Latin America v. USA: U.S. Policy on Cuba, Drug War & Drug Legalization, Economy Under Fire at Colombian Summit. What Position Do You Believe Obama Takes On Colombian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA)? – Obama Differs From Bush, But Not On Important Economic, Military, Corporate Interests! The Difference Is On SOCIAL ISSUES Where Republicans Cede Absolutely Nothing To Minorities Or The Economic Majority: The REST OF US!

 

THE REAL STORY

THE MEDIA, THE

GOVERNMENT &

CORPORATE AMERICA

HIDES IN PLAIN SIGHT

 


Monday, April 16, 2012

Latin America v. Obama: U.S. Policy on Cuba, Drug War, Economy Under Fire at Colombian Summit

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/16/latin_america_v_obama_us_policy

Historian Greg Grandin analyzes the U.S.-Colombia “free trade” deal and the deepening split between much of Latin America and Washington following the Summit of the Americas in Colombia. The summit, which was marred by a U.S. prostitution scandal, concluded Sunday without agreement on the key questions of whether Cuba should be allowed to attend the regional meetings and on the issue of the legalization of drugs. Latin American leaders said Cuba should be invited to the next summit in Panama in 2015, but the United States and Canada dissented. Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa boycotted this year’s meeting because of Cuba’s exclusion. On Sunday the United States announced that a free trade agreement with host country Colombia will come into effect in May, far earlier than expected. The agreement had earlier been deferred because of Colombia’s weak record on workers’ rights, including murders and attacks on union activists. [includes rush transcript]

 

Filed under  Latin America, Colombia, Cuba, Obama, Ecuador

 

Guest:

Greg Grandin, teaches Latin American history at New York University. He is the author of Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism. His most recent book, Fordlandia, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in history.

 

Related Stories

Apr 16, 2012
Jan 06, 2012
Mar 24, 2011
Aug 10, 2010
Jun 21, 2010

 

Links

 
Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.Donate >

 

Transcript

AMYGOODMAN: The Americas Summit concluded Sunday without agreement on the key questions of whether Cuba should be allowed to attend the regional meetings and on the issue of legalization of drugs. Latin American leaders at the meeting in Cartagena, Colombia, said Cuba should be invited to the next summit in Panama in 2015, but the U.S. and Canada dissented. Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa boycotted this year’s meeting because of Cuba’s exclusion. The Organization of American States, which runs the summits, excluded Cuba 50 years ago. President Obama said Cuba would be welcome to attend in the future if it becomes more democratic.

 

PRESIDENTBARACKOBAMA: Cuba, unlike the other countries that are participating, has not yet moved to democracy, has not yet observed basic human rights. I am hopeful that a transition begins to take place inside of Cuba. And I assure you that I and the American people will welcome the time when the Cuban people have the freedom to live their lives, choose their leaders, and fully participate in this global economy and international institutions.

TABACCO: Even Black Democratic Presidents speak with a “forked tongue”! Obama says, “democracy”, but what he means is “Capitalism”!

 

Obama excerpted from above:

And I assure you that I and the American people will welcome the time when the Cuban people have the freedom to live their lives, choose their leaders, and fully participate in this global economy and international institutions.

See what I mean – he never says it, but everyone knows he means “Capitalism”. Capitalists HATE and FEAR SOCIALISM! Communism is merely their EXCUSE, NOT THEIR REASON! It was NEVER about “Communism”; IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT SOCIALISM!

 

Not Voting or Voting Republican are not even sensible Options! Tabacco will vote for Obama because the “alternative” is too EVIL to even contemplate! But I don’t like it!

 

The opposite of Bad is NOT always Good – sometimes the opposite of BAD Democrats is WORSE Republicans!

 

A 3rd Viable Political Party will NOT solve the Dem-GOPer Problem even a little because the Lobbyists would simply pay that 3rd Party off too! Unless and until we can reduce the GOP to the status of IRRELEVANT, we cannot even daydream about making the Democratic Party truly representative of We The People! First things first!

