SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
44–937 CC
1998
AN OVERVIEW OF U.S. POLICY TOWARD MEXICO AND CANADA
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SEPTEMBER 17, 1997
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
JOHN McHUGH, New York
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LEE HAMILTON, Indiana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD BERMAN, California
GARY ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PAT DANNER, Missouri
EARL HILLIARD, Alabama
WALTER CAPPS, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
JAY KIM, California
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
MATTHEW MARTINEZ, California
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
WALTER H. CAPPS, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
VINCE MORELLI, Subcommittee Staff Director
PAUL BONICELLI, Professional Staff Member
DAVID ADAMS, Democratic Professional Staff Member
HOLLY FEIOCK, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. M. Delal Baer, Senior Fellow and Director, The Mexico Project, The Center for Strategic and International Studies
Dr. Rafael Fernandez de Castro, Dean, Department of International Relations, Instituto Technologico Autonomo de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
Dr. Charles F. Doran, Director, Canadian Studies Department, School for Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Dr. Gordon Smith, Advisor to the President of the University of Victoria
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Congressman Gary Ackerman, a Representative in Congress from New York
Dr. M. Delal Baer
Dr. Rafael Fernandez de Castro
Dr. Charles F. Doran
Materials submitted for the record:
''The New North America: A Guide to Relations With Canada and Mexico'', Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC
AN OVERVIEW OF U.S. POLICY TOWARD MEXICO AND CANADA
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1997
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room 2401, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elton Gallegly (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALLEGLY. Today the Subcommittee continues its oversight hearings of the Western Hemisphere by focusing our attention on the U.S. relationship with our two largest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Quite simply, Canada and Mexico are the two most important countries in the hemisphere for U.S. foreign, economic, and security policy.
Canada is our top trading partner while Mexico ranks third. Our relations in this area are, of course, governed by our membership in NAFTA, and over the past 9 years since trade agreements were first initiated our commerce with these two nations have, in fact, tended upward. With a respect to security, we share lengthy borders with these countries, which invite numerous bilateral concerns as well as opportunities for cooperation.
It is worth noting that rarely in the history of the Nation-State system have countries such as ours with such large shared borders had such cooperative and peaceful relations. While there have been historical deviations from this peaceful co-existence and cooperation, they have been few and far between. Our relationships are secure, founded on mutual respect, and fueled by economic enterprise and cultural appreciation.
Quite often in this Congress we tend to focus on those matters where disputes between our nations prevail, such as over drugs, or immigration, or salmon fishing, and while these matters are important, it is vital that we also note the positives, such as Mexico's deepening democracy and Canada's important role and generous help in bringing about a stability to Haiti.
Influencing our relations with both of these nations is the changing political environments in both countries. Mexico and Canada have recently conducted important elections that reflect profound changes in the political and social climate of each country.
The case of Mexico is more dramatic because its recent national elections represent, perhaps, the most important democratic opening in that country in 70 years. Observers are just now putting forward their analysis of what those changes mean for Mexico, and we hope to learn more about that today.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To sum up, relations between the United States, Mexico, and Canada are extremely important for all three nations, and despite our difficulties, I believe there could not be a bond more strong than that which exists between our nations today, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
Before I turn to our witnesses, I would like to call on any other Members that have any opening statements.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ackerman appears in the appendix.]
I have our good friend visiting today, a colleague from California, Tom Campbell.
If you would like to make a comment, please feel free in joining us today, Tom.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am on the Full Committee but not on the Subcommittee, so it is the grace of the Chairman that allows me to join us today, and I appreciate that. Just a word of seconding on your thanks to the Government of Canada for their tremendous assistance in the situation of Haiti. I spent last week in Haiti, in Port-Au-Prince. I spoke with several of the Canadian troops there, and they are doing a service for our country and for our world.
I send fraternal greetings to our representatives from Mexico as well, but I did not wish the record to be empty, devoid of a comment, of gratitude to Canada for that participation in Haiti.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell. We have a distinguished panel today and our first witness is Dr. Baer, senior fellow and director for Mexican projects, the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Dr. Baer.
Ms. BAER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure and an honor to be here today, and I respectfully request the submission of my testimony for the record, together with a report that CSIS has produced on a new North America, Mr. Chairman.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection.
Ms. BAER. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF M. DELAL BAER, SENIOR FELLOW AND DIRECTOR, THE MEXICO PROJECT, THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Ms. BAER. It is really nice to be before you and actually have something good to say for a change. It is nice to have good news about Mexico. We are present at the creation of a new political order in Mexico in the aftermath of the July 1997 mid-term elections, which represent an historic change for Mexico, as you have observed.
I am not going to go into great detail about Mexico's recent election reforms and what contributed to their result. I believe that the witness from Mexico will address those issues, but I will mention two little details that give us a sense of how committed Mexico has been to cleaning up its elections.
One is that it was quite remarkable to be able to observe the elections from any part of the world. You could plug into the Internet, and the Mexican Government had gone to such great lengths, that you were able to get district-by-district breakdowns of election results on the evening of the election that was a truly remarkable effort to deliver quick results and transparency.
I was also impressed by another little detail that has not been remarked on too much in the press, and that is that the polling booths were administered by officials who were selected by lottery. Everyone who was born in the month of July was a potential polling official, which guaranteed that the citizenry would be participating in a direct fashion in a way that we had never seen before. This truly eliminated the possibility of political apparachiks, say, at the local level tampering with the results. It was just another of many, many details in this election that made the difference.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One last comment on the administration of the elections. I believe that Mexico has been able to run free, clean elections since the 1991 midterm elections at the Federal level. Nor was the 1994 Presidential election questioned for the fundamental cleanness of its results.
However, there were residual complaints about the fairness of the 1994 elections. The most important feature of the 1996 election reform, which governed the 1997 elections, was an effort to make available access to the media and campaign finance resources in a more equitable to all political parties fashion. In other words, the reform leveled the playing field to exchange more equitable competition between opposition parties and the ruling party. The results were really quite dramatic.
I would like to move on to make some comments about the aftermath of the election and the implications of a democracy in Mexico for policymaking.
