Roger Noriega

Roger Noriega, the former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs known for his meddling in the internal affairs of many Latin American and Caribbean nations, now issues proclamations about U.S.-Latin America policy from his perch at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Noriega, who coordinates AEI's program on Western Hemisphere affairs, is an outspoken proponent of free trade and U.S. hegemony in Latin America and the Caribbean.

After having the Cuba portfolio at the State Department transferred to the newly created Cuba transition team, Noriega abruptly left government in June 2005 after two years on the job. During his tenure in the State Department, Noriega solidified his reputation as an ideologue who considers Latin America and the Caribbean as the U.S. backyard. At the State Department, he succeeded Otto Reich. Both inside and outside government, Noriega and Reich have been virulent opponents of Latin American/Carribean political forces and governments that criticize U.S. policies.

While at AEI, Noriega has been busy sketching a new U.S. foreign policy agenda for the region. In his description of U.S.-Latin American affairs, Noriega strikes an alarmist note. According to Noriega, we are witnessing “a battle for the heart and soul of the Americas”—between those on one side “who treat democracy as an inconvenience and see free markets as a threat” and those on the other side of this hemispheric contest “who see democratic institutions and the rule of law as indispensable to prosperity and liberty.”

In a February 2006 report entitled “Two Visions of Energy in the Americas,” Noriega warns Latin American and Caribbean countries against going down the path of energy outlaws who violate the laws of the free market—pointing to Venezuela and Bolivia. In his essay, Noriega advocates that corporations and governments “can and should work together to foster genuine growth and development in the hemisphere that serves both the bottom line and the moral imperative of helping raise millions out of poverty through the sound stewardship of natural resources.”

In Noriega's view, Peru is a paragon of virtue in the energy field. In January 2006 Peru signed a deal for a 460-mile gas pipeline with Hunt Oil of Texas, an event that Noriega recounted in his AEI paper. At the signing ceremony in Lima, company owner Ray L. Hunt praised Peru's vision of energy development, which is based on the free market and foreign investment: “Peru has been blessed in terms of having a political system that is very much aware of its responsibilities to the people of Peru both today and for many generations to come.”

“U.S. energy companies have every reason to try to bolster the free market energy model taking hold in other countries in the Americas,” Noriega says. “Rather than have to accommodate roguish characters, they can have partners in the Americas who are democratic, accountable to the law, and respond to reason, run stable countries because they govern justly, and do not change the rules of the game for political purposes—in short, partners who respect the market.”

What is more, Noriega encourages “Western energy companies” to “use their capital and technical expertise as levers to encourage countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to adopt clear and fair policies that make investments safe and sound.” Noriega rightly notes that there is political sentiment in Latin America and the Caribbean that represents a “setback for market principles” and constitutes a “vision of energy in the Americas” that may run counter to the expectations and interests of the United States and U.S. energy corporations.

A vociferous supporter of free trade treaties and U.S. trade preferences in the region, Noriega also strongly supported Congress's mid-December 2006 extension of the Andean Trade Preferences to Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. He called the Andean Trade Preferences and Drug Eradication Act an “opportunity to advance U.S. objectives in Latin America—sustaining anti-drug efforts and contrasting constructive U.S. policies with the divisive, anti-American agenda of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.” According to Noriega, “The future of the Andean region is in play—thanks to the narcoterrorist threat and the populist flames fanned by Chavez and his followers.”

With respect to Venezuela, Noriega believes that the international community should not give credibility to Chavez's “undemocratic project.” In June 2006, Noriega called on the Organization of American States (OAS), the European Union, and others “to refuse to observe Venezuela's 2006 presidential elections until significant changes are made in the rules of the game.” He advised: “No international observer should risk its credibility by being associated with another electoral whitewash in Venezuela.”

As for the Venezuelan people themselves, Noriega wrote: “One would hope that a majority of Venezuelans would take a stand to secure their essential liberties, to begin to back a political alternative that appeals to their hopes and not their fears.” As it turned out, in December 2006 Chavez won another six-year term with more than 62% of the vote in an election deemed transparent by some 700 international observers.

