methodologythat RED MERCOSUR had developed to identi-fy the most problematic sectors under negotiation,using a selected set of goods to track welfare andpolitical economy effects.

Seminar of Mexican and U.S.Journalists in Tijuana

The Mexico Institute and Internews sponsoredthe first of three seminars with U.S. and Mexicanjournalists at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte inTijuana, Mexico, on October 30, 2003, to dis-cuss the challenges of reporting on the othercountry. Over thirty journalists from bothMexico and the United States participated in thisseminar, which generated an intense discussionabout the way that reporting on each other’scountry has changed in the past ten years; thespecific opportunities of journalism at the border,where both countries are local news; and thechallenge of covering the Mexican community in

S P R I N G 2 0 0 4

5

From left to right: Ambassadors Rubens Barbosa, Alejandro Casiró, Karen Lezny, andJohn Sewell.

the United States in the press of both countries.Participants emphasized that the media need tofind new ways of reporting stories about everydaylife and politics in the other country.

In the opening panel, focused on the state ofbilateral reporting, José Carreño of El Universaladdressed the state of U.S. reporting on Mexicoby arguing that U.S. reporters often write aboutMexico without fully understanding the contextof the events. There is a prevalent attitude that“anything is possible” in Mexico, which leadsU.S. reporters to pursue dramatic and often outra-geous stories. Jerry Kammer of Copley News,commenting on the state of Mexican reportingon the United States, observed the limited cover-age that the Mexican media give to stories outsideof Washington and New York. Mexican newssources often seem to take reflexively anti-American positions, which mirror the attitudes ofthe country’s political and cultural elite but do notallow for reasoned debate about key bilateralissues like migration.

Maria Martin of Gracias Vida Productions andfounder of National Public Radio’s Latino USAobserved that the manner in which citizens ofeither country see the other depends a great dealon where they live, whether they are bilingual,and to what news sources they have access.

Mexican news coverage has improved dra-matically over the past ten years with thedemocratic transition, and U.S. coverage ofMexico and of the border has grown dra-matically since the signing of NAFTA.Nonetheless, the U.S. coverage of Mexicostill revolves around the “Holy Trinity”—drug trafficking, corruption, and immigra-tion—which perpetuates stereotypes andmisses a wealth of other possible coverage.She also highlighted the role of alternativemedia and the possibility of collaborativeprojects between U.S. and Latin Americanmedia as avenues for increasing understand-ing of each other’s societies and politics.

Charged with answering “Are There NewStories to Cover?” the second panel com-mented on the opportunities and difficultiesin reporting. Mary Jordan of The WashingtonPost argued that the most important new sto-ries for U.S. media to cover in Mexico are theold stories: poverty and education. She felt

that her paper had given her considerable supportin pursuing these stories, and had accorded Mexicoan especially significant place in their internationalcoverage, even if 9/11 and the war in Iraq hadmade it more difficult to get stories about Mexicoon the front page. Rossana Fuentes-Beraín of ForeignAffairs en Español insisted that the Mexican mediaonly write about Mexicans abroad when there is adead body, glorifying the image of the sufferingmigrant while overlooking the real-life strugglesand achievements of the Mexican community inthe United States. There is little real coverage ofeach other’s high-end culture, which creates a sig-nificant gap for understanding the other.

Wrapping up the panel, Sandra Dibble of theSan Diego Union-Tribune argued that border issuesare both domestic and international. She coversTijuana as part of the metro desk of her San Diegopaper, and even has two other colleagues whocover Tijuana and binational issues for the paper.As a result of understanding the dynamics at theborder, journalists are often able to look beyond“the line” and truly analyze transnational identi-ties, communities, and people. Often the storieswhich get the most coverage are those that involvecrime and corruption, but it is important to giveequal coverage to the kinds of stories that are lessdramatic but have a greater impact on people’s

N O T I C I A S

6

From left to right: Maria Martin, Jerry Kammer, Pedro Armendares, Periodistas deInvestigación, and José Carreño

daily lives. She concluded by noting that “We havelots of stories that shout [about the other country],but we need to find the stories that whisper.”

Argentina-U.S. BilateralRelations: An HistoricalPerspective and FutureChallenges

The Woodrow Wilson Center’s Latin AmericanProgram and the Centro de Estudios Legales ySociales (CELS), a prominent Argentine humanrights organization, co-sponsored a conference onArgentine-U.S. bilateral relations on December 4,2003, in Buenos Aires. The seminar, held at theFacultad de Derecho of the Universidad deBuenos Aires, sought to couple an exploration ofthe contemporary relationship under the new gov-ernment of President Néstor Kirchner with anexamination of recently declassified U.S. docu-ments from the period of the 1970s dirty war.

John Dinges, Columbia University School ofJournalism and author of a new book on militarycooperation among the dictatorships of theSouthern Cone, underscored the complexity ofU.S. policymaking during the 1970s. He arguedthat democratic values and an interest in humanrights clashed head-on with U.S. arrogance and atolerance of repression under the blanket ofnational security policy. He discussed a newlydeclassified document obtained by the NationalSecurity Archive as well as other evidence indicat-ing that then-Secretary of State Henry Kissingersupported and encouraged the repression carriedout by the military government, issuing a series of“green lights” that served to undermine other offi-cials pressing for human rights improvements.Carlos Osorio of the National Security Archiveevaluated the effectiveness of President Carter’shuman rights policy. While noting inconsistencies,including the tension between condemning humanrights abuses and seeking improvements through arapprochement with the military regime, Osorioconcluded on the basis of information in the docu-ments that Carter’s policies helped save at least onehundred lives. He also pointed out the role of theU.S. Embassy in protecting human rights activists.