 

AMYGOODMAN: Several leaders also called on the U.S. to consider decriminalizing drugs as a way of combating the illegal trafficking that’s spawned violence across the region. President Obama ruled out legalization, instead announced more than $130 million in aid for increasing security and pursuing narco-traffickers and drug cartels in the region. He expressed willingness to hold a discussion on drug policy, but said legalization could lead to greater problems.

 

PRESIDENTBARACKOBAMA: It is entirely legitimate to have a conversation about whether the laws in place are ones that are doing more harm than good in certain places. I, personally, and my administration’s position is that legalization is not the answer, that, in fact, if you think about how it would end up operating, the capacity of a large-scale drug trade to dominate certain countries, if they were allowed to operate legally without any constraint, could be just as corrupting, if not more corrupting, than the status quo.

TABACCO: Obama lies thru OMISSION. He presents NO FACTS to substantiate his Assertion just as other LYING POLITICOS DON’T. We do have FACTS! Someone ask Obama to do a study of certain European countries, which have totally legalized DRUGS! Let’s hear some FACTS, not just UNSUBSTANTIATED DISINGENUOUS ALLEGATIONS!

 

Then tell Obama to cease substituting the euphemismsdemocracy” & “global economy and international institutions” for Capitalism when he means CAPITALISM! Cuba does not want to play your Capitalist Game with those LOADED DICE, Mr. President – and Cuba is NOT the only one!

 

AMYGOODMAN: Meanwhile, the U.S. announced that a free trade agreement with host country Colombia will come into effect in May, far earlier than expected. The agreement had earlier been deferred because of Colombia’s weak record on workers’ rights, including murders and attacks on union activists. In announcing the deal, the Obama administration said Colombia had made, quote, “historic” progress on worker protections and human rights. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos hailed the agreement.

 

PRESIDENTJUANMANUELSANTOS: [translated] It will generate employment. It will generate employment in Colombia, more than 500,000 jobs. It will lead to economic growth, about 0.5 to 1 percent, in a permanent form. This has many different benefits for the Colombian people and for the well-being of Colombia. And there are many sectors that have direct and immediate access to most important markets in the world.

 

AMYGOODMAN: The summit was marred by a prostitution scandal involving 16 U.S. security personnel. Eleven Secret Service and five military personnel were removed from their duty and sent back from Colombia to the United States. The U.S. Secret Service is investigating claims they brought prostitutes to their hotel rooms in Cartagena late Wednesday and had a dispute over payment with one of the women. President Obama said he expected a rigorous probe to be conducted.

 

PRESIDENTBARACKOBAMA: If it turns out that some of the allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of course I’ll be angry, because my attitude with respect to the Secret Service personnel is no different than what I expect out of my delegation that’s sitting here.

 

AMYGOODMAN: Well, to talk more about the summit, we’re joined now by Greg Grandin, professor of Latin American history at New York University, author of Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism. His most recent book, Fordlandia, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in history.

 

We welcome you back to Democracy Now!, Professor Grandin.

 

GREGGRANDIN: Thanks for having me.

 

AMYGOODMAN: Talk about the significance of this summit, though what most people in this country are hearing about is the prostitution scandal allegedly involving U.S. Secret Service that were supposed to be protecting the President.

 

GREGGRANDIN: Yeah, well, this scandal—I mean, this is just, I think, something that just came out into the open; I’m sure it’s nothing new for these kind of events. I mean, what’s interesting about it is Cartagena is a Caribbean city, so the Caribbean has a reputation as being a kind of playpen of the United States, a kind of place of sex tourism. So I’m sure that this is not going over well in Latin America itself. I mean, it kind of harkens back to the days of, you know, Fredo Corleone and Hyman Roth setting up, you know, meetings, setting up rendezvous with, you know, businessmen. So I’m sure it was—it’s something that kind of over—set a bad tone for the rest of the summit.