Mexico now has divided government. The most dramatic outcome of these elections is that Mexico now has an independent, opposition-dominated Congress, which can act as a check and balance on Mexico's traditional Aztec, almost monarchical, Presidency. This is a completely unprecedented development in modern 20th century Mexican history that poses a number of challenges.
One of the most interesting challenges, in my mind, is the implication for economic policy. To phrase the question in a colorful fashion, will perestroika, i.e., economic reform, be able to survive glastnost, that is to say, democratization?
Mexico's economic reform, its free market revolution, began a little over 12 years ago and it was imposed under authoritarian conditions. It was imposed in a top-down fashion. Mexico now has to develop a democratic consensus in order to be able to continue those kinds of policies.
I compare the situation a bit to the Chilean case, where economic reform was imposed by an authoritarian regime. In Chile, after the dictatorial rule of Pinochet, the democratic forces in Chile, including the left, accepted that the economic reform that had been implemented by Pinochet was worth continuing.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is not an exact analogy but in a somewhat similar fashion, the question now is whether or not Mexico will throw the baby out with the bath water. That is to say, economic reform in many people's minds in Mexico is closely associated with the authoritarian rule and with Carlos Salinas, who has become a tarnished figure. The question is whether or not there will be a democratic consensus to sustain the economic reform that Salinas began. Where will the political coalition come from to support the economic model?
The main questions that we will see played out in the next 3 months as Mexico considers its first budget under a democratic Congress is will the PRI support its President or will we begin to see divisions within the PRI and some ambivalence about economic reform in the PRI?
The PRI is a party that was formed as a historical consequence of Mexico's 1910 revolution and has very deep, populist currents. The question is, will those currents resurface as the party faces the need to reconcile itself with economic reform?
Will the PRD, that is to say Mexico's center-left opposition party, follow the route of Tony Blair or will it follow more traditional models, that is to say, for example, like that of former President Luis Echeverria?
All of Mexico's parties are going through something of an identity crisis, and it will be fascinating to see how they will play out. Will the PRD be able to control its many factions and support free-market policies? There are those in the PRD who are on the far left, there are social democrats, there are populist ex-Priijstas and many different kinds of people in the Mexican left.
And, finally, will the PAN, which is a center-right party which has a historical ideological preference for free-market reforms, be able to regain their momentum?
I know I am raising a lot of questions and not answering them, but frankly it is very difficult for us to predict political and policy outcomes at this early stage of the game. Let me try to answer those questions a bit.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the reasons I defended NAFTA so fervently at the time it was being debated is because I believe that NAFTA puts in place an institutional structure and an economic structure that makes free market economic reforms permanent, or makes it more difficult to turn the clock back.
The logic of global capital markets in an international economy and NAFTA will be very important factors in guaranteeing the future of economic reform.
Another force that I believe will be important in guaranteeing the future of economic reform is free elections, because most of Mexico's electorate is in the center of the ideological spectrum. If parties want to win elections they will have to forsake extreme positions, and forsaking extreme positions means that most will probably end up supporting the economic mainstream.
Guaranteeing some consensus about the parameters of economic policy is essential to the stability of Mexican democracy. If political parties advocate policies that are fundamentally outside of the mainstream, it will make for a less stable democratic transition. I believe that convergence to the ideological center is one of the most important challenges of Mexico's new democracy.
Another challenge to Mexico's democracy is the issue of security and the drug trade. I personally believe that drugs are one of the greatest threats to Mexico's new democracy in the next 3 to 10 years. I am cautiously optimistic because I do believe that accountability will be strengthened by an independent Congress, which will help to create pressures to clean up corruption and will be a constant pressure on the political system to move toward transparency.
I think over the long term democracy clearly will help fight this battle against drugs, but I think it is a long-term proposition, or at least a mid-term proposition. I do not believe that democracies are necessarily any more immune to ''narco'' corruption than are authoritarian regimes, and there are some very sad cases around the world to that effect.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My own diagnosis of Mexico's current drug situation is quite grim. On the operational level, the cop on the street, the Federal policeman, and the military officer have to fight the war in the trenches every day; they are facing overwhelming and probably superior resources marshalled against them by the drug traffickers. Under those circumstances, I fail to understand why we are so shocked every time we learn about some new incidence of corruption in either military or the police forces. I frankly think it is to be expected.
Nor do I think that it means that we should somehow cease our cooperation because Mexico has had failures. A failure of a capability is not necessarily a failure of will. In other words, I believe the political will exists in Mexico, but that alone does not guarantee success. The more we find failures, the more Mexico's law enforcement capability is vulnerable, the more we have to work together. I am just afraid that finger pointing and mutual accusations do not necessarily get to the end result that we all so desperately want to see.
Let me make one final point, and that is about governability in a new democracy. This is a time of change in Mexico, and they will have to address a lot of fundamental issues. We are waiting to see whether Mexico can develop a culture of compromise, which the Members of this U.S. Congress know very well is necessary to move legislation down the track.
Mexico does not have much of a culture of compromise and unfortunately, so far, we have seen an awful lot of mutual intransigence. We saw intransigence, for example, right before the inauguration of the new Congress. Mexico has an unfortunate habit of flirting with the constitutional abyss. There seems to be a pattern of moving issues to a crisis and then at the 11th hour somehow managing to resolve them.
Mexico also will be facing legal vacuums, questions of law, about how this new Congress functions. Remember, this is essentially a new institution. It was not clear, for example, how leadership positions and committee chairmanships would be determined in a situation where one party had a plurality but not a majority. There was a legitimate difference of legal opinion among the different political parties over how to determine these very essential kinds of questions.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think we are going to see these sorts of legal ambiguities on a whole host of issues whether it be the extent of the President's veto power, what to do in conditions of impasse, and what are the Senate's foreign policy capabilities. These are all issues I think that we will see Mexico revisit. The fundamental definition of what are the powers of the legislative branch and the executive branch are up for redefinition, and frankly, to some extent it is going to create a series of white-knuckle situations. Mexico is in a period of definition.
What should our stance be vis-a-vis Mexico's new democracy?
The United States has a preference for democracies in our relationships with governments around the world. I think the United Satets has played an important role in standing for those principles, in particular, the principle of clean electoral processes.