Horacio Verbitsky of CELS emphasized Argentineresponsibility for what happened during the years

of the dictatorship. In many ways, he said, thenewly declassified documents confirm what haslong been known or assumed in Argentina—thatthe United States was fully aware of the humanrights abuses of the Argentine military. He con-curred with Osorio that the change in U.S. policyunder Carter was important, especially in pressingfor a visit of the Inter-American Commission onHuman Rights. As a result of that visit, interna-tional awareness of what was taking place inArgentina expanded significantly. Verbitsky calledfor an Argentine version of the U.S. Freedom ofInformation Act that would allow access to infor-mation in the hands of security agencies. ArielArmony of Colby College focused not on U.S. pol-icy but on the ways that the documents shed lighton the role of Argentine society during the dicta-torship. He looked in particular at the role of pero-nistas, the Catholic Church, and the media, show-ing important levels of toleration and even supportfor the methods of the government in combatingterrorism. Armony concluded that the documentsshould prompt introspection into the responsibilityof Argentine politicians and civil society for theexcesses of the dirty war.

The second panel focused on contemporaryU.S.-Argentine bilateral relations and the foreignpolicy of the Kirchner government. AgustínColombo Sierra of the Argentine Foreign Ministryidentified common interests between the Bush andKirchner administrations, including the fights

against terrorism, narcotrafficking, and the prolif-eration of weapons of mass destruction. Bothcountries also participate in international peace-keeping operations and share a commitment to theliberalization of international trade, although theyhave pursued different strategies in this latterregard. Nevertheless, there are important differ-ences between the two countries, evident mostprominently in the importance Argentina attachesto multilateralism in world affairs and to the role of

S P R I N G 2 0 0 4

7

The newly declassified documents confirm

what has long been known or assumed in

Argentina—that the United States was fully

aware of the human rights abuses of the

Argentine military.

the United Nations. Roberto Russell of theUniversidad Torcuato di Tella argued thatArgentina needed to diversify its foreign policy,strengthening a relationship with Brazil. He saidthat despite the fact that Argentina’s strategicimportance for the United States had declined,Argentina needed U.S. economic support. Thecountry therefore needed to cultivate positive rela-tions with the United States, without losing itsown autonomy. Mark Falcoff of the AmericanEnterprise Institute argued that the United Statesand Argentina are neither friends nor allies, norare they likely to be in the near future. Quoting

former President Raúl Alfonsín, Falcoff noted thatthe United States and Argentina had commoninterests, different interests, and contradictoryinterests, and the main challenge was to identifywhich was which. Still, he said, the country’s basicproblems were unrelated to its international align-

ments and depended more on economic growthand effective governance. Diana Tussie of FLAC-SO-Argentina reiterated that neither Argentinanor Latin America as a whole is important to theUnited States. She explained Kirchner’s foreignpolicy in terms of domestic politics. Kirchnerbecame president with only 22 percent of thevote, anti-U.S. feeling in the country runs high,and discontent with neo-liberal policies is wide-spread. Kirchner’s foreign policy takes account ofthis reality, avoiding policies that are costly inter-nally while attempting to find some commonground with the United States.

Changes in Cuban Societyfrom the 1990s to the Present

The conference “Changes in Cuban Society fromthe ‘90s to the Present” was held in SantoDomingo on December 17–18, 2003, to bringinto sharper focus changes that have occurred inCuba since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In providing context for the discussion, MayraPaula Espina Prieto, Centro de InvestigacionesPsicológicas y Sociológicas—CIPS (Cuba), dis-cussed the structural changes that have occurredsince the 1990s by examining the rise in inequali-ty and social recomposition, a concept used todescribe the diversification of social groups inCuba over the past decade. Haroldo Dilla, FLAC-SO-DR, reviewed the history of civil societyorganizing in Cuba and discussed its uncertainfuture. He expressed concern about the con-straints the Cuban state places on civil groups andthe tension imposed by the U.S. embargo onCuba. Cuban scholar Juan Valdés analyzed Cubansociety in international, economic, social, andpolitical contexts, arguing that the changes inCuban society resulting from economic crisis andreforms have not affected the strength of theCuban government, the core values of the Cubanpeople or the continuity of the revolution. JavierCorrales, Amherst College, commented that thepapers suggested some indicators of the strengthof Cuban civil society, including the diversity ofopinions in the intellectual debate on the island,the institutional changes the government hasmade over the past decade, and the availability ofoutside information. He noted, however, that

N O T I C I A S

8

From left to right: Horacio Verbitsky, Carlos Osorio, Cynthia Arnson, John Dinges, andAriel Armony.

Cuban scholar Juan Valdés analyzed Cuban

society in international, economic, social,

and political contexts, arguing that the

changes in Cuban society resulting from

economic crisis and reforms have not affect-

ed the strength of the Cuban government,

the core values of the Cuban people or the

continuity of the revolution.

conservatives in Cuba have an interest in main-taining a state of permanent crisis on the island inorder to control the development of civil society.Ariel Armony, Colby College, stressed that it isimportant to be able to place Cuba in a compara-tive framework so that it can be more easily stud-ied by those outside of Cuba.