 

The summit itself is a bit of a—it’s a bit of a show, a bit of a spectacle. It began under Bill Clinton in the 1990s and was very much tied to trying to move the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas along. And it started running into problems in Quebec during a rising anti-globalization movement, and then in 2005 in Argentina, which really did kind of derail the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. So, at this point, it’s unclear what the purpose of this summit is. Latin Americans themselves are creating these bodies that are excluding the United States, that are deepening integration, political and economic integration. This seems to be a venue in which they come together in order to criticize Washington, quite effectively.

 

AMYGOODMAN: And these bodies are threatening to the United States. Why have they excluded the United States? And why do they agree to come to this meeting, though some of the Latin American leaders did not attend, like Rafael Correa of Ecuador, protesting Cuba’s exclusion?

 

GREGGRANDIN: Yeah, and Hugo Chávez is ill, so he didn’t attend, and Cuba is excluded. So there are a number of people who didn’t attend. I think they attend because it does provide an effective high-profile venue in order to—in order to show their unity over a number of issues and voice their concerns to the United States, to Washington. What we saw in this episode, in this instance, was remarkable unity over three issues: one, humanizing policy towards the drug problem; two, including Cuba; and then, three, a kind of unexpected criticism that really did bring together, coalesce, a lot of Latin American leaders, which was Brazil’s criticism of U.S. monetary policy.

 

AMYGOODMAN: And explain that criticism.

 

GREGGRANDIN: Well, Dilma Rousseff, the president of Brazil, was actually in Washington a few weeks ago, just last week, and she previewed this criticism. And the criticism is that the United States is basically depreciating its currency, and as—in order to solve its own financial problems. But that has the effect of valuing, raising the value of Latin American currency, and that creates a trade imbalance. That makes U.S. goods that much more cheaper for Brazilians and for Colombians and for Mexicans to buy, so it deepens the trade imbalance between Latin America and the United States. And it also has the effect of raising the value of debt that foreign bondholders owe or bankers owe, Latin American external debt. So it really puts pressure on Latin American economies. I mean, in the 1970s and 1980s, the United States largely, to a large degree, solved the economic crisis of that period, the crisis of Keynesianism, through a sharp austerity program that generated the debt crisis, that shifted from industrial capitalism to finance capitalism. And I think Dilma is voicing concern that the United States is trying to do the same: get out of the mess it’s created by shifting the burden to Latin America. And there’s been—it was remarkable unity.

 

AMYGOODMAN: Dilma Rousseff is an interesting figure, the successor to Lula in Brazil, she, herself, a Brazilian guerrilla who was held in captivity for several years and tortured.

 

GREGGRANDIN: Yeah. I mean, and she came into office on the heels of Ignacio Lula’s enormous popularity. He had two terms in office, and he left with over 80 percent pop—he was much more confrontational in—around a number of issues, around trade issues, around foreign policy. And the sense that Dilma Rousseff would be more of a technocrat, more willing to accommodate Washington’s interests, maybe on some issues she has. She has kind of gone along with some of the—some of U.S. foreign policy concerning Syria and maybe even Iran. She has distanced Brazil from Iran a bit, but not completely. Her foreign policy team is still very critical of Washington policy in the United Nations, in the Middle East around the Palestine-Israel conflict. And she’s been very critical around economic issues, including this. I mean, it was quite surprising how strident, how strong and sharp her criticism was. She talked about flooding Latin America with cheap money. And—

 

AMYGOODMAN: Talk about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

 

GREGGRANDIN: Well, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, you know, obviously, this is something that Barack Obama ran against as a candidate, ran against John McCain, said it would be bad for U.S. workers. And then, pretty much as soon as he got into office, he started to shift gears. He left pretty much the whole Bush team in the U.S. Trade Representative Office, and they continue to work towards passing and toward cobbling together a free trade agreement with Colombia.

 

Colombia—there’s a couple of things to know about Colombia. Colombia is the worst country in terms of labor organizing, hands down. Last year, 40 unionists were killed, and that was 60 percent of the global total. The human rights community, the labor community in the United States has been asking the Obama administration to basically build into any free trade agreement a number of guarantees. One, they wanted to see real change on the ground, before they went forward—say, a three-year period where there would be no murders, no executions of trade unionists. The White House refused that. They asked for a mechanism built into the trade agreement that would void the treaty if executions started to rise again. The White House refused to do that.

