Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - 2:45 PM

From the photographs of Hillary Clinton partying up at a Cartagena disco during last weekend's Sixth Summit of the Americas, it appears she was the only U.S. official who enjoyed herself while in Colombia. (We'll leave out the members of the president's security detail who were sent home for allegedly consorting with prostitutes.)
Indeed, despite being commended for "listening politely," President Obama had to have been frustrated with being endlessly harangued by his counterparts over historical and ideological grievances that predated his birth. It was, as the president said, like entering a "time warp."
Rather than figuring out how to cooperate with our southern neighbors in meeting the challenges of the 21st century global economy, the president was instead forced to sit and listen as others complained about why Stalinist Cuba wasn't invited to a summit of otherwise popularly elected governments or how come the United Kingdom won't honor Argentina's specious claim to the Falkland Islands after more than two centuries?
It's a wonder nobody demanded that President Obama cede back to Mexico a huge chunk of the American Southwest.
Of course, one of the hallmarks of Latin American populism is nursing historical grudges; it's easier than having to solve real problems. But, still, the disconnect between the agendas of the United States and our neighbors to the south continues to widen. And, in this, those administration officials tasked with managing the Latin America portfolio are not blameless.
Three years of U.S. neglect -- combined with a period of economic prosperity built mostly on Chinese demand for agricultural commodities and raw materials -- have convinced many governments in the region that cooperation with the United States is not as important as it used to be. An expression of that new-found attitude is talking about issues they want to talk about, and in which the United States has no interest discussing.
It is perfectly natural that Latin American governments are branching out and establishing new economic relationships or boosting trade amongst themselves. But spurning closer cooperation with the United States -- whose economy still comprises almost seventy percent of regional GDP -- is in no one's long-term interest.
It may be that the region is enjoying good times economically, but Chinese demand isn't always going to be there, and it is hardly a foundation on which to build lasting prosperity. Moreover, confronting the U.S. over historical grievances may boost some sort of elitist self-esteem, but it is hardly relevant to the majority of the region's citizens who live on less than two dollars a day.
Enhancing long-term development is better met through closer regional cooperation in trade integration, promoting energy security, strengthening democratic institutions, and tackling drug corruption and violence. And, of course, it cannot just be a one-way street. The ground is shifting under U.S.-Latin America relations, with the days of demand and compliance a distant memory.
In an increasingly turbulent world, there is much to say for developing stronger relationships within our own hemisphere. By doing so, we will also necessarily crowd out those who would rather wallow in the past than look to a prosperous and mutually beneficial future.
With this most recent summit so dominated by issues no U.S. president can find any benefit in discussing, some have speculated that this may very well be the last such summit in which the U.S. will likely participate. That would be unfortunate. Better that the Sixth Summit of the Americas be remembered as the nadir of U.S.-Latin America relations, with the only way to go but up.
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
Friday, April 6, 2012 - 3:33 PM

We do not blame Amb. Nathalie Cely for defending her government, for that is an important part of any ambassador's job. But in her efforts, she distorts our article and commits a number of important omissions and distortions.
Amb. Cely says that Ecuador is a peaceful country and by no means supports or facilitates any terrorist activity. First, we never said that the Ecuadoreans are not a peaceful people. We limited ourselves to pointing out just some of the actions of President Rafael Correa that clearly show that he is not a peaceful person, and that his actions, regardless of his intentions, have made Ecuador into a more dangerous place and a threat to United States' foreign policy objectives, including abetting terrorism.
For example, President Correa has this week announced that he -- and to this date he alone among the western hemisphere's elected heads of state -- will boycott the Summit of the Americas in Colombia, a regular meeting of the freely-elected presidents of western hemisphere nations. Correa cites one reason only for avoiding the meeting: The fact that the 53-year old totalitarian dictatorship of the Castro brothers in Cuba has been excluded from the meeting. Cuba has never been invited because its government is not a democracy, as required by the Summit's rules.
In other words, Rafael Correa considers it more important to express solidarity with an unelected, one-party police state (the only legal party being the Communist Party of Cuba), than with the leaders of all the other nations of the hemisphere, who have confirmed their attendance at the Summit. Moreover, Cuba is on the list of the U.S. State Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism. Thus, the leader of the peaceful Ecuadorean people clearly values his friendship with two bloodthirsty tyrants, the Castro brothers, who set up training camps for terrorists that committed atrocities in every country of this hemisphere for about 30 years, until their paymaster, the Soviet Union, ceased to exist. Apparently Correa does not care about the thousands of Cubans who have been executed by the Castros for the sole reason of wanting a peaceful, inclusive, free, and democratic Cuba.
