[Senate Hearing 117-420]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-420
NINTH SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN
HEMISPHERE, TRANSNATIONAL
CRIME, CIVILIAN SECURITY,
DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS,
AND GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 26, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-980 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut MITT ROMNEY, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon TODD YOUNG, Indiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
Damian Murphy, Staff Director
Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE,
TRANSNATIONAL CRIME, CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY,
HUMAN RIGHTS, AND GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES
TIM KAINE, Virginia, Chairman
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon MARCO RUBIO, Florida
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
TED CRUZ, Texas
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Kaine, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From Virginia...................... 1
Rubio, Hon. Marco, U.S. Senator From Florida..................... 3
O'Reilly, Kevin, Summit of the Americas National Coordinator,
U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC....................... 7
Prepared Statement........................................... 8
Chavez, Dr. Rebecca Bill, President and CEO, Inter-American
Dialogue, Washington, DC....................................... 16
Prepared Statement........................................... 18
Farnsworth, Eric, Vice President, Council of the Americas,
Washington, DC................................................. 20
Prepared Statement........................................... 22
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Mr. Kevin O'Reilly to Questions Submitted by Senator
Benjamin L. Cardin............................................. 38
(iii)
NINTH SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere,
Transnational Crime, Civilian Security,
Democracy, Human Rights, and
Global Women's Issues;
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:07 a.m., in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Kaine
presiding.
Present: Senators Kaine [presiding], Cardin, and Rubio.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM KAINE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Kaine. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate
Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere,
Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human
Rights, and Global Women's Issues will come to order.
It is my pleasure to welcome two distinguished panels of
witnesses for this hearing on the Ninth Summit of the Americas
in Los Angeles. I want to thank Ranking Member Senator Rubio
for his dedication to advancing American interests and values
in the Western Hemisphere throughout his career.
I am proud of the work we have done on Latin American and
Caribbean issues during our time together in the Senate and
believe there is so much more that can and should be done.
I have long argued that our sustained engagement in Latin
America is in our national interest. The U.S. and countries
throughout Latin America share close ties. Our collective
prosperity and security are closely intertwined.
Each time I have traveled to the region and when I lived in
the region I have seen and heard firsthand how countries want
us more engaged. So I am pleased to be able to hold this
hearing focused on the biggest event for the region.
Recent coverage of the Summit of the Americas has been
somewhat critical, focusing on who has been invited or who is
attending, but despite those critiques, I believe that the U.S.
hosting the event is a welcome opportunity because the summit
is an important time for the Administration to outline a clear
vision for the hemisphere, one that speaks to the broad and
collective challenges we face together and for us to champion
the freedom that citizens across the region are yearning for.
I am glad that President Trump is scheduled to lead the
U.S.--President Biden is scheduled to lead the U.S. delegation
to the Summit, especially after President Trump chose not to
attend the last one in Lima in 2018.
This is the first Summit of the Americas hosted by the U.S.
since the very first summit in 1994 in Miami when my ranking
member colleague was struggling through elementary school.
The world, certainly, does not look like it did back then
when democracy was ascendant, the Soviet Union had collapsed,
NAFTA had just been signed, and there was broad optimism about
a free trade agreement for the Americas.
Fast forward to today, and citizens across the region are
increasingly dissatisfied with how democracy works, in part,
because their governments have not delivered and people view
elections and elected representatives as untrustworthy.
The negative outlook has only increased the allure of
China's siren song of easy money, an economic relationship that
comes with little transparency and little quality. Despite some
malaise, we see people across the hemisphere continuing to
fight for their rights to speak freely, for institutions that
treat them fairly, and for the right to decide how they are
governed, principles that are embodied in the Inter-American
Democratic Charter that all OAS members agreed to 21 years ago
at the Third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City.
We see journalists in Mexico doggedly fighting for their
freedom of speech even at the risk of being killed by
criminals, which, tragically, continues to happen. We saw
Nicaragua's own representative to the OAS in March forcefully
denounce his government's brutal repression of its people. We
have seen Guatemalan prosecutors and judges fighting to uphold
the rule of law in their country, even if it means they have to
leave their country to do so.
We also see partners like Costa Rica, Panama, and the
Dominican Republic banding together in a democratic alliance to
defend the values outlined in the charter, and I welcome that
development and hope we might see more of it.
There are serious challenges that affect us all and that
require collective action. Pandemic recovery, economic
inequality, drug trafficking, corruption, encroachment by our
adversaries, climate change, irregular migration--all these
require U.S. engagement and leadership in the region and so I
will welcome the Administration's ambitious and inclusive
agenda in response to these many issues and look forward to
hearing how it is approaching the Summit with these challenges
in mind.
We are not going to fix everything at the Summit. It is a
dialogue, but we need more dialogue and we need more
partnership. We are all Americans, and the event provides us
with a unique and important opportunity to advance our
interests and values.
I am also interested in hearing how the Administration
intends to shore up commitment to the Democratic Charter. Last
week, I joined Senators Menendez, Rubio, and others in
introducing legislation to uphold the charter because,
regardless of whatever disagreements we have had as a region,
we decided collectively back in 2001, I would argue, properly,
that we should prioritize the values outlined in the charter.
One last comment before I turn it over to my ranking
member, Senator Rubio, for his remarks. I last visited the
region in July of 2021 with six senators--three Democrats and
three Republicans--and our visit coincided with the delivery of
vaccines, and I heard such appreciation.
Many of these nations have said to us again and again,
whether we are in the region or whether their heads of state
are visiting with us, that they feel like we do not pay
attention, that they would rather deal with the United States,
that the connections between us make the partnership a natural
one, but that our presence is mostly an absence and other
nations like China are more active and present.
So as the vaccine deliveries were occurring, there was such
an outpouring of support in the nations that we went to--
Ecuador, Guatemala, Colombia, and Mexico--such an outpouring of
thanks and kind of, like, we are so glad you are back.
In the tragedy of the pandemic where nearly 30 percent of
the deaths in the world have been in Latin America, they
contrast to the United States that was willing to give them the
best vaccines in the world with a China or Russia that were
willing to sell them substandard vaccines and then cancel the
contracts if they said something nice about Taiwan, for
example.
I think our vaccine diplomacy last year opened an
opportunity--potentially, an opportunity for a new chapter--of
more engagement, more attention, more focus, and I pledge to
work together with my ranking member on this committee to help
ensure that that happens.
Now I would like to offer an opportunity for opening
comments from somebody who has been a strong leader in the
U.S.-Latin America relationship during his entire career,
Senator Rubio.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Chairman Kaine, and thank you for
your continued interest and your willingness, and I think this
is actually a very timely hearing and I appreciate all the work
you did to make it come about.
I, too, remember that 1994 summit in my hometown of Miami.
I was a 23-year-old just completing the eighth grade for the
fifth time and----
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. --but all kidding aside, I remember it
because in 1994 we were in that sort of post-Cold War hubris.
Everybody--the world was going to--everyone was headed towards
not just the liberalization of trade and democracies, but
everyone was going to look more like us.
There was no Soviet Union and the world had changed, and
there was tremendous amount of optimism about the direction of
Latin America, which had been plagued throughout the fifties,
sixties, seventies by right-wing dictators and left-wing
strongmen.
Suddenly you saw all these countries from Nicaragua to
Paraguay, Bolivia, all these emerging from that era to
something very different. There was a tremendous amount of
optimism, but obviously history did not end in 1991 and human
nature being what it is, that is an ongoing challenge.
Then we fast forward to today, this Summit of the Americas.
Actually, I remember the last Summit of the Americans that I
attended in Peru, and it was my suggestion to the then Trump
administration that they issue an invitation that the next one
be in the United States, and my hope was that it would be in
Washington because if it were in Washington we would have an
opportunity for our colleagues here in the Senate, and then the
House would be in session, to interact with those foreign
leaders that would be in town and it would really highlight the
importance of that event.
For whatever reason, they chose another site and that is
fine. That is not our biggest challenge. Here is the biggest
challenge. We are really in a pivotal--with all that is going
on in the world and is very important we are in a very pivotal
moment when it comes to the region.
There are an enormous number of rising challenges that need
to be addressed. That post-Cold War hubris about democracy is
being directly challenged, including in places that elect
people who win elections and then do not govern as democrats
and, in fact, that they use the power they acquire electorally
to undermine the functioning of institutions.
That has been the case in a number of places. Nicaragua is
one. Venezuela is another. So you have the real challenge
today, not just of a long-term dictatorship that has been in
Cuba for a very long time, but what, basically, are now
dictatorships in Venezuela, in Nicaragua, and the fear that
that could spread to other places--the rise of anti-American
leaders in a number of places, including places where they were
elected, whose rhetoric is openly hostile or at least,
certainly, counter to our national interests.
Perhaps the biggest challenge in the region is the sense
that America is just not engaged, that we just do not care and,
unfortunately, I think that is reflected in a number of places
including, frankly, with all due respect, here in the United
States Senate where a handful of us do care a lot about what
happens in the region, but others are--just do not spend a lot
of time on it.
I understand the world is a busy place and there are a lot
of issues to cover, but in the framework of public policy,
foreign policy focus, the Western Hemisphere, I think, is
neglected, given its importance both strategically and
geographically to what is happening in the United States.
We have real challenges in migration, migration that is,
largely, driven by the fact that people feel they can no longer
live in their countries, and so these countries in the Western
Hemisphere are not just sources of migration. It is one of the
things that people do not talk enough about. They are not just
sources of migration. They are transit points for migration and
the transit alone is an extraordinary burden on these
countries.
Talk to the government leaders in places like Panama. Talk
to the government leaders in Mexico and they will tell you that
becoming a transit point for migration from people from over 70
or 80 countries around the world poses an extraordinary
challenge on them, in addition to the fact that there are
countries, for example, in Central America--Honduras,
Guatemala--where the youngest people in that country--their
future, their workforce, the ones that should be building the
future of the country--have decided that their future belongs
somewhere else and are trying to figure out how to get out, and
that is driven by not just lack of economic opportunity, but
violence, murder, extortion by local criminal gangs, and
corrupt government leaders, oftentimes in the pockets in some
places of these elements.
Then you also have Chinese interests in the region. Chinese
exploit policies of exploitation, its attempts to trap
developing economies in debt traps that they never can get out
of, get their hands on natural resources and things of this
nature, and then Russia, which is always seeking ways to harm
the national interests of the United States in low-cost, high-
yield propositions like their involvement in Venezuela, like
their hope of, potentially, establishing a military presence in
Nicaragua, like the spread of propaganda, over a hundred
something individual online outlets that the Russians are now
behind to spread propaganda in the region that needs to be
countered.
All that said, there are also real opportunities in the
Western Hemisphere that, I think, we are missing. I ask myself
as we watch these supply chain disruptions, because stuff is
made halfway around the world and now it is shut down because
of a pandemic or whatever it may be, why are more things not
being made--if it cannot be made in America why are they not
being made in places closer to America?
Why do we not have huge factories in Haiti or in Guatemala
or in Honduras, places that could provide opportunity for
employment in those countries and, by the way, are located much
closer to us in terms of supply chains and disruptions?
Why are they not there? There is a lot of reasons. Some of
it has to--a lot of it has to do with the decisions of these
local governments, but some of it, I think, has to do with the
fact that we have not had a strategic vision to encourage that,
what role are we playing there, and I think that is really an
important opportunity for us to provide some leadership in that
direction.
Then add to that the opportunity to provide a counter, and
many of these countries that come to us and say, look, we do
not want to do investment deals with the Chinese, but they show
up with a bunch of money, no strings attached, and you guys
offer no alternative. There is no alternative and I think that
has to change, and some of that has begun to change, but I
think it has to change much faster.
These are the things that have to be covered, but in the
end, we can never forget what the Summit was always about. This
is called the Summit of the Americas, but what it really should
be called is the Summit of Democracy in the Americas because
the purpose of the Summit is to bring together democratically-
elected governments to show that democracy can work, that
democracy can lead to actions that solve the real problems of
real people.
It is why I think it is so disturbing that so much pressure
is being placed on this Administration, which is still unclear
about exactly what kind of summit this will be.
I will close with this, and this is an important point.
This is not about not inviting Cuba because we want to send a
message or not inviting Nicaragua because we want to send a
message or not inviting Maduro because we want to appease some
electorate in the United States.