Noriega also has a different view of the events of April 11, 2002, which most observers regard as a failed coup by the political opposition working together with a dissident faction of the military and with the approval from Washington—notably Noriega's predecessor Reich. From Noriega's perspective, the temporary removal of Chavez from the Miraflores presidential palace was the result of a popular rebellion sanctioned by the country's constitution that honors Venezuela's “republican tradition.” According to Noriega, the attempted coup was a spontaneous reaction to anti-Chavez demonstrations. Rather than repress the demonstrations, the military joined with the opposition business, labor, and political leaders to oust Chavez. “We see in retrospect,” wrote Noriega, that this was not the act of a desperate political leader looking to maintain order, but a logical, ruthless measure taken by a man who cannot tolerate dissent.

Following the failed 2005 Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina, Noriega drew up an alternative regional integration plan that would unite like-minded governments within an “Opportunity Partnership.” Noriega's concept of a community of free-market democracies echoes similar initiatives that have been supported and shaped by the AEI and other right-center Washington think tanks that aim to create regional and global groupings of governments aligned with U.S. policies. Although Noriega's “Opportunity Partnership” remains only an AEI concept paper, its vision for a future U.S. foreign policy for the Americas does represent a possible U.S. government response to the political divide in the region.

An Opportunity Partnership, says Noriega, “would reward countries that open their economies and government democratically with substantial material and political support and access to the benefits of free trade and investment” (AEI paper, January 12, 2006). Noriega encourages the U.S. government to “strengthen its friends against the anti-American onslaught fueled by the mischievous Chavez.” According to Noriega, conditions for the new partnership would include a commitment “to fight poverty by adopting free market principles and trade liberalization.” Countries would be included if they hold “free and fair elections” but excluded if they are “regimes that rig voting and mug their opponents.” Among the countries not likely to be included in such a partnership, writes Noriega, are Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, and Bolivia.

Roger Noriega's steady climb through the ranks of U.S. diplomacy has been based not necessarily on his skills as a statesman or diplomat, but rather on a willingness to do what's necessary to defend U.S. elite interests abroad. In many instances, those actions have included shady dealings. Noriega is no stranger to the U.S. policy of aligning itself with unsavory Latin American leaders to further its own interests. Since the early 1980s, Noriega has played instrumental roles both in Congress and the White House.

Noriega long functioned as an operative for U.S. policies of direct and indirect intervention abroad. In the late 1980s, he worked in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where he managed “non-lethal” aid in Central America. Both the Pentagon and USAID established “humanitarian aid offices” in 1985 after Congress prohibited U.S. military aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, based in Honduras, Costa Rica, and in parts of Nicaragua itself. Much of this aid was delivered to the Contras by right-wing evangelical and political groups, working closely with the executive branch (Barry et al., New Right Republicans). It was later shown that Noriega was directly in charge of channeling this aid to the Contras, sometimes laundering the aid through an operative of Colombia's Medellin drug cartel residing in Miami (Texas Observer, February 28, 2003).

Noriega also played a key role in abetting the fall of Haiti's elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in March of 2004. The Center for Cooperative Research provides evidence that Noriega, who was a vocal critic of the Aristide government, circulated demands for the removal of Aristide in the OAS in February 2004. After the United States helped to overthrow President Aristide, Noriega quickly applauded the ascension of Prime Minister Gerard Latortue, who came to office despite the fact that he was living in Florida at the time and was therefore ineligible for the presidency under Haitian constitutional law (COHA, June 18, 2004). Amid rampant violence and chaos, Noriega celebrated the overthrow of Haiti's government, stating to Congress: “Now we can make a new beginning in helping Haiti to build a democracy that respects the rule of law and protects the human rights of its citizens” (CounterPunch, July 10, 2004).

Prior to 2004, Noriega laid much of the groundwork for Aristide's removal from office. While working for Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) on the House International Relations Committee, Noriega allegedly worked diligently to frame Aristide's security guards in various political killings (Texas Observer, February 28, 2003). Later, as U.S. ambassador to the OAS, Noriega collaborated frequently with the International Republican Institute (IRI) in its efforts to build the Haitian opposition, even against the wishes of the U.S. Embassy in that country, which was trying to mediate among all parties involved (Mother Jones, June 2004). Stanley Lucas, Haiti chief of the IRI, received Noriega's support, including support in events that led to the 2004 coup (DemocracyNow, July 20, 2004). Despite this, Noriega remained mute whenever asked about the IRI's role in the country (IRC Americas Program, February 27, 2004). L. Paul Bremer, Robert Zoellick, and Randy Scheunemann serve on the IRI Board of Directors, as did the late Jeane Kirkpatrick.

