Podcasts about lima group

Patrick Dennis Duddy, director of the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies and senior visiting scholar at Duke University, leads a conversation on democracy in Latin America. This meeting is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the Winter/Spring 2022 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Patrick Dennis Duddy with us today to talk about democracy in Latin America. Ambassador Patrick Duddy is the director of Duke University's Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies and teaches in both Duke's Fuqua School of Business and Sanford School of Public Policy. From 2007 to 2010, he served as the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela under both the Bush and Obama administrations. Prior to his assignment to Venezuela, Ambassador Duddy served as deputy assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere, and he's also held positions at embassies in Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, and Panama, and has worked closely with Haiti. So it is my pleasure to have him with us today. He has served nearly three decades in the Foreign Service. He's taught at the National War College, lectured at the State Department's Foreign Service Institute, and is a member of CFR. So, Ambassador Duddy, you bring all of your experience to this conversation to talk about this very small question of the state of democracy in Latin America and what U.S. policy should be. It's a broad topic, but I'm going to turn it over to you to give us your insight and analysis. DUDDY: Well, good afternoon, or morning, to all of those who have tuned in, and, Irina, thank you to you and the other folks at the Council for giving me this opportunity. I thought I would begin with a brief introduction, partially rooted in my own experience in the region, and then leave as much time as possible for questions. To start with, let us remember that President Biden held a Democracy Summit in early December, and in opening that summit he emphasized that for the current American administration, in particular, the defense of democracy is, I believe he said, a defining challenge, going ahead. Now, I, certainly, subscribe to that assertion, and I'd also like to start by reminding folks how far the region has come in recent decades. I flew down to Chile during the Pinochet regime to join the embassy in the very early 1980s, and I recall that the Braniff Airlines flight that took me to Santiago, essentially, stopped in every burg and dorf with an airport from Miami to Santiago. It used to be called the milk run. And in virtually every country in which we landed there was a military dictatorship and human rights were honored more in the breach than in fact. Things have really changed quite substantially since then, and during much of the '80s we saw a pretty constant move in the direction of democracy and somewhat later in the '80s also, in many parts of Latin America, an embrace of a market-oriented economic policy. There was some slippage even in the early part of the new millennium. But, nevertheless, the millennium opened on 9-11-2001 with the signature in Lima, Peru, of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Secretary Powell was, in fact, in Lima for the signing of that agreement, which was endorsed by every country in the region except Cuba. This was a major step forward for a region that had been synonymous with strongman politics, military government, and repression. The slippage since then has been significant and, indeed, as recently as a year or two ago during the pandemic the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Management or Electoral Administration—I believe it's called IDEA—noted that across much of the region, publics were losing faith in democracy as the preferred form of government. I would say, rather more pointedly, of real significance in recent years has been the deterioration of democracy in a series of countries and the inability of the rest of the hemisphere to do anything about it, notwithstanding the fact that the hemisphere as a whole had indicated that full participation in the inter-American system required democratic governance and respect for human rights. Venezuela now is pretty unapologetically an authoritarian government. So is Nicaragua, and there has been real slippage in a number of other countries in the region as well. I think it would be appropriate to ask, given the progress made from, say, the early '80s through the year 2000, what accounts for this, and I would say there are a number of key factors. By and large, I would note, the factors are internal. That is to say they derive from circumstances within the region and are not necessarily a consequence of external subversion. Poverty, inequality, crony capitalism in some cases, criminality, drug trafficking—these things continue to bedevil a range of countries within the region. Endemic corruption is something that individual countries have struggled with and, by and large, been unsuccessful in significantly reducing. In effect, governability, as a general heading, probably explains or is the heading under which we should investigate just why it is that some publics have lost faith in democracy. You know, we've had several really interesting elections lately. Let's set aside just for the moment the reality that, particularly since 2013, Venezuela has deteriorated dramatically in virtually every respect—politically, economically—in terms of, you know, quality of life indicators, et cetera, as has Nicaragua, and look, for instance, at Peru. Peru has held a free, fair—recently held a free, fair election, one that brought a significant change to the government in that the new president, a teacher, is a figure on the left. Now, I don't think we, collectively or hemisphere, there's, certainly, no problem with that. But what accounts for the fact that a place like Peru has seen wild swings between figures of the left and of the right, and has most recently, notwithstanding a decade of mostly sustained significant macroeconomic growth, why have they embraced a figure who so—at least in his campaign so profoundly challenged the existing system? I would argue it's because macroeconomic growth was not accompanied by microeconomic change—that, basically, the poor remained poor and the gap between rich and poor was, largely, undiminished. Arguably, much the same thing has happened recently in Chile, the country which was for decades the yardstick by which the quality of democracy everywhere else in the hemisphere was frequently judged. The new president or the president—I guess he's just taken office here—president-elect in Chile is a young political activist of the left who has, in the past, articulated an enthusiasm for figures like Hugo Chavez or even Fidel Castro, and now, as the elected president, has begun to use a more moderate rhetoric. But, again, the country which, arguably, has had the greatest success in reducing poverty has, nevertheless, seen a dramatic swing away from a more conventional political figure to someone who is advocating radical change and the country is on the verge of—and in the process of revising its constitution. How do we explain that? I think in both cases it has to do with frustration of the electorate with the ability of the conventional systemic parties, we might say, to deliver significant improvement to the quality of life and a significant reduction of both poverty and income inequality, and I note that income inequality persists even when at times poverty has been reduced and is a particularly difficult problem to resolve. Now, we've also seen, just to cite a third example, just recently this past weekend an election in Costa Rica, which was well administered and the results of which have been accepted unquestionably by virtually all of the political figures, and I point to Costa Rica, in part, because I've spent a good deal of time there. I've witnessed elections on the ground. But what is the reality? The reality is over decades, indeed, certainly, beginning in the late '40s during the administration of the first “Pepe” Figueres, the country has been successful in delivering quality services to the public. As a result, though, notwithstanding the fact that there have been changes, there's been no serious deterioration in the country's embrace of democracy or its enthusiasm for its own political institutions. This makes it not entirely unique but very closely unique in the Central American context. A number of other things that I'd like to just leave with you or suggest that we should consider today. So we—throughout much of Latin America we're seeing sort of plausibly well-administered elections but we are seeing often sort of dramatic challenges, sometimes to political institutions but often to economic policy, and those challenges have resulted in tremendous pendulum swings in terms of public policy from one administration to the next, which, at times, has undermined stability and limited the attractiveness of the region for foreign direct investment. Beyond that, though, we're also seeing a kind of fracturing of the region. In 2001, when the Inter-American Democratic Charter was embraced—was signed in Lima—an event that would have, perhaps, attracted a good deal more attention had other things not happened on that very same day—much of the region, I think, we would understand, was, largely, on the same page politically and even to some degree economically, and much of the region embraced the idea of—I'm sorry, I'm losing my signal here—much of the region embraced a deeper and productive relationship with the United States. The situation in Venezuela, which has generated over—right around 6 million refugees—it's the largest refugee problem in the world after Syria—has, to some degree, highlighted some of the changes with respect to democracy. The first—and I'm going to end very shortly, Irina, and give folks an opportunity to ask questions—the first is the frustration and the inability of the region to enforce, you know, its own mandates, its own requirement that democracy be—and democratic governance and respect for human rights be a condition for participation in the inter-American system. And further to that, what we've seen is a breakup of the one larger group of countries in the region which had been attempting to encourage the return to democracy in Venezuela, known as the Lima Group. So what we've seen is that the commitment to democracy as a hemispheric reality has, to some degree, eroded. At the same time, we are increasingly seeing the region as a theater for big power competition. You know, it was only within the last few days that President Fernández, for instance, of Argentina traveled to meet with both the Russian leadership and the Chinese. This is not inherently problematical but it probably does underscore the degree to which the United States is not the only major power active in the region. We may still have the largest investment stock in the region, but China is now the largest trading partner for Brazil, for Chile, for Peru, the largest creditor for Venezuela. I haven't yet touched on Central America and that's a particularly difficult set of problems. But what I would note is while we, in the United States, are wrestling with a range of issues, from refugees to drug trafficking, we are also simultaneously trying to deepen our trade relationships with the region, relationships which are already very important to the United States. And, unfortunately, our political influence in the region, I believe, has become diluted over time by inattention at certain moments and because of the rise or the introduction of new and different players, players who are frequently not particularly interested in local political systems much less democracy, per se. So, if I may, I'll stop there. As Irina has pointed out, I served extensively around the region for thirty years and I'd be happy to try and answer questions on virtually any of the countries, certainly, those in which I have served. FASKIANOS: So I'm going to go first to Babak Salimitari. If you could unmute yourself and give us your affiliation, Babak. Q: Good morning, Ambassador. My name is Babak. I am a third-year student at UCI and my question—you mentioned the far-left leaders who have gained a lot of traction and power in different parts of Latin America. Another guy that comes to mind is the socialist in Honduras. But, simultaneously, you've also seen a drift to the far right with presidents like President AMLO—you have President Bolsonaro—all who are, basically, the opposite of the people in Honduras and, I'd say, Chile. So what is—these are countries that—I know they're very different from one another, but the problems that they face like poverty, income inequality, I guess, drug trafficking, they exist there and they also exist there. Why have these two different sort of polarities—political polarities arose—arisen, arose— DUDDY: Risen. (Laughs.) Q: —in these countries? DUDDY: That's a great question. I would note, first of all, I don't see President Lόpez Obrador of Mexico as a leader of the right. He is, certainly—he, largely, comes from the left, in many respects, and is, essentially, a populist, and I would say populism rather than sort of a right/left orientation is often a key consideration. Returning to my earlier comment in that what I see is popular frustration with governments around the region, often, President Bolsonaro was elected in the—in a period in which public support for government institutions in Brazil, particularly, the traditional political parties, was at an especially low level, right. There had been a number of major corruption scandals and his candidacy appeared to be—to some, at least—to offer a kind of tonic to the problems which had beset the earlier governments from the Workers' Party. He, clearly, is a figure of the right but I think the key thing is he represented change. I think, you know, my own experience is that while some leaders in Latin America draw their policy prescriptions from a particular ideology, the voters, essentially, are looking at very practical considerations. Has the government in power been able to deliver on its promises? Has life gotten better or worse? President Piñera in Chile was a figure of the right, widely viewed as a conservative pro-market figure. The PT in Brazil—the Workers' Party—came from the left. Both were succeeded by figures from the other end of the political spectrum and I think it was more a matter of frustration than ideology. I hope that answers your question. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next written question from Terron Adlam, who's an undergraduate student at Delaware State University. Essentially, can you discuss the relationship between climate change and the future of democracy in Latin America? DUDDY: Well, that's just a small matter but it's an important one, actually. The fact is that especially in certain places climate change appears to be spurring migration and poverty, and there are people here at Duke—some of my colleagues—and elsewhere around the country looking very specifically at the links between, especially, drought and other forms of climate change, the, you know, recovery from hurricanes, et cetera, and instability, unemployment, decline in the quality of services. Overburdened countries, for instance, in Central America have sometimes not recovered from one hurricane before another one hits, and this has effects internally but it has also tended to complicate and possibly accelerate the movement of populations from affected areas to other areas. Sometimes that migration is internal and sometimes it's cross-border. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to a raised hand, Arnold Vela. If you—there you go. Q: Good afternoon, Ambassador Duddy. DUDDY: Good afternoon. Q: I'm Arnold Vela. I served in the Foreign Service for a couple of years and I'm now retired teaching government at Northwest Vista College. I think you put your finger on a very important point, which is that of the economic inequality and poverty that exists in Latin America, and, you know, with that being the case, I think Shannon O'Neil makes a good case about focusing on economic policy. And I was wondering what your thoughts were on ways in which we could do that in terms of, for example, foreign development investment, which may be decreasing because of a tendency to look inward for economic development in the United States. But are there other mechanisms, such as through the U.S. Treasury Department, financial ways to cut corruption? And also what about the Inter-American Development Bank? Should it be expanded in its role for not just infrastructure development but for such things as microeconomic development that you mentioned? Thank you. DUDDY: You know, as deputy assistant secretary, I, actually had the economic portfolio for the Western Hemisphere for a couple of years within the State Department. Clearly, trade is important. Foreign direct investment is, I think, critical. One of the things that we need to remember when we talk about foreign direct investment is that, typically, it's private money, right—it's private money—and that means governments and communities need to understand that in order to attract private money they need to establish conditions in which investors can see a reasonable return and in which they can enjoy a reasonable measure of security. That can be very, very difficult in the—Arnold, as you probably will recall, in much of Latin America, for instance, in the energy sector—and Latin America has immense energy resources—but the energy resources are frequently subject to a kind of resource nationalism. And so my experience is that in some parts of Latin America it's difficult to attract the kind of investment that could make a very substantial difference in part because local politics, largely, preclude extending either ownership or profit participation in the development of some resources. The fact that those things were not initially permitted in Mexico led to a constitutional change in order to permit both profit sharing and foreign ownership to some degree of certain resources. Investors need a certain measure of security and that involves, among other things, making sure that there is a reasonable expectation of equal treatment under the law, right. So legal provisions as well as a determination to attract foreign investment. Places like—little places, if you will, like Costa Rica have been very, very successful at attracting foreign investment, in part because they've worked hard to create the conditions necessary to attract private money. I would note—let me just add one further thought, and that is part of the problem in—I think, in some places has been something that we in the United States have often called crony capitalism. We need to make sure that competition for contracts, et cetera, is, in fact, transparent and fair. As for international institutions, there are many in the United States that are sometimes with which the region is unfamiliar like, for instance, the Trade and Development Agency, which promotes, among other things, feasibility studies, and the only condition for assistance from the TDA is that subsequent contracts be fairly and openly competed and that American companies be allowed to compete. So there are resources out there and I, certainly, would endorse a greater concentration on Latin America and I think it can have a real impact. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question—a written question—from Chaney Howard, who is a business major at Howard University. You spoke about the erosion of democratic push in Latin America growth, specifically with the Lima Group. What do you feel would need to happen for a new power to be established or encouraged to help nations band together and improve democratic growth? DUDDY: Well, the Lima Group was—which was organized in 2017 for the express purpose of advocating for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela, fell apart, essentially, as countries began to look more internally, struggling, in particular, with the early economic consequences of the pandemic. Some of you will remember that, particularly, early on, for instance, cruise ships in the Caribbean, essentially, stopped sailing. Well, much of the Caribbean depends absolutely on tourism, right. So the pandemic, effectively, turned people's attention to their own internal challenges. I think that we have good institutions still. But I think that we need to find ways other than just sanctions to encourage support for democracy. The U.S. has been particularly inclined in recent years not to interventionism but to sanctioning other countries. While sometimes—and I've sometimes advocated for sanctions myself, including to the Congress, in very limited circumstances—my sense is that we need to not only be prepared to sanction but also to encourage. We need to have a policy that offers as many carrots as sticks, and we need to be prepared to engage more actively than we have in the last fifteen years on this. Some of these problems date back some time. Now, one particularly important source of development assistance has always been the Millennium Challenge account, and there is a key issue there, which, I think, largely, limits the degree to which the Millennium Challenge Corporation can engage and that is middle income countries aren't eligible for their large assistance programs. I think we should revisit that because while some countries qualify as middle income, when you only calculate per capita income using GDP, countries with serious problems of income inequality as well as poverty are not eligible and I think that we should consider formulae that would allow us to channel more assistance into some of those economies. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Kennedy Himmel, who does not have access to a mic, a student at University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. There seems to be surmounting evidence that suggests that U.S. imperialism has waged both covert warfare and regime change itself in Central American countries through the last century and our current one. The most notable cases was Operation Condor, which peaked during Reagan's administration. You suggested the problems plaguing these countries' embrace of primarily right-wing dictatorships is a product of crony capitalism, poverty, and corruption, which are all internal problems. Do you think some of these problems of these countries are a byproduct of U.S. and Western meddling, economic warfare, the imposition of Western neoliberalism? DUDDY: Well, that's a good question. My own experience in the region dates from the early '80s. I mean, certainly, during the Cold War the United States tended to support virtually any government that we perceived or that insisted that they were resolutely anti-communist. For decades now the U.S. has made support for democracy a pillar of its policies in the region and I think we have, largely, evolved out of the—you know, our earlier, you know, period of either interventionism or, in a sense, sometimes even when we were not entirely—when we were not active we were complicit in that we applied no standard other than anti-communism with the countries we were willing to work with. That was a real problem. I note, by the way, for any who are interested that several years ago—about five years ago now, if I'm not mistaken, Irina—the Foreign Affairs, which is published by the Council on Foreign Relations, ran a series of articles in one issue called “What Really Happened?”, and for those interested in what really happened in Chile during the Allende government, there is a piece in there by a man named Devine, who was actually in the embassy during the coup and was working, as he now acknowledges, for the CIA. So I refer you to that. My sense in recent decades is that the U.S. has, certainly, tried to advance its own interests but has not been in the business of undermining governments, and much of the economic growth which some countries have sustained has derived very directly from the fact that we've negotiated free trade agreements with more countries in Latin America than any other part of the world. I remember very distinctly about five years into the agreement with Chile that the volume of trading both directions—and as a consequence, not just employment, but also kind of gross income—hence, had very substantially increased; you know, more than a hundred percent. The same has been true with Mexico. So, you know, we have a history in the region. I think it is, largely, explained by looking at U.S. policy and understanding that it was—almost everything was refracted through the optic of the Cold War. But, you know, it's now many decades since that was the case. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go to Elizabeth McDowell, who has a raised hand. Q: Hi. I'm Elizabeth McDowell. I'm a graduate student in public policy at Duke University. Ambassador Duddy, thanks for your talk. I want to ask a question about a potential tradeoff between good governance and— DUDDY: I lost your audio. Please repeat. Q: How's my audio now? OK. My— DUDDY: You'll have to repeat the question. Q: My question is about critical minerals and metals in the region and, essentially, these metals and minerals, including lithium, cobalt, and nickel, copper, others, are essential for clean energy transition, and there are a lot of countries that have instituted new policies in order to gain financially from the stores since these minerals are very prevalent in the region. And my question is do you think that there's a tradeoff between sustainable development and having the minerals that we need at low cost and countries being able to benefit economically from their natural resource stores? DUDDY: Yeah. I'm not quite sure how I would characterize the tradeoffs. But, you know, as I mentioned with respect, for instance, to oil and gas but the same applies to lithium, cobalt, et cetera, in much of Latin America the resources that are below the surface of the Earth belong to the nation, right. They belong to the nation. And in some places—I very vividly remember in Bolivia—there was tremendous resistance at a certain point to the building of a pipeline by a foreign entity which would take Bolivian gas out of the country. And that resistance was rooted in Bolivia's history in the sense that much of the population had—that the country had been exploited for five hundred years and they just didn't trust the developers to make sure that the country shared appropriately in the exploitation of the country's gas resources. Just a few years ago, another—a major company, I think, based in—headquartered in India, opened and then closed a major operation that was going to develop—I think it was also lithium mining—in Bolivia because of difficulties imposed by the government. I understand why those difficulties are imposed in countries which have been exploited but note that the exploitation of many of these resources is capital intensive and in many of these countries is going to require capital from outside the country. And so countries have to find a way to both assure a reasonable level of compensation to the companies as well as income to the country. So that's the challenge, right. That is the challenge. For the time being, in some places the Chinese have been able to not just exploit but have been able to do business, in part, because they have a virtually insatiable appetite for these minerals and as well as for other commodities. But long-term development has to be vertically integrated and that—and I think that's going to take a lot of external money and, again, certain countries are going to have to figure out how to do that when we're talking about resources which, to a very large degree, are viewed as patrimony of the nation. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Leah Parrott, who's a sophomore at NYU. Do you find that globalization itself, the competitive global markets, vying for influence in the region are a cause of the rise in the populist frustration that you have been talking about? DUDDY: Hmm. Interesting question. I suppose it has—you know, there is a connection. Just to give sort of a visceral response, the fact is that there are cultural differences in certain markets and regions of the world. Some countries have—you know, have taken a different approach to the development of their own labor markets as well as trade policy. I would say that, today, the reality is we can't avoid globalization so—and no one country controls it. So countries that have heretofore been unsuccessful in inserting themselves and seeing the same kind of growth that other countries have experienced are going to have to adapt. What we do know from earlier experiences in Latin America is that high tariff barriers are not the way to go, right—that that resulted in weak domestic industries, endemic corruption, and, ultimately, very, very fragile macroeconomic indicators. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Alberto Najarro, who's a graduate student at Duke Kunshan University. DUDDY: Well. Q: Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. My question is about El Salvador. I'm from El Salvador, and I'll just provide a brief overview. Since assuming the presidency and, particularly, over the last six months, President Bukele and the National Assembly dominated by Bukele's allies have moved quickly to weaken checks and balances, undermine the rule of law, and co-opt the country's judiciary, consolidating power in the executive. What do you think should be the United States' role, if any, in reversing trends of democratic backsliding in El Salvador? Given the recent events like the abrupt exit of the United States interim ambassador Jean Manes from the country, can the United States continue to engage with El Salvador, particularly, as Bukele strengthens relationship with leaders like Xi Jinping and Erdoğan? DUDDY: Well, first, my recollection is that Ambassador Jean Manes, who, by the way, is an old friend of mine, had returned to El Salvador as chargé, and I'm not sure that the Biden administration has, in fact, nominated a new ambassador yet. I tend to think that it's important to remember that we have embassies in capitals to advance U.S. interests and that when we withdraw those embassies or cease talking to a host government it hurts us as often—as much as it does them. To some degree, what we, I think, collectively, worry about is that Salvador is, essentially, on the path to authoritarianism. I note that Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, none of those three, along with Nicaragua, were invited to President Biden's Democracy Summit in December, and, you know, it may well be that the U.S. should explore a range of inducements to the government there to restore independence to the judiciary and respect for the separation of powers. I, certainly, think that it is in the interest of the United States but it's also interest—in the interest of the region. That's why the whole region came together in 2001 to sign the Inter-American Democratic Charter. How exactly that should be effected—how we should implement the—you know, the will of the region is something that, I think, that governments should work out collectively because it is my sense that collective action is better than unilateral action. Certainly, the U.S. is not going to intervene, and there are many American companies already active in El Salvador. You know, the region has found the restoration of democracy—defense of democracy, restoration of democracy—a very, very difficult job in recent years and that is in no small measure because—it's not just the United States, it's the rest of the region—even sanctions are only effective if they are broadly respected by other key players. And I'm not always sure that sanctions are the way to go. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take two written questions together since we have so many. The first is from Molly Todd from Virginia Tech. She's a PhD candidate there. When thinking of the U.S. role in democracy promotion in Latin America, how do you account for U.S. support of dictators in the region as well? And then William Weeks at Arizona State University—how much does China's influence encourage authoritarian rule and discourage democracy in Latin America? DUDDY: I'm not sure that—I'll take the last question first. I'm not sure that China's activity in the region discourages democracy but it has permitted certain strongmen figures like Nicolás Maduro to survive by serving as an alternative source of sometimes funding markets for locally produced goods and also the source of technology, et cetera, to the United States and the rest of what is euphemistically called the West, right. So China has, effectively, provided a lifeline. The lifeline, in my experience, is not particularly ideological. Now, you know, Russians in the region frequently seem interested in—to be a little bit flip, in sticking their finger in our eye and reminding the United States that they can project power and influence into the Western Hemisphere just as we can into Eastern Europe and Central Asia. But the Chinese are a little bit different. I think their interests are mostly commercial and they are uninterested in Latin American democracy, generally. So being democratic is not a condition for doing business with China. More generally, I think, I would refer to my earlier response. The U.S., basically, has not been supportive of the strongmen figure(s) who have arisen in Latin America in recent decades. But, you know, the tendency to embrace what many in Latin America call caciques, or strongmen figures—men on horseback—was established in Latin America, right—became evident in Latin America even in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, beginning, say, in particular, after World War II, we, definitely, considered things more through the optic of the Cold War, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who recalls that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, at a certain moment in, I think it was 1947, commented on Anastasio Somoza that he was an SOB but, oh, well, he was our SOB. I think that approach to Latin America has long since been shelved. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Gary Prevost. Q: Ambassador, I share your skepticism about sanctions and I'll just ask a very direct question. It's my belief that the Biden administration is, at the moment, missing real opportunities for dialogue with both Venezuela and Cuba, partly because of this bifurcation of the world into democracy and authoritarianism, something which the Obama administration really avoided and, I think, as a result, gained considerable prestige and understanding in wider Latin America. So I've been very concerned that there are opportunities being missed in both of those cases right now. DUDDY: I'll disagree with you on one part of that, noting that I've already—and, actually, I wrote a piece for the Council several years ago in which I talked about the desirability of finding an off ramp for Venezuela. But I note that the—that many of the sanctions that are—sanctions were imposed on Venezuela, in particular, over a period of time by both Republicans and Democrats, and the problem for the U.S., in particular, with Venezuela is that as the country has become less productive, more authoritarian, they have pushed out 6 million refugees and imposed huge burdens on almost all of the other countries in the subregion. I'm not sure that the U.S. is, at the moment, missing an opportunity there and, for that matter, the changes that were brought into Cuba or to Cuba policy by the Obama administration, which I endorsed, were for the most part left in place by the Trump administration, interestingly enough. There were some changes but they were not as dramatic as many who opposed those—the Obama reforms—often hoped and who wanted to reverse them. So these are both tough nuts to crack. I think that it is at least worth noting that the combination of incompetence, corruption, authoritarianism, in particular, in Venezuela, which has transformed what was at one point the most successful democracy in the region into a basket case or a near basket case, I'm not sure, you know, how we get our arms around that at the moment. But I, certainly, endorse the idea of encouraging dialogue and looking for a formula that would promote the return of democracy. And, again, you know, having lived in Venezuela, I have a sense that many—you know, Venezuelans love their country. Most of those who have left did not do so willingly or, you know, with a happy heart, if you will. These are people who found the circumstances on the ground in the country to be unbearable. Now, how we respond to that challenge, I haven't seen any new thinking on it lately. But, certainly, dialogue is a part of it. Similarly, with Cuba, we have—you know, we saw fifty years of policy that didn't work. So I would hope to, sometime in the near future, see some fresh thinking on how to proceed on that front, too. You know, the difficult thing to get around is that these are not countries which respect human rights, freedom of expression, freedom of the press. They are, in fact, repressive, which is why we have hundreds of thousands of Cuban Americans living in the United States and why we have now millions of Venezuelans living outside their own national borders. It's a real dilemma. I wish I had a solution but I don't. FASKIANOS: We are almost out of time. We have many more written questions and raised hands, and I apologize that we're not going to be able to get to them. But I am going to use my moderator power to ask you the final one. DUDDY: Uh-oh. FASKIANOS: You have served—oh, it's a good one. You've served for most of your career, over thirty years, in U.S. government and now you're teaching. What advice or what would you offer to the students on the call about pursuing a career in the Foreign Service, and what do you say to your students now and the professor, or to your colleagues about how to encourage students to pursue? We saw that it's become less attractive—became less attractive in the Trump administration. It may be up—more on the upswing. But, of course, there is, again, the pay problem and private sector versus public. So what thoughts can you leave us with? DUDDY: Well, first of all, there's—in my personal experiences, there's virtually nothing quite like being an American diplomat abroad. My personal experience is—you know, dates from the '80s. I was actually very briefly an Air Force officer in the early '70s. I think public service is inherently rewarding in ways that often working in the private sector is not, where you can really have an impact on relations between peoples and nations, and I think that's very, very exciting. I come from a family, you know, filled with, you know, lawyers, in particular, in my generation, even in the next, and I know that that can be—that kind of work or work in the private sector, the financial community, whatever, can be very exciting as well. But diplomacy is unique, and one also has the sense of doing something that benefits our own country and, one hopes, the world. At the risk of, once again, being flip, I always felt that I was on the side of the angels. You know, I think we've made many mistakes but that, by and large, our engagement in the countries in which I was working was positive. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Well, on that note, Ambassador Patrick Duddy, thank you for your service to this country. Thank you very much for sharing your insights with us. I know this is very broad to cover the whole region and we didn't do all the countries justice. DUDDY: And we have yet to—and we have yet to mention Haiti, about which I worry all the time. FASKIANOS: I know. There are so many things to cover. Not enough time, not enough hours in a day. And we appreciate everybody for your time, being with us for your great questions and comments. Again, I apologize for not getting to everybody. But we will just have to have you back. So thank you again. For all of you, our next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, February 23, at 1:00 p.m. (ET)with Roger Ferguson, who is at CFR, on the future of capitalism. So, as always, please follow us on Twitter at @CFR_Academic. Go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. We will circulate a link to the Foreign Affairs edition that Ambassador Duddy mentioned so that you can take a look at that. And thank you, again, for your time today. We appreciate it. DUDDY: It's been a pleasure. Thank you. (END