It is this. You cannot claim to be summit of democracies if
at the table are seated elements that are clearly anti-
democratic and, actually, what it does is it gives them
credibility.
There is credibility attached to being invited to these
forums. There is credibility attached to being--the credibility
that is damaging, by the way, to those who oppose them, to
people that have risked their lives, risked their fortunes,
risked their futures, risked everything to stand up to these
people and are being told, well, those are the leaders of that
country and we have to deal with them.
It is demoralizing to those who stand up and oppose them to
see the people who they oppose, who have been so vicious and
harmful to their countries, being treated as legitimate
governments deserving of the same recognition and the same
standing as democratically-elected leaders in places like Costa
Rica.
It is demoralizing, and not only is it demoralizing, it is
uplifting. These regimes laugh at it, they brag about it, and
they use it to further demoralize their opposition and to
further coalesce the internal support for their own leadership
in their countries among their inner circle.
These are important things that we have to consider. I
appreciate you being here today. I am, obviously, not pleased
by the lackluster rollout, but I am glad that someone is on the
job and trying to pull this thing together.
I think it is really important that it be done the right
way because I would rather have no summit at all than one that
is counterproductive, and I fear that, potentially, this is
where we might wind up.
So thank you for being here. Thank you for your willingness
to work on this issue, and I look forward to hearing your
testimony and then asking you some questions.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
We do have two great panels. On the first panel, we have
Kevin O'Reilly, who is the Summit of the Americas' national
coordinator at the Department of State in the Bureau of Western
Hemisphere Affairs.
He was previously Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Brazil and Southern Cone Affairs and Andean Affairs. He is a
career member of the U.S. Foreign Service. He served abroad at
U.S. embassies in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Argentina,
and Indonesia.
He holds master's degrees from the U.S. Naval War College
and Johns Hopkins. He received his bachelor in history and his
law degree from Loyola University in Chicago.
Thanks for joining us for this important discussion, Mr.
O'Reilly. You will be offered the opportunity now to provide
testimony. We ask you to be concise, summarize your statement
within 5 minutes. Your entire statement will be included in the
record and then we will proceed to questions.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN O'REILLY, SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS NATIONAL
COORDINATOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. O'Reilly. Thank you very much, Senator.
Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the
subcommittee, I am honored to have the opportunity to appear
before you today.
On June 8, President Biden will arrive in Los Angeles to
host the Summit of the Americas, a first for us since the
inaugural event in 1994.
This will bring together governments from across our
hemisphere to create new opportunities for our citizens and
citizens across the Americas. We see, as well, direct
engagement between the people and their government leaders as a
Summit priority and we expect people from every country of the
hemisphere to join us in Los Angeles, including from lands
where authoritarians would silence their citizens, to focus on
building an equitable, sustainable, and resilient future.
Civil society, youth, and business will participate through
the Civil Society Forum, the Young Americas Forum, and CEO
Summit, and for the first time representatives of these groups
will engage directly with heads of state and government in
roundtable discussions, their conversations on topics ranging
from accelerating digital transformation and safe and secure
communities, address U.S. priorities, and also exemplify the
exchanges between citizens and elected officials that
characterize the best in democratic dialogue.
The Department shares a process known as the Summit
Implementation Review Group through which governments develop
leader-level commitments to adopt and launch in Los Angeles.
We intend to establish a comprehensive action plan on
strengthening health systems, on working together to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to health crises and strengthen our
health infrastructure, including the health sector workforce,
and in so doing create growth in our economies.
Our commitments for a green future and clean energy
transition aim put the region at the forefront of sustainable
growth while addressing climate challenges.
To bridge the digital divide and make sure all can benefit
from the 21st century economy, we intend to create the first
regional agenda and common principles on preparing citizens and
societies for the digital transformation reshaping our
hemisphere and our world.
Finally, this Summit offers our region's democratic leaders
an opportunity to affirm their commitment to democracy and to
the citizens for whom--from whom they derive their authority by
adopting an action plan on building strong and inclusive
democracies.
These commitments reflect both our priorities and topics of
broad concerns are identified in consultation with governments,
civil society, youth, and business from across the region, a
process that we began shortly after we first assumed the chair
of the Summit process from Peru in July of 2020.
These commitments, each in their own way, help address the
root causes of irregular migration exacerbated by the pandemic
and now by rising global prices on agricultural, food, and
other commodities, a challenge made much worse by Russia's
invasion of Ukraine.
To drive economic recovery, we have to push for reforms and
expand opportunities for financing from transparent sources
such as the Inter-American Development Bank and its private
sector window, IDB Invest.
This agenda can help focus governments on strengthening
democratic resilience, fighting corruption, increasing health
security, supporting and strengthening independent media and
civil society, promoting more equitable economic growth that
reaches the people on the peripheries of our societies, and
combating the climate crisis.
Each Summit pillar in some way addresses the root causes of
migration across our hemisphere, a major challenge for the
U.S., but not only the United States. It affects us all.
So President Biden and other heads of government and heads
of state will also discuss how to work together and develop
collaborative coordinated responses to migration and forced
displacement, and we hope that this process we will set the
course for stabilizing migrant populations, expanding legal
pathways, improving humane migration management to bring our
historic migration crises under control.
We are going to work together with members of this
committee to make the Summit a success, joining partners from
across the hemisphere to meet shared challenges, and we see
clear value in building a regional consensus on such priorities
wherever we can.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Reilly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Kevin O'Reilly
Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the
subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you today. On June 8,
President Biden will arrive in Los Angeles to host the Summit of the
Americas, a first for us since the inaugural summit in 1994.
This event will bring together governments from across our
hemisphere to address pressing challenges and create new opportunities
for our citizens and citizens from across the Americas.
Voices from across the hemisphere will inform the Summit's work.
We see direct engagement between the people and their government
leaders as a Summit priority, and we expect people from every country
of the hemisphere to join us in Los Angeles--including from lands where
authoritarians would silence their citizens--to focus on ``Building an
Equitable, Sustainable, and Resilient Future.''
Civil society, youth, and business will participate through the
Civil Society Forum, Young Americas Forum, and CEO Summit. For the
first time, representatives of these groups will engage directly with
heads of state and government in roundtable discussions during the
Summit.
Their conversations on topics ranging from ``Accelerating Digital
Transformation'' and ``Safe and Secure Communities'' address U.S.
priorities and exemplify the exchanges between citizens and elected
officials that characterize the best in democratic dialogue.
We look to make substantial progress on urgent challenges facing
the Americas.
The Department of State chairs a formal process known as the Summit
Implementation Review Group, through which governments develop leader-
level commitments to adopt and launch in Los Angeles.
We intend to establish a comprehensive action plan on strengthening
the capacity of health systems, and their resilience; on working
together better to prevent, prepare for, and respond to health crises
and strengthen our health infrastructure and systems, including the
health sector workforce; and in doing so create growth in our
economies.
Our commitments for a green future and a clean energy transition
aim to put the region at the forefront of sustainable growth while
addressing climate challenges.
To bridge the digital divide and make sure all can benefit from the
21st century economy, we intend to create the first regional agenda,
and common principles, on preparing our citizens and societies for the
digital transformation reshaping our hemisphere and our world.
Finally, this Summit offers our region's democratic leaders an
opportunity to affirm their commitment to democracy, and to the
citizens from whom they derive authority, by adopting an action plan on
building strong and inclusive democracies.
These commitments reflect both our priorities and topics of broad
regional concern identified in consultation with governments, civil
society, youth, and business from across the region, a process that we
began shortly after we first assumed the chair of the summit process
from Peru in July 2020.
These commitments and action plans, each in their own way, help
address the root causes of irregular migration, exacerbated by the
COVID-19 pandemic and now by rising global prices for food and
agricultural and other commodities, a challenge made worse by Russia's
invasion of Ukraine.
To drive the region's economic recovery, we must push for reforms
and expand opportunities for financing from transparent sources such as
the Inter-American Development Bank and its private sector window, IDB
Invest.
The agenda that I've laid out here can help focus governments on
these underlying issues by strengthening our democratic resilience,
fighting corruption, building resilience in our health systems and
increasing health security, supporting and strengthening independent
media and civil society, promoting more equitable economic growth that
reaches the people on the peripheries of our societies, and combating
the climate crisis.
As a region, we must address these issues in an equitable and
inclusive way, or we will only exacerbate our vulnerabilities to health
emergencies, food insecurity, irregular migration, and other
challenges.
Each Summit pillar in some way addresses the root causes of
migration across our hemisphere, a major challenge for the United
States, but not only the United States. It affects us all. Colombia,
Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, and their neighbors host more than 5 million
Venezuelans, victims of political repression and economic collapse.
Costa Rica hosts 500,000 Nicaraguans who have fled Ortega's
authoritarian rule. Mexico stands third among nations globally in the
number of asylum claims received. This unprecedented challenge must
spur us to work together.
President Biden and other heads of government and heads of state
will also discuss responses to migration and forced displacement,
including efforts to stabilize migrant populations, expand legal
pathways, and improve humane migration management.
We will work with the Department of Homeland Security and
governments in the region to ensure order at our southwest border. DHS
will continue responding to irregular migration by strictly but fairly
enforcing our immigration laws, processing individuals in a safe,
orderly, and humane manner. DHS efforts underway will help streamline
immigration processing for noncitizens in custody, to minimize time
spent in shared accommodation and strain on U.S. resources.
We will continue to support DHS efforts to quickly remove
individuals who do not establish the legal grounds to remain in the
United States, while remaining a global leader in providing protection
for those who flee or fear persecution and torture in their home
countries. We constantly coordinate with other countries to ease or
streamline repatriation requirements.
We will work with members of this committee to make the Summit a
success, working together with partners from across the hemisphere to
meet shared challenges. We see clear value in building a regional
consensus on such priorities wherever we can.
Senator Kaine. We will now go to 5-minute rounds of
questions, and I will begin and then go to the ranking member.
So let us go ahead and start.
Mr. O'Reilly, the Administration--there has been criticism
for the approach to the Summit. Foreign leaders have criticized
the exclusion of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. My colleague
addressed that well in his opening. Others have criticized the
lack of a plan to improve the region's economy and trade
linkages or overall lack of prioritizing the region.
These are criticisms that would not be unexpected. Summits
are good for bringing leaders together to dialogue, but the
real test of a summit is if there is after action.
What would you--what is the Administration hoping might be
the after action results or strategies coming out of the Summit
next--in June?
Mr. O'Reilly. Thank you, Senator.
We were, indeed, pressed as a result of the pandemic and a
lot of the preparations have, in fact, been compressed. We were
only able, judging the evolution of the pandemic and other
circumstances, to announce earlier this year that Los Angeles
would be the venue and it has, in fact, made communication
tighter.
We have been working on developing a positive agenda from
long before that and in consultations with other governments,
and these are some of the outputs that--or the results that we
hope to encourage, and I mentioned some of them in my opening
comments.
First, working together with governments in the region to
develop an action plan on health. Now, it is not just a
question of responding to the crisis, but rather because this
hemisphere created the modern public health systems of this
world.
The predecessor of the Pan-American Health Organization
long predates any other multilateral organization of that type
anywhere in the world, and we have 8 percent of the planet's
population and suffered something like 30-plus percent of the
fatalities in this Western Hemisphere.
Senator Kaine. I am going to--just going to dialogue with
you rather than we each----
Mr. O'Reilly. Please.
Senator Kaine. --on time, and that was the case. Thirty
percent of the population--8 percent of the population, 30
percent of the deaths, but we only sent 8 percent of our
vaccines to the Americas. We prioritized based on population,
not based on need.
In the Americas, because of migration flows, there is
probably a much greater case to be made that it would be in the
United States' interest to prioritize more vaccine delivery in
the Americas because that is where the threat was. As we were
doing vaccine distribution within the United States we tended
to prioritize communities that were getting hit hardest by
COVID.
We kind of used an approach globally, well, let us just
spread it equally over every part of the world whether or not
there is a serious challenge, and I would argue that that
provision of 8 percent of our vaccines to a population that had
30 percent of the deaths, it was an under-prioritization of the
Americas.
We were slow going in. Russia and China got in first with
PPE. The good thing is once we started producing vaccines and
delivering, there was great appreciation for our effort. So I
think the vaccine diplomacy has opened the door after we kind
of got out of the block slow.