 

It’s largely symbolic, I think. I think the effect it’s going to have on the U.S. economy is minuscule. It really is kind of playing to domestic politics. Obama has an election coming up. He’s got to play to the Chamber of Commerce. He’s got to play to—you know, against Mitt Romney, who could position himself better on the economy. And I think what he’s doing is he’s betting his election on the backs of Colombian trade unionists.

 

AMYGOODMAN: Obama said that Colombia has actually made historic progress, and his administration said Colombia created a new labor ministry, prosecution of crimes against union workers, and steps to fight discrimination against Afro-Colombians and women, had assuaged their concerns and made it possible for the free trade deal.

 

GREGGRANDIN: Yeah, well, it’s kind of—I mean, all of these changes apparently went into effect two weeks ago, so there’s very little time to verify, very little—and who’s going to verify, who’s going to confirm? Again, the fact of the matter is Colombia is the worst country in the world to be a trade unionist. So if you’re willing—if you’re saying Colombia passes the threshold of what’s acceptable, then what country doesn’t pass the threshold of acceptable?

 

And a case in point is Guatemala. Guatemala brought its murder rate of unionists down to zero in order to get—in order to get the Central American Free Trade Agreement passed. As soon as that free trade agreement was passed, the murder rate of trade unionists shot up again. And so, there’s no guarantees that this won’t happen in Colombia. The mechanisms built into it is exactly what’s in NAFTA, and there has yet been a violation or a fine based on labor—violations of labor rights.

 

AMYGOODMAN: And the significance of President Obama spending three days in Cartagena, in Colombia, the longest any U.S. president has spent in Colombia?

 

GREGGRANDIN: Well, I think Colombia is a close U.S. ally, despite this very interesting dissent about drugs, that it’s being led actually not by the traditional critics of the United States, but by its two closest allies, Guatemala—very conservative presidents: Guatemala, Otto Pérez Molina, and in Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos. It’s fascinating. But aside from that, I think Colombia is the United States’ anchor in the region, in some ways, so it makes sense that he would spend a lot of time there.

 

AMYGOODMAN: Has President Obama changed policy towards Latin America from President Obama?

 

GREGGRANDIN: From—no, no. There’s—I mean—

 

AMYGOODMAN: From President Bush.

 

GREGGRANDIN: Yeah, there’s—I mean, the best way to think about it is a process of inertia. What started under Bush, or what actually even started under Clinton, just continues under Obama. The two main pillars of U.S. foreign policy—increasing neoliberalism and increasing militarism around drugs—continue. They feed off of each other and have created a crisis in that corridor, running from Colombia through Central America to Mexico. That’s been a complete disaster, and there’s no change.

 

AMYGOODMAN: We’re going to talk about the drug war after break. We’ll be bringing in Ethan Nadelmann. Greg Grandin teaches Latin American history at New York University, author of Empire’s Workshop as well as Fordlandia. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Back in 30 seconds.

 

 

 


Monday, April 16, 2012 Whole Show

Obama Refuses to Back Growing Call for Drug Legalization to Stem Spreading Violence in Latin America

 

While the presidents of Guatemala, Colombia, Costa Rica and El Salvador have voiced support for an end to the drug war, President Obama rejected their calls for drug legalization during high-level talks at the Summit of the Americas in Colombia. Obama warned that legalization could lead to greater problems, but he expressed willingness to hold a discussion on drug policy. He also announced more than $130 million in aid for increasing security and pursuing narco-traffickers and drug cartels in Latin America. We speak with Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. He joins us from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where he is attending the World Economic Forum’s regional Latin America meeting. We are also joined by Greg Grandin, author of “Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism.” [includes rush transcript]

 

Filed under  Latin America, Drug War, Obama, Colombia, El Salvador

 

Guests:

 

Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. He’s joins us from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where he is attending the World Economic Forum’s regional Latin America meeting.

 

Greg Grandin, teaches Latin American history at New York University. He is the author of Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism. His most recent book, Fordlandia, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in history.