Mark Sleboda, Moscow-based international relations security analyst, joins us to discuss Ukraine and Belarus. Russian foreign policy experts argue that Ukraine's request to station US troops and anti-aircraft/missile batteries on Russia's border is proof that the West is using the Eastern European nation as a provocation point. Also, Belarus is asking some US diplomats to leave its country in response to recent sanctions from the Biden administration.K. J. Noh, peace activist, writer, and teacher, joins us to discuss China. He reviews a recent Asia Time article in which a genuine discussion of the political and economic situation inside of China reveals why the Chinese ruling party is held in such high regard by the population. Also, our guest explains China's view of the US' latest sale of weapons to Taiwan. Gerald Horne, professor of history at the University of Houston, author, historian, and researcher, joins us to talk about Iran. Iran's new president has indicated that he will be moving away from Western imperial states and reinstituting Iran's policies towards Eurasia. This perspective is partially based on a recent speech by Iran's supreme leader regarding the folly of trusting the West. Linwood Tauheed, associate professor of economics at University of Missouri- Kansas City, joins us to discuss the NSA's recent $10 billion contract to Amazon. Amazon, the project of the richest man on earth, is now economically tied to both the CIA and the NSA with cloud storage contracts. Additionally, the Jeff Bezos economic empire includes the Washington Post, the so-called "paper of record" for national security in the US.Scott Ritter, former UN weapon inspector in Iraq, joins us to discuss Israel's nuclear arsenal. Scott discusses the unspoken reality that the US is pretending that the Middle East is a nuclear-free zone, as they are working to keep Israel in place as the only nation in the unstable region with nuclear weapons. Nino Pagliccia, activist and writer, joins us to discuss Peru. Upon taking power as the new President, leftist Pedro Castillo has announced that Peru will be leaving the Lima Group, a lackey organization for the US empire which works to undermine the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Also, has the Washington Post begun its disinformation articles attacking President Castillo? A recent article certainly seems to be pointing in that direction. Darryl Jones, attorney, joins us to discuss Texas voting legislation. The Texas legislature has passed far-reaching legislation that voting rights activists claim is specifically designed to make it more difficult for marginalized communities to vote. Also, the latest ruling by the Texas Supreme Court will allow state law enforcement to track down quorum-breaking Democrats blocking voter suppression legislation.Ajamu Baraka, former VP candidate for the Green Party, joins us to discuss Cuba. The recent US intelligence operation against Cuba has failed miserably, and our guest explains why he believes that the new grassroots social movements will overcome US hegemonic desires in the Global South. Also, new organic organizations are popping up in Latin America with the express mission of thwarting US aggression.