Where I believe the United States has absolutely no role is in trying to influence political outcomes in one fashion or another in Mexico. That is to say, we should try to avoid being drawn into Mexico's partisan battles. There will be those who will probably try to mobilize our voice on one side or the other of Mexico's partisan battles. We have no legitimate role there, and any effort to tip the balance can only backfire on our own national interests.
I guess I would also hope that in the months and years ahead we will try to adopt a constructive dialog and a respectful tone very much like that of the Chairman in his opening comments today, which I know are greatly appreciated by our neighbors. Obviously, it is very difficult to work together on very thorny issues such as drug trafficking when we are slinging insults back and forth. I am very concerned that we will see more insult-slinging, and in Mexico's newly democratic environment, the forces of their democracy will respond in kind.
I am concerned about the possibility for a poisoning of the rhetorical environment and the spirit of goodwill between our two countries if we cannot somehow, in both bodies, both Congresses and both executive branches, manage our differences more gracefully and more respectfully.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On that note, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, Members of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Baer appears in the appendix.]
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Dr. Baer. Our next witness is Dr. Rafael Fernandez de Castro, dean, Department of International Relations, Instituto Technologico Autonomo de Mexico, Mexico City. It has been about 36 years since Spanish II so I appreciate your indulgence.
Dr. Fernandez, thank you very much for being here. I know you made a long trek all the way from Mexico, so we are even more grateful inasmuch as you have made that journey and we welcome your comments.
Mr. FERNANDEZ. Thank you, Chairman. I will submit my testimony for the record, if it is fine. I will try to——
Mr. GALLEGLY. Without exception.
Mr. FERNANDEZ. I will make a summary of it.
STATEMENT OF RAFAEL FERNANDEZ DE CASTRO, DEAN, DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, INSTITUTO TECHNOLOGICO AUTONOMO DE MEXICO, MEXICO CITY
Mr. FERNANDEZ. Let me start by saying that it is, of course, an honor for me to testify before this Subcommittee. As a Mexican citizen, I have always respected the role of the U.S. Congress in making foreign policy, and particularly the U.S. Congress' zeal in checking the Presidential power.
Today I can proudly say that you have a similar counterpart in my country. That is, the Mexican Congress, specifically the lower House, is an independent body, legislative body, and moreover it has a strong commitment to check on the excesses of Mexican Presidentialism. That is brand new in Mexico.
I do believe, and I guess you were very right in your remarks, Chairman, that the July 6 election, the mid-term election of July 6, is a watershed in the process toward democracy. The results are astonishing.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Basically, I guess, the most important result is that the PRI, the official party, became short of making a simple majority in the lower House of Congress. They now have 239 seats out of 500. They have now become 12 seats short of a simple majority. Four opposition parties, the two big ones, the PAN and the PRD, plus two small parties, the Green Party and the Labor Party, have made a coalition in order to have the majority.
The other very important result is that Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, the most vocal critic of the Mexican Government since 1988, became the first elected mayor of Mexico City in this century. That is a very important accomplishment for the opposition.
Let me share with you three thoughts about why the July 6 mid-term election should be seen as a watershed.
Well, first of all, Mexicans demonstrated once again that they believe in elections as a means to change. This is very important. Fifty-seven percent of registered voters voted in the mid-term election of July 6. That is a very important number. It is much higher than the percentage of U.S. voters in mid-term elections, and it is a percentage very close to a European democracy.
My second point here is that the process was, as Ms. Baer was saying, for the first time in a row clean and credible. This is very important because it has made the electoral ghost of 1988 to vanish. It is very important to bear in mind that last year in 1996 we had very important electoral reforms. We should praise President Zedillo for this. Also we should praise the opposition parties, some newspapers—I will say selected media—they were very keen in this process—and also some Mexican NGO's.
Just to give you an idea of the importance of this reform and about the will of the Mexican Government to have fair elections, I will say that the mid-term election of July 6 cost the Mexican treasury almost $1 billion. It is an amazing figure; however, it shows the will to have clean and credible elections in Mexico.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another very important reform was that of having a better access to the media for the opposition parties. That was a very important reform.
I do believe that the most important challenge in the years to come is going to be in the relationship between the executive branch and Congress. We will finally experience divided government. Since 1911 we have not experienced divided government and, of course, we will have to create the rules on the fly. There are no rules, there are no procedures for this divided government, and that is going to be the major challenge.
I do believe, and that is my hypothesis, that the opposition coalition is a very strong coalition in terms of procedures, in terms of holding the power in the House of Representatives (Camera Deputatos), but I believe there are going to be important divisions in that coalition in terms of substantive policy, in tax, in budget, and in abortion issues. We are going to see a lot of differences there.
Soon on the budget approval, we are going to have a major test to see how strong this coalition is, meaning this opposition coalition. It is also going to be a very important test to observe the PRI, the official party, discipline, and how loyal it is going to remain to President Zedillo. That is something to observe because they do not have much incentive to remain loyal to President Zedillo. So everything is in change in Mexico.
Now, let me make a few comments on bilateral affairs.
First of all, let me start by saying that a lot of analysts have been comparing the present bilateral relationship with the relationship that we experienced in the mid-1980's. Why are they saying that? Because during that time the bilateral relationship was at a low point, and second because migration and narcotics tend to monopolize the attention of observers.
I guess this is not a correct comparison because I do believe that during the NAFTA negotiation, and during the presidencies of President Salinas and George Bush, the relationship between the executives underwent a watershed. There was a very important change in the attitudes of the governments toward each other. They became very attentive in the bilateral relationship, and I do believe that in most of the areas of the relationship, the administrations of President Zedillo and President Clinton, they still have this attitude of cooperation.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But we do not see this in some areas of the agenda, and we also do not see this within some of the actors of the bilateral relationship. I do believe that the Mexican Congress, and in a way the U.S. Congress, are showing this tradition toward bilateral affairs. I do believe that the Mexican Congress is still very nationalistic in bilateral issues and you might see a mirror of yourselves in the new Mexican Congress. There is going to be a lot of politics there, there is going to be a lot of strong positions, vis-a-vis narcotics, vis-a-vis migration issues.
