Focus 580; Greater America: A New Partnership for the Americas in the Twenty-first Century

In this hour of the show the second hour of the program we'll be talking about the relationship between the United States and Latin America. And our guest for the program is Ron Shimon. He recently stepped down as the director general of the interim Merican agency for Cooperation and Development. He's authored a number of books on enter American affairs including one that will be talking about this morning. The title is greater America a new partnership for the Americas in the 21st century the book is published by New York University Press and in the book he makes the argument that the United States is at a crossroads in the intense competition of the global economy. And he says For this reason it is very important that the United States come to the aid of its neighbors working to reverse the current economic stagnation of Latin America. In the book he argues that the 21st century will either be the century of the Americas together or it will become the century where China emerges as a world trade power alone. Down well explore more of the argument in this part of the show. And of course invite people who have questions and comments to

call. Well let me tell you a little bit more about the background of our guests. In addition to the position that I mentioned he was from 1903 until 1998 the US executive director of the Inter-American Development Bank and the 60s he became a founding director of the Center for Advanced Studies of the Americas and the first executive director of the Pan American Development Foundation where he led the foundation's pioneering micro-finance programs. And again as I mentioned he had just recently stepped down as director general of the interim Merican agency for Cooperation and Development that is the development agency of the Organization of American States. Questions are welcome. We just ask people who are calling in to try to be brief and we ask that so that we can get as many calls as possible and keep the program moving. But of course anybody who is listening is welcome. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 that's the Champaign Urbana number. We do also have toll free line and so if it would be a long distance call use that number and we'll pay for

the call. That's eight hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5 again 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 and toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. Mr. Shimon Hello. Hello David thank you very much for talking with us today. Thanks for inviting me to be with you. In the book you start out by saying that in a in basic ways that historically American foreign policy has neglected Latin America and perhaps the question to start with is why. Not only that but why does it why is it that Latin America is important. Why does Latin America matter to the United States. Those are two very good questions. Fundamentally and before the 20th century Latin America you know was so much wealthier than the U.S. until the Industrial Revolution can about them all of their the wealth of the minerals and the undervote material and the 20th century when we began to

emerge as it were all power. We became concerned with direct physical threats to our security. And so that America didn't pose any threat to us. This continued you know right up until very recently during the First World War Second World War concerns in Europe the threats of the ideologies of fascism communism etc. that was the main focus of our foreign policy so Latin America was pretty well dead defied by Henry Kissinger's comment that it was and the global strategic framework it was a giant dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica. But there was no no we don't fret and Latin America has been relatively peaceful so far as global politics is concerned. And for that for that reason we have paid very little attention. But that world has changed and the economies of Latin America today and the global economic competition give Latin America a very different role. And that's that's what I really discuss in the book.

Well before somebody who is listening can call in and ask the question I guess I will go ahead and pose it in and get your reaction I think that there are some people who would argue that far far from being neglected by American foreign policy the Latin America has suffered as a result of American foreign policy that has supported non-democratic repressive regimes with bad human rights records in countries where the elites have managed to find ways to enrich themselves at the expense of just about everybody else. And that is a story that has been repeated a number of places around Latin America particularly in Central America. True not true. Absolutely true. But it's but it's it a little differ. Twist those are opposite sides of the same coin. It's been ignored by our senior policy people and ignored in our senior efforts to our global efforts to really protect United States security and that has left the Latin American policy and if you follow it to the 19th century especially in an up and they're only part of the 20th century

you have. Well a lot of it in the business community. The fly by night a lot of people who are equally corrupt as Americans. It wasn't getting the attention serious attention from our foreign policy people and that left a way open to a lot of people who took advantage of the Latin Americans colluded in corruption and and worked along with dictatorships. Unfortunately in the 19 1930s and 40s we then began to be concerned about maintaining the status quo in Latin America when we began to pay attention that was really to block the spread of fascism or communism and Latin American suffered the brunt of our AC heavy hand in certain certain circumstances. Is there anywhere that you can point in the in the post-war years to any administration and I guess I'm thinking possibly about the about the brief time that John Kennedy was president where you think that the United States was at least moving in the

right direction as far as Latin America was concerned. DAVID Yeah. You're not coming to that that clear could you repeat that question. Yes what do you feel that there was any administration in the post-war era and I'm thinking that possibly the Kennedy administration might be one that you would say was making had made moves at least in the right direction as far as Latin America was concerned. Yeah sorry I didn't hear you before but now it comes question very clear. You're absolutely right. Well actually I would I divide it into two periods. In the 1930s when Franklin Roosevelt adopted the good neighbor policy after a lot of U.S. interventions that began to move us in the right direction. Then during the Second World War Of course we were preoccupied with physical threats to our security and we didn't pay much attention to that in America it was pretty much status quo after the war.