 

Related Stories

Apr 16, 2012
Mar 24, 2011
Mar 09, 2012
Jan 06, 2012
Aug 10, 2010

 

Links

 
Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.Donate >

 

Transcript

AMYGOODMAN: We’re joined by Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. He is joining us from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where he’s attending the World Economic Forum’s regional Latin American meeting, but here to talk about the significance of this meeting that has taken place, the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia. We’re also joined by Greg Grandin of New York University, Latin American history professor there.

 

Ethan Nadelmann, the significance of President Obama’s stance against decriminalization or any kind of legalization of drugs, the position he’s taken on drug policy, and the leaders in Latin America, what they have said in response?

 

ETHANNADELMANN: Well, I would not put that much significance into President Obama saying he’s opposed to legalization or decriminalization. That’s sort of the standard patter one expects from the politicians. They’ve been scared of their own shadows on this issue for a very long time.

 

But what’s much more important, Amy, is sort of looking at the tea leaves in all this stuff, because that’s why this summit is even—notwithstanding the nuance of the comments that were made—is really going to go down in a sort of historic way in terms of the transformation of the regional and global dialogue around drug policy. This is the first time ever that you’ve had a president, and for that matter, a vice president, saying this is a legitimate subject of discussion, the decriminalization, legalization. This is the first you’ve had a president saying that we’re willing to look at the possibility that U.S. drug policies are doing more harm than good in some parts of the world.

 

So, then you have the other leaders in the region. President Santos is, you know, as was just said before, an important ally of the United States, the former defense minister under President Uribe, somebody with a lot of credibility in waging a drug war. And he’s very focused on opening this up. And he’s not—you know, Time magazine has him on the cover this week as the emerging Latin American leader of significance. Otto Pérez Molina is very focused. Laura Chinchilla, the president of Costa Rica, came away saying she was very pleased that the Central American nations were benefiting because of the opening of this discussions. You have the funny situation of Evo Morales, the leftist leader of Bolivia, former head of the coca growers’ union, lecturing the United States about—essentially, sounding like Milton Friedman, that “How can you expect us to reduce the supply when there is a demand?” So there’s the beginning of a change here. I don’t think it’s going to be possible to put this genie back in the bottle.

 

AMYGOODMAN: Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón renewed calls on the United States, the world’s largest market for illegal drugs, to do more to curb consumption, as well.

 

PRESIDENTFELIPE CALDERÓN: [translated] Consumer countries—generally, the United States—should make a bigger effort to reduce consumption, and consequently, the extraordinary flow of economic resources that goes into the hands of the criminals.

 

AMYGOODMAN: And, of course, the Colombian president himself, as you mentioned, Santos, I mean, who’s been the recipient of millions in drug war money, still coming out for decriminalization. Ethan Nadelmann?

 

ETHANNADELMANN: Well, you know, it’s an interesting time for President Calderón. I mean, his term ends later this year. He has waged the war on drugs for a long time. He’s pointing his finger at the United States and saying, “Why don’t you reduce your demand and stop sending so many guns down our way?” You know, at the summit, he expressed his appreciation for new organized crime agreements. But at the same time, he’s also floating and supporting this new discussion. When he was in the United States last year traveling around, he started saying, if the U.S. cannot reduce its demand for illegal drugs, it’s time for it to investigate, quote-unquote, “market alternatives,” which was seen correctly as codeword for legal alternatives. His foreign minister, Patricia Espinosa, in February said that now Mexico does in fact support a debate about the legalization issue. So, the real question, I think, with Calderón is, in the extended period in which he’s a lame duck, after the election in July but before he leaves office in December, will he speak out? Will he make an effort to speak more boldly, in the way that Santos and Otto Pérez Molina are right now?