Welcome to the People's Voice Podcast. Visit us online at www.peoplesvoice.caThe Lima Group is a Canada-led organization dedicated to the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. In January 2019, National Assembly member Juan Guaidó tried to declare himself president of Venezuela, and Lima Group countries—with the exception of Saint Lucia—recognize Guaidó as president.The Lima Group has faced criticism within Canada and from member states' politicians and journalists. Dr. Maria Paez Victor, a Venezuelan sociologist living in Canada, explained: “Unable to get the Organization of American States (OAS) votes needed to agree to their nefarious plot, this group of governments with no official international standing, few democratic principles, most led by known discredited leaders… allied itself, throwing all of its diplomatic and economic support behind a man who self-proclaimed himself president of Venezuela in a public plaza, violating the country's constitution and all electoral rules. So much for the ‘respect for the rule of law' that the Canadian Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland so frequently spouts.”Read the article in full.

In this double episode Raul Barbano and Michelle Munjanattu report back about Venezuela's December 6th, 2020 National Assembly elections as they served as election observers, and speak about the Bolivarian revolution, the impact of sanctions on Venezuela and the economic and political crisis facing the country, the Lima Group's role in capitalist accumulation in the region, U.S. and Canadian imperialism and ways social movements are mobilizing against the crisis. This episode also offers rich reflections and examples of how to build a communal and socialist society and offer lessons from the global south on how to resist capitalism and emphasizes the importance of political education and solidarity in struggle, and shares liberatory visions for another world.