President Kennedy and and this is of course after Fidel Castro came to power and and in Cuba and there was a lot of concerns about that. But President Kennedy launched the Alliance for Progress and that was really a major step forward in helping the. Those those groups of people within Latin America who believe in democracy and believe in opening up to societies and then addressing the social issues an enormous amount of progress is made in the 1960s in that direction. And I think to witness to that progress was that in 1973 when we had the oil shocks and the petrodollars began to have to be recycled all of the banks really focused on Latin America and pile them money in Latin America was the fastest growing area in the world then fire early 1970s it was going at six seven percent a year and that was really the darling of the financial community far more than Asia. What happened of course is Latin America got so piled with debt.

And so you know and so heavily indebted that within seven or eight years by the early 19th 80s they could no longer sustain the debt especially when interest rates started going through the roof and in the late 70s and early 80s. Well let me just go to the bottom line and encourage you to talk a little bit about what it is you think the United States should be doing in Latin America what what sort of policy should we have a policy that America really has to address the fact that many of our major domestic power problems are real domestic problems today originate very much and not in America. And here we're talking about that. Messy problems that arise from migration Latin America is a main source of the people who come to this country today are immigrants and also the issue of drugs and the danger that can arise from the drug cartels being becoming more powerful

corrupting regimes and undermining democracy. This is this is a big challenge the only way out of that challenge is really to create jobs build education in the hemisphere education which has been sadly collected for about oh well since Latin America began for four hundred years. And to begin to make them more competitive in a global economy so they can earn their own way. This takes a bit of a far sighted policy decisions that will help them build their economies to become more competitive and at the same time address the social issues that they have. Do I have to address and this is really what we have to focus on. Well how do we do that. Particularly I'm interested in the aspect of what it is that the United States can do to help these countries develop their economies. Well there's not much that we ourselves can do this is there. It's really

their problem to do that. What we have to do is pay attention and be more sensitive to the issues of opening markets for trade and then addressing specific issues like when it comes to improving the condition workplace conditions the programs the organizations that are working to do that. Improving democracy strengthening democracy to many organizations working on that. I think what you find David is that there are clusters of groups in each country that are really working hard to. And has strong supporters of democracy open markets fair trade. These are the ones that we should be supporting and strengthen their role in this society not let them get overwhelmed by the many vested interests who are who would like to keep the status quo. Our guest in this part of focus 580 is Ronald Shimon and as I mentioned

he just recently stepped down as the director general of the Inter-American agency for Cooperation and Development that's the development agency of the Organization of American States for a number of years between 93 and 90 80 served as the U.S. executive director of the enter American Development Bank. And he is the author of a recently published book which is titled greater America a new partnership for the Americas in the 21st century the book is published by The New York University Press in which he makes the argument that for the benefit of all of the countries in this hemisphere not only the United States but also the countries of Latin America it's very important for the United States to be involved in the region and to be involved in Latin America helping to help helping those countries to develop their economies which he says ultimately is going to be very important for the Americas as a competitor in the global market. That's sort of the basic argument in much more detail of course you'll find if you actually look at the book.

Send comments are welcome to 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 that's the champagne Urbana number we do also have toll free line that means that if it would be a long distance call for you whether you're listening around Illinois or Indiana or by some chance you might happen to be listening on the internet as long as you're in the United States. You may use that toll free line and that is eight hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5 is what you're arguing that ultimately the the course for the Americas would be to take what the countries of Europe have done as a kind of a model. And that move to two taking down barriers for movement. Goods and people between the countries and perhaps even go to the idea. Of course there are are already countries that are actually using the dollars their currency are paying the value of their currencies to the dollar but actually using the moving even to the idea of a unified currency for the Americas.