On migration I have a very short comment. I want to say that I had the privilege to serve, or to participate, in this binational study that has just finished. This binational study is the first study that is conducted by the two governments, the Mexican Foreign Affairs Ministry and the Select Commission on Immigration in the United States. They hired 20 researchers, 10 Mexicans, 10 Americans, to do this research. We just finished the report, and I guess it was a very important report. We came to an agreement on the numbers of the documented Mexicans and the undocumented Mexicans here. It is an important document, and the thing that I wanted to share with you, what I learned doing that study, first of all, was that there is a very big gap in the perception that we Mexicans have on migration and the U.S. perception.
Migration is the single most sensitive issue in the agenda for Mexicans. To give you an example how we Mexicans see migration, Mexican sentiment toward the United States is bad when the U.S. Border Patrol mistreats a Mexican migrant. This could only compare to how an American feels when a Mexican official has been corrupted because of narcotrafficking. The sensitivity that you have in narcotics is similar in degree to the sensitivity that we have in migration. It is a very important topic to us.
We learned through the study that it is a very complex phenomena. It has these long historical roots more than one century ago, and it is very hard for the governments to deal with.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To finalize my comments, just a brief thing about narcotics. I do believe that Mexicans and Americans alike are facing the most extraordinary public enemy of our time in narcotics. Yet both sides continue to waffle and postpone the battle, contenting themselves by blaming each other. I do believe that it is time to dispense with domestic demagogic acts, such as the certification process. I do believe that we really have to create a new environment to approach the problem.
Finally, I would like to make a comment on a historical event that happened 150 years ago this week, the Mexican-American War. On September 13, the American army entered into Mexico City. Today, we are commemorating this with historical studies, and there are many lessons that we should draw out of this very difficult time. Let me read you a brief but eloquent passage of a speech made on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1847 by an influential Senator from South Carolina, Mr. John C. Calhoun, and the quote says the following:
''The United States has to consider Mexico as one of her greatest problems in her foreign relations. Neither to humble nor weaken Mexico should be the American goal, but to see Mexico strong and respectable, and capable of sustaining all the relations that ought to exist between independent nations, because there exists a mysterious connection between the fate of this country and that of Mexico. The independence of Mexico is essential to the prosperity and maintenance of American Institutions.''
Thank you very much, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fernandez appears in the appendix.]
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Dr. Fernandez. I normally have a policy, unwritten policy, that we like to take the testimony for everyone before we start to make comments or maybe ask a couple of questions, but with the mutual consent of my colleagues here I feel it important because the timing of a comment you made and a slight deviation from your printed copy of your testimony that you asked to be made a part of the record, that I feel compelled to clarify one issue.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With the concurrence of my colleagues, I would like to do that, and I would refer to page 4 of your written testimony, last paragraph, where you make reference to the incident in Riverside, California, which I cannot believe that any of my colleagues here would begin to condone under any set of circumstances, and I think that you would agree that law enforcement agencies, and the people of California, and the U.S. Government have acted very expeditiously to address that issue.
But I have to tell you quite frankly, Dr. Fernandez, I think it takes a tremendous amount of audacity on your part in any way, shape, or form to compare that incident to the heinous crime that was committed against Enrique Camarena, our DEA agent, who was killed and his body mutilated when he was doing a job to help stop drug trafficking and stop the scourge of drugs in your own country. When these people that were interdicted by the Riverside Police Department—and the way they handled it we all agree was improper—but to compare them to Mr. Camarena I think is disgusting. These folks were driving the freeway at 100 miles an hour and throwing debris at cars and jeopardizing people's lives. To compare the two, I think, is an insult to this Committee.
Mr. FERNANDEZ. If I might comment on this, I was not comparing the fact of the violent action. What I was comparing was the perception. What I was trying to draw your attention to is how we Mexicans feel when a migrant is mistreated by the U.S. Border Patrol. What I am comparing here is the perception. What I am saying there, and I am trying to illustrate by comparison in that paragraph, is that we are very sensitive to migration issues as you are very sensitive to narcotic issues and when we mistreat a U.S. official.
But my point is I am comparing the perceptions, not the action in itself.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, I would like to also further state that it is my understanding that the courts of the United States awarded this one woman something like $700,000 for the misfortune that took place that day. I doubt very seriously that the Mexican Government has compensated anyone for the heinous crime against Mr. Camarena, and with that I would like to move on, and then we will get back to a couple issues, with all my colleagues with their concurrence.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And with that we will move on to the third witness. I have got it right here somewhere. Our third witness is Dr. Charles F. Doran, director, Canadian Studies Department, School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Welcome, Dr. Doran.
Mr. DORAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here. With your permission, I will submit my testimony for the record and my comments are, in fact, a summary of that testimony. I am going to try to respond quickly to four questions.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Your statement will be made a part of the record without objection.
Mr. DORAN. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. DORAN, DIRECTOR, CANADIAN STUDIES DEPARTMENT, SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AT JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Mr. DORAN. What is the current status of Quebec-Federal Government relations, first question? Second question, how significant is the so-called ''regionalization'' of political parties in Canada following the recent Federal elections? What does that mean for the future of political relations inside Canada? Third, what makes the so-called ''salmon war'' seemingly so intractable, and what are the consequences, perhaps, of that? And, finally, what is the impact of NAFTA on Canada?
The current status of the Quebec-Federal Government or Federal Government-Quebec relations is, I think, an outgrowth of many, many years of evolution and discussion, in particular since the so-called ''quiet revolution'' there have been very substantial changes in the social structure and political structure of Quebec, and this, in turn, has, indeed, been represented in many ways politically, but I think in part it has contributed to the recent interest on the part of a significant sector of opinion in Quebec of separation.
There have been, of course, two referenda, and the question now is will there be a third. The short answer here is that at this point we can see an election coming up within a year or so. If, in fact, the current premier is reelected by a large margin, it is very likely that he will call a referendum after this on separation and, indeed, based on the previous experience, those results could be very close and very difficult to predict.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the very short term two things are happening. First, there has been a First Ministers' conference representing the premieres of the provinces and the leaders of the territories. They have tried to, in fact, put together some kind of strategy on the part of English Canada to respond in a full and vigorous way to the declared claims, and so on, on the part of the Government of Quebec, and that, I think, that conference has been successful but it also shows how difficult it is after all of the efforts that have been made to do constitutional reform to come up with a coherent, hard-hitting sort of response.