In the second panel, Jorge Luis Acanda,University of Havana, explored the debate inCuba over the concept of civil society andtouched on the problems associated with the useof the term—problems that are mainly due to therhetoric of the United States, which links theconcept of civil society to political transforma-tion. He presented the Cuban perspective of asocialist civil society as an alternative to the liber-al democratic model. María Isabel Domínguez,CIPS, explored the attitudes and expectations ofCuban youth and summarized extensive surveyresearch of the impact of “the crisis” on youthand on women. Domínguez argued that whilefamily survival and personal satisfaction havebecome more major concerns of Cuban youngpeople due to the economic crisis, values such asvolunteerism, community development, andstrong national identity remain important toCuban youth. Rafael Hernández, Centro JuanMarinello (Cuba), examined art and literature inCuban intellectual life and their role in thechanges currently taking place in Cuba, empha-sizing how the arts represented a form of socialspace in which controversial or taboo subjectscould be discussed.

The third panel explored new modes of eco-nomic and social survival. Viviana Togores, Centrode Estudios de la Economía Cubana (Cuba), sub-mitted a paper that addressed consumption levelsand survival strategies. She noted that the varia-tion in the sources of supply, price, and the quali-ty of goods throughout the revolution and espe-cially within the last decade has caused the popu-lation to respond by centralizing family resources(combining income from different family mem-bers), searching for employment with higherincome and benefits, and in some cases emigra-tion and illegal activities. Guillermo Milán, FLAC-SO-DR, contributed a paper describing the mostsignificant factors that have conditioned Cubanemigration over the past decade and the impactthat emigration has had on Cuban society. He

argued that there has been a change inperception in the Cuban population,and that emigration is now viewed asan option to improve individual andfamily daily life. He added that manyCubans value the support they receivein the form of remittances and suppliesfrom family members living abroad.Cuban scholar Armando Fernándezaddressed new economic and socialmodalities centered on neighborhoodparticipation in environmental issues.He stressed that the local initiativesrepresented new, legitimate forms of participationin the policy process. Cecilia Bobes (FLACSO-México) examined the evolution of the conceptof citizenship in Cuba from the colonial period tothe present and the changing pattern of inclusionand exclusion, that is, the acceptance or rejectionof social groups as forming part of Cuban nation-al identity. She supported the notion of a socialistcivil society in which the population support andgive legitimacy to the socialist government, butshe argued that the symbolic definition of thenation should be expanded to promote toleranceand dialogue among social groups. University ofHavana economist Omar Everleny Pérez comment-ed that emigration is not a recent phenomenon;he pointed out that it is important to note the linkbetween emigration and the inflow of remittancesto the island.

The fourth panel explored the relationshipbetween religion, culture, and society. AurelioAlonzo, DES/CIPS, examined the relationshipbetween the Catholic Church and the Cubanstate, arguing the state is justified in its reluctanceto grant greater institutional freedom to theChurch because of the Church’s rejection of thesocialist system. Raimundo García, CentroCristiano de Reflexión, discussed the expandingrole of religious organizations in community workand provision of services. Lázara Menéndez,Facultad de Artes y Letras, looked at African-basedreligions and the social spaces of Santería in thereorganization of community spaces in Cuba.Menéndez argued that Santería has been mademore popular due to its appearance in artisticworks, including many popular films, and to theinternationalization of the religion. Margaret E.Crahan, CUNY, commented that historically, reli-

S P R I N G 2 0 0 4

9

Haroldo Dilla

gion has played an important role in the develop-ment of Cuban culture and society.

Participants held a workshop the following dayto assess future directions for work on Cubansociety. It was decided that an inventory of theresearch currently being done in Cuba was neces-sary to understand the production of knowledgeabout the current state of Cuban society. The ideaof social recomposition also emerged as an impor-tant nexus for studying related social phenomenasuch as community cooperatives, communityorganization, immigration, religion, race—bothas a subject of inquiry itself and as a means ofstudying inequality and the reduction of aggres-sion and social consequences. Finally, it wasagreed that the topic of citizenship requires fur-ther analysis, particularly as it relates to participa-tion, community action, gender, cultural invest-ment, the construction of citizenship and the roleof migration and identity. Citizenship is also animportant research question in that it allows forcomparative studies, which would reinsert thecase of Cuba—one often considered to be anexceptional case inappropriate for comparativestudy—into the field of comparative socialresearch. This is particularly significant for thestudy of citizenship, which has emerged as animportant topic for understanding governance,state-society relations, and identity.

Economic Orthodoxy and theLula Administration

Brazilian economist and former Minister of theTreasury Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira of the FundaçãoGetulio Vargas analyzed the development of theBrazilian economy over the last few decades vis-à-vis the international financial market. At aSeptember 11, 2003 seminar, Bresser Pereira tookissue with the view that responsibility for Brazil’seconomic difficulties should be attributed exclu-sively to the International Monetary Fund or theWashington Consensus. Nevertheless, he criticizedboth, saying that the excessive preoccupation ofthe IMF and the Washington Consensus with pri-mary surpluses and public adjustment as a means tomaintain healthy prospects for debt payment hadneglected the promotion of growth. Furthermore,IMF recommendations had led many countries to

open their capital accounts, contributing to a lossof control over exchange rates. Citing the cases ofMexico, Russia, Brazil, and Argentina, BresserPereira said that extreme dependency on foreigndirect investment had plunged their economiesinto severe financial crises.

Contrary to common perceptions, BresserPereira insisted that Brazil is completely capable ofdomestically financing economic growth. Heattributed Brazil’s acceptance of both IMF andConsensus recommendations to, among other fac-tors, a “colonial complex of inferiority,” whichdrove Brazilian authorities to adopt the Consensus’prescriptions as a way to build confidence and gaincredibility within the financial market.

For Bresser Pereira, who is affiliated with therecently ousted PSDB (Brazilian Social DemocraticParty), these measures may have appeased interna-tional financial institutions and created a positivealbeit ephemeral image of Brazilian economichealth. He also stated that this wayward economicapproach has spawned a “perverse macro-econom-ic equation” in which high interest rates have com-bined with overvalued exchange rates, effectivelycurbing economic growth. He predicted that thesecircumstances would lead to a decline in PresidentLula’s popularity, prompting the administration toalter its approach at the cost of its credibility in theinternational financial system.