You know you're touching on some very important issues there. Try to take them one one at a time. I think free trade opening trade with Latin America is very much in our interests. Latin America more than any other area of the world. Every dollar that they earn they spend more of it than any other area of the world here in the US. The almost 40 percent of our exports now go to Latin America. They spend about 40 or 50 cents of every dollar that they earn here in the U.S. That is double Europe double what Japan does. We should both go now back to 20 percent in those areas. When you consider that Latin America's per capita income is only about 10 15 percent of Europe or Latin America or Japan. We see that Latin America their economies grow. This is a prime market for the United States. These people like U.S. products they buy U.S. products. So it is

very much in our interest to to build the economy help the economies grow and to open up trade with the Americas. Does another factor here that is equally important is that the way the methods of Inter-American cooperation right now assuming we can get to free trade to the messes that we have really not very practical to very rhetorical there's a lot of meetings where people give speeches and talk about ideals in a more practical ways to to deal with each other. And there it's what the Europeans set a model many many years ago. Set them on the path that eventually resulted in the European Union with it. Anything like that is possible in the hemisphere. We don't know at this stage that's going to be a children's job. But the main thing is that the practical means of working together on issues that are of concern

was what began Europe on that path and that was European coal and steel community back in the right after the war in the late 40s and in the 1950s. We have the same opportunity here and the American energy. President Bush has been talking about making the United States energy independent but the United States can't become energy independent alone unless we're dealing with new technologies. But we can become independent energy independent. If we work with all of the Americas and therefore something like an American energy community and into American energy community whereby we were pooling our resources on energy would help Latin America develop their energy resources which are which are. Ample and far more if you can include the heavy oil in the in Venezuela Peru Canada. If you we can find economically too to bring this heavy oil into

production. And the gas enormous gas resources that have been recently discovered east of the Andes. We can build an energy community and achieve energy independence in the in in the Americas. But more important we are creating a practical way we're working together for tangible goals and that can launch us on a way of really understanding each other better and working together without the rhetoric but with the actual practical pragmatic achievement. So you would you would support the idea that has been advanced I think by the president and by others that we should move toward creating a free trade zone for the Americas. Perhaps something like the north a very American Free Trade Agreement that has included the United States Canada and Mexico and extending that to all of the Americas. Yes I support that very strongly and that dates back to the first President Bush President Clinton and the current president all been in favor of that it's been a bipartisan

goal for American policy now for almost 15 years in an arrangement like that. It seems differ. To imagine that there ever would be a time when the United States was not the dominant player in this in the free trade zone. It's likely to continue to be the largest economy the largest consumer of everything including energy. How how do you construct a network that makes it possible so that even the smallest players have have sort of an equal say in policy and that it's not always what the United States wants that will carry the day. But once you get free trade it's a market that's going to determine those countries that will then become more competitive and increase their productivity that improve their workers skills. You know you can't get by in the 21st century young people labor.

That's not going to work and so that's a transition event. The key thing is that we have to as we open up the free trade recognize that a free trade agreement is not about trade alone. A free trade agreement is about investment and it channels investment to those areas because the factories or whatever is built will be able to service the U.S. market as well as the small Latin American market the small countries. Costa Rica is a perfect example. Intel has now built a plant down they have four chip manufacturing the kind of things will help build a Latin American economy help increase earnings as they increase earnings they will be buying more U.S. goods not goods and we will be able to convince the companies instead of transferring and instead of working in the Far East or in career or

in Japan or China to begin to invest closer to home where it will improve the quality of life and therefore help us address the other issues that we mentioned the beginning of migration and drugs and and dealing with all of those issues. We have a caller to bring into the conversation a nearby community of Belgium Let's go there. Our toll free line line 4 below. Good morning sir. Listening to you. Conversation I come up with just a very blatant example for we're doing something altogether wrong and that's what Cuba we seem to have this horrible Imbruglia against Cuba because really for the interests of a small group of people in southern Florida that seem to really have a very great amount of influence in the White House right now. But the rest of the Midwest would love to so I'm a cultural goods to this place and they're more than willing to buy it. Why can't we step forward in just that small area.