On the other side there has been an interesting series of exchanges between the Inter-provincial Affairs Minister, Mr. Dion, and the Quebec Government, represented by Mr. Landry, on a series of issues that are going to be very important, setting the framework, really, for what might come up in terms of future talks on separation, and they involve such things as what would be the role of recognition, what is a sufficient majority in terms of such a decision, and, finally, a very important issue, and that is the question of possible further partition in Canada following separation; and, indeed, those things have had short-term effects on the opinion polls. It looks as though there is less support for separation now after these discussions, but I would submit that, in fact, this is a long discussion and there is much time yet to see what will ultimately happen.
Now, in terms of regionalization of parties, it is certainly the case that Canada is more regionalized than before. The Liberal Party has almost all the support in the heartland of Canada in Ontario. In the Maritimes, the Progressive-Conservative Party has a very strong showing. In the far West, the Reform Party is very, very strong, particularly in Alberta and British Columbia and, of course, in Quebec it is the Bloc Quebecois, which is—although it is diminished somewhat, it is still very strong.
So there is this kind of regionalization but what I would say is this. As long as Canada remains united, as long as Quebec is part of Canada, I do not think this is going to have much significance, because, in fact, there have been these kinds of problems before.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If, however, Quebec were to separate, then the significance of all of this is something for all of us to reflect upon.
The question of the salmon war, first of all, this issue is extremely complex. It is complex on a technical scale in terms of some five major species of fish involved. It is complex in terms of estimates of numbers, and habitats, and the effect of natural changes on spawning, and so on. This issue is very complex as well because of the politics involved. Not only does one have provinces and states involved, as well as the Federal Governments, but very important actors in terms of the native peoples, in terms of labor unions, in terms of the fishermen themselves, and fishing associations. So this should never be regarded as a simple question.
In addition, it has been with us for a long time. The Pacific Salmon Treaty took 15 years to negotiate, and some of the difficulties in that negotiation are being, I think, felt at this point.
I guess I would say that as far as the bottom line here is concerned, and I would be happy to take further questions on this, there are two things that seem to me to be striking.
The first is this, if there is going to be progress—and I must say I must commend the two governments in terms of the very high level and quality of the representation that has been set up in terms of this two-person commission to deal with this—but if there is going to be a resolution, it seems to me, of course, that the province and the States involved, particularly the State of Alaska, must be fully participatory. They know the interests and they know the issues best, perhaps.
But if there is going to be movement, I think the Federal Governments are going to have to become more involved. It is very difficult for the political leadership at those levels to disassociate themselves from the kinds of pressures that they feel locally in the sense of moving toward some kind of cooperation between countries, and it seems to me the Federal Governments are going to have to be involved in that.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second thing I would say is this, the data suggest that particularly with regard to the most valuable fish stocks, the problem of over-fishing—and I think there is a problem of over-fishing—the problem of over-fishing is something that has to be contended with, but deeper than that is the issue of the very survival of this industry on the West Coast.
The data again that are available to us—and some of these are disputed, there is no doubt, but the Pacific Salmon Commission people, for example, have tried to come up with these data—data show that there is a striking decline in the catch. Now, what that suggests is that underlying this the fish stocks themselves, which will lag in terms of effects, may, in fact, be more seriously damaged, and what is so worrisome is that this tremendous industry, which has been so important to the people in Canada and in the United States, could be jeopardized by natural effects such as warming currents that are taking place that are threatening the baby salmon because of predatory fish moving into the area, as well as very, very high levels of fishing.
I know, for example, the Alaskan delegation has pointed out that there are problems with the rebuilding of the Columbia River system, and that is a very important issue for everybody to look at because that system is so important to some of the choicest fish stocks, but what is necessary is to have cooperation to deal with what must be looked upon as a declining fishery in this area.
Seven of some ten fisheries worldwide have found themselves in this kind of situation. The East Coast fisheries have just collapsed, and if you look at this in a relatively objective way, you can see the same kinds of stresses taking place, first, with the most valuable stocks like the chinook, sock-eye, and coho, and then ultimately the same kinds of things will be felt for the other stocks. Time is short and cooperation is key.
Finally, the issue of NAFTA and Canada, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be more helpful, and I am trying to be as objective as I can on this issue, but I think the reality is that we do not have enough data points, we do not have enough time, to be able to really say with very much confidence what is taking place with regard to the impact of NAFTA membership on any of the economies. There are only 3 years involved, and, in fact, to do the kind of studies objectively that would be necessary in econometrics, you need all kinds of controls and so on. Those have not been done.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So the judgments either in favor of NAFTA or against it tend to be fairly impressionistic, but let me give you, and conclude with, a couple of those impressionistic observations.
The first is that Canada's economy is doing very well. Its growth rates are very high at this point. It has problems in the sense of, for example, the question of the unemployment rate, and there is a lot of criticism of the bold and courageous deficit cutting that has taken place in Canada, but on the other hand, the economy is very, very strong, and the trade relationship with the United States is a key part of that overall, very buoyant economy.
It is also the case that Canada has been viewed by institutions like the Economists Intelligence Unit, assessing the commercial setting. It has been looked upon as one of the top three or four in the world in terms of a place to invest. So Canada is doing very well in terms of the movement of capital in and the retention of capital at home.
NAFTA has had some impact, presumably, on some of the sectors of trade, and it is kind of interesting. This is, again, somewhat subjective. The sectors that have opened most in terms of trade have done much better than the sectors that have not really been involved in the NAFTA arrangements, so one would subjectively think that there is some benefit here.
I guess I would just summarize by saying it is very difficult to say that NAFTA has had any kind of serious negative effects on the Canadian economy, and even though Canada has been participating in this wonderful boom that we have been enjoying economically overall, it is probably the case that part of the reason that it has done so well is that it has had greater access, important access, to the rest of the North American market through NAFTA.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doran appears in the appendix.]
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Doran.
Our next witness, Dr. Gordon Smith, advisor to the president of the University of Victoria, has also traveled a long distance today to be with us, and we appreciate the effort that you made to get here, all the way from Victoria. Thank you very much, Dr. Smith, and we welcome your testimony.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF GORDON SMITH, ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to have been invited to be here this afternoon. In Victoria where I now live and teach at the University, we literally look at the United States across the water; it is a beautiful sight to look at Northern Washington.