Moreover, we don't think that the actions and links that President Correa and his administration have established with countries such as Iran can be considered peaceful. In a previous letter to the editor published in the Miami Herald in response to our op-ed "Iran's Stealth Financial Partners in Latin America", Amb. Cely said: "The items Ecuador trades with Iran, mostly bananas and flowers, are not subject to the sanctions imposed by the United Nations, the United States and the European Union."
That statement is refuted by the words of her own colleague, the president of the state-owned oil company Petroecuador, Mario Calvopiña, who a few days ago stated: "I understand that those who must comply with the [Iran] sanctions are U.S. companies or companies with American capital and American citizens, but we are a company that has nothing to do with the U.S. government," adding that in June "an Iranian delegation is coming to Ecuador to discuss their possible participation in the construction of the Pacific Refinery, a project that will cost $12 billion and in which PDVSA [a state-owned Venezuelan oil company] is a minority partner. Iranians have expressed an initial interest in participating."
Again, Correa apparently does not know or does not care about the destruction of democracy in Iran by the Ayatollahs and the Ahmadinejad dictatorship. Nor does he consider the fact that Iran's support for terrorism is one of the reasons why Iran is being isolated not only by the U.S., but also by the European Union. Oil is in fact very high on the sanctions list.
Moreover, if Amb. Cely is correct that Correa's Ecuador is peaceful and inclusive and only sells "bananas and flowers" to Iran, then why do delegations of high-ranking members of the government, including the president of the Central Bank, Pedro Delgado, travel so frequently to Iran? Why did the Italian police find an Ecuadorian diplomatic pouch in Milan containing 40 kg of cocaine, arresting an Ecuadorean citizen linked to the president of Ecuador's Central Bank and to the sister of President Correa? Why does the GOE continue to undermine well-respected organizations such as the Interamerican Commission of Human Rights and the non-profit organization Human Rights Watch in their investigations of human rights violations in Ecuador? Why does President Correa try by any mean to destroy the independent press in his country, as demonstrated by his efforts to bankrupt newspapers such as El Universo, and persecution of journalists Emilio Palacio, Christian Zurita, and Juan Carlos Calderón? Why did Correa expel the American ambassador last year only because Wikileaks publicized a U.S. Embassy cable that proved corruption in the president's inner circle?
Here are two documents that show Ecuador's cooperation with Iran:
We respectfully suggest that Ambassador Cely familiarize herself with the range of anti-American, anti-democratic, and pro-Iranian actions by her president before prematurely coming to his defense.
Otto J. Reich is president of the consulting firm Otto Reich & Associates LLC. He is a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere, and U.S. ambassador to Venezuela. Twitter: @ottoreich
Ezequiel Vázquez Ger is an associate at Otto Reich Associates LLC and collaborates with the non-profit organization The Americas Forum. Twitter: @ezequielvazquez
PABLO COZZAGLIO/AFP/Getty Images
Friday, April 6, 2012 - 2:54 PM

Otto Reich and Ezequiel Vázquez Ger's reckless and illogical column ("How Ecuador's immigration policy helps al Qaeda") says more about the authors' desire to baselessly attack the government of Ecuador than their ability to offer readers any substantial insight into foreign policy.
Reich and Vázquez Ger routinely stumble over irrational arguments in attempts to undermine our country's burgeoning democracy, but this piece marks a new low, even for them. They attack Ecuador for opening "the floodgates" to nationals from Pakistan and other countries, and accuse our immigration policy of facilitating "transnational criminal organizations and terrorist groups" that want to harm the United States. In their insistence on profiling against Pakistanis, Reich and Vázquez Ger seem to have forgotten that the United States itself is home to hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis and that the Pakistani-American population doubled from 2000 to 2010.
Ecuador is a peaceful country and by no means supports or facilitates any terrorist activity. Recently, support from the Ecuadorian Justice Department led to the capture of three men suspected by the United States of support for terrorism, including Irfan Ul Haq, referenced as a threat in the authors' column. The men were deported from Ecuador to the United States and sentenced to multiple years in prison this week.
Ecuador's immigration policy reflects our values as a nation. We are inclusive and welcoming of foreigners from across the world. That's part of the reason why thousands of American seniors have chosen Ecuador as a retirement destination. Reich and Vázquez Ger would serve Foreign Policy's readers better by sticking to the facts rather than inventing conspiracy theories.