I hope we will build on that door opening and I was pleased
to hear you put health as one of the first pillars because I
think that could be such an obvious area, given the times we
live in and the recent success that we have had in at least
delivering high-quality product in a way that has been
appreciated.
Mr. O'Reilly. Sir, we have seen as well that now, as the
circumstances evolved, we see governments and individuals
across the region opting for higher quality, more reliable
resources provided from U.S. innovation and U.S. firms in order
to meet these requirements, and we have managed to distribute
free--as you mentioned earlier, free and without strings
nearly--I think it is 68 million doses and we have, in
fundamental ways, helped change the trajectory of the pandemic.
Senator Kaine. Let me just stick with health, and I will go
a little bit over and then I want to go to Senator Rubio.
He raised in his opening this sort of nearshoring concept.
A lot of our supply chains are in China and Asia. We had not
defined in the past health equipment, medical equipment, as
kind of a national security supply chain that we needed to keep
close and so we ended up, really, in a jam when it came to
things like PPE at the front end of the pandemic.
These are textile products. They could be perfectly
manufactured in American textile firms that are already
operating in Central America. They could expand employment,
expand opportunities.
The idea of defining medical equipment and medical supplies
as a national security imperative and wanting them closer to
our shore, they should be manufactured in the United States or
possibly in a country with a trade agreement with the United
States.
This could bring tremendous economic opportunity to the
Americas and it could also be part of this first health pillar
where we are producing more to prepare for the next challenge
and the next pandemic right here that will benefit everyone.
Is that sort of nearshoring focus how we can drive economic
development to meet the health care goal that you described as
pillar one--is that the kind of thing that there will be
discussions about?
Mr. O'Reilly. We have tried to work very hard with
colleagues across the region as we head into the Summit to
make--to have that kind of cooperative discussion about the
standards, the market requirements, the--what consumers in--of
high-quality health goods need in terms of production and what
firms need in terms of the standards for transparency in order
to create just those kinds of opportunities in health--not only
in health, but in health, and we have certainly had discussions
on the sort of technical nuts and bolts of these sorts of
challenges with governments across the region.
I know I have--certainly, with the Government of Colombia
we have had these discussions with others as to how they can
make themselves attractive to free market--a free market to
participate in this kind of production because we know that the
region has the talent and the creativity to do so.
Senator Kaine. I am going to now turn it over for questions
to Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Chairman.
Just a couple points on the offshoring. I think, number
one, the most important thing they can do is people need to
know if I open a factory in your country some mayor or police
chief is not going to show up a month later saying, hey, I have
a deed here that says this property belongs to me. You need to
pay me $5,000 a month or $10,000 a month in order to keep the
business. That is usually bad for business. I think that is the
beginning of it.
Then the other is I think we need to prioritize and figure
out ways to use our own financing mechanisms to create those
incentives. I think the market incentives are there if there
were the capital availability through the Inter-American
Development Bank or some other measures, and I think that that
is really important, but we have to focus on it.
I wanted to ask you some very specific questions. Have we
invited anyone from the Cuban regime to be a part of the
Summit?
Mr. O'Reilly. Pardon me. Senator, that will be a decision
for the White House to make.
Senator Rubio. So we have not yet invited, as far as--I
mean, you would know if we invited someone. We have not yet
invited anyone to the Summit?
Mr. O'Reilly. That would be a White House call, sir.
Senator Rubio. No, I know it would be their call. I am
asking if it has already been made.
Mr. O'Reilly. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Rubio. Okay. We recognize Juan Guaido as the
legitimate interim president of Venezuela. That is a correct--
--
Mr. O'Reilly. Absolutely.
Senator Rubio. Okay. Have we invited him or anyone from the
interim government to the Summit?
Mr. O'Reilly. We are in constant discussions with them
about how to participate and engage in the Summit.
Senator Rubio. Have we invited them to the Summit yet?
Mr. O'Reilly. We are in regular discussions with them and
your question----
Senator Rubio. No, I know you are in regular discussion. I
think the--I know what you are answering because I get it. I am
asking have we invited--I mean, have we invited them or not? We
are in--in those discussions have we invited them yet or we
just have not made that invitation? That is----
Mr. O'Reilly. That will be a White House call, sir.
Senator Rubio. Okay. So the White House has not made that
call yet, correct?
Mr. O'Reilly. That will be a White House call, sir.
Senator Rubio. Have they made that call yet?
Mr. O'Reilly. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Senator Rubio. Okay. Why is it so hard to answer these
things? These are pretty straightforward questions. I am not
trying to trick you. It is just I just want to know. I get it.
Look, the answer is the White House has to make that call.
They have not made that call yet. I get it. That is not--I am
not saying that is your call to make. I am just asking the
question because that is why we have these hearings.
Mr. O'Reilly. Of course.
Senator Rubio. All right. Have we invited representatives
of civil society in Cuba, for example, people involved in what
happened last July, mostly artists and things of this nature
who simply want to be able to have freedom of expression? Has
anybody like that been invited to the Summit?
Mr. O'Reilly. Yes, sir. We want to have as broad a
participation from civil society from every country which--
where authoritarians who are dictators are seeking to snuff out
public debate.
Senator Rubio. So we have made those invitations?
Mr. O'Reilly. Yes, sir.
Senator Rubio. Okay. Have we invited the Maduro regime or
any of its representatives to the Summit?
Mr. O'Reilly. Absolutely not. We do not recognize them as a
sovereign government.
Senator Rubio. Okay. Have we invited anyone from the Ortega
regime to the Summit?
Mr. O'Reilly. No.
Senator Rubio. Okay. My question is this. My understanding
is that President Obrador in Mexico is, I think, probably the
ringleader of this who are going to boycott the Summit unless
you invite this trifecta of tyranny in Nicaragua, Venezuela,
and Cuba.
Is that influencing the decisions we are making in regards
to--I mean, is that something we are taking into account in
regards to who we invite or what we do, moving forward?
Mr. O'Reilly. We are certainly having discussions with the
Government of Mexico and with all the governments in the region
about the structuring and organization of the debate.
I mean, next week, I will be in Los Angeles to continue
discussions on the agenda that I just discussed and I know the
White House and other senior officials are constantly in
dialogue with the Mexicans and with many other governments.
The former chairman of this subcommittee, Christopher Dodd,
is currently traveling in South America as the President's
Special Advisor for the Summit and has had consultations with--
already with Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and will visit other
countries as well.
Senator Rubio. It is just--my view on it is, and I have
seen the public statements that Obrador has made about, well,
we are not going to go to the Summit if these guys are not
invited and so forth.
My view of it is this. I do not think the United States of
America should, frankly, be bullied or pressured into who to
invite to a summit we are hosting. If he does not want to come
he does not come.
In my view, one of the great things about it is if we have
a summit where we do not invite dictators and the people who
wanted dictators to come decide to boycott it, then we will
just know who our real friends are in the region and govern
ourselves accordingly.
I think it would be a good opportunity to filter out the--
those who are aligned with our views on the direction of the
region and those who are not.
I want to ask you about Haiti. We have invited the current
prime minister of Haiti, correct?
Mr. O'Reilly. Yes, sir.
Senator Rubio. Okay. Obviously, you do not want to
speculate about what happened between now and that Summit and
so forth, but I have very deep concerns about Haiti, in
particular.
The Prime Minister is--he is an interim Prime Minister.
There is not a lot of clarity there about what happens if, God
forbid, he is removed from office via a coup or something far
worse, and we are hoping that does not happen. I imagine the
topic of Haiti--its future, its direction, how it goes from
here on out--is something that will be on the Summit agenda.
Is that something we are proactively raising?
Mr. O'Reilly. We are very much engaged as part of the broad
sweep of our diplomacy in the hemisphere on just that agenda,
sir.
Senator Rubio. Yes. I think we really should highlight that
as far as understanding what we can do, first, to help along
with partners in the region to get some stability in Haiti.
Without stability in Haiti it has an impact on multiple
countries. Even Cuba is now intercepting Haitian migrants. We
are beginning to see that. There are, certainly, a large number
of Haitian migrants that are now transiting through Central
America and presenting themselves at the southern border. The
Bahamas has long had to confront these sorts of challenges.
So I think it is really important that that be a topic that
is highlighted and focused upon because I do think there are
countries in the region that can--that have a vested interest,
beginning with the Dominican Republic--it, obviously, shares
Hispaniola with them--but others that have a vested interest in
contributing towards some level of governmental stability there
and security so that we can--that can then be built upon to,
hopefully, provide a better--and I just hope that the topic of
Haiti is prominently featured on the agenda and it is something
that we really confront.
I will turn it back over, and then I do not know if we have
a second round.
Senator Kaine. Excellent. I think Senator Cardin will now
ask questions by WebEx.
[No response.]
Senator Kaine. All right. We are going to try to get
Senator Cardin up. While we are doing that, let me ask another
question.
Mr. O'Reilly, one of the natural tendencies we have is to
focus on the kind of problem areas and so the dictatorship or
democratic backsliding in the region is very real.
I mean, Senator Rubio's opening statement kind of talked
about the difference in the vibe between 1994 in Miami and in
2022 in Los Angeles, but there are also some bright spots, and
I think often what you really need to do is when you have
bright spots amplify them.
So the Alliance for Democracy and Development, Dominican
Republic, Panama, Costa Rica, wanting to have a greater center
of gravity to advocate for democracy, rule of law, human
rights, I think that is a positive.
It is early in the new tenure of the president of Chile,
but I have viewed his willingness to call out abuses by
governments that you might think, because he kind of came from
the left, he would be supportive of--his willingness to call
out abuses in Nicaragua or the Russian invasion of Ukraine,
that is promising.
What are you thinking about strategies for the Summit that
we might do to kind of amplify or shine a spotlight on some of
the positive developments in the region to counter a narrative
that it is just all a backslide right now?
Mr. O'Reilly. Absolutely, Senator, and we have also been
very encouraged by the work of the governments of the Dominican
Republic, Panama, and Costa Rica, and you can already see that
this is something that, certainly, in Costa Rica crosses their
local partisan divide. The change of Administration has not
changed their commitment to this objective at all.
This is not something that we brought forward. This is a
homegrown initiative and one that is exceptionally positive,
and we see those kinds of positive developments as well in
places like Ecuador and, yes, I think you are right, after the
difficult divisions and public debate in Chile that dates from
before the pandemic, you see a situation where--a knitting
together of a new political consensus and a great deal of
ethical clarity about democratic governance, and that is really
a fundamental for us.
It is not--people choose their own--in democracies, people
choose their own course for their own nations, and we have no
quarrel with that whether those governments are conservative,
whether they are of the left, whether they just shoot straight
down the middle.
It is a question of following rules, of democratic
participation, of their own constitutions. These are our
complaints with people like Nicolas Maduro, who trample those
rules of the road, if you would, of any democratic government.
So part of our agenda of this action plan for strengthening
the commitments we made to one another in Quebec City and then
on that--the one bright spot on that sad day of September 11,
2001, with the Inter-American Democratic Charter is to make
sure that we are setting a positive agenda for democratic
governance because, as Senator Rubio was just saying, you do
all the right things to build a business and then someone
sticks their hands out for a kickback.
That is a question of democratic governance. That is a
question of accountability. Those are the ways that we can
build--if we strengthen those institutions, if we strengthen
the rule of law, if we strengthen accountability, that is where
we get the opportunity to show people that the faith they place
in democratic governance, well, that faith is well founded.
So much of our agenda, whether it is health, whether it is
digital, whether it is the economic--broad agenda of economic
recovery that pulls people in from the margins and makes them
feel that they are invested in their future, well, the
foundation of all of that is effective democratic governance.
Senator Kaine. Indeed. Indeed. Is Senator Cardin available
now?
[No response.]
Senator Kaine. Senator Rubio, do you have additional
questions for Mr. O'Reilly before the second panel?
Senator Rubio. No.
Senator Kaine. All right.
Mr. O'Reilly, thank you. I will see you in Los Angeles. We
are going to be, hopefully, bringing a number of senators out
for Thursday evening and Friday, and we hope that the Summit is
a success.
Even more than that, we hope that the aftermath of the
Summit demonstrates a--just a higher level of attention, focus,
and partnership between Americans North, Central, and South.
Thank you very much.
We will now introduce our second panel.
As you come on up, we will begin. Very, very happy to
welcome both Dr. Chavez and Mr. Farnsworth to the subcommittee
today.
So let me introduce our second panel of witnesses. Dr.