N O T I C I A S

10

Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira

Seminars on Mexico’s PoliticalSystem

The Mexican political system has undergone pro-found changes in the past few years as it hasmoved from a system largely dominated by theInstitutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) to a plu-ral, multiparty party system. Among otherchanges, the two major parties that once consti-tuted the primary opposition to the PRI have hadto redefine their identity and their strategies inthis new competitive era, and, for the first time, apresident has started his administration withouthis party having a majority in Congress or amajority of state governorships. To understandhow these changes are shaping Mexican politics,the Mexico Institute hosted three meetings onMexico’s political system, one focused on theNational Action Party (PAN), another on theDemocratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), and athird on the Fox administration itself.

On December 16, 2003, former Wilson CenterFellow Yemile Mizrahi presented her book FromMartyrdom to Power:The Partido Acción Nacional inMexico, which chronicles the rise of the PAN froma small opposition party in the 1940s to Mexico’sgoverning party today. She argued that the PANcontinues to use the same internal rules as it diddecades ago, and that these have prevented thePAN from becoming a true mass party despite itselectoral successes.

Wendy Hunter of the University of Texas com-mented on Mizrahi’s book by comparing the PANin Mexico to the Workers’ Party (PT) in Brazil.The PAN and the PT, though ideologically differ-ent, were both small, sectarian parties that rose topositions of power by opposing authoritarian gov-ernments. Nevertheless, the PT’s success has beendue to its flexibility and the early institution ofprimaries to generate popular participation. ThePAN, in contrast, has been much more skeptical ofopening itself to mass participation even in a peri-od of democratic competition. Todd Eisenstadt ofAmerican University noted that despite the PAN’stight internal rules—and, in fact, because ofthem—Vicente Fox had mounted a parallel struc-ture outside the party to win the presidential elec-tion in 2000.

On January 15, 2004, the Mexico Institutehosted a seminar with Emilio Zebadúa, a congress-

man for the PRD and former mem-ber of the Federal Electoral Institute.Zebadúa observed that since 1997,the PRD has won the mayor’s officein Mexico City and the governors’races in a number of states. These vic-tories are changing the party’sapproach from one of confrontationand resistance to one based on prag-matism and building alliances. In par-ticular, Mexico City Mayor AndrésManuel López Obrador has injectednew life into the PRD with hisdynamic way of governing the capi-tal. He is now, according to all polls,the front-runner for president in 2006. However,whether the PRD can win a national electionremains a question of debate. A campaign byLópez Obrador would need to include differentpolitical perspectives within the party as well aspoliticians from other parties.

Zebadúa stressed that the PRD is in a process ofevolution. It began as a leftist opposition partywhose platform emphasized the rights of minori-ties and women, human rights, the fight againstcorruption, and opposition to NAFTA. As theparty has begun governing major states and cities,it has moved toward a more moderate, pragmaticplatform. The party increasingly recognizes theneed for major structural reforms as well as a fiscalreform to increase the federal government’s abilityto respond to needs in society. It no longer oppos-es NAFTA and worries instead about how tomake trade work for development. However, theparty also remains committed to issues of humanrights, rule of law, and social welfare.

On November 19, 2003, the Mexico Institutehosted a roundtable discussion with Denise Dresserof the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México(ITAM), focusing on the Fox administration.Dresser stated that President Vicente Fox is not justa “lame duck” but a “dead duck.” It is partially hisown responsibility for not having taken on theInstitutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) from theoutset. In order to have achieved legislative success-es, President Fox needed to have made a strong ini-tial statement about who was in power. By failingto challenge the PRI early on, Fox has ended up ina stalemate with Congress and an opposition thathas little interest in supporting the reforms he has

S P R I N G 2 0 0 4

11

Emilio Zebadúa

proposed. Dresser observed that President Fox’sstrategies have left him helpless half way throughhis presidency and left the public to start speculat-ing about who the next president will be. The pres-idential succession has started early because of thepower vacuum left by Fox’s inability to move for-ward on key policies.

Hemispheric Security: TheView from South America

On October 20, 2003, the Latin AmericanProgram, the University of Bologna, and theUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México co-sponsored a meeting in Buenos Aires to discussmajor challenges to hemispheric security, as part ofthe LAP project Creating Community.

The first panel considered perspectives fromNorth America and the Caribbean and includedJoseph S. Tulchin, Wilson Center, Raúl BenítezManaut, Universidad Nacional Autónoma deMéxico, Jean Daudelin, Carleton University,Canada, and Lilian Bobea of FLACSO-RepúblicaDominicana. They agreed that countries of theregion have to deal both with traditional securityissues and new, transnational and “intermestic”security threats, and that cooperative responses andcoordinated policies are necessary among states.With the exception of the United States, coun-tries of the hemisphere are concerned principallywith institutional weakness and the fragility ofdemocracy. Hemispheric security is not their mainpriority. It is necessary to build a “flexible architec-ture of security” that favors the emergence of sub-

regional agreements. Future work must avoid con-flating security and defense issues, because thatinevitably would militarize all approaches tohuman security.

Brazilian perspectives were provided by LuisBitencourt, Wilson Center Brazil Project; RicardoSennes, Prospectiva; Antonio José Vallim Guerreiro,Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and FernandoJosé Marroni de Abreu of the Brazilian DefenseMinistry. Panelists maintained that Brazil’s princi-pal focus is on its role at the regional and multilat-eral level, that the country has gradually incorpo-rated into its policy making a broader concept ofsecurity, and that Brazil’s current priority is SouthAmerica, not the hemisphere.