I agree with you that our policy to Cuba has been very distorted. There are very good reasons why we are not friendly with Cuba the oppression of human rights the lack of democracy. These are very important goals not only for the United States of the entire for the free world Western Europe as well. So to be able to convince the dictator of Cuba to be able to open up to society is very important. I think the caller is correct in the idea that the embargo has not been very productive. My thought is that if we did not have the embargo we probably custom would have left the loop on a long time ago. I think the embargo has helped to keep them in power. Basically because he's able to use United States as a whipping boy it's more commerce and more people going back and forth as happened in Russia. You had the Russian people began to see and understand what they were missing in the rest

of the world. The same thing will happen in Cuba. More tourists and you have more commerce that you have. The quicker this will become an open society and our policies have been counterproductive. You seem so just very recent policy with the Bush administration has just tried to alienate the situation even much worse and and obviously that the Castro regime has now said that they don't want to use dollars which doesn't seem very intelligent to me and in their way of doing business but still it it seems that there's this back and forth battle they've got going on. And I really can't see where their human rights is really involved I mean yet no he doesn't allow people to vote for anybody but himself. But you don't hear about a lot of people being tortured and killed and stuff like you do in other nations in the world. In Cuba they seem to have a pretty good school system. They seem to have a very good health system. Which are suffering because of this and Margo it sounds mean it's just totally counterproductive.

It has been counterproductive on those and other scores but the human rights situation in Cuba is pretty bad. There are a lot of people who are seeking to have a more open election and talking about human rights and after last year put up about 70 people in jail and you know with really run trials and the the ability for dissent in Cuba does not just not exist. But beside beside that the question is how you achieve democracy in a positive way. How do you move to Cuba to democracy an open society and I believe with you that the only way to do this is to get more people moving down there and more more commerce more and to change and in this sense the Bush policies have been counterproductive. Thank you very much sir. Thank you very thank you for the call. Go next to a caller here on our line number one. Believe is in champagne.

Hello. Yes I'm here. Yes. Yeah I came in really late. David and I don't really know what you guys are talking about. Just hop in the car and you know I find this continued assertion that what we're interested in is you know the penetration of democracy and human rights and other countries as being just totally absurd. I mean the amount of product that this country ships back and forth between China every year really just makes that a ludicrous kind of statement so I just had to catch you on that one whoever the whoever the guest is today and suggest that really what we're pushing in this country is the interest of the corporate capital and that's where things come down. And human rights really doesn't enter into that perspective so I'll try to keep on Listen thank you very much. Well I will tell you what maybe for the benefit of the listener and anybody else who might have tuned in let me introduce Again our guest and then he can respond to the point the caller raised. We're talking this morning with Ron Shimon. He just recently stepped down as the director general of the Inter-American agency for Cooperation

and Development that is the development agency of the Organization of American States from 1993 to 1998. He served as the US executive director of the Inter-American Development Bank in the 60s he became the founding director of the Center for Advanced Studies of the Americas and the first executive director of the Pan American Development Foundation. Which led where he led the foundation's pioneering micro finance programs he's the author of a number of books on intermarriage in affairs including one that covers the territory we're talking about here this morning. The title of the book is greater America a new partnership for the Americas in the 21st century. It is published by The New York University Press. And certainly folks who are listening are welcome to call 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. Now having done that Mr. Sherman do you want to respond to what the caller had say. Yeah I would be happy to respond. I can't think of a better objective for U.S. foreign policy

than dealing with democracy and human rights and helping people around the world to it to achieve that whether we do it consistently or not in this world is another is another question. But you're good there are three goals in foreign policy vs. security of the country and that is the most important. Second is democracy and human rights. And third is economic prosperity. Maintaining economic prosperity and promoting prosperity that will feed back to our economy don't forget we have 4 percent of the world's population in the United States and our economy is is growing and to be very good on technology but really grow. We want to get the markets and deal with the markets of the other 96 percent which brings us to the other point the caller made about commerce and that their commercial interests are. They always have been commercial interests commercial interests that relate to trade and economic growth in dealing with Cuba which I assume he was referring to

my comments. And in that regard. In dealing with Cuba you'll find corporate America when it wants to open up Cuba because they're the ones that really really stand to benefit by the low wages a highly educated population to the U.S. and the other caller mentioned you see right now an increase of agricultural exports to Cuba. So corporate America wants to deal with Cuba in spite of the human rights. So we have a delicate balance and in all things in foreign policy nothing is clear or or simple. You know always different interests that have to be weighed and balanced against each other. And in this case in the case of Cuba I think we've come out on the wrong side of the interests of the United States. I think democracy and human rights is an important goal and I think opening up commerce is one way to help achieve that.