Nathalie Cely is Ecuador's ambassador to the United States.
RODRIGO BUENDIA/AFP/Getty Images
Monday, April 2, 2012 - 3:15 PM

Terrorism, as the United States has learned at a high cost in recent years, comes in many forms and from unexpected sources. The government of Ecuador has once again crossed the line between irresponsible policies and ideologically driven actions that have created a serious security problem not only for its citizens but also for the entire Western Hemisphere. The disarray created in Ecuador's immigration policy has permitted transnational criminal organizations and terrorist groups -- possibly including al Qaeda -- to potentially use the country as a base of operations with the ultimate objective of harming the United States.
In June of 2008, the Ecuadorian government opened its borders to foreigners and ended visa requirements to enter its territory. This opened the floodgates to nationals from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia (e.g., Afghanistan, China, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Iran, Kenya, Nigeria, Cuba, Pakistan, and Somalia). For example, according to statistics of its own National Immigration Office, in 2006 (before the policy change) there were 92 entries of Pakistani citizens, by 2008 were already 178 and in 2010, 518. This is an increase of 550 percent in 4 years. More significantly, just between 2008 and 2010 an estimated 60,000 Cubans entered Ecuador, according to intelligence sources.
Records shows that large numbers of these immigrants enter to obtain Ecuadorian nationality by naturalization and thus be able to travel freely throughout Latin America and eventually to the United States without arousing suspicion because of their original nationalities. The routes by which they enter the Americas generally include a first stop in Cuba or Venezuela, countries with highly subjective immigration controls. Two routes that are used repeatedly are Pakistan/Afghanistan-Iran-Venezuela-Ecuador, and Somalia-Dubai-Russia-Cuba-Ecuador.
According to U.S. diplomatic cables, Ecuadorian authorities were alerted in 2009 by various international intelligence agencies about this deception. However, it was not until mid-2010 when they began to again administer their immigration policies. Thereafter, the Ecuadorian government somewhat modified its visa policy for nationals of certain countries that were considered the riskiest.
Nevertheless, some reports suggest that despite this change, these immigrant groups have developed a criminal infrastructure of sufficient magnitude to keep functioning independently. To bypass the stricter immigration controls, criminal gangs have specialized in forging travel documents, visas, birth certificates, and fake residency permits that ultimately lead to illegally obtaining an Ecuadorian passport. Documents are not difficult to obtain because the Mafiosi suborn government administrators including civil registry officials, judges, and other government officials.
Of particular concern to U.S. security is the case of nationals of third countries who enter Ecuador with passports issued by Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, countries for which Ecuador still does not require visas.
It is noteworthy that by Executive Order No. 1065 signed by President Correa on February 16, 2012, Ecuador has substantially eased the process of naturalization of foreign citizens. This resolution orders the granting of letters of naturalization to people who had provided "relevant services" to Ecuador and have resided for more than two years in the country, opening the door for virtually anyone to become a naturalized Ecuadorian and obtain a passport.
The danger these criminal networks pose is illustrated by two examples, among many: In 2011 an investigation was conducted by the U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) attaché in Quito, Ecuador, the HIS office in Atlanta, the Miami division of the FBI and the Ecuadorian National Police. The operation led to the arrest of Irfan Ul Haq, a Pakistani citizen who according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) was conducting a "human smuggling operation in Quito, Ecuador, that attempted to smuggle an individual they believed to be a member of the TTP from Pakistan (Tehrik-e Taliban) into the United States." The TTP was designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department on Sept. 1, 2010.
A second case, which resulted in the arrest of Yaee Dawit, alias Jack Flora, probably the most important human trafficker in Africa and linked to different cells of al-Qaeda in East Africa, illustrates the good work of international cooperation, but also the importance that Ecuadorian cities have acquired as "hubs" for terrorists and transnational criminals.
These cases not only illuminate the crime of human trafficking, but they also show how they continuously finance other terrorist and criminal activities. Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, of the Criminal Division, describes these criminals as follows: "For financial profit, they [were] willing to jeopardize the safety and security of the American people. Human smuggling operations pose a serious risk to our national security, and we will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners at home and abroad to combat this dangerous threat."
While there is no evidence to show that the Correa government established the policy of "open borders" in an effort to attract criminal organizations, that has been the result. On the other hand, there is no evidence of Correa wanting to stem the flow. These examples show how Rafael Correa's Ecuador is becoming a failed state, hosting all sorts of dangerous actors. They also help to understand the context in which various financial, commercial, and energy agreements are being developed by Ecuador with the governments of Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. While many of the agreements are not yet completed, they serve as "government-authorized illicit tunnels" through which anything and anyone can pass, from terrorists and drugs to money and arms. The time has come to close these tunnels.