In discussing Argentine perspectives, RutDiamint, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella; CarlosSersale, Argentine Consulate in Buenos Aires; AngelTello, Universidad Nacional de La Plata; and JuliánDomínguez of the Argentine Defense Ministryemphasized Argentina’s institutional weakness as thebasic component of insecurity in the country. Theycited coincidence among governments in Argentina,Brazil, and Chile that the fight against terrorism anddrug trafficking must be based on institutional, non-military mechanisms, preferably within the frame-work of the United Nations, or, through mecha-nisms agreed in the hemisphere such as the “ComitéInteramericano Contra el Terrorismo”(CICTE) andthe “Comisión Interamericana para el Control delAbuso de Drogas” (CICAD).

In a final panel, Claudio Fuentes Saavedra, FLAC-SO-Chile, Miguel Navarro, National Academy ofPolitical and Strategic Studies, Luis Winter, ChileanMinistry of Foreign Affairs, and Marcos Robledo ofthe Chilean Ministry of Defense stressed thatChile’s insertion in the international system is basedprimarily on economic openness and multilateral-ism. A pending challenge for Chile as well as forother countries in the region is to increase coordi-nation between foreign and defense policies.

Conferees agreed that in the last ten years, LatinAmerican countries have identified common val-ues, such as the subordination of the armed forcesto civil authorities and respect for human rights.Moreover, South American countries agree ondeveloping institutional responses to security poli-cies, while such a consensus is less evident in theUnited States, Canada, and Mexico. Even thoughcountries of Central America and the Caribbean

N O T I C I A S

12

From left to right: Yemile Mizrahi and Todd Eisenstadt

embrace the notion of a collective approach, theyare weak and as a result more vulnerable to U.S.influence. Although there is agreement about theneed to establish cooperative mechanisms to dealwith the complex security agenda, there is a lack ofcapacity and consensus regarding how to put theseobjectives into practice. Therefore, it is necessary toset priorities, examine possible answers to deal withpresent challenges, and to search for spaces inwhich cooperative work can go forward.

Combating Child Labor InBrazil

On September 15, 2003, Soleny Hamú, a consult-ant on social issues in Brazil, discussed the “Basesfor the Eradication and Prevention of ChildLabor” program, emphasizing education as thebest strategy to combat the exploitation of chil-dren in the labor force.

Despite the fact that it is illegal to employ chil-dren under the age of sixteen, 5.5 million youthsin this age group currently work in Brazil. Hamúnoted that although children are employed in bothrural and urban sectors, 75 percent work in ruralareas. She also noted that, regardless of location,child labor is often performed in high-risk envi-ronments. In rural areas laborers face health risksassociated with charcoal and fiber production aswell as exposure to fertilizers and pesticides; incities, children are utilized in drug trafficking,prostitution, garbage collection, and domesticemployment.

Hamú indicated that education is a fundamentalelement in overcoming the poverty that impels somany Brazilian children into the workplace.According to Hamú, while education, labor, andsanitation in southern Brazil have approached thelevels of other industrialized countries in recentyears, the northeastern region (which is predomi-nantly agricultural) currently has indicators similarto African countries in times of civil war. The dis-parity between rural and urban areas is reflected ingaps in educational levels, with illiteracy in urbanareas at 1.2 percent of children 10 to 14 years ofage and in rural areas at 31.2 percent.

According to Hamú, the eradication of childlabor requires the four-way participation ofemployers, government, international organiza-

tions, and children in the implementation of aProposal for a National Policy for the Preventionand Eradication of Child Labor. This proposal isoutlined in six areas based on the InternationalLabor Organization’s Conventions 138 and 182that were ratified by the Brazilian government in1999. These areas are:

• Integrated and Systemized Data: The cre-ation of a reliable databank about child labor isa necessary step towards identifying strategies tocombat child labor and carrying out a cohesiveand integrated plan;

• Improved Family Income and Integratedand Sustainable Local Development:Because low family income levels precipitatechildren’s likelihood of entering the labor force,an effort to increase family incomes and devel-op new economic opportunities must be made;

• Effective Control and Inspection of ChildLabor: Cases of child labor should be investi-gated and awareness-building programs shouldbe created to alert various social groups aboutchild labor legislation and the consequences ofchild labor;

• Good Education Guaranteed for AllChildren: An effort must be made to movechildren from the labor force into the school sys-tem, with an emphasis on high quality educationand extracurricular activities in place of work.Technical and professional training programsshould be created to prepare children for skilledlabor after the age of 16;

• Promotion of Concerted QuadripartiteInstitutional Action: The proposal aims tostrengthen existing collaborative efforts of gov-ernment, employers, employees, and the publicand create new partnerships to work toward theeradication of child labor;

• Analysis of Legal Framework: Analysis ofcurrent legislation will determine its best appli-cation and suggest improvements.

In addition to focusing initiatives in these sixareas, the Brazilian government has implemented

S P R I N G 2 0 0 4

13

various cash transfer programs to provide incen-tives to families to keep their children in school.The largest of these, Bolsa Escola (School Grants),provides a minimum wage salary to families ofschool-age children on the condition that the chil-dren attend school. Although cash-transfer pro-grams in place since the late 1990s have helpeddecrease the number of child laborers in the work-force by 1 million, Hamú noted that the integra-tion of these programs would make them a moreeffective strategy to combat child labor.