As the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela continues to deteriorate, a debate has risen among policymakers as to whether or not sanctions may be worsening conditions for Venezuelan citizens.  While the United States, the Lima Group, the European Union, and other like-minded nations continue to increase pressure on the regime of Nicolás Maduro with diplomatic measures such as challenging his government’s legitimacy, the question remains as to whether sanctions are an effective measure for changing the behavior of the Venezuelan regime and pushing Maduro to step down. Despite external support by Russia, Cuba, China, and a few other countries, Maduro is more alienated on the world stage than ever before. However, stiff sanctions and diplomatic isolation have not yet convinced Maduro to negotiate his exit, as his regime has proven to be resilient and adaptable .  The expert panel will assess the efficacy of sanctions, including what is and is not working, as well as implications for U.S. foreign policy, the energy sector, and the impact on Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis and its struggle for democracy.    Keynote presentation: Carrie Filipetti, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Cuba and Venezuela, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State Panel Discussion Featuring: Eric B. Lorber, Director, Financial Integrity NetworkElizabeth Rosenberg, Senior Fellow and Director of the Energy, Economics, and Security Program, Center for a New American SecurityDavid Smolansky, Coordinator of the OAS Working Group on Venezuelan Migrants and Refugees; Former Mayor of El Hatillo, VenezuelaFrancisco J. Monaldi, Fellow, Latin American Energy Policy, Rice University Moderated by: Moises Rendon, Director, The Future of Venezuela Initiative; Fellow, CSIS Americas Program This event was made possible through general support to CSIS.

Guest: Joe Emersberger. We talk about the latest failed coup in Venezuela, the sanctions causing tens of thousands of deaths, and the level of political support or resistance to intervention in the US and Europe. We also discuss Canada’s foreign policy and involvement in the American and British empires. Lastly we assess the risk of a larger war with Russia and China as they oppose American aggression and sanctions in various parts of the world. Joe Emersberger is a Canadian engineer and UNIFOR member with Ecuadorian roots. He writes for FAIR, Venezuela Analysis, Counterpunch, The Canary, MintPress News, Telesur English, and Znet. Timestamps: 00:00 Canada’s foreign policy and involvement in US empire and British empire 10:00 LIMA Group 12:45 Venezuela Constituent Assembly, 2018 election 18:20 Sanctions causing tens of  thousands of deaths in Venezuela 19:30 January 23 and April 30 coup attempts 36:00 Political support and resistance to intervention and sanctions in US and Europe 43:00 Maduro cabinet members’ false defections 48:00 Warnings against military intervention 57:00 Anti-interventionist movement 1:00:00 Trump-Putin phone call on Venezuela, larger risk of war with Russia & China   FOLLOW Joe on Twitter @rosendo_joe and find his writing at FAIR, Venezuela Analysis, Counterpunch, The Canary, MintPress News, Telesur English, and Znet. Around the Empire is listener supported, independent media. Pitch in if you can at Patreon: patreon.com/aroundtheempire or paypal.me/aroundtheempirepod. Website: aroundtheempire.com. SUBSCRIBE on YouTube. FOLLOW @aroundtheempire and @joanneleon. SUBSCRIBE/FOLLOW on iTunes, iHeart, Spotify, Google Play, Facebook or on your preferred podcast app. Recorded on May 4, 2019. Music by Fluorescent Grey. Reference Links: Report finds that US sanctions have killed 40,000 people in Venezuela since 2017, Joe Emersberger, The Canary The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy, Yves Engler Trump’s May 3 tweet about phone call with Putin Kremlin readout on Trump’s phone call with Putin Venezuela's Failed Uprising: How a Deal to Oust Maduro Unraveled, Bloomberg Quotes from retired Adm. James Stavridis in Foreign Policy: Venezuela Is at a ‘Tipping Point’

Freelance journalist Stefano Pozzebon reports from Caracas on the daily struggles Venezuelans face to get food, water, medicine and electricity. Eric Farnsworth, vice-president of the Council of the Americas and the Americas Society, discusses the broader geopolitical forces at play with regards to the Venezuela crisis. Tamara Taraciuk Broner, senior Americas researcher for Human Rights Watch, comments on the country’s current humanitarian situation and the need for the United Nations to declare it an emergency. Isaac Nahon, a Venezuelan expat and professor in the department of communication at the University of Ottawa, talks about what more Canada and the Lima Group should be doing to address the severe circumstances in his home country. More at cpac.ca/perspective

Tonight on From Embers we’re talking about the unfolding crisis in Venezuela, and specifically the role of the Canadian state and the Lima Group. We open with a bit of a rant about how tricky anti-imperialist politics can be for anarchists to navigate - somewhat coincidentally, the topic of the week on Anarchist News this week. Then we feature an interview with Lydia of the Women's Coordinating Committee for a Free Wallmapu, a grassroots organization based in Toronto with ties to the Mapuche struggle in Chile. I asked her about Canada’s role in the intervention and recent actions she’s taken to disrupt mainstream narratives about so-called democracy in Venezuela. A few background English-language anarchist articles about Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution: Anarkismo Visit Report (2004) Socialism to the Highest Bidder (2006) True and False in Venezeula (2014) Roland Denis Interview (2016) Uruguayan Anarchists on Popular Power in Venezuela (2017) Black Rose statement (2019)

Venezuela in Focus is a weekly news podcast dedicated to analyzing news developing from Venezuela, hosted by Roberto Hung and Oscar Schlenker. On this first show recorded on 2-23-2019 we discuss topics dealing with Live Aid Venezuela, Humanitarian Aid entering and being blocked at the border, assault on indigenous tribes, the Venezuelan Armed Forces, the role of Lima Group and UN will have this week and much more. Please support our podcast by following us on twitter @robertohungc and @oschlenkernews.    

On today's episode Loud & Clear has a special and extensive interview with Venezuela’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jorge Arreaza. In addition to his current role of the country’s top diplomat, which he has held since 2017, Minister Arreaza previously served in the cabinet as the Minister in charge of education, science and technology and was Venezuela’s Vice President from 2013 to 2016. Loud & Clear Producer Walter Smolarek traveled to New York on Sunday to conduct the interview at Venezuela’s diplomatic residence in the city. Then, following the dramatic events of last Saturday, where supporters of coup leader Juan Guaidó attempted to storm the Venezuela-Colombia border, the so-called Lima Group of countries supporting Guaidó held a high-profile meeting in Colombia where Mike Pence gave an address. Loud & Clear Producer Walter Smolarek fills John and Nicole in on the latest. Co-host Brian Becker is in Hanoi this week to cover the second summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The President said yesterday that he has high hopes for the meetings this week, that he and Kim are “on the same page,” and that he is confident the two countries can settle their differences. Administration officials are suggesting that Vietnam could be a model for a future North Korea. Brian Becker joins the show from Hanoi, Vietnam. Monday’s segment “Education for Liberation with Bill Ayers” is where Bill helps us look at the state of education across the country. What’s happening in our schools, colleges, and universities, and what impact does it have on the world around us? The hosts focus on the Oakland teacher strike, in its third day. Today, Rick Ayers, a professor of education at the University of San Francisco and co-author of the book “You Can’t Fire the Bad Ones: And 18 Other Myths about Teachers, Teachers Unions, and Public Education,” joins Walter and John. Monday’s regular segment Technology Rules with Chris Garaffa is a weekly guide on how monopoly corporations and the national surveillance state are threatening cherished freedoms, civil rights and civil liberties. Web developer and technologist Chris Garaffa joins the show.

