U.S. Embassy Stand – Expo
Foresta
Laboratorio Tecnológico del Uruguay
Thursday, March 27, 2003
Q – President Batlle will travel to
the US. What advances can Uruguay achieve with this trip?
Amb. Silverstein - The purpose of the visit is to continue
to solidify the close relationship between Uruguay and the
United States. There’s a lot to gain in a face-to-face
meeting. There are many topics in the common agenda. Of
course it would be more appropriate that President Batlle
comment exactly what specific issues will be dealt with
but the intention is to stress areas such as commercial
relationships and diplomatic relations and general relations
between the two countries. And President Batlle will not
only meet with President Bush but with members of the United
States cabinet. And just like during his last trip to Washington
a year ago, we are looking forward to this visit and he
will be treated at the highest level of respect that he’s
certainly deserving of.
Q - Is it possible that the economic consequences of the
meeting will show that the United States plans to move ahead
with their bilateral relationship with Uruguay?
Amb. Silverstein - If I understand your question, we are
always looking to extend our bilateral relationship with
Uruguay. But if you are referring to a trade agreement we
are focusing on a free trade agreement throughout the entire
Americas. Negotiating a free trade agreement is a very time-consuming
process, it takes hundreds of specialized technicians and
therefore and now we put our best efforts to be focusing
on one for the Americas.
Q - After all the comings and goings with the beef issue,
are there any specific possibilities of advancement in regards
to this product in the United States?
Amb. Silverstein - President Batlle made it very clear to
me a number of months ago that they will work as quickly
as possible to allow the re-exportation of beef was one
of his very high priorities. The same as any government,
the government of the United States has an obligation with
its citizens to protect the production of food. The United
States has an obligation with its citizens to protect the
production of food. The process is one that involves the
consideration and publication and reconsideration of rules
and there are time elements that cannot be changed. But
an effort is being at all levels made to cut through the
usual bureaucracy that sometimes slows down the process.
I remember very well President Batlle’s exact words:
he told me that one day of advance in this process means
a lot to Uruguay.
Q - While a specific answer would be expected for this part
on April 11 on this, Uruguay approached the subject of using
the quotas that it didn’t use while it had the problem
of foot and mouth disease, now once the problem is resolved,
in other words, we were entitled under the previous quotas
to export 30 thousand tons to the United States and we are
looking to that possibility of using that old quota at this
point. Is that a possibility?
Amb. Silverstein - With respect to an increase of quotas
that you mentioned or about the quotas that could be used
–and this was published by a local newspaper-I’m
not confirming that either the Uruguayan government has
made a proposal or the US government is taking this into
consideration.
Q - There was a leak that there had been a US document suggesting
that there would be a reform of the Armed Forces. Is this
true?
Amb. Silverstein – The first time that I heard about
this document was when I read in the newspaper that it existed.
We are still looking for it, if any newspaper has a copy
please send us one.
Q - Recently the new visa requirement was implemented for
everyone wanting to travel. In regards to the visa, how
is the Consulate dealing with the increased workload?
Amb. Silverstein - Let me first tell you that Uruguay was
a member of a very exclusive club where citizens were not
required to have a visa to travel to the United States and
now when you ask for a visa it’s expensive, you its
one hundred dollars. What happened, as usual, is that a
few people ruined it for the rest of us.
What happened in this situation were two things: Uruguayans
who went to the US with tourist visas stayed and worked
illegally. And the other thing that occurred was a dramatic
increase in the number of Uruguayan passports, which were
recorded lost or stolen. The countries where people have
“cédulas” you don’t need to take
your passport out of the drawer to cash a check. So when
the number of recorded lost or stolen passports rises so
dramatically this indicates that they are being sold for
profit. And that causes enormous security concerns so as
I said before; unfortunately a few people ruin the situation
of the rest.
Q - Going back to the question….
Amb. Silverstein - Oh, sure, going back, I’m not avoiding
your question. We are on an appointment system now. We have
a system where after a person comes in and is interviewed
by the Consul he picks up his passport at an off-site location.
Usually, 72 hours after that. Last week, I took the opportunity
to spend a few hours in the Consular Section and watched
the whole process. I watched the people who were rejected
and people who were told to come and pick up their visa
waiver. And I was very pleased to see the way that the Consul,
Steve Barneby, and Vice-Consul Elizabeth Power conduct that
office. They do it in a correct and fair way.
Q – According to your reports, how does the Embassy
see the reaction of the population and the reaction of the
government to the war?