The Citizen Security ActionResearch Project

The Citizen Security Project has studied thedilemma of crime, violence and political rights inLatin America for over five years. The first stageof the project was directed towards an academicanalysis of citizen security, based on research indifferent countries that contributed to a theoreti-cal understanding of the problem, published asCrime and Violence in Latin America: CitizenSecurity, Democracy, and the State in 2003 by theWoodrow Wilson Center Press and JohnsHopkins University Press. The second stage ofthe project has taken a more policy-orientedapproach, studying police and judicial reform inLatin America and the relationship between citi-

zens and the police. This stage has been directedto the institutions of law and order, and the LatinAmerican Program coordinated forums for thepolice, the judiciary, and other state officials inArgentina, Brazil, Chile, the DominicanRepublic, and Peru. This second stage producedtwo books, one in Spanish, Entre el crimen y el cas-tigo: Seguridad ciudadana y control democrático enAmérica Latina y el Caribe, published in 2003; andone in English, Toward a Society under Law:Citizens and Their Police in Latin America, to bepublished in 2004.

The third stage, currently underway, is anaction-research initiative, directed at enhancingcitizen participation in security issues, and reduc-ing the distance between citizens and the forces oflaw and order. The ultimate goals of the ActionResearch Project (ARP) are to reduce citizens’perception of insecurity, increase accountabilityand thus, promote democratic governance. Basedon the previously presented findings, the ARP is,in general terms, a capacity building and empow-erment initiative, which combines an interventionwith an academic analysis of such intervention.The ARP is implemented in two locations in sixLatin American countries: Argentina, Brazil,Chile, Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Peru.Researchers carry out fieldwork, which is super-vised by members of the citizen security advisoryboard consisting of distinguished analysts and prac-titioners from throughout the hemisphere.

The Latin American Program organized a meet-ing in Buenos Aires on June 26-27, 2003, for theaction research teams. The meeting allowed theresearchers to share their views on the situation ineach country and establish common criteria for theimplementation of the ARP, so that the results ineach country are comparable. Since then, eachteam has selected the locations in which the projectwill be implemented, and prepared a first reportwith pictures and data describing the social, eco-nomic, and political conditions in each location.The teams have conducted interviews in each loca-tion to determine benchmarks regarding citizenparticipation, citizens’ perception of insecurity, therole of the media in citizens’ perceptions of insecu-rity, and the relationship between the forces of lawand order and community members. The informa-tion has enabled the teams to design an appropriateintervention for each location, with a view toincrease citizen participation in local citizen securi-ty issues. The interventions are to be implementedstarting in February 2004. After the interventiontakes place, the teams will evaluate to what extentcitizen participation increased, how increased citi-zen participation influenced the community’s per-ception of insecurity, how, if at all, the role of themedia changed, and if there were any variations inthe relationship between the community and theforces of law and order. After the Action ResearchProject ends in the Summer of 2004, the LatinAmerican Program will publish its results.

N O T I C I A S

14

The ultimate goals of the Action Research

Project (ARP) are to reduce citizens’ percep-

tion of insecurity, increase accountability

and thus, promote democratic governance.

S P R I N G 2 0 0 4

15

Micro Finance and SocialRights: Towards BetterCitizenship?

On November 4, 2003, in Buenos Aires, the LatinAmerican Program, the Fundación Ceibo, and theFord Foundation organized a conference on thecurrent and potential role of micro finances in theevolution of democratic governance and the con-struction of citizenship in Argentina. Martín Abregú,Ford Foundation, emphasized the interrelationbetween human rights and micro finances. Joseph S.Tulchin, Woodrow Wilson Center, noted that thereis neither a citizenship nor micro finance traditionin Argentina. There is a big difference between thetheoretical approach to the subject and the short-sighted approach that exists in Argentina.

The first panel evaluated the opportunities andrisks of incorporating a human rights perspectiveinto existing micro finance strategies. RaúlZavalía, Fundación Provivienda Social, arguedthat micro finances gave access to credit to manyArgentines who otherwise would be unable toqualify because they have no regular income orcollateral to offer. Juan José Ochoa, AsociaciónCeibal de Santiago del Estero, stated that microfinances allowed many Argentines to regularizetheir land property holdings, increase their insti-tutional insertion, and trust in themselves. MarcosSolís, Asociación Civil Horizonte, noted that notevery micro finance program was successful. Herecognized two main problems. First, lendinginstitutions require organizations that receivemicro credits to have such a level of solvency thatpoor people are often excluded from the very sys-tem that is supposed to help them. Second, theinformal sector is not recognized as part of theArgentine labor market.

Micro finances today constitute an importantsource of income for the Argentine poor. Theymust be complemented with effective socio-politi-cal strategies. Carolina Ruggero, Ceibo Foundation,described a project that provides micro finances aswell as individual and group capacity building intwo communities. Its objective is to strengthen thecommunity’s exercise of citizenship. Marcelo Leiras,San Andrés University, argued that micro finances

generate income for the poor and allow them topurchase basic goods. He argued that a macro eco-nomic discussion of income distribution andemployment creation is necessary.

The second panel dealt with the question ofwhether micro finances could be seen as a tool toenhance the enjoyment of economic, social, andcultural rights. Guido Lorenzino, Fondo de CapitalSocial, noted the importance of having both directand indirect sources of funding to implementmicro finance programs. Fabio Quetglas, CAECEUniversity, argued that micro finances don’t solvethe problem of structural poverty. A new welfarestate is necessary, in which micro finances are usedas a tool that favors inclusion. Víctor Abramovich,CELS, stated that public policies and rights areinterrelated, and that the former must provideminimum levels of equality. Alberto Föhrig,Fundación Ceibo and San Andrés University, con-sidered that to reconstruct citizenship, one mustreconstruct the role of the state, not replace it bythe market. Citizenship is the possibility of eachindividual to enjoy social, cultural and economiccapital, and all three levels must be strengthened.Martín D’Alessandro, San Andrés University,emphasized that poverty and social segregationmust be analyzed in an interdisciplinary fashion sothat micro finances are both an economic andsocial policy.