Overall I must say to you that my judgment is the state of Canada-U.S. relations is very good. It is hard to imagine that it could be much better if you take the totality of the relationship.
Trade is now almost U.S. $1 billion a day, more than $1 billion Canadian. There has been a significant increase in investment going both ways.
There is very close foreign policy cooperation between the two countries. Mr. Campbell mentioned Haiti. Truly, I think it is possible to say that Canada and the United States are the best of friends, and that is true at the level of leaders as it is true at the level of peoples.
That is not to say there are not problems, and I am going to talk about some of them in the next few minutes.
I understand the particular interest of your Subcommittee this afternoon is in the salmon question, the Canadian political situation, and NAFTA.
Let me first of all address NAFTA, and in doing so I will speak about the Canadian perception of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States as well as with NAFTA because, of course, from a Canadian point of view the first had an enormous impact, a bigger impact than the extension to Mexico, which is very important, but I think the Canadian perception of the one gets often included with the other.
I think that there is a recognition in Canada that free trade has, in fact, created jobs. It has created jobs on a net basis. Jobs have been lost in some sectors but more jobs have been gained, and what that means is that it has been necessary to restructure. This is a restructuring that would have been necessary in any event, but the restructuring is being pushed by the process of free trade.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With respect to investment, I think there has been some disappointment that, in fact, with NAFTA, which we thought would attract more investment into Canada—in fact, we have a declining share in relation to the investment going into the United States, and I think we hope that now that the economic fundamentals are right, that the deficit is on the way down to zero, that that will change the perception of investors, and as Dr. Doran has said, we have been very highly rated as a place to invest, and that our relative share of investment will pick up.
One of the areas of frustration, though, that I must note is in the cultural area where there continues to be a high level of concern in Canada that the United States does not understand that culture is not just another commodity. Culture is a very important element of defining who we are. The objective in Canada is not to close out American culture. That could hardly be the case when 85 to 90 percent of the movies, the films, shown in Canada are American, but there is a strong desire to preserve, whether it is in the film industry, the television industry, or whether it is in magazines, a segment that is reasonably significant that allows Canadians to speak to each other.
There also is frustration when we feel that the United States does not accept the outcome of established dispute resolution mechanisms, and that has occurred recently both in the softwood lumber area and in the dairy and poultry area. Canadians believe strongly in a rules-based system and in having objective dispute resolution, and that applies whether it is at the level of the World Trade Organization or at the level of NAFTA, and I might add there that with respect to trade liberalization Canada would like to see further liberalization within the context of the WTO and also an extension of NAFTA, and we support strongly the free trade in the Americas.
I would take the opportunity, though, to point out one issue which is something of a problem, and that is Section 110 in the Immigration Reform Act, which would require Canadians to be treated as other aliens and which would produce an absolutely impossible blockage at the border. Now, I understand that there are bills that have been introduced in both the Senate and the House that would deal with that problem, but I believe it is fair to say that that Act would cause enormous difficulty, if not amended, to the tens of millions of people who cross the border.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With respect to the Canadian political scene, obviously unity remains an important focus. As Dr. Doran has mentioned, there was an important meeting of the provincial premieres last Sunday, which resulted in an agreement that while, on the one hand, all provinces must be treated as equal, on the other hand, Quebec's uniqueness in terms of language, culture, and law was recognized. This is being supported by the Federal Government. At this point it is too early to make a definitive judgment as to what the reaction in Quebec has been, but one hopes that this points us on the path to getting some of the unity issues that we have had behind us.
I would make one observation about the last Federal election. I think often that election is seen in terms of increased regionalization, and here I would agree with Dr. Doran's comments, but I would point out that in Quebec, if one added together the votes that went to the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and the New Democratic Party, all of which were headed by strong Federalists, one sees that, in fact, the support for Canada remains strong in Quebec. That is also evidenced in public opinion polls.
There remains perhaps 25 percent of Quebecers who want separation but not more than that so the important thing is to be able to take proposals of the kind that the premiers have developed, to work on those, and to show that they, in fact, can result in changes being made that deal with the sorts of things which Quebecers are desirous of seeing.
It is also important—and, again Dr. Doran has made this point—that people across the country, not only in Quebec but across the country, understand the full consequences were Canada to come apart. Here I think it would be a great mistake to be related about the breakup of Canada. I think it would be a cataclysmic event with very difficult to predict consequences. Now, it will not happen, in my judgment. I feel strongly it will not happen. I am an Anglophone coming from Montreal; I married a Francophone from Ontario. These issues have been central to me all my life. I do not think it will happen, but I think that one has to be very clear that were we ever to go down that route, it would not be a velvet divorce.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, on salmon I would like to make a few points. We have a treaty. The treaty dates back to 1985. The objectives are conservation and of equity.
The treaty worked at first, and worked quite well, although we never agreed on the equity issue. But in recent years we have not been able to reach an agreement on the split of the interceptions of salmon, and increasingly we feel in Canada that there is a conservation problem, as Dr. Doran has mentioned, and that we are taking the brunt of the measures to deal with conservation.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to table two documents that deal with salmon interceptions. I will speak to them now, if I may, and I think that they show quite conclusively that if you look from the 1983 period somewhat before the treaty to 1996, the level of interceptions of the United States, which was in 1983 in the south 44 percent greater than Canadian interceptions, has gone in 1996 to 123 percent; and in the north 65 percent greater has gone to 114 percent.
And if you take the value of the interceptions, in other words, how much money this fish is worth, there U.S. interceptions produced 42 percent more than the Canadian 10 years ago. We are now at 250 percent.
So I cannot now over-emphasize to you, not only in British Columbia where I now live, but across the country, how strongly the people feel that there is not equity in the way the existing fish are being taken.
There is also, and I say this with great respect to you, Mr. Chairman and to the U.S. Government, great frustration in dealing, negotiating, with the U.S. Government, because the U.S. Government really cannot speak for the United States. There are the stakeholders, the States, aboriginal peoples. It is a very complex process, and we in Canada have tried to negotiate with a united front, but increasingly in Canada this is resulting in criticism from the British Columbia Government of the Federal Government.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, recently, as you know, there was a blockage of a ferry, the Malaspina. Let me say categorically in my judgment that was the wrong thing to do. There is also a proposal that a lease that the United States Navy has on a testing range at Nanous be canceled. I think that is a mistake. I think it is a mistake to make linkage from one issue to the other.