Since the 1980s, Noriega has been seeking the ouster of Cuban leader Fidel Castro. He was a prominent spokesperson for new measures to tighten the embargo against the island, outlined in the 2004 report from the U.S. Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. The commission's goal was “to bring an end to the regime of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and to prepare to assist a post-Castro Cuba.” The Bush administration's recent round of sanctions toward the island will cost Americans $59 million and very likely be counterproductive to any legitimate aim to enhance human rights and democratic transition (IRC Americas Program, June 22, 2004).

Noriega has spent years developing policies to punish Cuba. He served as senior staff member for Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) on the Committee on Foreign Relations that eventually drafted and passed the notorious 1996 Helms-Burton Act. Human rights advocates, international jurists, and foreign governments have protested the act for its aim to economically strangle the island and force other countries to impose the U.S. embargo (In These Times, April 24, 2003).

Noriega's lack of diplomacy in the hemisphere offended many Latin American leaders. Following Noriega's criticism of Argentina for visiting Cuba and leaning leftward in economic policy, President Nestor Kirchner of Argentina responded angrily that his country was “no longer the doormat of the United States” (EFE, January 7, 2004).

In addition to his role as visiting fellow at AEI, Noriega, a member of Tew Cardenas law firm, represents the governments of Panama and Ecuador in free trade negotiations with Washington.

---

Sources

State Department, Biography: Roger Francisco Noriega, http://web.archive.org/web/20050804001716/http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/4708.htm.
American Enterprise Institute, Biography of Roger F. Noriega, http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.,scholarID.102/scholar.asp.
Roger Noriega, “Two Visions of Energy in the Americas,” Latin American Outlook, American Enterprise Institute, February 23, 2006.
Joshua Kurlantzick, “The Coup Connection: How an Organization Financed by the US Government Has Been Promoting the Overthrow of Elected Leaders Abroad,” Mother Jones, November 2004, http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/coupconnection1104.htm.

[deleted at author's request]

Toni Solo, “Empire Speak: What Roger Noriega Really Means,” CounterPunch, July 10/12, 2004, http://counterpunch.org/solo07102004.html.
Center for Cooperative Research, Profile: Roger Francisco Noriega, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-1393.
Ron Howell, “U.S. Maneuvered Aristide's Ouster,” Newsday, March 1, 2004, http://electromagnet.us/dogspot/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=25.
Laura Carlsen, “Countdown to Cuba Transition: Bush and Castro Face Off,” IRC Americas Program, June 22, 2004, http://americas.irc-online.org/columns/2004/0402cuba.html.
[deleted at author's request]
Martin Austermuhle, “No Relief: Lackluster Cold Warriors Bungle Latin American Policy,” In These Times, April 4, 2003.
Gabriela Bocagrande, “The Ultra-Right Stuff,” The Texas Observer, February 28, 2003, http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1278.
Amy Goodman interview with Max Blumenthal, “Did the Bush Administration Allow a Network of Right-Wing Republicans to Foment a Violent Coup in Haiti?” Democracy Now!, July 20, 2004, http://www.africaspeaks.com/haiti2004/2007.html.
Tom Barry interview with Robert Maguire, “Aristide's Fall: The Undemocratic U.S. Policy in Haiti,” IRC Americas Program, February 27, 2004, http://americas.irc-online.org/articles/2004/0403haiti-int.html.
Responde Argentina a críticas de EU (EFE), January 7, 2004, http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/internacionales/335590.html.
Tom Barry, Beth Sims, and Debra Preusch, The New Right Humanitarians (Albuquerque: Interhemispheric Resource Center, 1986), p. 15.
Tom Barry and Deb Preusch, The Soft War: The Uses and Abuses of U.S. Economic Aid in Central America (New York: Grove Press, 1988).
Roger Noriega, “Venezuela Under Chavez: The Path Toward Dictatorship,” Latin American Online, June 6, 2006.
Roger Noriega, “Launching an Opportunity Partnership in the Americas,” Latin American Outlook, AEI, January 12, 2006.

---