From left to right: Alberto Föhrig, Martín D’Alessandro, Guido Lorenzino, VíctorAbramovich, and Fabio Quetglas.

N O T I C I A S

16

Books

Vinod K. Aggarwal, Ralph Espach, and Joseph S. Tulchin, eds. The Strategic Dynamics of LatinAmerican Trade (Stanford, CA: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Stanford University Press, 2004).

Lilian Bobea, ed. Entre el crimen y el castigo: Seguridad ciudadana y control democrático en AméricaLatina y el Caribe (Caracas, Venezuela: Nueva Sociedad, Flacso–Programa RepúblicaDominicana, Woodrow Wilson Center, 2003).

Philip Oxhorn, Joseph S. Tulchin, and Andrew D. Selee. Decentralization, Democratic Governance,and Civil Society in Comparative Perspective: Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Baltimore, MD:Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004).

Books from the Woodrow Wilson Center Press by FormerFellows and Scholars

Sara Castro-Klarén and John Charles Chasteen, eds. Beyond Imagined Communities: Reading andWriting the Nation in Nineteenth-Century Latin America (Baltimore, MD: Woodrow Wilson CenterPress and Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).

Francisco E. Thoumi. Illegal Drugs, Economy, and Society in the Andes (Baltimore, MD: WoodrowWilson Center Press and Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).

Kurt Weyland, ed; Learning from Foreign Models in Latin America Policy Reform (Baltimore, MD:Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004).

Woodrow Wilson Center Reports on the Americas

Ariel C. Armony and Hector E. Schamis, eds. Repensando La Argentina:Antes de diciembre de 2001y más allá de mayo de 2003, No. 7, November 2003.

Cynthia J. Arnson, ed. Argentina-United States Bilateral Relations:An Historical Perspective and FutureChallenges, No. 8, December 2003.

RecentPublications

S P R I N G 2 0 0 4

17

Margaret E. Crahan, ed. Religion, Culture, and Society:The Case of Cuba, No. 9, December 2003.

Cynthia J. Arnson con Tamara P. Taraciuk, compiladores, Relaciones bilaterales entre Argentina yEstados Unidos: Pasado y Presente, No. 10, May 2004.

Conference Reports

Woodrow Wilson Center, Fundación Ideas para la Paz, University of Notre Dame KelloggInstitute, eds. Conflicto y Paz en Colombia: Consecuencias y perspectives para el futuro (Bogotá:Alfaomega, 2004).

Woodrow Wilson Center Update on the Americas

Creating Community, No. 14, “Whither Cuba? The Role of Religion,” October 2003.

Argentina, No. 11, Creating Community, No. 15, “La seguridad hemisférica: Una mirada desdeel sur de las Américas,” December 2003.

Argentina, No. 12, “Micro Finanzas y Derechos Sociales: ¿Hacia una mejor cuidadanía?”January 2004.

Thinking Brazil

Thinking Brazil Updates and Special Issues are available for download online at www.wilsoncen-ter.org/brazil.

New Website Content

Reports on the Americas, Conference Reports, and Updates on the Americas are now availablefor download on our website at www.wilsoncenter.org/lap under the Publications section. Thesection also includes links to purchase Latin American Program books.

N O T I C I A S

18

The Latin American Program bids a fond farewell to Program Assistant Julian Mayor, who left theWilson Center to pursue a degree in Culinary Arts at the French Culinary Institute in NewYork. We offer Julian our profound thanks for his hard work and fellowship and wish him well.

We also would like to welcome new staff member Trisha Fields, who joins us from the LandTrust Alliance. Trisha holds a degree in Marketing with a certificate in International Businessfrom Texas A & M University. Previously, she worked on business and community developmentin Nicaragua with the Peace Corps. Her interests include population, environment, and devel-opment in Latin America.

Interns and Researchers

The Latin American Program has been fortunate to have had the assistance of an impressivegroup of interns during the Fall and Winter. We would like to take this opportunity to thankthem for their invaluable help.

Fall 2003 Allison Werner, University of Notre DameClarice Santiago, University of Maryland

Winter 2004 Serena Josephs, Colby College

We would like to welcome Junior Scholar Melina Ginszparg of the Johns Hopkins UniversitySAIS, who joined the Latin American Program in the Fall. Melina assists with the activities ofthe projects Argentina at the Wilson Center, Creating Community, and Trade and Legislators.

We also welcome Junior Scholar Nicholas Yates who will assist with LAP projects on CreatingCommunity and Democratic Governance.

We express our sincerest gratitude to Andrew Stevenson. Andrew, a former intern and currentgraduate student at Georgetown University, served as a consultant on many LAP projects. He isnow finishing his second year in the M.A. Program in Latin American Studies at GeorgetownUniversity.

Fellows and Public Policy Scholars

We wish a fond farewell to Fall 2003 Public Policy Scholars Pamela Starr, Professor at Mexico’sInstituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, and to Raúl Benítez Manaut, CISAN/UniversidadNacional Autónoma de México. At the same time, we wish to welcome Jesús Silva-HerzogMárquez, Professor of Law, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, who will be workingon “Mexico’s New Politics: The Democratic Problem.”