 

And the other question is his likely successor, Peña Nieto, coming from the old PRI party, the one that dominated Mexican politics for something like seven decades. The general thought has been that he just wants to sort of put all this—go back to the old understanding between government and gangsters, that PRI model for so many years. But as one former president, César Gaviria, said to me recently, when somebody becomes president, they’re faced with a new situation. So the new president of Mexico, come next year, is going to have to decide, does he want to let this whole debate dwindle? Does he want to just keep suffering the consequences of a failed U.S. policy? Or does he want to actively participate in the initiatives of Santos, Otto Pérez Molina, Chinchilla and others?

 

AMYGOODMAN: And what about the fact that this is an election year, Ethan Nadelmann?

 

ETHANNADELMANN: Well, it simply means that you’re not going to hear much of this in U.S. politics. I’ll be curious to see whether Fox News or Romney’s campaign try to pick on Obama even for the modest acknowledgments he made. But the interesting thing, of course, Amy, on this issue is that this is very much an issue that’s of the left and the right. As was said before, some of the leading proponents of drug policy reform in the region are coming from the right and the center-right, both the current presidents, Santos and Otto Pérez Molina, but also former presidents, like Cardoso, Gaviria and Zedillo from Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, who are the ones who spearheaded these important global commissions that helped open up the issue. In the United States, you know, the two lions of the conservative movement in the late 20th century, William Buckley and Milton Friedman, it’s in the Republican Party primaries that you hear libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson talking to this issue. You know, it’s people like former Secretary of State George Shultz or Frank Carlucci who are clearly opposed to the drug war. It’s Grove Norquist, the anti-talks partisan, who’s very much a committed opponent of the drug war. So this is very much a bipartisan issue. We’re not going to see the same sorts of sniping from left and right on this issue as on others. And I think that means that this debate is going to grow stronger and more bold as a result.

 

AMYGOODMAN: Professor Greg Grandin, the alarming rate of drug-related violence in Central America that all are trying to deal with?

 

GREGGRANDIN: Yeah, I mean, it’s a direct consequence of Clinton’s Plan Colombia, which has telegraphed the violence up through—up from Colombia through Central America. It had the effect of breaking up the transportation cartels, but did little about production or consumption, so therefore just increased the incentive for cartels and gangs in Central America. This was a moment when these countries were coming out of these devastating civil wars, just trying to put their institutions, civil institutions, back together again. It was like a tsunami. And added to that was the disruptions, the dislocations of neoliberalism, first NAFTA and then the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which just created massive dislocation in the countryside and destroyed agrarian markets, and just, you know, both created this void and vacuum that the drug violence filled. I mean, these are really the two legacies of the Clinton administration.

 

I’m a little bit—little bit more pessimistic about the United States’ ability to respond to this. I mean, you know, the United States, what we’re seeing, what’s at play—what you see at the Summit of the America is really an international forum, foreign policy forum, that what’s on view is domestic political sclerosis. The three things the U.S. could do to improve its situation and its relation with Latin America—Cuba, normalize relation with Cuba; humanize its drug policy; and three, and then have a more kind of humane trade policy—what stops that is—and then also immigration, so four things—is domestic politics. I mean, we always have an election in the United States. There’s always short-term interests that mitigate any—against a rational long-term response. But then there’s also deep interests within the United States. There’s the military-industrial complex, which makes a lot of money on the drug war. There’s SOUTHCOM, whose whole reason for existence is the drug war in Latin America. I mean, it’s going to be a lot—it’s going to take a lot to kind of pry those interests off of this policy and lead to a more rational response, I think.

 

AMYGOODMAN: Ethan Nadelmann, you’re speaking to us now, not from Cartagena, but from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where you’re there for the World Economic Forum regional meeting. The significance of this, following Cartagena right now?

 

ETHANNADELMANN: Well, it was planned before people knew that this was going to be on the issue of the Summit of the Americas, but I’ll be on a panel in a few days with the president of Guatemala, Otto Pérez Molina, with the assistant secretary of state in the U.S. for law enforcement matters in narcotics, William Brownfield, and with the Mexican interior minister, whose job it is to wage the drug war. So it’s notable that, in a forum like this, which mostly focuses on business issues, that this issue is on the agenda. It’s consistent, however, with the fact that you now see the legal business communities in places like Mexico City, Monterrey, Guatemala City, beginning to step up and say this isn’t working.