But we have got to get this issue resolved, and if we are unable to negotiate it, if the Ruckleshouse-Strangway process does not work and does not work soon, in my judgment there is no alternative but arbitration. We have proposed arbitration, Canada has, in the past, and that has been politically difficult, I understand, in the United States, but this issue is simply too important for our friendship for it to stand in our way. If we cannot very quickly negotiate the solution, I would urge that we take the route of arbitration.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Dr. Smith. Inasmuch as I took, I think, probably my fair share of time on the first round of questions with Dr. Fernandez, I would at this time defer to our colleague and good friend from the San Fernando Valley and Ventura County, California, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and neighbor from Ventura County.
I do want to comment about the last speaker's remarks that somehow movies were cultural and not another commodity. We find that the Europeans and the Canadians take this position but only with regard to those U.S. exports that they would like to exclude. So the French never take the position that wine is cultural and therefore should not be exported to the United States, dare it hurt our culture or make it less American. The Canadians, I do not think, understand the true cultural significance of ''cruising,'' but if they did they would understand that restrictions on automobiles from Canada might be as critical to our culture as their restrictions on our movies.
It is interesting that those who declare that something is not a commodity almost always do so when it is a commodity where we enjoy some degree of economic advantage.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to address Dr. Fernandez on the recent non-appointment of an ambassador to his country, and wonder whether from your standpoint it seems a bit odd that the United States would lecture Latin America on democracy, and at the same time not have a decision on who our ambassador would be to your country, as to which the representatives of only one State cast all the votes, and the other 49 States cast none of the votes, and I wonder whether democracy works that way in Mexico, and also did we look a little ridiculous?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Dr. Fernandez.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, if I may address the first point?
Mr. SHERMAN. I am sorry, I have very limited time and if the Chairman wants to grant you or me more time, that is fine, but I have got 5 minutes here, and——
Mr. GALLEGLY. I would assume that your second question was directed at Mr. Fernandez and not Dr. Smith—or Dr. Fernandez.
Mr. SHERMAN. My question was addressed to Dr. Fernandez, correct.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Very good. Dr. Fernandez.
Mr. FERNANDEZ. Yes, I do believe that it is very important for Mexico to have a first-rate ambassador in Mexico City. The American Embassy in Mexico City is the largest U.S. embassy in the world. It has some 3,000 employees, not only in the embassy but in the embassy and the consulate, and I guess it has something like 31 different U.S. agencies represented in that building in—La Reform, and I do believe it is very important to have an ambassador.
I would like to comment on the U.S. political scene. I guess it is a matter of the United States to make the decision of who is going to be the ambassador. I know there are problems with Mr. Helms. I have been reading the press, and I know that apparently Mr. Weld was, at the beginning, well liked, a good candidate. Apparently he was a bi-partisan candidate. It was a very good move of President Clinton to name a Republican, but in the end we know that the chairmanships are very important to the U.S. Congress, and in Mexico the Congress will not act that way.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For example, now it is the way that the Mexican Congress operates—the majority in Congress does not necessarily hold every single chairmanship in the different committees. They tried to distribute the chairmanships depending on the issues, so you will see some chairmanships held by the PRI and held by the opposition parties. It is not even.
For example, in the Senate, I am sure that the PRI, since it has the majority, will control foreign affairs, but you will see the Mexican lower House of Congress doing a lot of remarks on bilateral issues, narcotics, migration, and unfortunately for some, the Senate, the PRI in the Senate still holds a big majority, and I am saying ''for some'' because the majority of Senators is so large, that it is very hard for the PAN to make a point.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Sir, thank you. Thank you.
Mr. SHERMAN. I was hoping to ask one more question. I do not know if my time has expired.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Would you like to have Dr. Smith respond to your first question? He seemed to be anxious to respond to that. What I would like to do is maybe have a second round because I know that Congressman Campbell has to leave but if you could have him answer that first question?
Mr. SHERMAN. OK, fine. Yes.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Dr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, in one sentence, the U.S. wine-making industry and automobile industry is in good shape, and I think can withstand the competition from the French, or the Canadians, or anybody else. The Canadian cultural industries, if there is no way in which they can receive some support from governments, will not be able to sustain the massive competition that comes from south of the border.
Mr. SHERMAN. So you will be visiting the shut-down Van Nuys auto plant on the edges of my district and deal with the people who have been put out of work and explain to them that they cannot work in the entertainment business because we cannot export to Canada and they cannot work in the auto business because we cannot have anything countervening there as well?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You are talking to someone who is right on the intersection of the automobile industry and the entertainment industry, and it strikes me as odd to announce that the automobile industry is fine when the only automobile plant in southern California has been closed.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, 85 to 90 percent of the film industry is a lot. One hundred percent would be everything, but I do not think that really Canadians are asking for a very large segment of the market to be kept open.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Dr. Smith. My good friend from northern California, Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for your courtesy in allowing me to go ahead. My questions are directed to both Dr. Doran and Dr. Smith. It is good to see you again and I am going to ask questions. I will put them all up front so then you have time to respond to them.
It appears from when we met about a year ago the view of the Canadian Government appeared to be, although they did not testify, they did not send a representative, it appeared to be that there very well may not be another referendum on Quebec independence. It appears to me that position has changed; the Canadian Federal Government is now participating in the brief to the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality and I heard your comments today to suggest that. I would like you to comment to the first then. Do you believe that the position of the Federal Government has changed, that they now are preparing for a referendum as opposed to anticipating it will not occur?
Second, is there any chance, any realistic chance, that Premier Bouchard will call an election, a referendum I should say, before he goes to the people? The reason I say that is when the Supreme Court rules, if that court interpretation is taken by the average Quebecer as an affront to Quebec's sovereignty, it strikes me at least as politically possible that Premier Bouchard might say, ''We have had it. I am going. I am taking Quebec out.'' But you know this far better than I.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And the third and last is—I do not understand the Constitution of Canada adequately to answer this question but I nevertheless put it—how can the Federal Government be engaged in negotiations on a separation without contemplating a referendum in other provinces of Canada? Constitutionally, how can Canada split without the other provinces being heard from? How can Canada split upon the approval of only one province of Canada?