Well I guess I did want to raise a question I suppose it's it we're kind of going around in circles here though. The question about what we do in our relationship to others. Governments in the region where we do not see eye to eye with them politically speaking. And certainly there are for example the United States and Venezuela relations have been strained. There are other countries where where when they do have different political economic philosophies and their relations have been strained What do we do about that. Well you know that's what democracy is all about. He believe in democracy and different people and you know different people and different countries will have different views on different issues. You do what you're talking about David is very important because relations have deteriorated quite a bit over the last two years with between us and America. Venezuela it's a very important case in that regard. This is not entirely the

U.S. fault. There are different interests and gauge here but we have pretty well neglected the the what is taking place in Latin America. If I may just very quickly you've had a severe downturn economic downturn in which following the U.S. downturn in the year 2001 2002 the last few years and the economic reforms that we pressed so hard were done really to bring jobs in fact the president of Brazil Lula Desilva. Stated at the Summit of the Americas earlier this year he said you pressed economically fall is with us both to bring financial stability and create jobs and have done neither. So there's been a reaction to the economic reforms and the policies of United States that has pressed very hard during the 1990s. The only way out of all of this is going to be economic development. And

the key to economic development. You're right we go around in circles. The key to economic development. Latin America is opening trade because their own markets are too small to attract the kind of investment needed to create the jobs that will do this. To do that will achieve a goal just for. I know we've touched on this maybe touch on this briefly earlier but I guess I am still curious about the currency sort of issue just because the United States has been making some record lows lately against other currencies has been beaten up pretty badly against the euro. Do. If if. Could do what it is that you're talking about doing. What would that effect the value of the dollar would that be good for the dollar. I don't think it would have much impact on the dollar and itself. Basically that weakening of the dollar has been very very great benefit to Latin America because their currency is tied to the dollar and fluctuate with the dollar so their exports have become

cheaper. And this year Latin America has begun a minor but positive economic turn. Commodity prices commodity prices globally is going up and that has benefited them a great deal. Their agricultural exports are going up. So there's been a good year for for Latin America issue the currency goes to a broader issue in that when for example when we have an economic downturn in our country what do we do. We know if the interest rates we stimulate the economy and we try to get through to reverse the economic downturn by by economic stimulation in America in a reversed position that now their currencies are weak and therefore they depend upon foreigners making loans buying their products. And when they have an economic downturn they're forced to raise interest rates to keep money in the country. And it's a it's just the opposite. It's count the cyclical

the way we we deal with our economic problems. If Latin America get together they don't have the dollar a dollar rise but several countries have recently the rise of Salvador has Ecuador has now solid with the dollar ization you now can get 30 year mortgages and interest rates just the same as the United States and allies always been a down economy whether they don't rise or create a uniform currency in Latin America among themselves they will get themselves a more disciplined and if the school management and B the opportunity to stimulate their economies more and they have an economic downturn instead of having to tighten the screws even even even more than they do now let it at. That's where you find the issue of currency. OK let's talk with someone else a caller in Champaign County Line 1. Hello.

Interesting that you just mentioned the Panama always being dollar arised but actually an interesting twist of history is that when the Panama Canal was being built the blacks were paid in silver and everybody else was paid in gold so there was a way that isn't a legacy of racial or a part of the racial history of the U.S. relation to have America. And when you were announced to be on a while back was canceled and subsequently you've resigned I looked into this group that you were with and it looked like it was absolutely underfunded to my mind it looked as shambolic as the African outreach agency that has not done anything at all except build interesting looking offices in D.C. hasn't done anything. The it looks like it's a charade of development to me. I don't know if that has anything to do with your quitting but I would be interesting if you're going to talk about that at my prompting but the other thing I wanted to say about

the Alliance for Progress the other legacy of the Kennedy era is the official izing of the counterinsurgency program which was the other part of the so-called alliance for progress and has a legacy that's when a lot of these dictatorial regimes started being. And stalled I mean clearly that Eisenhower who and Guatemala and leaving the Bay of Pigs attack on Cuba and on the on the planning and in train when when Kennedy took over is certainly set the stage for the counterinsurgency plans that led to the dirty wars and years of the generals etc.. But that's one can hardly separate that and on the economic level. The petro dollars and a lot of the money that was dumped into Latin America came with the structural adjustment programs. Those are exactly the kind of things that disallow the kind of Keynesian stimulation and all the sorts of things that you sort of suggested might be considered