StaffNotes

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsLee H. Hamilton, President and Director

Board of TrusteesJoseph B. Gildenhorn, Chair; David A. Metzner, Vice Chair. Public Members: James H. Billington,Librarian of Congress; John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United States; Bruce Cole, Chair, NationalEndowment for the Humanities; Roderick R. Paige, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education; Colin L.Powell, Secretary, U.S. Department of State; Lawrence M. Small, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution;Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Private CitizenMembers: Joseph A. Cari, Jr., Carol Cartwright, Donald E. Garcia, Bruce S. Gelb, Daniel L. Lamaute,Tamala L. Longaberger, Thomas R. Reedy

Wilson CouncilBruce S. Gelb, President. Diane Aboulafia-D'Jaen, Elias F. Aburdene, Charles S. Ackerman, B.B. Andersen,Cyrus A. Ansary, Lawrence E. Bathgate II, John Beinecke, Joseph C. Bell, Steven Alan Bennett, RudyBoschwitz, A. Oakley Brooks, Melva Bucksbaum, Charles W. Burson, Conrad Cafritz, Nicola L. Caiola,Raoul L. Carroll, Scott Carter, Albert V. Casey, Mark Chandler, Peter B. Clark, Melvin Cohen, WilliamT. Coleman, Jr., Michael D. DiGiacomo, Sheldon Drobny, F. Samuel Eberts III, J. David Eller, MarkEpstein, Melvyn J. Estrin, Sim Farar, Susan Farber, Joseph H. Flom, John H. Foster, Charles Fox, BarbaraHackman Franklin, Norman Freidkin, Morton Funger, Gregory M. Gallo, Chris G. Gardiner, Steven J.Gilbert, Alma Gildenhorn, David F. Girard-diCarlo, Michael B. Goldberg, Gretchen M. Gorog, WilliamE. Grayson, Ronald Greenberg, Raymond A. Guenter, Edward L. Hardin, Jr., Jean L. Hennessey, EricHotung, John L. Howard, Darrell E. Issa, Jerry Jasinowski, Brenda LaGrange Johnson, Shelly Kamins,Edward W. Kelley, Jr., Anastasia D. Kelly, Christopher J. Kennan, Michael V. Kostiw, Steven Kotler,William H. Kremer, Raymond Learsy, Abbe Lane Leff, Perry Leff, Dennis LeVett, Francine Levinson,Harold O. Levy, David Link, Frederic V. Malek, David S. Mandel, John P. Manning, Jeffrey A. Marcus, JayMazur, Robert McCarthy, Linda McCausland, Stephen G. McConahey, Donald F. McLellan, J. KennethMenges, Jr., Philip Merrill, Kathryn Mosbacher, Jeremiah L. Murphy, Martha T. Muse, Della Newman,John E. Osborn, Paul Hae Park, Gerald L. Parsky, Michael J. Polenske, Donald Robert Quartel, Jr., J.John L. Richardson, Margaret Milner Richardson, Larry D. Richman, Carlyn Ring, Edwin Robbins,Robert G. Rogers, Otto Ruesch, B. Francis Saul, III, Alan Schwartz, Timothy R. Scully, J. MichaelShepherd, George P. Shultz, Raja W. Sidawi, Debbie Siebert, Thomas L. Siebert, Kenneth Siegel, RonSilver, William A. Slaughter, James H. Small, Thomas F. Stephenson, Norma Kline Tiefel, Mark C.Treanor, Anthony G. Viscogliosi, Christine M. Warnke, Ruth Westheimer, Pete Wilson, Deborah Wince-Smith, Herbert S. Winokur, Jr., Paul Martin Wolff, Joseph Zappala, Nancy M. Zirkin, Richard S. Ziman

Honorary Wilson Council MembersHushang Ansary, Bill Archer, James A. Baker III, Jack S. Blanton, Sr., José Cancela, Richard L. Carrión,Jean Case, Stephen M. Case, William S. Cohen, Jerry Colangelo, Norm Coleman, Philip M. Condit,Denton A. Cooley, Gray Davis, Arturo Díaz, William H. Draper III, David Efron, Dianne Feinstein, LuisFerré, Charles Foster, Esq., Sam Ginn, Richard N. Goldman, Slade Gorton, Allan Gottlieb, Dennis J.Hastert, Roger Hertog, Roy M. Huffington, Ray L. Hunt, Bobby Inman, Dale M. Jensen, E. FloydKvamme, Joseph P. Lacher, Dan Lewis, Howard Lincoln, Thomas Loeffler, Robert J. Lowe, Donald B.Marron, John McCain, Michael S. McGavick, Robert A. Mosbacher, Sr., Peter Munk, Marilyn CarlsonNelson, George E. Pataki, Nelson Peltz, Alex Penelas, Richard Perry, Robert Pincus, Lee R. Raymond,William T. Solomon, James R. Thompson, Jr., R. E. (Ted) Turner III, Paul A. Volcker, Thomas W. Weisel,David H. Williams, Reba Williams

S P R I N G 2 0 0 4

19

N O T I C I A S

ONE WOODROW WILSON PLAZA, 1300 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-3027

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsLee H. Hamilton, President and DirectorThe Center is the living memorial of the United States of America to the nation’s twenty-eighthpresident, Woodrow Wilson. Congress established the Woodrow Wilson Center in 1968 as aninternational institute for advanced study, “symbolizing and strengthening the fruitful relationshipbetween the world of learning and the world of public affairs.”The Center opened in 1970 underits own board of trustees.

In all its activities the Woodrow Wilson Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, sup-ported financially by annual appropriations from Congress, and by the contributions of founda-tions, corporations, and individuals. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Center publicationsand programs are those of the authors and speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of theCenter staff, fellows, trustees, advisory groups, or any individuals or organizations that providefinancial support to the Center.

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