Rebecca Bill Chavez, who is the president and CEO of the Inter-
American Dialogue. She was formerly a senior fellow in the
Dialogue's Rule of Law program, previously served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs
from 2013 to 2016.
In that role, she prioritized women, peace, and security
initiatives, combating the militarization of law enforcement,
and also expanded defense institution building programs. Prior
to that, Dr. Chavez was a tenured professor of political
science at the Naval Academy. Her research focused on
democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. She received her
master's and Ph.D. in political science from Stanford,
bachelor's degree from Princeton.
Eric Farnsworth--Eric leads the Washington Office of the
Council of the Americas. Prior to work with the Council, he
spent almost a decade in government with the Department of
State, Office of U.S. Trade Representative, and the Clinton
White House. He also served in the United States Senate with a
wonderful former Senator, Sam Nunn.
I want to thank both of you for joining and I would like to
ask, first, Dr. Chavez, and then Eric Farnsworth, if you will
deliver your opening testimony and then we will go to
questions.
STATEMENT OF DR. REBECCA BILL CHAVEZ, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTER-
AMERICAN DIALOGUE, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Chavez. Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Rubio, members
of the subcommittee, thank you so much for the opportunity to
testify today about the Summit of the Americas.
As you mentioned, I am president and CEO of the Inter-
American Dialogue, which is a think tank that is dedicated to
the issues we are talking about today, to fostering democratic
governance, prosperity, and social equity in Latin America and
the Caribbean.
In my testimony today I want to underscore two core points.
First, we should not view the Summit as a single discrete
event. Instead, the Biden administration should use this
gathering to announce a holistic strategy and vision for Latin
America and the Caribbean.
This is really important. A lot of commentators, myself
included, have been asking questions like who will be invited,
who will attend, but what is most important is that the Summit
is happening, and we should make sure that it lays down the
foundation for longer-term sustained engagement in the region.
It has to be a launching pad. It cannot be a one-and-done
event. The Summit should be part of a broader effort to
reengage, reassert the U.S. position as a partner and leader in
the region, and reassure the region that the United States
cares deeply about the Americas' collective future and well-
being.
Second, the Biden administration must release as soon as
possible a robust Summit agenda that reflects and aligns with
the concerns of the region as well as with U.S. interests.
I was pleased to hear some elements of that agenda earlier
from Mr. O'Reilly. As he notes, there are critical issues on
which the U.S. can and should work together with the nations of
the hemisphere, many of which were not of concern at the--
during the first summit in 1994 when democracy and economic
development were on the rise.
Today, the region is polarized. COVID-19 has laid bare
public health and economic challenges. Democracy is in retreat,
climate change is threatening the safety of people, and global
rivals are making their financial and political presence
strongly felt.
I am going to highlight three such issues. First, on the
Summit agenda and a critical component of an Americas strategy
should be the hemisphere-wide migration crisis, which can only
be addressed in collaboration with partners.
We have tended to focus on our southern border, and I was
pleased to hear Mr. O'Reilly today talking about the broader
nature of this crisis. I want to highlight that migrants from a
diverse set of countries, including Venezuela, Haiti,
Nicaragua, and Cuba, in addition to the Northern Triangle
countries, are fleeing a mix of acute humanitarian crises,
political repression, violence, and state fragility.
Over 6 million Venezuelan refugees are overwhelming
neighboring countries. That is on the scale of the Syria and
Ukraine refugee crises, and it is happening here in our
hemisphere. Over 6 million.
We cannot forget that is happening. Granting TPS to
Venezuelans was important, but just as the U.S., on a
bipartisan basis, has generously stepped up to assist Ukrainian
refugees, so should we work with our hemispheric and global
partners to help refugees in the Americas.
Part of the agenda that I hope will be incorporated into a
broader Americas strategy is COVID-19. We need a region-wide
plan for the still-evolving pandemic and for public health
emergencies that the region will undoubtedly face in the
future.
As has been alluded to, COVID hit Latin America and the
Caribbean hard--over 27 percent of the total number of COVID
deaths in a region with only 8 percent of the world's
population.
I fully agree that we need to prioritize vaccine
distribution to our partners in the Americas. At the Summit,
the U.S. should begin to work on a more cooperative approach
not just to manage the COVID pandemic, but to strengthen public
health systems, more generally.
Finally, the COVID crisis has brought into focus the need
for inclusive economic recovery. The pandemic contributed to a
devastating economic contraction of 7 percent in 2020, leading
to a 10 percent increase in poverty.
Given that impact, coupled with the rising inflation, there
are several commitments that the Biden administration should
make in Los Angeles, and these also must be included in a
strategic vision for the region.
We have to move beyond discussion. We need to expand
efforts to attract private investment to the region. We need to
announce climate-friendly infrastructure investment initiatives
to follow through on the Build Back Better World promises, and
we need real action when it comes to nearshoring.
I want to conclude by thanking you for drawing attention to
the Summit, and also, more broadly, to Latin America and the
Caribbean, a region that is so important to the interests of
the United States.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chavez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Rebecca Bill Chavez
Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
upcoming Ninth Summit of the Americas to be held in Los Angeles.
My name is Rebecca Bill Chavez. I am President and CEO of the
Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank dedicated to fostering democratic
governance, prosperity, and social equity in Latin America and the
Caribbean. We work to shape policy debate, devise solutions, and
enhance cooperation within the Western Hemisphere.
From 2013 until 2016, I served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Before that, I was a tenured
professor at the United States Naval Academy, focusing on democracy and
security in Latin America and the Caribbean. I have dedicated my
policy, academic, and government career to working on and understanding
U.S.-Latin American relations as well as democracy and the rule of law
in Latin America.
the summit is an opportunity to deploy a vision
In my testimony today, I want to underscore two core points.
First, we should not view the Summit as a single, discrete event.
Instead, the Biden administration should use the gathering to
articulate a vision for Latin America and the Caribbean that it will
carry forward over the coming years.
Second, the United States must release as soon as possible a robust
Summit agenda that reflects and aligns with the concerns and priorities
of the region as well as with U.S. interests.
As was the case when the first Summit of the Americas was held in
Miami in 1994, hosting the Summit in the United States and especially
in Los Angeles has tremendous symbolic value. With a population that is
almost 50 percent Latino and with deep ties to Mexico and the other
countries of the hemisphere, Los Angeles is a microcosm of the
deepening connection between U.S. domestic policy and foreign policy.
Beyond the strong resonance of its location, the Summit presents the
Biden administration with the opportunity to announce and begin
implementing a holistic strategy for Latin America and the Caribbean--a
pivot to the Americas that is more needed today than ever.
Despite concerns about Summit participation by other nations, the
Biden administration can and should take strong steps to make the
Summit a success by underscoring that the Summit is part of a broader
U.S. effort to reengage with the Americas, reassert the U.S. position
as a hemispheric partner and leader, and reassure the region that the
United States cares deeply about the Americas' collective future and
well-being. Of course, this will require that the U.S. Government make
and follow through on concrete commitments.
In addition to presenting a vision and a renewed commitment to the
Americas, the United States must present a Summit agenda that reflects
the concerns and priorities of the region. There are many specific and
critical issues on which the United States can and should work together
with the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean.
In sharp contrast to the first Summit in Miami when democracy and
economic development were on the rise, the United States will be
hosting this year's gathering at a time when the region is polarized,
COVID-19 has laid bare public health and economic challenges, democracy
is in its second decade of retreat, climate change is threatening the
health and safety of people throughout the hemisphere, and global
rivals are making their financial and political presence strongly felt.
A U.S. commitment to a Summit that reflects the region's priorities and
to greater engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean is
fundamental to competing effectively with authoritarian countries like
China, which are increasingly influential in the region.
President Biden's commitment to multilateralism on a global scale
should constitute the backbone of the Summit itself and of a Latin
America and Caribbean strategy. After all, the greatest threats to our
hemisphere are complex and transcend national borders. An Americas
strategy without strong partnership and alignment or that is seen as
simply a unilateral U.S. project is destined to fail. The President has
the opportunity to build common cause with the hemisphere's nations
through the reinvigoration of regional organizations like the
Organization of American States, which should play a key role in
bolstering democracy in the hemisphere.
The Hemispheric Migration Crisis
First on the Summit agenda should be the hemisphere-wide migration
crisis. Irregular migration is a tragic humanitarian issue that impacts
countries across the Americas--a truly hemispheric challenge that is
best addressed in collaboration with regional partners. As such, the
Biden administration has the opportunity to demonstrate that it cares
about more than crossings along the U.S. southern border.
Migrants from a diverse set of countries, including Venezuela,
Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras are fleeing a mix of acute humanitarian crises,
political repression, violence, and state fragility. Over 6 million
Venezuelan refugees are overwhelming Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, and many
other Latin American and Caribbean countries. This number rivals
Syria's demographic collapse, and yet the amount of international
funding for each Venezuelan refugee is only 10 percent of the per
capita funding for Syrian refugees. The Biden administration took an
important first step by granting Temporary Protected Status to
Venezuelans in the United States. Now it's time to do more. Just as the
U.S. Government on a bipartisan basis has generously stepped up to
assist Ukrainian refugees, so should the United States work with
hemispheric and global partners to help refugees in our hemisphere.
President Biden started to build the scaffolding of a holistic
approach to migration with its Northern Triangle Strategy, an essential
step with a focus on the root causes, including crippling poverty,
widespread violence, government corruption, and climate change.
Although its long-term focus on rootedness represents a positive shift
away from the ad-hoc, reactive stance that has characterized U.S.
policy for decades, it only covers a portion of Central America,
leaving out Nicaragua where thousands are fleeing the brutal Ortega
regime, not to mention Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean. The
localized strategy should be a building block of a broader approach
that goes well beyond concerns about migration to the United States,
and President Biden should use the Summit to propose a set of practical
policy solutions.
COVID and Public Health Emergencies
The agenda should also include a sustainable, region-wide plan for
the still-evolving COVID-19 pandemic and for public health emergencies
that the region will undoubtedly face in the future. COVID-19 hit Latin
America and the Caribbean hard, killing over 1.7 million people--more
than 27 percent of the total number of global COVID deaths in a region
with only 8 percent of the world's population. Many countries came to
see China and Russia as stronger pandemic partners than the United
States, given how slow the U.S. was to provide personal protective
equipment and vaccines.
At the Summit, the United States should work to organize a more
cooperative approach to managing the pandemic and strengthening public
health systems more generally. The countries of Latin America and the
Caribbean have for too long invested far too little in health
infrastructure. In addition to increasing vaccine provisions, the Biden
administration should initiate a robust vaccine technology program to
ramp up regional manufacturing capacity to achieve global equitable
vaccine access. More broadly, the United States needs to work with
other countries to establish robust and reliable systems to coordinate
better our response to future pandemic threats and, more broadly,
region-wide public health emergencies.
The pandemic and the resulting school closures had significant
negative effects on education opportunities across the hemisphere,
particularly for students from vulnerable households. The region had
the longest average school closures of anywhere in the world, and some
countries are only now reopening for in-person learning, over 2 years
after school doors were first closed. The Summit is an opportunity for
the United States to reaffirm the importance of education recovery
efforts and commit to partnering with countries in Latin America and
the Caribbean to promote quality education for all, including through
cooperative programs such as the 100,000 Strong in the Americas
initiative.
Inclusive Economic Recovery and Growth
The COVID crisis has also tragically brought into focus the
economic weaknesses of the region. The Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean reports that the spread of COVID contributed
to a devastating economic contraction of 7 percent in 2020, which led
to a 10 percent increase in poverty in 2020 and exacerbated income
inequality. According to the World Bank, students impacted by extended
school closures could face a 10 percent loss in their lifetime incomes.
Given the devastating economic impact of the pandemic coupled with
rising inflation, inclusive economic recovery should be a central piece
of the Summit agenda, and there are several initiatives and commitments
the Biden administration could announce in Los Angeles, including the
expansion of efforts to attract private investment to the region. The
Administration's Partnership for Central America could serve as the
model and starting point.
The U.S. should also announce climate-friendly infrastructure
investment initiatives to follow through on the launch of Build Back
World and the promises it made to Latin America and the Caribbean with
the other G7 countries a year ago. Expectations are high in the region,
especially since the September Build Back Better World listening tour
that included stops in Colombia, Ecuador, and Panama. As a start, the
Administration should harness its various development finance tools,
including the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, and
provide specifics on areas that it will invest in, which is becoming
even more important as China's competing Belt and Road Initiative gains
traction in the region.