 

And I should also just say, Amy, I agree with the previous speaker: this is going to be very difficult to sort of bring this—keep this discussion going in an above-ground way. You know, there is a prison-industrial complex. There are vested interests and powerful bureaucracies that have spent decades trying to suppress and ignore this discussion. Already, the U.S. is trying to find ways to maneuver this discussion into places where it will get stuck in sorts of intellectual quagmires and go nowhere.

 

But I think that, on the other hand, people like Santos, Otto Pérez Molina and others are savvy enough and are investing enough of time, of their own energy, to keep this thing moving, to understand that civil society, the intellectuals, the drug policy experts need to be engaged, and that if we just turn this over to the governments’ drug czars or their foreign ministries, this thing will die. That’s where the U.S. wants it. The others know it has to expand out for it to be effective.

 

AMYGOODMAN: I want to thank you both very much for being with us, Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, speaking to us from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and Greg Grandin, teaches Latin American history at New York University, author of Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism and Fordlandia, finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in history.

 

This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. When we come back, the debate raging in election politics now about women’s work in the workplace both outside and inside the home. Stay with us.

 

 

Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.

 

Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs. Speaking Truth to Power!

 

In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.


T.A.B.A.C.C.O.  (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World: WTP = We The People

 

 

www.wyandanch.t-a-b-a-c-c-o.org

Subdomain re Exploited Minority Long Island community

 


T1580\3490

This entry was posted in Bush, class+war, disaster+capitalism, GOP, hypocrisy, illicit drugs, knowledge+is+power, Obama, outsourcing, political+ping+pong, Politics, socialism4richcapitalism4poor, sophistry, takebackamerica, warpeace and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Latin America v. USA: U.S. Policy on Cuba, Drug War & Drug Legalization, Economy Under Fire at Colombian Summit. What Position Do You Believe Obama Takes On Colombian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA)? – Obama Differs From Bush, But Not On Important Economic, Military, Corporate Interests! The Difference Is On SOCIAL ISSUES Where Republicans Cede Absolutely Nothing To Minorities Or The Economic Majority: The REST OF US!

  1. admin says:

    AMERICA’S DEMENTED PRIORITIES!

    I just turned on ‘Face The Nation’ and ‘Meet The Press’. Then I turned them off. Why? Because both are focusing on the Secret Service Sex Scandal with foreign prostitutes!

    Why is it that whenever there is SEX involved, everyone must be fired or impeached? But when it involves Murder & Genocide, everyone is exonerated!?

    I know you can EXCUSE anything – Hitler proved that! “Consorting with foreign agents etc”. But there is a difference between Sex and Murder! In America, Murder is supposed to be a Capital Crime unless a Black boy (Trayvon Martin) is murdered in Florida or an acknowledged homosexual government official (Harvey Milk) is murdered in California!

    However, when Murder occurs in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan, it has much less priority than Diplomatic Sexual Improprieties in the USA (Dominique Strauss-Kahn)!? In fact, unless LEAKS force their hand, the MSM is not even interested in the GENOCIDE of NON-WHITES IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES!

    And you thought things in America had changed since the 1860s! Not!

    Tabacco

  2. Anunciata says:

    i agree with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your incoming updates. just saying thanks will not just be enough, for the phenomenal clarity in your writing.http://www.formulaplastica.com

    • admin says:

      Readers:

      I get lots of comments like this but do not publish them. Most are generic and promoting their own websites. However, when Anunciata (who has posted unpublished comments before) uses words like “clarity”, even Tabacco cannot resist! (smile)

      Tabacco

  3. admin says:

    To Gorgon:

    1 – You didn’t drive me out of Blog-City; Blog-City is defunct!

    2 – You cannot blog and “hide” at the same time!

    I see your IQ has not increased even a single point. But don’t fret! As soon as I can get a Post Count, I will republish the Smettes 1st thing. You asked for it!

    Love & Kisses

    PS I was just discussing my most commented on Post yesterday (coincidence?) By the way, what took you so long?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>