Otto J. Reich is president of the consulting firm Otto Reich & Associates LLC. He is a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere, and U.S. ambassador to Venezuela. Twitter: @ottoreich
Ezequiel Vázquez Ger is an associate at Otto Reich Associates LLC and collaborates with the non-profit organization The Americas Forum. Twitter: @ezequielvazquez
DANI POZO/AFP/Getty Images
Monday, June 21, 2010 - 12:25 PM

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton isn't known for gaffes, but when she announced from foreign shores that the U.S. government will sue a state for helping to enforce federal laws, it was kind of a biggie.
The state is Arizona, of course. And at issue is the law it passed in April allowing police to query the immigration status of individuals following a lawful stop, detention, or arrest. As amended, it prohibits consideration of race, color, or national origin and specifies that those suspected of unlawful entry be turned over to federal authorities to determine their status. The bill was a response to Washington's paralysis in enacting meaningful migration reform.
In its response, the administration opted for a political brawl over the more difficult course of pursuing national reforms. On May 19, President Barack Obama stood next to visiting President Felipe Calderón of Mexico when he called for the law to be struck down. Soon after, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement chief John Morton said his agency would not necessarily process individuals referred by Arizona authorities.
Hillary's pronouncement came during the course of a TV interview in Quito, Ecuador following her appearance at the Organization of American States General Assembly in Lima, Peru. On June 8, she told interviewer Andrea Bernal that President Obama feels the federal government should be determining immigration policy, and that the Justice Department will bring a lawsuit against the act. Sounds reasonable enough, you say.
Yet as gaffes go, this is a three-fer. First, while most American citizens know it is the federal government's responsibility to determine and enforce immigration policy, no public servant should fan the flames of internal controversy from a foreign pulpit. If Arizonans are going to get sued by the feds, best they learn about it from officials closer to home.
Second, the Clinton got out ahead of the issue owner-the attorney general. In response, the Justice Department said it was still reviewing the law. Then administration sources scrambled to tell reporters that a decision had in fact been made, but the department needed time to build its case. The facts remain cloudy.
Third, there could have been a teachable moment here. Bad living conditions and porous borders are problems in various parts of the Americas. Just as desperate Ecuadorans seeking employment have found their way illegally to the United States through Central America and Mexico, Ecuador has felt the impact of Colombians fleeing drug violence and guerrilla bands from their native land.
Clinton could have discussed how the United States and its neighbors might benefit from multilateral cooperation to reduce illegal migrant flows, crack down on attendant trafficking, and attack the root problems that make people want to leave home, such as weak rule of law and rigged economies that make life difficult for job-supplying small businesses.
For now, it's hard to tell where Obama's migration policy will end up. It may be that he is developing a reasoned course. But you would never know by remarks that seemed to be mostly about U.S. politics, another agency's authorities, and little about the broader issues in which our neighbors play a major part.
RODRIGO BUENDIA/AFP/Getty Images
Tuesday, June 1, 2010 - 9:23 AM
If President Obama wants to solve America's immigration dilemma, he should avoid mixed messages. On May 19, he naively sided with visiting Mexican President Felipe Calderón who complained that Arizona's new immigration control law could lead to racial profiling. This last week, he ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the southwest border and requested an additional $500 million from Congress to step up border enforcement.
While his words may have pleased undocumented migrants (a potential constituency) and immigration lawyers, his deeds seemed too much like bait for Republican votes on upcoming reform legislation. In both cases, he forgot to do his homework.
For starters, he was too quick to criticize the Arizona law. It hardly differs from federal statute that penalizes illegal entry, or a 2007 Prince William County, Virginia ordinance that allows police to check the immigration status of detainees. As amended, the Prince William law ensured that the status of all detainees would be reviewed, not just those who looked like migrants. Fears of profiling abated. With similar tweaking, worries over the Arizona law are likely to recede.
Obama also backed up his Mexican counterpart without knowing the history behind his remarks. President Calderón (an otherwise fine leader and good friend of the United States) carps at our immigration policies to satisfy Mexican voters -- including entrenched elites who resist land tenure and market reforms that would end monopolies and expand jobs at home. His predecessor Vicente Fox felt compelled to do so and now it seems to have become a ritual.
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More