The Administration should also announce specific initiatives that
follow up on its talk about nearshoring as a way to boost economic
performance in the hemisphere. There are many opportunities to re-route
and reinforce more secure and reliable supply chains through the region
as an alternative to manufacturing and services hubs in China and other
parts of the world. Manufacturing and production were both
significantly impacted by the COVID pandemic, which has prompted
companies to explore options in Latin America and the Caribbean. It's
time for the Biden administration to create incentives for companies to
move their operations to parts of the Americas that are closer and have
easier access to the United States.
Finally, as of part of President Biden's effort to tackle the
climate crisis, the Administration should announce bold new clean
energy investments and demonstrate its support for the region's
renewable energy goals. The climate conversation should also include an
actionable plan to increase climate adaptation assistance to the
region, particularly to the Caribbean and Central America, which
experience the most catastrophic impacts of climate change in large
part due to their geographic exposure to extreme weather events. Aid
should also target the most vulnerable populations, including women,
indigenous communities, people of African descent, and youth. Potential
commitments include greater funding for resilient agricultural
practices where a single drought can utterly destroy the livelihood of
subsistence farmers. The Administration should also expand its work
with the countries that share the Amazon rainforest using a variety of
tools from technical assistance to funding to expand protected areas
and indigenous reserves. By providing financial and technical resources
for the region to meet its climate commitments and build its
resilience, the United States can take the lead on a shared sustainable
development agenda.
conclusion
Thank you again for shining alight on the upcoming Summit of the
Americas. I also want to thank the Subcommittee for its bipartisan and
much-needed attention to Latin America and the Caribbean, a region that
is so deeply important to the interests of the United States.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Dr. Chavez.
Mr. Farnsworth.
STATEMENT OF ERIC FARNSWORTH, VICE PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF THE
AMERICAS, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Farnsworth. Good morning. Thank you for the
opportunity, again, to testify before this subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members, I really want to
thank you both and those who may be on WebEx for your continued
leadership on these issues. It is genuine.
We need, Mr. Rubio, the types of leaders in the Senate that
you spoke of in your statement, and both of you dedicating
today's hearing, but also your own prioritization of the
Western Hemisphere is noticed and it is meaningful and it is
important. So thank you for that.
In uncertainty there is opportunity, and the Summit of the
Americas presents an important opportunity for the United
States to meet the region where it is, to present a true
partnership for regional recovery, to work to ensure that the
next pandemic wave is less terrible, and to stand firmly and
resolutely for democracy.
The world has changed dramatically since the first U.S.-
hosted summit in 1994. I was also there in Miami and I saw,
personally, the excitement and ambition of the assembled
leaders, each one democratically elected.
We were at the ``end of history.'' Russia had been
chastened. China was not yet a thing, at least in the Americas.
Nation after nation had moved from dictatorship to democracy,
from economic distress to stability, from closed economies to
open, toward a real desire for expanding trade with the United
States and with each other.
Only Cuba remained an outlier, then as now, although today
both Venezuela and Nicaragua have also left the democratic
path, and Haiti continues to struggle to constitute and sustain
democratic governance as it also did in 1994, and other
countries in the region also face democratic challenges.
Across the region, one constant since Miami is the desire
to meet the needs and improve the lives of citizens and this is
where we have a real opportunity in Los Angeles for lasting,
positive change if we choose to prioritize these issues.
Latin America and the Caribbean have been hit hard by the
COVID pandemic, as we have already heard. Beyond the awful
human costs, budgets have been strained, debt has increased,
and rising U.S. interest rates are making dollar-denominated
debt more difficult to service.
The World Bank projects regional growth this year of just
over 2 percent, hardly enough to create the jobs the region
requires to get back on its feet or to address rising social
demands.
Ultimately, the region's leaders themselves are responsible
for job creation and development in their own countries, but we
can help, and if we want the United States to maintain a
privileged position in the Americas, I believe we have to help
because alternatives now exist that did not exist before.
The Los Angeles Summit would be the perfect opportunity for
Washington to announce a commitment to regional growth and
recovery, launching a concerted effort on debt service and
relief, new lending, incentives for private sector-led
investment, and trade.
While a significant trade initiative may not be in the
cards, there is no reason Washington cannot propose a region-
wide effort to liberalize individual sectors such as
environmental technology, goods and services, or the digital
economy or health care consistent with and building on the
framework, frankly, that the President just announced himself
in Tokyo for Asia.
Why cannot we use a similar approach for the Western
Hemisphere?
More ambitiously, consistent with the region's own
interests, I propose we seek to expand the bipartisan USMCA
into the rest of the hemisphere, including other nations as
they show the interest and capacity to meet the standards and
obligations that the agreement requires.
Second, the pandemic is not yet over, but it is clear that
sustainable health systems are an investment in the region's
economies as well as in the well-being of its most vulnerable
citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate your comments in terms of
vaccines and I have been saying since the pandemic began with
the hashtag #VaccinateTheAmericas that we have to prioritize
the Americas for the public health reasons for sure, but also
there is a strategic component here with China. It is something
that makes sense for us to be doing.
We would be better positioned to ensure regional health
care systems work better and we would be better able to
prioritize help in terms of the inevitable next pandemic.
There is also one very important aspect here and that is
that the pandemic is--it is fundamental to fix the pandemic if
the region's tourism services sector is going to recover.
Tourism is a major services export, and with the high U.S.
dollar right now there should be a huge desire for American
citizens, particularly U.S. citizens, to travel to the Western
Hemisphere to take advantage of the strong U.S. dollar.
They are not doing that, necessarily, because still the
pandemic is raging in parts of the hemisphere. So it is not
just a health issue. It is an economic recovery issue and I
think we have to acknowledge that.
Finally, we must be committed stewards of regional
democracy. We can all do better in practice, for sure,
ourselves included. It is important to uphold the basic
democratic standard for Summit participation.
That is why the bipartisan Upholding the Inter-American
Democratic Charter Act of 2022 is so very much appreciated for
both you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member. In that vein,
Venezuela's constitutional leader, Juan Guaido, should also be
invited to the Summit and as of late last night, at least, he
had not yet been invited.
These issues are fraught, but it begs the question, at this
point what is the purpose of regional summits, because simply
meeting a commitment to meet is not enough. Without an
ambitious, attractive agenda to rally around, the narrative is
too easily captured by those whose interests do not coincide
with our own and, indeed, that has been the case.
Working toward regional recovery, including trade
expansion, addressing health care and other social needs, and
standing for democracy even when it may be unpopular to do so,
in my view, would be a great place to begin.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you again
for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farnsworth follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Eric Farnsworth
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to share my views
with you and the Subcommittee on the upcoming Ninth Summit of the
Americas, which the United States will host from June 8 through June 10
in Los Angeles. The Council of the Americas has been involved in the
Summits of the Americas since the first Summit was conceived and hosted
by President Bill Clinton in Miami in 1994, and in every Summit of the
Americas since then. And my own involvement also dates to that first
Summit, when as a young State Department officer I was one of the
advisors working to bring the Summit together substantively and
logistically.
the vision at the center of the summits of the americas
The Los Angeles Summit is an opportunity to build on that first
Summit of the Americas, and on a process that has been in place now for
almost 30 years. So I think it's important to start by looking back at
what drove the United States to launch the Summits of the Americas. The
1994 Summit took place at a singular moment in U.S. and global
history--one that seems pretty distant right now, but which is
important to capture. When President Clinton took office in 1993, the
Berlin Wall had come down only 4 years earlier, and the Soviet Union
had collapsed--largely peacefully--just a couple of years before. The
United States was enjoying a unipolar moment as the sole superpower.
Enjoying it, but also working to define what that unipolar moment would
mean and how we would use it going forward, after almost half a century
in which the Cold War dominated our and the world's foreign
policymaking.
In that context, the first Summit caught a democratic wave in Latin
America and the Caribbean and launched the process for a region-wide
free trade area. Most significantly, it represented a vision for U.S.
relations with Latin America, and for the Americas as a whole. It
sought to reshape the way we as Americans--``estadounidenses''--dealt
with a region where history is remembered, and not always positively;
to move past the Monroe Doctrine of the 19th century and the
``backyard'' talk of the early 20th century; to build on the Alliance
for Progress of the post-World War II era; and to think of ourselves as
``americanos,'' partners with the region in advancing a shared set of
values. It is a testament to that vision that it has endured for 28
years, and that the following Summits of the Americas were held with a
similar vision for democratic partnership and open-market prosperity.
The 2001 Summit in Canada spurred completion of the Inter-American
Democratic Charter, a landmark, and still unique, document approved
unanimously in Lima on September 11, 2001, just hours after terrorists
crashed civilian aircraft into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a
field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The Inter-American Democratic
Charter committed the region's governments to democratic governance,
building on the commitment made in Quebec City that democracy would be
a requirement for attendance at future Summits.
a fading sense of purpose
Over the next 20 years, however, the sense of common purpose faded
as we in the United States turned our attention, necessarily, to the
``Global War on Terror.'' Regional governments were sympathetic and
ready to partner in this effort, but did not experience the threat in
the same way. A growing number of illiberal governments in the region
questioned U.S. actions as we sought to protect ourselves. Many
governments also began to question the value of a U.S.-led regional
trade area. By 2005, the Free Trade Area of the Americas was suspended,
and by the time of the 2012 Summit, hosted by Colombia, governments
were divided over what democracy and trade even signified, making it
difficult to reach agreement on a common agenda.
In some ways, that is the story of the Summits of the Americas over
the last two decades: a move from a shared vision for democracy, trade,
and prosperity to a venue for taking a stand. Still, if each meeting
became progressively less ambitious, successive U.S. administrations
understood the value of the Summits. As the only gatherings where Latin
and Caribbean governments come together with the U.S. and Canadian
leaders, they provided a unique opportunity to advance regional
dialogue and aims. President Bush attended two; President Obama
attended three. And in each case, the Summit meeting served to connect
the United States better with a region that, despite being so central
to U.S. security and prosperity, is often overlooked in Washington.
the lima summit as turning point
The Lima Summit in 2018 represented a turning point in both
substance and regional relations. Substantively, in the wake of the
Odebrecht scandal that rocked many governments in the region, the
Peruvian hosts focused the Summit on anti-corruption measures,
achieving a meaningful, if limited, agreement for the first time in
over a decade. This despite dealing with their own political
instability and the resignation of their president just 2 weeks before
the meeting. In some ways, the agreement heralded a possible return to
the sort of visionary ideas that drove the early Summits of the
Americas, even if the scope was narrower. For U.S. relations with the
region, however, the Lima Summit represented a departure. When
President Trump canceled his attendance, many in the region viewed it
as a snub. The offer by Vice President Pence for the United States to
host the next Summit, while welcome, did little to diminish the sting.
When President Biden took office last year, the normal planning process
for a Summit of the Americas was already well behind schedule. Still,
many in the region hoped that the Ninth Summit of the Americas could
represent a turning point for the better. And the year-long delay
necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic seemed to offer an opportunity
for the Biden administration to mount a thoughtful effort around a new
vision for hemispheric relations.
the opportunity of the los angeles summit
Two weeks out from the Summit, the general consensus in the region,
and among Latin Americanists, is that the vision is clouded. I hope and
trust they are wrong. Because we are at a moment of great uncertainty
for the United States and for our Western Hemisphere neighbors. And in
uncertainty there is opportunity. This Summit of the Americas, hosted
by the United States for the first time in a generation, presents an
opportunity for us to meet the region where it is: to present a true
partnership for regional recovery, to work to ensure that the next
pandemic wave is less terrible, and to stand firmly and resolutely for
democracy.
Across the region, one constant since Miami is the desire to meet
the needs and improve the lives of our citizens. And this is where we
have a real opportunity in Los Angeles for lasting, positive change.
Latin America and the Caribbean has been hit hard by the COVID
pandemic. Beyond the awful human costs, budgets have been strained,
debt has increased, and rising U.S. interest rates are making dollar-
denominated debt more difficult to service. The World Bank projects
regional growth this year of just over 2 percent, hardly enough to
create the jobs the region requires to get back on its feet or address
rising social demands.