by the by the Southern Cone I mean it's just not possible with the kind of structural adjustment agreements unless you basically start playing hardball like Argentina is. They only came to it because of absolute duress. There's a lot there. You're really very up on your American history. The sequence is. So let me make some comments on what you brought up the counterinsurgency. You know back in the 50s and 60s this country was still engaged in war was because the Cold War but the efforts of the Soviet Union to penetrate the Western Hemisphere were quite active. What John Foster Dulles did in Guatemala that was a precursor and of US intervention of various of sort of a variation of what had taken place before

the Bay of Pigs. The problems of dealing with communism the country was just emerging from its McCarthyism period and the scare of communism was still very very great and you're right there were many policies at that time that were that we would not we would not do today. The real issue with the dictators still came in the 70s. The overthrow of a Yende in 73 I believe it was around 72 73. The Argentine dictatorships in 76. The real dictatorships in the black period in Latin America began in the 70s. There was little precursor that in Brazil was 64 when the overthrow when the president two resigned and there was a threat of somebody from the far left taking over. U.S. policy has always been an ambiguous and no thing but in those at that particular period the concern that communism would spread in the hemisphere dominated the kind of thinking that you had with

people like John Foster Dulles and even right afterward with Kennedy and Castro to recall the Alliance for Progress. Talk about one minute to midnight and that midnight was supposed to be when the communists would take over Latin America and they expose a whole whole southern flank. So there's a lot of truth in what you're saying. But the real black period of Latin American history came in the 70s after the petrodollar. The influx came in. I don't think the petrodollars were really the cause of the counter-cyclical or the the other kind of issues. ROSEN economic problems in Latin America. The Those for that particular period really flooded Latin America with so much money that a lot of corruption began to emerge. And I think was the corruption and the lack of

accountability during that period of the dictatorships that really set Latin America back. Great deal. But all of those facts of how those facts into play that are really quite intriguing as you point out. Is the color still there or did you want it. Well you up there are a lot of theory there and of course what I'd like to suggest is that prior to the Cold War there was the fear of the Germans and if you look at Smedley Butler book he was famously quoted as saying he was and hit a gangster for capitalism and for the brown brothers banking organization and there's a current guy who I suggest you should have on the radio and that's John Perkins he's got a book out called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man which has been characterized as sort of the Smedley Butler exposé of our time in which he talks about a lot of places that he basically did these kind of structural adjustment shake downs and fix things and particularly Ecuador actually was one of the

places where he was working for oil companies. And so I suggest that we could hear a lot of contemporary history stuff that when you read about typically you know years later because he's finally done this exposé. But. I did. I also didn't know the reason for your resigning and whether it had anything to do with how what a sham I am. My estimation of the outfit you've been working with or whether it was just too frustrating. Well that lets announcing point I do you mention somebody in Africa now that we are not related. I understand I was making a comparison to how and authentic that the organization was under funded. No question about that. We had about 30 million dollars a year we put most of it into fellowships we had the largest fellowship and training program for Latin Americans and we felt that the training that future generation people who lived 10 years from now is going to be running things make sure they get a better education with that was a top

priority. That was not a reason I did not resign my term is up as an elected position it was four years and after four years the Secretary-General Divinia left and I just did not want to continue in in a in a bureaucracy. In part because we didn't have enough money to really make an impact. We made an impact in education we created the educational portal of the Americas which I would hope you would go to your website and it's edu C o S or or do you see a o v a halt for the night. And that that we had 7 million hits a month coming in on that and we had about 36000 people that were taking distance learning courses from all over Latin America and getting better education at Penn State Michigan Hobbit cetera. So we did we did a great deal we created a lot of private public sector partnerships Microsoft included six million dollars for helping to improve

transparency in procurement and government and to build municipal portals and in education there are a number of other companies that came in that contributed substantially. So able to to use our limited government funds to build partnerships with private sector funds who are willing to exercise corporate social responsibility and contribute to the kind of programs we're dealing with and obviating poverty and addressing addressing issues of poverty and education. So that was not a reason for my leaving the under-funding when you're underfunded the ideas to the future and try to figure figure out how you do better in the future. Just my term was up it was time to move on with the change of the guard at the OAS. We have just about seven or eight minutes left in this our focus 580 And again our guest is Ronald shaman recently stepped down as the director general of the Inter-American agency for Cooperation and Development that's the development. Agency of the Organization of American States he is the author of a number of books on enter

American affairs including the recent book greater America a new partnership for the Americas in the 21st century and it is published by The New York University Press. Questions are welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. You did say a little bit earlier in the program that among the among the reasons that the United States really should care about what goes on in Latin America and what go and and what matters what happens there matters to us are two real problems that we have to deal with that originate there. You said one of course being migration illegal migration and the other is the problem of illegal drugs should we be doing something different. Then we have done in the past in responding to those two challenges. Yes very definitely David. Both of those relate to the standard of living and in America as standard of living improved and living conditions improved.

