{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023162583518930958, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00824053452115813, 'mean_word_length': 4.901445466491459, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Federalist Society Address

APRIL 26, 2007 PROFESSOR BAKER: My name is John Baker. I teach at LSU Law School and I direct the Hemispheric Trade Program there. I'm going to give a little longer introduction in a few minutes, but to accommodate Ambassador Bolton, who has been so kind as to come and open this program for us, I want to get right to his remarks. The great thing about having someone like Ambassador Bolton is you really don't have to introduce him. And so, therefore, the only thing I'm going to say about him are two things you may not know that connect with our subject today. Long before he became really famous, he was still well known in conservative circles. Among his other positions, he was Assistant Administrator for Programming Policy Coordination at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in the early 1980s, and then he was General Counsel from 1974 to 1981, as well. So without further ado, let me introduce someone who certainly needs no introduction to this audience: Ambassador John Bolton. (Applause) AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Thank you very much, John. It's a pleasure to be here. The Federalist Society has been something that I've been pleased to participate in for many years. It's a critically important institution. One of the things that I've been especially happy to see is it has expanded its interest in international subjects and its international activities. I think it is a very important direction to go in. I want to talk a little bit about issues of international security and how they affect economic development, because the connection is very real in many respects, especially in Latin America today where the direction things are going is not terribly promising and where I think a number of initiatives and successes over recent years now are threatened because of the developments relating to political and security issues. I think this goes critically to the likelihood of success of initiatives to develop systems of property and the rule of law, because they are directly related to the attractiveness that systems having these attributes have for foreign trade and investment. I think the correlation is very clear in a time of supposed increased globalization. In fact, there are many areas and many countries that, not having established clear systems of property rights and independent judiciaries and strong rule of law, are not benefiting from globalization, not benefiting from the increased trade and investment that comes from it, and, therefore, are sources of information and political support for the people around the world who, for all kinds of different reasons, don't like globalization to begin with--people who are fundamentally statist in their orientation, or nationalistic, but don't equate the benefits of broadly liberal international trade order in the same way that at least people in the United States predominantly do. I think in Latin America, we came through a decade in the 1990s--late 1980s or early 1990s--of enormous promise and opening to the possibility of greater hemispheric integration where you saw a lot of longstanding historical attitudes in both Latin America, the Caribbean, and the United States disappearing. It was a time when I think a lot of state owned enterprises were being divested, (1) where the strictures against private foreign investment were falling, (2) where there were possibilities where the two of them were combined, where telecommunications systems were being privatized and opened to foreign and, especially, American investment. (3) In my personal view, by the mid-1990s, I really thought that we had not only moved beyond the Cold War in global international terms but that the Western Hemisphere had moved past a lot of strongly held, historically derived views that really inhibited closer relations between the United States and Latin American, Central American, and Caribbean governments, which, I think, had those trends persisted, would have been to the benefit of everyone at a time when NAFTA was being negotiated and approved, when the possibility of additional bilateral and trade agreements seemed to be making a lot of progress, when--this will take you back fifteen years or more--when the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) was not seen as something that was directed against the United States but was seen as a way of reducing trade barriers, at least in partial terms, that would help open up hemispheric trade more generally. …