Amb. Silverstein - That was a long question. First and as
you know, at this moment that I speak, Iraq has irrupted
into jubilation in all parts of the country. Just an hour
ago I was watching on TV the statue of Saddam Hussein in
the main square in the center of Baghdad. But the toughest
work is still to come. I’m referring to the effort
of rebuilding Iraq. We would have liked to see the government
Uruguay express a different statement on the war, one that
would have been more supportive of the need of military
action. However, the statement that was issued does not
affect the relationship between our countries in a negative
way in any sense. Uruguay is a sovereign nation and has
the right to take the position it wishes to take. Now, as
far as the reaction of the people here in Uruguay, this
is a democracy and democracy is not just a word, it’s
a belief, it’s a way of acting and I welcome listening
to diverse opinions. However, there’s an enormous
hypocrisy. When demonstrators protest that they want peace
yet on the other hand they are throwing rocks and bottles
at a United States government building. There’s an
enormous hypocrisy when demonstrators say they want peace
but yet they are throwing fireworks at the bodies of police
officers trying to provoke their reaction. It’s very
hypocritical to violently burn an American flag or the effigy
of the President of the United States as ways to express
their desire for peace. The demonstrators have signs that
they want peace. I agree with them. There’s not one
person in this world that loves democracy that does not
want peace. But preserving peace versus hostility sometimes
involves making brave decisions and regrettably sometimes
this means military action.
Q - What assessment do you make of the civilians who died
in Iraq?
Amb. Silverstein - Iraq was a war zone. Civilians die on
a war zone. The coalition forces took enormous caution to
try to avoid killing civilians or wound them. In addition
to trying to protect religious sites, historical sites,
mosques, cultural sites. And often times, these types of
actions, these preventive steps that we took were of course
a disadvantage to our own coalition forces. Nobody wants
to hurt civilians. The human life of an Iraqi is as important
as the human life of a member of the coalition. But these
actions were taken to free the Iraqi people. I mentioned
a moment ago about the statue of Saddam Hussein jumbling
down and what did the Iraqi people do in jubilation when
it came down, they took off their shoes and started beating
the statue, in Arab culture that is the highest insult that
you can take. We regret the loss of innocent civilians;
however, in order to accomplish what was necessary, to free
Iraq, sometimes those people that are innocent suffer but,
the benefits that the Iraqi people as a whole could experience
as a result of the new legitimate government in Iraq will
far outweigh their losses.
And let me add something. Even in the final days of this
war Saddam Hussein still committed his cowardice acts. He
was using women and children as shields.
He was putting military equipment and soldiers inside of
mosques, inside of hospitals. The question still remains
weather the missile that struck that market place during
the war was in fact the missile from the coalition forces
or from Iraq striking its own people. The number of civilians
killed by the actions of Saddam Hussein’s government
far out ways?? the number of civilian casualties in this
war by the coalition forces. But the loss of even one civilian
because of the actions of coalition forces is something
that is regrettable and that we ourselves don’t find
acceptable that we wanted to avoid, that is why we took
every possible step to try to avoid.
Q - The visit of Batlle to the United States does it have
any ulterior significance, is it an indication of support
for Batlle?
Amb. Silverstein - My understanding is that President Batlle
is going to the United States to speak to a multilateral
organization on foot and mouth disease. President Batlle
is going to Washington, President Bush would like to have
the opportunity to speak with his friend. Don’t try
to read things into an event that not necessarily be there.
Is it possible that with the war and the economic consequences
of it might mean that this might not be the greatest time
for President Batlle to be there trying to make progress
about commercial issues. There’s always some reason
on any given day of the year to say that it’s not
the best time. The phrase in Latin is “seize the day”,
Carpe Diem.
Q - Is the United States concerned that Mercosur might steps
up its linkages with the European Union and leaves FTAA
aside?
Amb. Silverstein - We believe in free trade. If Mercosur
wants to trade with the European Union that’s terrific.
The United States would like to trade with Mercosur and
with the entire Western hemisphere. If for some reason Mercosur
decided that they did not want to trade with the United
States that would be Mercosur loss.
Q - Wouldn’t a closer relationship between Mercosur
and the European Union alter the economic layout that the
United States seeks for the hemisphere?
Amb. Silverstein - Not necessarily. We continue working
for FTAA. If Mercosur wants to have a trade agreement with
the European Union, that’s Mercosur’s project.
Q - What does the US government say about the fact that
Uruguay has made another proposal to the UN Human Rights
Committee on Cuba?