On Saturday, Venezuela's National Guard fired tear gas on residents at a bridge between Venezuela and Colombia, as the opposition party began its high-risk plan to deliver humanitarian aid to the region, despite objections from embattled President Nicolas Maduro. What does this mean for the escalating circumstances in the region? While speaking at the annual meeting of leaders of the Lima Group, a coalition of more than a dozen nations mostly from Latin America, US Vice President Mike Pence announced that effective Monday, the US would impose sanctions on regime officials, including three border-state governors implicated in last weekend's violence and a member of Maduro's inner circle. What's going on here?President Donald Trump announced Sunday that he would hold off on implementing planned tariff hikes on hundreds of goods imported from China, citing "substantial progress" in high-level trade talks between the two nations. The president also tweeted that he would hold a summit meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida to finalize an agreement, "assuming both sides make additional progress." "A very good weekend for the US & China!" Trump wrote at the conclusion of the two-part Twitter message. What does this really mean? The violence during Nigeria's delayed presidential and legislative polls has claimed at least 27 lives and injured several others, an NGO closely following the election said. On Sunday, the Election Network group said the outbreak of violence was "worrying," and the authorities had been warned about the risk, as another civil society group said the death toll could be as high as 35. What's behind this unrest, and how do Nigerians reach a point where a peaceful transition of power can take place?GUESTS:Greg Palast — Covered Venezuela for The Guardian and BBC Television's "Newsnight." His BBC reports are the basis of his film, "The Assassination of Hugo Chavez," available as a free download from his website, GregPalast.comDaniel Lazare — Journalist and author of three books: "The Frozen Republic," "The Velvet Coup" and "America's Undeclared War."Iyabo Obasanjo — Professor at the College of William and Mary. Daughter of former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, appointed commissioner for health in the Ogun State of Nigeria in 2003 and elected to the Nigerian Senate in 2007, where she was the chair of the Health Committee.

LISTEN TO KERRE MCIVOR TALK WITH CODY WEDDLE, VENEZUELAN CORRESPONDENT FROM SAN ANTONIO DEL TACHIRAOppositionleader Juan Guaido has called on the international community to consider "all options" to resolve Venezuela's crisis, a dramatic escalation in rhetoric that echoes comments from the Trump administration hinting at potential U.S. military involvement.Guaido's comments late Saturday came after a tumultuous day that saw President Nicolas Maduro's forces fire tear gas and buckshot on activists trying to deliver humanitarian aid in violent clashes that left two people dead and some 300 injured.For weeks, the U.S. and regional allies had been amassing emergency food and medical kits on Venezuela's borders in anticipation of carrying out a "humanitarian avalanche" by land and sea to undermine Maduro's rule.With activists failing to penetrate government blockades and deliver the aid, Guaido announced late Saturday that he would escalate his appeal to the international community — beginning with a meeting Monday in Colombia's capital with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence on the sidelines of an emergency summit of leaders of the so-called Lima Group to discuss Venezuela's crisis.He said he would urge the international community to keep "all options open" in the fight to restore Venezuela's democracy, using identical language to that of President Donald Trump, who in his public statements has repeatedly refused to rule out force and reportedly even secretly pressed aides as early as 2017 about the possibility of a military incursion.Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has also stepped up the belligerent rhetoric, saying on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that Maduro's "days are numbered."A close Guadio ally, Julio Borges, the exiled leader of congress who is Guaido's ambassador to the Lima Group, was even more explicit in urging a military option. "We are going to demand an escalation of diplomatic pressure ... and the use of force against Nicolas Maduro's dictatorship," he said Sunday.It's a prospect that analysts warn risks fracturing a hard-won coalition of Latin American nations who've come together to pressure Maduro's socialist government. Most Latin American governments, even conservative ones like those in neighboring Colombia and Brazil, are on the record opposing a military solution and would face huge dissent should they back any military action led by the U.S., whose interventions in the region during the Cold War remain an open wound."These governments know they would face a huge tide of internal opinion greatly offended by a US-led invasion for historical and political reasons," said Ivan Briscoe, the Latin America director for the Crisis Group, a Belgium-based think tank.At the same time, though polls say Venezuelans overwhelmingly want Maduro to resign, almost an equal number reject the possibility of a foreign invasion to resolve the political impasse.Resting at the foot of the Simon Bolivar bridge as work crews in Colombia began removing debris left by the unrest, Claudia Aguilar said she would support a military invasion but worries it would lead to more bloodshed.The 29-year-old pregnant mother of three said she crossed illegally into Colombia on Sunday to buy a bag of rice and pasta for her family after Maduro ordered a partial closure of the border two days earlier."We're with fear, dear God, of what will happen," she said standing near the dirt trail she took to sneak across the border. "More blood, more deaths. The president of Venezuela does whatever he wants."In addition to weakening multilateral pressure against Maduro, analysts say the opposition saber rattling also risks undermining Guaido's goal of peeling off support from the military, the country's crucial powerbroker.The 35-year-old Guaido has won the backing of more than 50 governments around the world since declaring himself interim president at a rally in January, arguing that Maduro's re-election last year wa...