Ultimately, the region's leaders themselves are responsible for job
creation and development in their own countries, but we can help. And
if we want the United States to maintain a privileged position in the
Americas, we must help, because alternatives now exist that didn't
before. Cuba is no longer an outlier. Populism, illiberal democracy,
authoritarian government, and even brutal dictatorships in Venezuela
and Nicaragua, as well as Cuba, have appeared, challenging democratic
institutions that were already weakened by corruption and a lack of
rule of law. China has successfully asserted itself economically and is
now the first or second trading partner of most countries in the
region. And it is clear that China is looking to assert itself
politically in the Americas, questioning the value of democracy and
undermining democratic institutions, as part of an increasingly
aggressive global competition with the United States.
an opportunity for recovery through trade and investment
The Los Angeles Summit offers the perfect opportunity for
Washington to announce a commitment to regional growth and recovery,
launching a concerted effort on debt service and relief, new lending,
incentives for private sector-led investment, and trade. While a
comprehensive trade initiative may not be in the cards, there is no
reason Washington cannot propose a region-wide effort to liberalize and
facilitate trade in individual sectors including environmental
technology, goods, and services, the digital economy, and healthcare.
More ambitiously, we should be seeking to build on the United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA, which received bipartisan support to
advance North American economic integration. We should use the Summit
to offer our neighbors the opportunity to join us, as they show
interest and capacity to meet the standards and take on the obligations
the agreement requires. The region is asking for such an agenda and
will meet their needs elsewhere if we do not respond effectively.
an opportunity for recovery through better healthcare systems
Second, the pandemic is not yet in the regional rear-view mirror,
and it is already clear that sustainable healthcare systems are an
investment in the region's economies as well as in the well-being of
its most vulnerable citizens. The United States has donated millions of
vaccine doses to the region, and must continue to do so, for our well-
being as well as that of our neighbors. Beyond prioritizing vaccine
assistance, we should lead in strengthening the region's healthcare
systems by instituting a high-level, annual public-private health and
economy forum. This would help make sure healthcare systems in the
region work, that they are able to cope with the many health issues
made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic--including mental health,
noncommunicable diseases, and women's health concerns--and are able to
deal with the next pandemic that scientists assure is only a matter of
time.
an opportunity for recovery through a renewed commitment to democracy
Finally, we have to be committed stewards of regional democracy. We
can all do better in practice, the United States included, but it is
important to uphold the democratic standard for Summit participation,
and to continue working to strengthen democratic institutions against
undermining from corruption, populism, and autocratic leaders. That is
why, Mr. Chairman, concrete bipartisan leadership on the ``Upholding
the Inter-American Democratic Charter Act of 2022'' is so very much
appreciated. That is why those who have not been democratically elected
should not be invited to the Summit of the Americas. And that is why
Venezuela's constitutional leader, Juan Guaido, should be at the
Summit.
why the summit of the americas
Trade and investment, healthcare, democratic governance. These
issues are no easier to develop consensus around than they were 3 years
or 10 years ago. In fact, they are fraught, for us at home, for our
hemispheric neighbors, and for us as a region. But they are critical
for our prosperity and for that of the Americas as a whole.
So as we prepare for this Summit, these thorny issues before us beg
a question: at this point, what is the purpose of these regional
summits? Because simply fulfilling a commitment to meet is not enough.
What is needed, what we are hoping for, is a renewed vision for the
region, led by the United States and crafted together with those
committed to partnering with us, based more on values and less on
geography. Working toward regional recovery, expanding trade and
investment, addressing healthcare and other social needs, and standing
for democracy--even when it may be unpopular to do so--would make for a
great start down the path toward this renewed vision. It is what I am
hoping for. It is what the region is hoping for. And I believe, with
the leadership of the United States, it is well within our ability to
achieve.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Farnsworth. To both of you,
we will question in this order. Senator Cardin was trying to
get in by WebEx in his car and could not, but now he is here in
person. I am going to let him start. Then we will go to Senator
Rubio and then we will go to me.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sometimes I have a little bit of a challenge. I live in
Baltimore and commute every day so I am in a car a lot and had
a hard time working my monitor in the car today. I was not
driving. I just want everybody to know that.
Let me thank the chairman and ranking member for their
leadership on this subcommittee. I know both of them have
really made this one of their top priorities in their service
in the United States Senate, and this is our hemisphere. This
is our neighborhood, and their leadership has been
extraordinary. I want to thank our two witnesses.
The Summit of America gives us an opportunity, once again,
to meet with our states in our hemisphere on a common agenda. I
just want to agree with our leadership on this committee that
it has to be under the values of our hemisphere, which are
democratic states that respect human rights.
I heard the exchange between Senator Rubio and our previous
witness. I think it is critically important that our values are
maintained at this Summit and it will be tested in the ability
to allow those voices to be heard, countries that are
autocratic and are not living up to the commitments that we
expect in our hemisphere.
I want to raise just one additional question, if I might.
Regional organizations, I understand, will be part of the
Summit. There will be a discussion as to how they can more
effectively help in dealing with the issues that many of you
have talked about.
We could talk about the Inter-American Development Bank or
the Pan-American Health Organization, but I want to talk about
the Organization of American States. It is an important
organization. Its headquarters is just a short distance from
here.
It seems to me it could be a more effective voice on the
challenges of our hemisphere. So Senator Wicker and I, who
chair and are ranking on the Helsinki Commission, have been
extremely active in the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe.
We think that organization has been more effective in
dealing with a lot of the issues comparable to what the OAS has
done and we think one of the reasons that is true is because
there is a parliamentary dimension to the OSCE. There is no
real parliamentary dimension at all to OAS.
So we introduced legislation, which was passed and signed
into law in January of 2020, to instruct our mission to move
forward with a parliamentary dimension within the OAS.
I mention that because at the Summit of Americas I heard
that our chair is going to be bringing a delegation of
legislators to that summit. I think that is an important thing
for us to do.
I can tell you, having parliamentarians' participation in
an organization enhances its effectiveness. We are not
restricted as diplomats. We can call it the way it is. Listen
to Senator Rubio. Yes, he will tell you exactly the way--we can
speak the truth. We also can translate our words into actions
through parliamentary activities.
So my question to our two witnesses is that looking at the
regional organizations we have in our hemisphere--I do not want
to lead the witness--aren't there ways that we can make these
organizations more effective? We put a lot of resources into
it. We put a lot of time into it. Yet, I would suggest that
most members of Congress have little knowledge of what these
regional organizations are all about.
Dr. Chavez. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
You are drawing attention to a very important issue, and
that is the general state of the Inter-American system, which I
fully agree is facing a great number of challenges.
What I will say, though, right off the bat is that in my
desire to push the Administration to develop a holistic
strategy and vision for the Americas, I think that this should
be a core part of that strategy--how to reinvigorate and renew
not just the OAS, but all of the various institutions that
comprise this system.
I very much appreciate creative ideas such as incorporating
a parliamentary dimension to the OAS, and I think that that is
a great place to start, but it is not just the OAS. I think we
need to do more when it comes to the Inter-American Development
Bank.
The Inter-American Development Bank has not been engaged
for a number of reasons. I saw firsthand the potential of the
Inter-American system when I was Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense and attended two Conference of Defense Ministers of the
Americas with Secretary Hagel and then with Secretary Carter,
and I saw the potential for real action in this sort of
organization.
At the time, it was in response to climate change, the
increasing extreme weather events, and the need for a
hemisphere wide mechanism for the militaries of the region to
come together in support of civilian authorities to respond to
humanitarian and disaster response needs.
I fully agree that these are tools that we need to renew,
we need to reinvigorate, and I urge the Administration to make
this a core part of an Americas strategy.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Kaine. Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Let me--Ms. Chavez, I will start with you
because we talked a lot about the migration crisis. We agree
with that. COVID-19--I mean, all those things are important--
economic growth. I really do wonder--I guess I want to ask a
little bit about your statement about reinvigorating regional
organizations like the OAS and using that and others to bolster
democracy in the hemisphere.
Is not part of bolstering democracy, I believe, sort of
elevating those countries that are actually following
democratic norms--which, by the way, democratic norms sometimes
elect people whose policies we may not like, right.
I mean, I, certainly, do not agree with some of the policy
directions that President Obrador has taken in Mexico, but I do
not argue that he is a dictator or that he somehow has taken
power in that country through means that are illegitimate.
I mean, that is a part of the risk here when--I mean, that
is just part of the things that happen, and I imagine that
there are people elected in this country that our partners in
the Western Hemisphere sometimes do not agree with their
policies as well.
That is different from having someone who takes power, and
the real dynamic we have seen now is people that figure out how
to win elections and then once they capture the government or
once they are in power, then they begin to undermine all the
institutions in that society or bend them to their will.
The favorite is always the infamous--the generic electoral
commission that suddenly is filled with all of your buddies and
cronies as the vote counters, but it happens in the court
system and the like.
The reinvigorating democracy piece, I think, is both
practical. We need to be providing people assistance on things
like countering propaganda and disinformation. I mean, if we
think disinformation is damaging to American democracy, this
stuff is happening in a lot of these countries. We see that.
We see how that influence operations are occurring there to
sort of steer the currents, and not to mention the proven
instances where you have these transnational criminal groups
that are pouring millions of dollars into political campaigns
in these countries.
How do we address those parts? What institutions beyond the
Summit can we use to address those challenges?
I will start with you, Ms. Chavez, because you have talked
about this. What other institutions and measures can we use at
the Summit and post-Summit to address things like
disinformation, the financing of campaigns by criminal groups
who have--drug dealers or whatever that have millions of
dollars that they can invest in some of these campaigns? How
would we elevate that issue and make it not just a topic of the
Summit, but after the Summit?
Dr. Chavez. Thank you for the question. You make an
excellent point about democracy, in general, that there are an
increasing number of cases not just in Latin America, but
across the globe where a leader that is democratically elected
and then we see that leader in a very deliberate manner
dismantling democratic institutions, like the autonomy of the
courts, and we have examples, as you allude to, in our own
hemisphere where that is happening.
One of the recommendations, I think, and this would be part
of reinvigorating the OAS--well, first of all, I have to
express my gratitude for the Upholding the Inter-American
Democratic Charter Act, which I think is an important statement
about the importance of this charter.
One of the things I think the hemisphere could do a better
job of is calling out these deliberate assaults on particular
institutions and not wait until there is this race to the
bottom, not wait until just a shell of democracy is left.
One thing is to look at the steps that are taken along the
way and we are seeing this, for example, in El Salvador.
Another big issue in our hemisphere, and we see it in
particular in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela, is violations of
human rights. In the case of Venezuela, the U.N. role with its
mission to Venezuela where it actually went in and then
reported on crimes against humanity is another way. That is not
a hemispheric organization. It is the United Nations, but I
think that was also incredibly important.
As far as disinformation is concerned, I think this is an
issue for our own democracy as well. I think--as I have said, I
think that we need a more holistic strategy, and that should be
part of that strategy.
It is my understanding that the Administration is devoting
resources to countering disinformation in the region, whether
it be in the lead up to the Colombian elections, whether it be
Russian disinformation in Mexico, because, as you allude to, it
is a real problem, again, across the Americas, across the
hemisphere.
Senator Rubio. Can I go on or just--I am not going to take
much longer.
Mr. Farnsworth, I wanted to just touch--so I am thinking
back to the importance--the symbolic, but also practical
importance of who do you invite to a summit. Because a lot of
times people say--they hear me talk about do not invite Cubans.
Oh, he is just a guy from Miami, a Cuban American. These guys
are just--they just--they want us to be stuck in the 1960s and
it is all about blocking Cuba for political purposes.
There is a practical implication to it and I will tell
you--let me describe it. So in July of last year, you had,
basically, apolitical people, right. I am talking about poets
and artists and songwriters and things of that nature that are,
okay, we are in Cuba. We want to be able to express ourselves,
and when they mean express themselves politically, their
expressions are not necessarily things about how government
should be structured.
They have complaints about economic performance and
opportunity or why are we not allowed to--why do we have to run
our songs and their lyrics through a government censor.
So they protest against these sorts of things. The
government cracks down brutally, putting children--literally,
pulling children out of their homes and putting them in jail.
In fact, the regime in Cuba just criminalized criticism of
government officials. Not protests alone, criticism. Just the
act of criticizing them can wind them up in jail.
So all this is happening. So you are one of these people.