The issue of migration will diminish the issue and will be able to strengthen those forces in society that it willing to take on the drug mafias as is happening in Colombia today. You had to be able to strengthen them to overcome the drug. You know the drug lords key key thing here of course is you get back to the trade because the markets in Latin America like too small to attract the kind of investment needed to create jobs but only with economic development. Well both of these problems be overcome. To just to kind of come a surround around to a sort of summary about what you think that the United States should be doing obviously you mention a number of issues. The fact that you would advocate the kind of free trade approach for all of the

Americas that we have taken toward. States and Canada you talked about the fact that if we're in the United States going to come to energy independence that we're going to have to look at all of the Americans as one large producing consuming region and by working together perhaps that's possible. You've also talked about needing to deal with basic sort of issues like poverty and that we should be working to develop the countries particularly the those that where the economies are smaller and less developed. Are there some other things in terms of what it is in a very concrete sort of sense what it is you think that the United States should be doing. I think the best thing that we could do I mean you summarized pretty well on those points and I appreciate that. But I would add education to it. I think anything that we can do that is going to be relatively low cost. But can have the biggest impact is to help strengthen the quality of education

throughout the Americas and to to improve the put the workers skills and to improve their different activity enable them to compete on global and global markets. You know given the internet and given distance learning techniques all of this is very young but it really is a very promising area and bringing that a quality teaching materials to teachers in remote areas bringing you know making opportunities available to young people young professionals especially that are in remote areas that now do have connectivity and connectivity is increasing every day. Opportunities for them to improve their professional skills their and their ability to perform. Better on on the job more did we do that the more we help education in Latin America the better the future for the Americans will be. One of the things that you mention is that as in your list of summary

points things that we should be doing have to do with with labor standards and that you argue that we really ought to work to raise labor standards throughout the hemisphere. Now this is the kind of thing that I think that when their whole debate was going on 10 years ago about naphtha North American Free Trade Agreement the point was right then and that people who are arguing in favor of naphtha said well we do we have ways to do that they're as attached to the agreement. There are mechanisms to try to ensure that people in Mexico particularly that's where the concern was have the right to bargain collectively that their rights are recognized that we work for good working conditions we don't want their working conditions there to be less than they are in the United States there were also environmental concerns that were raised here. And I think that one of the objections that people had had then and still have toward naphtha is that that's something that actually hasn't really happened. Maybe you have a different perspective on that but given what happened with naphtha I think that some people might be a little bit pessimistic about

whether in fact we could do that that is elevate labor standards for all of the Americas based on our lack of success. As far as Mexico is concerned. Well this is a new city complex. I don't know of any way to work extended except by improving the economic environment in which the factories and the other companies are are working. If somebody has a better suggestion I would be really interested to hear it. The key thing here is that these things take time you follow US history from the beginning of the 20th century or go back to Great Britain the Charles Dickens time and you see that this has been a concern and it's been a gradual evolution I think with progressing faster in Latin America than we did in the U.S. at the beginning of our century when we had our sweatshops and a lot of other things that were going

going on here. The the you know people talk about oh well we have free trade is can be a race to the bottom. And that investing companies are going invest where the wages are the cheapest. It's a question of productivity not wages productivity. It's there are so many of the costs of whether you can ship whether you your transportation costs are the things that are. You no doubt relate to the cost of production and I would say that if you had to free trade you'd begin to improve all of those issues and you would be raising the bottom not racing to the bottom. Our goal in free trade is to to create the conditions where working conditions can improve and I think it's the only way that will begin to really get working conditions to improve. There are adjustments that are going to be needed. Not an easy task but I don't know any other route to to go to improving working conditions and that's what

many people seem to use is the main argument against free trade. I think it works just the way around. Well there will have to we'll have to stop with our thanks to our guests and again the book greater America a new partnership for the Americas in the 21st century. The publisher New York University Press our guest Ron Cima recently stepped down as the director general of the Inter-American agency for Cooperation and Development and Mr. Simon thank you very much for talking with us thank you very much David. To most of you dating it's been a great pleasure and joy and this has been great too. So thanks a lot.