Ana Vanessa Herrero, a reporter in Caracas for the New York Times, discusses the mood on the ground among everyday citizens in the country in the wake of recent protests against President Nicolás Maduro. Phil Gunson, senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, describes the complex political manoeuvring between President Maduro and opposition leader Juan Guaido, as well as the international reaction to the situation. Fen Hampson, executive director of the World Refugee Council, talks about the refugee crisis that the instability in Venezuela has caused for neighbouring countries and also what to expect from next week’s meeting of the Lima Group in Ottawa. Deborah Hines, the country director in Colombia for the UN World Food Programme, speaks about the Venezuelans who have fled to Colombia and what kind of support can be provided to them. More info at cpac.ca/perspective

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Alexander Mercouris, the editor-in-chief of The Duran; Ann Wright, a retired United States Army colonel who resigned in protest of the invasion of Iraq and became an anti-war activist; Kim Ives, an editor of the newspaper Haiti Liberte; and producer Walter Smolarek.The United States makes a practice of touting international coalitions as a means to achieve a military or foreign policy goal. Just think of the coalition to defeat ISIS, the Coalition of the Willing that was the Iraq War, the coalition that overthrew the Libyan government, the Lima Group, and others. But these international coalitions are really just a myth. They serve as a cover for US intervention around the world in the absence of a United Nations Security Council Resolution or other international approval for military action. Thursday’s weekly series “Criminal Injustice” is about the most egregious conduct of our courts and prosecutors and how justice is denied to so many people in this country. Paul Wright, the founder and executive director of the Human Rights Defense Center and editor of Prison Legal News (PLN), and Kevin Gosztola, a writer for Shadowproof.com and co-host of the podcast Unauthorized Disclosure, join the show. An international conference of neutral countries will be held today in Uruguay to jumpstart a dialogue between Venezuelans seeking a way out of the current crisis sparked by the U.S.-orchestrated effort to install Juan Guiadó as Venezuela’s president. Spokesmen for the governments of Uruguay and Mexico said they expect at least 10 countries to be represented at the talks today in Montevideo. Brian and John speak with Aline Piva, a journalist and a member of Brazilians for Democracy and Social Justice, and Sputnik News analyst Walter Smolarek The Virginia Democratic Party is in a state of collapse. Senior Democrats around the country are calling for Governor Ralph Northam to resign after allegations that he appeared in blackface and with a friend dressed as a Ku Klux Klansman in college. Attorney General Mark Herring also admitted to appearing in blackface while in college. And Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax is being accused of sexually assaulting a woman. If all three are forced to resign, as appears increasingly likely, the Republican House Speaker would become governor. He became speaker after an election was decided by drawing lots from a hat. Rebecca Keel, a Richmond community organizer and a member of Southerners on New Ground, joins the show. Veterans for Peace is Thursday’s regular segment about the contemporary issues of war and peace that affect veterans, their families, and the country as a whole. Gerry Condon, a Vietnam-era veteran and war resister who refused orders to deploy to Vietnam and lived in exile in Canada and Sweden for 6 years, organizing with other U.S. military deserters and draft resisters against the Vietnam war, and for amnesty for U.S. war resisters, joins the show. He has been a peace and solidarity activist for almost 50 years and has served on the Board of Veterans For Peace for the last 6 years, currently as national president. This week, Sputnik News analyst Walter Smolarek also joins the show. Jill Abramson, the former Executive Editor of the New York Times, is being accused of plagiarising portions of her new book, “Merchants of Truth: The Business of News and the Fight for Facts,” which purports to be an expose of Vice News. Abramson told Fox News yesterday that she had no comment, other than to deny plagiarism. But Vice News released a carefully-annotated side-by-side comparison of the book along with passages from Time Out and The New Yorker magazines and the Columbia Journalism Review that show uncanny similarities. Ted Rall, an award-winning editorial cartoonist and columnist, whose work is at www.rall.com, joins the show.Israel’s Minister of Justice, Ayelet Shaked, who now co-chairs a new political party called “The New Right,” recently posted a tweet accusing the Israeli right wing party Likud of being left. That’s a common put-down right now in Israel. But what it really means is the accused is weak and unwilling to kill Palestinians. Brian and John speak with Sputnik news analyst Walter Smolarek.

What is the government doing to protect a cyber attack in the next federal election?  And what about fake news?  Plus Canada will host the Lima Group on Monday in Ottawa to discuss the crisis in Venezuela, what can these countries from Central and South America do?  And preparing workers for future employment, what one company is saying may be the solution? Guests:  Karina Gould, Minister of Democratic Institutions; Ben Rowswell, Canada's Former Ambassador to Venezuela and President of the Canadian International Council; Sean Hinton, Co-Founder and CEO Skyhive Technologies

New twists continue to emerge in the Mueller investigation, including the FBI spying on the Trump campaign and payments received by Michael Cohen on behalf of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to arrange talks between him with Trump. Meanwhile, Yulia Skripal has given her first interview since waking up from a coma after a poisoning that became a hotly contested flashpoint for relations between Russia and the West. Wednesday is Loud & Clear’s regular segment Beyond Nuclear, looking at nuclear issues including weapons, energy, waste, and the future of nuclear technology in the United States. Today, the hosts interview award-winning anti-nuclear activists about their work. Kevin Kamps, the Radioactive Waste Watchdog at the organization Beyond Nuclear; Terry Lodge, anti-nuclear attorney and 2018 awardee of the Judith Johnsrood Unsung Hero Award; and David Kraft, co-founder of the Nuclear Energy Information Service and 2017 awardee of the Judith Johnsrud Unsung Hero Award, join the show. The House of Representatives yesterday approved a plan to roll back banking regulations in response to the 2008 financial crisis. The Senate already had approved the measure, which now goes to President Trump for his signature. The measure leaves the central structure of Dodd-Frank in place, but is the most significant weakening of the law since it was passed a decade ago. Brian and John speak with Brad Birkenfeld, a whistleblower who exposed billions of dollars of financial fraud committed by banking giant UBS and the author of “Lucifer’s Banker: The Untold Story of How I Destroyed Swiss Bank Secrecy,” whose work is at lucifersbanker.com. A high-level Syrian official has dismissed the idea that Iran would withdraw its troops from Syria, which are intervening on the side of the country’s government. An Iranian withdrawal from Syria is one of the demands listed in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s “Plan B” war speech earlier this week. Ambassador Peter Ford, the former British Ambassador to Syria, joins the show. Luis Posada Carriles, a former CIA operative and militant Cuban exile, died yesterday in Miami. Carriles was accused of organizing a string of hotel bombings in Cuba in 1997 and of engineering a 1976 airline bombing in Cuba that killed 73 people. Human rights and transparency activists reacted to Carilles’ death by calling him “an unrepentant terrorist and a Frankenstein monster created by the CIA.” Gloria La Riva, the Peace and Freedom Party’s 2018 California gubernatorial candidate, and Andrés Gómez, the Coordinator of the Antonio Maceo Brigade, join Brian and John. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro announced yesterday that he would expel the top two US diplomats in Caracas, giving them 48 hours to leave the country. This apparently was in response to a statement by the State Department called Maduro a “dictator”. He said, however, said that the US Embassy has overseen a military, economic, and political conspiracy to overthrow him. Secretary of State Pompeo said that the US would respond proportionally. Meanwhile, the Lima Group of 14 nations said that he would “limit” diplomatic contacts with Venezuela. Jeanette Charles, a writer, editor, and solidarity liaison with Venezuelanalysis.com, joins the show.President Trump opened the door yesterday to a phased dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, backing away from his earlier demand that Kim Jong Un abandon his arsenal without any American concessions. This new flexibility seems to have put the president at odds with his own National Security Advisor.