You are standing up against that. I think for the first time in
modern memory, you have a real amount of unity. You have the
Latin Grammys talking about this. You have people across the
board sort of uniting behind this from the perspective of being
against it.
Then you read or hear that, potentially, Cuba, that regime,
just 2 weeks removed from criminalizing criticism, less than a
year removed from a brutal crackdown at the street level, is
going to be invited to the Summit.
I do not know if people fully understand how demoralizing
that is because the way the regime uses that against its
opponents and internally--among people internally that might be
thinking, hey, we are getting isolated. Maybe it is going to be
time for a change once all the old dudes die off, or sooner.
They start thinking--the regime says to them, you see, the
world does not really care. At the end of the day, we have the
power. They have to work through us. In the end, they are going
to cut a deal with us and the evidence of it is they invited us
to a summit.
I would say the same thing about Maduro, and that is the
argument Maduro is using around his inner circle. It is not
that the inner circle in Venezuela thinks Maduro is some great
historic figure. It is that they are corrupt. They have made
millions of dollars off that corruption, and right now they are
better off with him there than without him.
That may change in the future, but that is the--and the
argument he makes to them is, I am the guy that can get this
thing right again. I am the one that America is now beginning
to talk to and deal with.
So I think that is the practical implications of that sort
of thing that and, by the way, it just completely demoralizes
and discredits those who are standing up and opposing those
movements.
That is why I ask about these invitations because I think
these--I would rather have a summit with 15 countries that are
a democracy than with 25 countries and five or six of them are
just blatant anti-democratic regimes, because then it is not a
summit of democracies. It is a summit of whoever is in power in
these individual countries.
I was hoping you could talk a little bit more about both
the symbolic and practical impact it has when you elevate
regimes like this to that status.
Mr. Farnsworth. Thank you, sir. I think your points are
very well made and very important, and the Summit of the
Americas from the beginning--from its inception in Miami, it
has been different.
It has been intentionally a meeting of democratically-
elected leaders to the point where the hemisphere itself in
Quebec City in 2001 created the expectation that for all future
summits only democratically-elected leaders would be included
and that expectation was actually memorialized in the Inter-
American Democratic Charter that was signed in Lima, Peru, on
9/11.
Secretary Powell delayed his return to the United States as
terrorists were attacking the United States to sign the Inter-
American Democratic Charter because it was that important.
That is the basis of the decision here. It is not a U.S.
determination about political this or that. The hemisphere
itself decided that nondemocratically-elected leaders should
not have access to this crown jewel of Inter-American
relations.
There are other fora. There are other opportunities for
discussion. Okay. Fine. You can have that discussion in the
context of other vehicles, but the Summit of the Americas has
expressly been reserved for democratically-elected leaders. So
at some level, this really is not even a decision for the
United States to make because it was a hemispheric decision
and, by the way, that document was signed by no less than Hugo
Chavez himself. So there is a lot of support here, or there
was, at least, at the time.
I think your point about platforming dictators is
critically important, particularly now. You have had the
protests from July in Cuba less than a year ago. You just had
the passage of a draconian penal code. To then turn around and
invite a representative of the Cuban regime to a democratic
summit of other leaders, frankly, rewards that type of
behavior, and your word ``demoralizes,'' I think, is
appropriate in this context.
It has also been interesting to me and concerning, frankly,
that some countries in the region--some leaders in the region
have chosen to make this, essentially, a cause celebre issue in
terms of their own participation.
It seems to me that coming out of COVID, where economies
have been crashing, where recovery is not guaranteed, where
Ukraine's wheat and agriculture products are not guaranteed for
global markets, where energy prices are spiking, where debt
loads are increasing, which are now more difficult to service
because of increasing expense of the dollar as well as rising
U.S. interest rates, I mean, look, there are lots of things to
be discussing at a Summit of the Americas.
Is the most important hemispheric issue whether Nicolas
Maduro, who is being investigated by the International Court of
Justice, should be included? To me, that is a nonissue.
The answer is no, let us talk about economic recovery. The
answer is no, let us find a way to create jobs in the region so
that migrants are not tempted to try to come to the United
States because our economy is growing and regional economies
are not growing.
There is a whole discussion here waiting to be had,
desperate to be had, with democratically-elected leaders from
the region and, yet, the conversation has been hijacked by
people who are trying to undermine the interests of the United
States to promote their own interests, in some cases, in the
region.
That, to me, is incredibly disheartening because if you put
that, again, against what we saw in Miami in 1994, it was a
totally different scenario. In 1994, it was the United States
was being pushed, actually, to commit to a free trade of the
Americas. The United States was being pushed in order to have
an ambitious agenda.
It was Venezuela that insisted that energy be a part of the
Summit of the Americas' agenda in 1994. Again, I was there so I
am speaking from personal knowledge, but the way that the
hemisphere has shifted in that discussion over the last
generation has been something very important to see.
If I can extend just for another 30 seconds. I know that I
am talking way too much. I apologize.
The question about some of the tools that we have to
address these, I think, is also a critically important issue,
and from my perspective, the United States has not done a very
good job either using the tools that we have available to
address democratic backsliding in the hemisphere nor have we
updated our toolbox, and let me explain.
The toolbox has changed. Social media did not exist in
1994. There was no Telesur in 1994. There was no Russia Today
propagandizing in Spanish throughout the region in 1994. Yet,
the United States has not updated our toolbox.
Why does Nicolas Maduro have access to Twitter with over 4
million followers? Many of them probably bots, sure, but that
is a U.S. platform subject to U.S. laws. These are the types of
things, I think, we have to have hard conversations around
because the ability to reach citizens and communities outside
of the countries is, frankly, the ability to propagandize and
spread an anti-democratic message and many times an anti-
American message. I think we have to take a look at that.
I think the OAS has traditionally had some troubles, but I
do want to give a shout out to the Secretary General Luis
Almagro, who I believe is a real champion for democracy and has
stood for democracy even when many of his member states have
not supported him in that effort.
There are other things to say, but the point is I think you
are definitely on the right track.
Senator Rubio. I am going wrap up my portion of this just
to say I think the point you have made about prioritization is
really important, given all the challenges the region is facing
across the board.
To have some of these folks sort of make this issue the
primary issue that they are hinging the entire Summit on, I
think, shows you a lot about the political interest behind some
of this.
I also think, by the way, that--I mean, what many--Obrador
is an example--hide behind is sort of a tradition in Mexican
politics, particularly to him as well, about noninterference,
which is an easy thing to hide behind except that you may say
that your position is noninterference, but these countries are
practically interfering in the affairs of other states.
As an example, in Venezuela they have created a migratory
crisis through their policies that has been a huge burden on
Colombia and other countries that have had to face that wave of
migration.
They have invited Iran into the hemisphere in ways that, I
think, are potentially destabilizing in the long term. They are
openly protecting--hosting and protecting narco trafficking
groups that operate from Venezuelan territory to conduct
attacks inside of the territory of Colombia. That is
interference, I think--pretty clear interference.
Then there is these grotesque violations of democratic
norms. I do not know how we could possibly ever argue that
Nicaragua has to be here. In Nicaragua, everybody who ran for
president against Ortega went to jail. Everybody. Not half the
people or a couple of the leading candidates.
If you filed for--to run for president, you wound up in
jail incommunicado from your family, and that is a pretty
outrageous anti-democratic move is to say, I won an election
because all my opponents are in jail because I put them there.
That is what they have done and that is the guy they are
insisting that we invite and his crazy wife, and to be a part
of this who is probably the real power because he is borderline
incoherent at this point, but she is even, perhaps, worse than
he is and he is pretty bad.
So the last question I had is something we have not talked
a lot about and it is not directly related to the Summit, but I
would like to get both of your impressions on it and that is
Colombia.
I think most of us remember a time, maybe 20, 22, 24 years
ago, where there was real concern that Colombia was headed to
failed state status. You had these cartels that, basically, in
many cases, held the governments their hostage over extradition
treaties, bombings, and things that were occurring.
I think one of the great successes of American engagement
in the region is our engagement with Colombia to the point
where not only did Colombia become sort of a very stable place
with these issues, like we have issues and everybody else has
issues, but became a force multiplier. In essence, what the
Colombians learned from us they have been able to take to
Honduras and train their forces, as an example, there on how to
combat these irregular groups and so forth.
So I am always concerned about if ever there was a change
in Colombia--and I know they have a presidential election
coming up and they will have to make those decisions, and a lot
of this stuff that we do with them has been institutionalized
so you hope that that will survive political changes no matter
what direction they take.
I was hoping to get the input of both of you of what would
happen to our interests, not to mention to the stability of the
region, if Colombia were to be lost to a direction that looks
more like the instability we have seen, or worse, in places
like Venezuela? What would that mean for democracy, for
security, and for our national interests in the region?
Mr. Farnsworth. Rebecca served in the Pentagon so I wanted
to offer her the first opportunity, but she says she will
defer.
I think it would be--it is foundational. Look, the U.S.
relationship with Colombia is strategic at this point. It is
foundational to our ability to advance democratic and security
interests throughout the hemisphere, not just in Colombia, and
to have that undermined would be, in my personal view, a real
setback not just for U.S. interests, but for democracies in the
region.
Colombia has also been a huge partner in trying to
alleviate the humanitarian crisis that is right next door
engendered by Chavismo, right, in Venezuela. So if you have
that bulwark in some way changed, the humanitarian crisis
coming out of Venezuela could by orders of magnitude get even
worse.
I do think Colombia is a target. Colombia has been a target
for a long time and it is definitely a target now in terms of
interests that are not aligned with the United States or are
not aligned with democracy in the hemisphere, because if you
can get a country like Colombia to change path and to pursue an
anti-democratic path--and let me hasten to say I am not
suggesting that what is going to come out of the elections will
be anti-democratic. Who knows what is going to come out of the
elections? I am simply talking theoretically here.
This is a critically important country and it is important
for the Colombian people themselves, first and foremost, but it
is a strategic partner of the United States and were that
direction to shift, then I do think you would have a real
setback for the United States, but also for other countries
that have, clearly, depended on that force multiplier impact
that you so clearly discussed.
The other issue I would raise, clearly, is the fight
against illegal narcotics, but I think my colleague here would
be better positioned to discuss that.
Dr. Chavez. Thank you for the question and also for
pointing out the importance of our bilateral relationship with
Colombia.
As Eric referenced, during my time at the Pentagon,
Colombia was our closest defense partner in the region, and it
was a relationship that was incredibly important to Colombia,
but also to the United States.
As far as the upcoming election goes, I think it is too
early to say whether or not Colombia will be lost. It is
possible that there will be a president who has a different set
of policy priorities, but we do not know whether or not he is
going to act in an undemocratic manner.
This is just also just a reminder when we are thinking
about the Summit, this is not a summit of friends of America. I
think we are right to be concerned about assaults on democracy,
but I do not think that the fact that a country does not agree
with us is something that we should be weighing in on.
I would say that one of the core issues with Colombia,
regardless of who wins this next election--and I say this from
someone with a DoD background--is that Colombia has undergone
horrific decades of conflict and the military in Colombia has
played a tremendous role.
Without the military, the peace accord would not have been
possible, but going forward in our relationship with Colombia
we need to be focusing more on the social recovery of the
territory, not just the military recovery of the territory, and
this is about establishing a state presence in the previously
undergoverned parts of Colombia, and I think that that is
something we can work on with Colombia no matter who wins.
The military has gone in, secured territory, but now we
need the other Colombian institutions to go in and establish a
presence. Show people--show the Colombians that they are there
to stay. I think that is the only answer to the long-term
conflict and instability in Colombia.
Senator Rubio. Just as a point of clarification, by no
means do I think that we should be excluding countries from the
Summit of the Americas because they do not agree with us. Like,
if you did not vote with us at the U.N., I do not think--on
whatever issue, Ukraine, that we should somehow exclude you
from it.
The argument I have made is if you are not a democracy, if
you are an open unapologetic dictatorship that puts
presidential candidates that run against a dictator in jail, I
do not think they should be invited to the Summit of the
Americas, but not people that disagree with--I am not arguing
Mexico should not be invited and they, certainly, disagree with
us on a bunch of issues.
In the case of Colombia, I think what is happening now
there is a case in point for why democracy is so important. So
Petro is running and he is the leading candidate in some of the
polling, and I would venture to guess that we probably are not
going to agree with him on some issues.