Thank you, those are the three questions.
Mr. DORAN. Do you want——
Mr. SMITH. No, you go ahead.
Mr. DORAN. OK, well, first of all on the last question, I must stand aside, particularly given your legal knowledge and expertise. If you cannot figure this out, I am sure I cannot. So I am not sure what will happen there but that is a very important question.
As far as the second question is concerned in terms of the timing, it seems to me that everybody is very sensitive to what is taking place at this point. This is really partly a response to the first question, too. It seems to me that the Federal Government is trying to avoid the situation it got itself into previously where it was looked upon as being late in terms of it putting its strategy into place. Now, the danger is it might be too early this time. Timing is very important. But they are trying to set the framework so that the terms are terms that everybody sort of will agree with.
It seems to me that there is also a battle for public opinion going on. It is very, very significant, particularly in Quebec, and at this point it is leaning in the direction of the Federalist position, although I agree very much with what Dr. Smith has said, but I would say it is very important for us here to be very clear about percentages and a lot of other things, and while there are 25 percent hard-core separatists, there are a lot more people who were persuaded last time because they almost voted in favor of taking Quebec out and allowing the government to negotiate.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So the issue is what would Mr. Bouchard do. I would say the most likely possibility, as far as I can tell, is that he will wait until it is time for him to call an election. He will call an election. If he does very, very well in that election, the polls are supportive, he will then have a referendum. Some say he might, in fact, go into that election on the issue of separation. That is a pretty high-risk sort of strategy, I would think, politically.
So the most likely thing would be that he will fight a tough election and then we will see where we stand, but it is certainly clear, you are absolutely right, that the Canadian Government, Federal Government, is not standing back and assuming there will be no referendum. They are, in fact, trying to get things in place to be able to deal with that issue.
Mr. CAMPBELL. And Dr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I——
Mr. GALLEGLY. Dr. Smith, if I could impose on you to try to be as brief, because there is a vote on. I did want to let Mr. Ballenger ask one question because we are not going to be able to return.
Mr. SMITH. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I would yield.
Mr. CAMPBELL. If Dr. Smith wants to write me an answer, I would be just as happy. I will read it with interest.
Mr. GALLEGLY. I would appreciate you do that, Doctor.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, write me and I would appreciate it.
[Mr. Smith chose not to respond.]
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Dr. Doran; thank you, Dr. Smith.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. BALLENGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hate to rush everybody but Dr. Baer, I have a question on your statistical analysis of the election. As you know, I have been involved down in Mexico in the Chiapas area where if there was a dishonest voting tendency, Chiapas was the most dishonest.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the statistical analysis of the election that took place in July, how was the vote? PRI in Chiapas has a lock. I mean, it did not make any difference whether just one person showed up or nobody showed up, they still voted 100 percent PRI. How did that turn out in the election?
Ms. BAER. You are absolutely right in pointing out that Chiapas was probably one of the most difficult areas in all of Mexico simply because it is a semi-war zone. The presence of the military, in spite of the fact that the government ordered the military to return to their barracks before the elections, was a chilling factor.
The problem in Chiapas was a very, very low turnout. The other problem in Chiapas, as you probably are aware, is that the guerrillas themselves were not supporting the election process. They seemed to be exhorting their potential followers to stay at home that day, which may very well have had an effect in skewing the vote in favor of the PRI. It is very, very difficult for us to ultimately know what happened there, but as you know there were some very unfortunate incidents of ballot box burnings and so forth and so on.
I do not know if that answers your question.
Mr. BALLENGER. That does, and if I could ask just one more.
Ms. BAER. I do not think it was a question of fraud.
Mr. BALLENGER. I would like to ask——
Ms. BAER. Yes.
Mr. BALLENGER. This is for either Dr. Fernandez or Dr. Baer: I just got back from Colombia, where we decertified the country because of its lack of effort, supposedly, and we certified Mexico. Yet, in Colombia there is one body that is completely honest and doing everything it can to clean up down there, and that is the police. I am not sure the army, and the air force, and so forth are doing the same.
Is there a branch of the Mexican Government that come hell or high water, assassination or otherwise, is doing its best to stop drug trafficking?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I realize that a lot of this, most of this, is our problem because we are paying for the drugs but somebody somewhere in the Mexican Government ought to be dedicated to an honest effort to stop drugs and I am not sure it exists.
Either one, I do not care.
Mr. FERNANDEZ. Let me say that I do believe that the new Mexican Attorney General is trying very hard. I am positive he is a clean person. He is really trying hard. It is not easy for him, and I will say that I am impressed by the attention that President Zedillo himself is devoting to the drugs.
I was told by the president of my university, he just visited last week President Zedillo with Gary Baker, the Nobel Prize winner in Economics. You know, President Zedillo asked him, ''How would you put the narcotics issue in economic things''? He was really trying to get advice from everybody because he is keen in this war on drugs, and he is very preoccupied right now with it, and I guess it is a very important will in the Mexican Government and particularly President Zedillo to try to stop this. It is a very difficult threat for us.
Mr. BALLENGER. I hate to run. I am sorry.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Blunt, did you have one quick question?
Mr. BLUNT. I do not know whether I do, Mr. Chairman. I may submit one in writing. I think we have to go ahead with the vote——
Mr. GALLEGLY. With unanimous consent. I have several questions that I would like to ask, but rather than holding our panel up, and having us go back and vote, and then come back, with the consent of the Committee I will present those questions in writing and ask that they be made a part of the record of the hearing and that will hold true for Mr. Blunt as well.
[The information had not been supplied at press time.]
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you all very much. Again, Dr. Smith, thank you for making the long trip. Dr. Fernandez, thank you very much. I hope that you did not view my emotions as confrontational but the thing with Enrique Camarena has been a very sensitive issue, and I hope that you will accept them in the spirit that was intended, and we do want to maintain the good working relationship.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are some very emotional issues on both sides of the border and I extend that hand to you to try to work with those issues in the upcoming months and hopefully into the future.
And with that, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Insert "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."