Amb. Silverstein - First let me say that what has occurred
in Cuba right now is a disgrace. This past Monday, Cuba
began passing sentences of 47 persons. These were journalists,
labor union leaders, human rights activists, who had the
audacity to question the Socialist government in a peaceful
day. So that in three weeks they were arrested, charged,
convicted, and sentenced. This type of justice at this type
of speed is disgraceful for the free world. And I’m
shocked that there hasn’t been an outrage in the Uruguayan
community. That Uruguay along with its Latin American partners
introduced this proposal on human rights in Geneva is the
reaffirmation of the government of Uruguay’s belief
in maintaining human rights in his effort. I would like
to see some of the same people who outside, out of the front
door two weeks ago screaming and yelling because of the
war speak up for what’s happening in Cuba.
Q - One of the US government’s main concerns is terrorism;
in the case of Uruguay specifically, has there been any
specific report of the situation of terrorism here in Uruguay,
especially for the proximity of the Tri-border region?
Amb. Silverstein - The United States has a unique experience
in the world. What people have to understand is that what
happened to us on September 11th is permanently engraved
in our minds like a granite tomb in a cemetery. September
11 is one of the reasons why it was necessary for us to
act in Iraq. September 11th is one of the reasons why we
are preoccupied about terrorism. The government of Uruguay
continues to work closely with us, with other governments
of the world, in a cooperative fashion to identify and take
whatever steps are appropriate and legal to make certain
that not just in Uruguay but on a regional basis we diminish
the risk of any act of terrorism. Not just in the Southern
Cone but anywhere in the world.
Q - You said a minute ago that September 11th was one of
the reasons for the conflict in Iraq. Very often people
would have problems finding a reason for this conflict.
Can you tell us what other reasons are there?
Amb. Silverstein - The regime of Saddam Hussein was a regime
of terror. Terror against its own people. The manner in
which he ruled tells us something about his own person.
Terrorismo contra su propio pueblo. Since things are changing
now, it’s difficult to speak in the past or in the
present but the government of Saddam had weapons of massive
destruction. He has shown his disposition of using them
against its own people. And he had no reservations or problems
about cooperating with terrorist groups. But let me address
one aspect of this war, which I often mention. And that’s
oil. If the reason for this war was to seize Iraqi oil we
could have done that in 1991. That wasn’t our objective
then and isn’t our objective now. If the United States
needed more oil from Iraq, all we have to do is pay for
it. There’s a program called “Oil for Food”,
it’s a program from the United Nations. We don’t
even rely on Iraqi oil. They are our number 9 oil supplier.
We get our oil from Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia,
and Nigeria. And the reliability of those suppliers is assured.
Saudi Arabia said they would increase their production if
it was necessary. The need for the supply of oil from Iraq
is not the reason for the war. It doesn’t make economic
sense. Why spend seventy to a hundred billon dollars, the
loss of lives, for oil, it would be cheaper to buy it in
the international market. So the goal is not to take Iraqi
oil from Iraq. The goal is to enable the Iraqi people to
have the benefits of the Iraqi oil wealth. When I see posters
that say “no blood for oil”, I wonder what comic
these people are reading for their information.
Q - There are other countries that might have the same qualifications
that Iraq might have, dictators, lack of respect for human
rights, having arms of mass destruction that could threaten
world peace. Does the United States have any other objective
along the way?
Amb. Silverstein - This military action was brought up upon
Iraq not by coalition forces but by Saddam Hussein. The
goal was to disarm Iraq and to enforce 17 UN Security Council
resolutions that were not accomplished. War was the last
option. The United States and all the international community
gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to disarm. And he
chose war. As on other countries in the world, countries
are dealt with a country–by-country basis. It is not
the interest of the United States to engage in any wars
around the world. And by the way it is not the interest
of the United States to remain in Iraq. It is not in our
interest to occupy Iraq.
Q - In the case of North Korea perhaps bringing a proposal
before the United Nations… Or perhaps in the case
of Israel that has also not complied with UN resolutions.
Amb. Silverstein – A diplomatic resolution is always
the first option.
Q - Is the US concerned about the fact that very often abroad
people don’t understand the reasons for US involvement
in Iraq and that they see the United States as an invader
and see that this could have negative repercussions not
only for US tourists traveling abroad but also for economically
US companies established abroad like for example McDonalds.
Is the U.S. concerned about this?
Amb. Silverstein - As a basic principle we are always concerned
when our position is not understood. In this current conflict
there have been efforts to organize boycotts against American
businesses but they were completely unsuccessful.
Q – You mentioned before today that Uruguay belonged
to an exclusive club of countries where citizens had the
possibility of going to the US without a visa. Is it possible
that Uruguay could regain that status?
Amb. Silverstein – You’re still a member of
an exclusive club. We are charging you a U$S100 membership.
Journalists – Thank you..