You see his public rhetoric has moderated. I do not know
how he will govern. Why has his public rhetoric on some of
these issues moderated? Because he is trying to win an
election. He is trying to get people to vote for him, and his
policies will also have to take that into account if he wants
to be reelected, which is the great thing about democracy and
that is that you have to--leaders have to measure their
policies by what the electorate may or may not reward and that
is why democracies and democracy is so critical because it
does--as long as there is a democracy, Colombia is going to be
okay. They may elect someone we do not agree with, that we may
not like every decision they make, but, ultimately, they will
have to govern themselves by the constraints of an electorate
that will punish them and their party.
If we do not have democracy they can do whatever they want
and, oftentimes, that is what starts wars and creates crisis
and that really is the point that I wanted to drive.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Chavez. Can I just say I am in violent agreement with
you and with Eric about the importance of--on the issue of
invitations and participation. I fully understand why Maduro,
Ortega, and Diaz-Canel are not invited. Well, I guess we do not
know for sure, but I am assuming that they are not invited.
Also a reminder that participation is a two-way street when
it comes to attendance. Nicaragua has demonstrated that it does
not want to be involved in a hemispheric discussion. It showed
that the day it expelled OAS from its country. So I do agree on
the issue of democracy.
Senator Kaine. Let me do this. I want to talk to you, Mr.
Farnsworth, about part of your testimony was about--well, both
of you testified about the importance of economic recovery
post-pandemic and you raised an interesting thought that I had
had, as well.
Why are we--why is the Administration being a little
skittish about trade activities in the region? I am a pretty
harsh critic of President Trump, but that makes me feel duty
bound to compliment Trump accomplishments and there were some
and one of them was USMCA. That got an 89 to 10 vote in the
Senate.
NAFTA, after 20 years, of course, we should have learned
how to make it better and the USMCA negotiation made it better.
That kind of a vote on a trade deal in the Senate is highly
unusual.
Why would we not look at USMCA and then go back and look at
the other trade agreements in the region and say, could we
either incorporate those free trade agreements into a broader
USMCA framework or could we conform those trade agreements to
the principles that we negotiated in USMCA?
We have nations like Ecuador that want to join in the
Colombian free trade agreement. I think that--as we are talking
about economic development in the region, I think that this is
a really important piece because one of the challenges we often
have is some of the neighbors in the region that have the most
problems, so think of the Northern Triangle, who do we invest
in there that we feel is a reliable partner for our investment
dollars?
Well, if we have American companies and others that are
already there and that could hire even more people and generate
even more economic activity if conditions were right, why would
we not focus on trade as an accelerator of economic potential
in the region?
Could you go a little bit more into either expanded USMCA
or conforming existing trade agreements to USMCA standards? In
particular, it may be that we want it, but the nations we are
talking about--I know Ecuador would like it--maybe there is not
the appetite for it in the region.
Do you see the appetite in the region for broader trade
agreements with higher standards?
Mr. Farnsworth. Love to have the opportunity. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
The short answer is yes. I would add Uruguay and,
certainly, Brazil has made very clear its desire for closer
trade relations with the United States, as have other
countries. You mentioned Ecuador.
It goes back to my earlier comments in terms of the tools
that we have available. At the end of the day, trade is a tool.
If it is working well we should do more of it. If it is not
working well we should figure out a way to make it work better,
and that was the whole purpose of USMCA, which was a bipartisan
success, and it seems to me that taking trade off the table,
which, in my view, successive U.S. Administrations have,
essentially, done, has been to take away the best incentive we
have to bring countries into a more--a closer relationship with
the United States economically, certainly, to build the supply
chains we are all talking about, but also to create the
incentives for things like good governance, anti-corruption,
support for the environment--all the things that we have talked
about so many times in this chamber.
The point being that if you take that off the table the
attraction of somebody like China, who comes with a lot of
money and no expectations or demands really feels a lot better
and there really is not a choice to be made because there is
only one option, right.
So we have taken ourselves out of the game. At the same
time, we are trying to deal with historically high now
migration flows to the United States and, again, part of that
is just basic economics.
The U.S. economy is doing well. The regional economies are
not doing very well. People do not have jobs in their home
countries. They are going to go where they can get jobs or
where they think they can get jobs.
So part of that answer has to be job creation in the home
countries, particularly the Northern Triangle, particularly the
countries where migration is coming from the most.
At the same time, if the private sector does not see the
incentives or does not see the attractive environment to
invest, to create jobs, to innovate, to do the things we would
take for granted in the United States, then they are going to
overlook the region and that is precisely what has been
happening, particularly, again, in the Northern Triangle and
elsewhere.
So using trade as a tool to help create those conditions
that the private sector will find attractive to invest in, I
think, has to be part of the discussion as well as using trade
as a tool to help incentivize better relations with our
neighbors, frankly--the countries in our own hemisphere.
Now, we can do this in a creative way. We do not have to
say, look, just because you are in a certain geographic time
zone or zip code you should have access to USMCA.
No, we should use this as a way to incentivize better
economic and democratic--I do not want to use--well, practice,
right, to be able to say to a Costa Rica, a Panama, a Dominican
Republic, yes, you guys are pretty far along. Let us talk to
you about accession to USMCA. Let us hold this in as an option
for other countries in Central America, maybe a Honduras, a
Guatemala, to say, okay, let us work with you to help you build
the type of capacity and capability to be ready for USMCA to
welcome you in. Let us say to a Nicaragua, which is still part
of CAFTA-DR, to say, look, we are not going to bring a
nondemocratic country into USMCA.
So you are creating economic incentives for behavioral
change and that is something that we have gotten away from. We
are just not even talking about it. At the Summit of the
Americas, I believe, in Los Angeles this should be the core
message that we are creating; we will work with countries
economically and on democratic governance, but you got to work
with us.
Let us make this a real partnership. Let us get back to the
idea that we are all in this together, our future is linked to
yours, we need to be working together, and let us get away from
this mentality of somehow the United States is bad and this
country is not.
I mean, we are in this hemisphere. It is not going to
change. Let us find a way to do that, but I do think we also
have to recognize that there are some countries that just are
not going to want to participate--and that is okay--in the
trade agenda, and what the fatal flaw of previous summits has
been that this has been agreement by consensus.
In other words, every country has to agree to do a free
trade area of the Americas. Well, if a country in the Caribbean
or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or the Mercosur countries do not
want to do the free trade area of the Americas, well, then it
blows apart, which it did in 2005 in Mar del Plata.
The point being that that then prevented the United States
and our democratic friends and partners to move forward in some
way. Why should we let the recalcitrant countries determine the
pace of integration?
Senator Kaine. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Farnsworth. Why do we not find the partners in the
region we can work with and build an agenda there that is so
attractive that the ones who find themselves lagging will say,
wait a minute, we need to be part of that because otherwise our
own futures are in doubt.
That is where you create the positive incentives for
countries to say it is better to be linked with North America
and the United States because of what we get from them together
than trying to figure out what the Chinese might be giving us,
and by the way, they want half of our coastline and debt that
we cannot get out of.
That is a conversation I think the hemisphere is absolutely
ready to have. The question is are we ready to have it, and by
all indications we are not there yet.
Senator Kaine. I think we, on the committee, those of us
who really care about this need to push the Administration, I
think, starting with the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica,
Panama. Recognizing the announcement of this alliance would be
a wise idea.
Look, this has been a good hearing. Obviously, Senator
Rubio and I, Senator Cardin, are really interested in this. We
did not have good attendance--I will just be blunt--and that
says something. Often when we have Western Hemisphere hearings,
we do not.
When I am on SASC and we have hearings about SOUTHCOM the
attendance is not so great. The resources that we provide to
SOUTHCOM through the defense budget are minuscule and it is a--
stands in sharp contrast. If we were having a hearing about
Ukraine or Taiwan, we would have really good attendance, and I
think it is a--it is kind of evidence of a proposition.
In another context, the other day I recalled a line that
was used by Pope Francis a few years ago as he was challenging
parishes, but it could have been a challenge to people and,
certainly, a challenge to political leaders. He was saying that
we needed the [speaks in a foreign language]--the islands of
the mercy in the middle of a sea of indifference.
The thing about that formulation that I found really
striking when I read it was he did not counterpose mercy to
evil, cruelty, or hatred. He counterposed it to indifference.
I just have felt long before I came to the Senate that
indifference often characterizes the attitude of officialdom--
not every member of officialdom, but it often characterizes the
attitude of American officialdom to the Americas.
We will get interested if there is a crisis. So we will
have a doctrine like the Monroe Doctrine that really was not
about the Americas. It was about Europe. Or during the Cold
War, we better get interested in the Americas because the
Soviet Union is. Or if there is an immigration flood to the
border, okay, we will get interested for the moment.
In terms of persistence and a framework that is not just an
episodic one-off based on the crisis du jour, I am not sure we
have ever really done that as a nation. Secretaries of State
fly east and west all the time. They just do not fly north and
south that much.
I am grateful for colleagues, Senator Rubio and others, and
I am grateful for professionals who--you have been doing this
for a very long time because you see how important it is to our
country that we do it and that we do it right, and I hope that
we might have a new day where we will take seriously this
notion that we are all connected as Americans.
I think Amerigo Vespucci was the biggest overachiever of
all time. What did that guy do to get two continents named
after him? Nevertheless, we are all Americans. We are all
linked together culturally, in language, in family, in trade,
in migration. There is so much upside for us.
If you compare the U.S. leadership that snapped together
the coalition to battle against an illegal invasion of Ukraine
and you look at the influence that the U.S. had in helping snap
that coalition together, and then you look at the influence we
have or kind of do not really have with our nearest neighbors,
you just see how much more work we have to do.
So for being dedicated to the work I thank you. I thank you
for the hearing today. It is Thursday. I will keep the record
open until 5 o'clock tomorrow. If additional members have
questions, I would encourage you, if there are, to answer them
thoroughly and promptly.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Mr. Kevin O'Reilly to Questions
Submitted by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. In your view, do you think it is important that only
democracies be represented at the Summit, or is there merit to the
argument that all nations and leaders in the hemisphere should be
represented?
Answer. Upholding the region's commitment to democracy is a key
component of every Summit of the Americas. At the Third Summit of the
Americas held at Quebec City from April 20 to 22, 2001, leaders called
for the creation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and made
strict respect for democracy a pre-requisite for future Summit
participation. The United States is proud to join past Summit hosts in
upholding this commitment. The Civil Society Forum, Young Americas
Forum and CEO Summit of the Americas will provide a platform for
participants from all countries in the Western Hemisphere to make their
voices heard.
Question. How might the potential absence of several heads of
government affect the summit proceedings and broader prospects for
enhanced hemispheric cooperation?
Answer. All democratic governments in the Western Hemisphere will
attend the Summit, although some will participate at the ministerial
level, allowing for substantive dialogue and meaningful commitment to
address the most pressing issues facing the people of the hemisphere.
Question. How successful do you think the process for consideration
of the commitment to a Parliamentary Forum dimension of OAS will be
during the summit?
Answer. The United States is committed to advancing the goals and
objectives of the OAS Legislative Engagement Act. Due to the long and
detailed negotiations among 31 countries needed to add language to
agreed Summit documents, we could not include reference to the
initiative in the Inter-American Action Plan on Democratic Governance,
but the Secretary plans to highlight the value we place on this process
in remarks during a June 10, 2022, lunch with members of the Joint
Summit Working Group. We remain committed to working with you and your
staff to follow through on implementation of this important initiative.
Question. To what extent do you think the leaders will agree to
firm and binding commitments?
Answer. The United States is committed to working with our regional
partners through the Summit Implementation Review Group and the
Organization of American States to hold governments accountable in
following through with the commitments adopted at the Summit of the
Americas. When the democracies of the Americas work together to seize
opportunities and address shared challenges, real progress is possible.
Collaboration ensures democracy delivers for its citizens.
Question. What level of importance do you believe OAS and other
regional organizations hold at the Summit and how should this
importance be reflected on the official summit agenda?
Answer. The OAS and 12 other international organizations form the
Joint Summit Working Group (JSWG) will play a vital role in the Summit
process. The JSWG provides technical support and capacity building to
governments as they work to implement their Summit commitments. The OAS
also houses the Summits of the Americas Secretariat and serves as the
institutional memory for the Summit. JSWG organizations will
participate in the ministerial lunch on June 10, 2022, and the OAS
Secretary General will address the leaders' plenary.
[all]