HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - November 1, 1980 - Number 1859 - Trade and Investment Developments

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Jiven

Authoritative Washington letter dated 1 November 1980, identified as Number 1859, focusing on trade and investment developments in Latin America. It criticizes U.S. administration decisions as being justified through selective attention to developing-country exports while downplaying import decisions from advanced developing nations such as Brazil, Mexico, Taiwan, and Korea. It adds commentary linking U.S.-Mexico trade-offs to energy crisis analysis, gas reserve estimates, and political handling of Congress. It then reports congressional protests over Brazil’s procurement-related aircraft order and related concerns about fairness, competitiveness, and military purchasing policies.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

Hanson’s Latin American Letter

Trade policy critique and objectives

Energy crisis commentary and gas reserve estimates

Congressional developments on trade and procurement

# HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER The authoritative Washington Letter on developments offecting trade and investment in Latin Americo WASHINGTON 1 November 1980 Dear Sir: Number 1859 "The president shall study the desirabilityof entering into trade agreements with coun-tries in the Northern portion of the Westernhemisphere.and report his findings withintwo years after the date of the enactmentof this Act. The Administration has been "justifying"its preoccupation with the poor-TRADEest of the developing countries at the expense of decisions on importsPOLICYfrom the advanced developing countries(such as Brazi1,Mexico,Taiwanand Korea)not in terms of the humanitarian concept but rather in termsof the allegedly disproportionate trade gains to be anticipated. In a sense this is 1ike the original Point Four presentations to the Con-gress when,knowing that appropriations would not be forthcoming if humanitarian con-siderations were stressed,the Executive Branch plugged continually for support interms of the spurious direct effect on U.S.exports and export expansion. We believe this is not only a fraudulently motivated approach dependenton the ignorance of the Congress but also an incorrect one in terms of the objectivesof the U.S.export program and defense of the dollar. But before we examine some recent developments,we want to add a footnoteto our commentary on ID-80-21 in our letter 1857 of October 18: You will recall that we identified the Comptroller General's findings asCRISIS?"good cause for Mexican optimism."Now,we would suggest that you read"PSSST-"The Energy Crisis:Pssst It does not have to exist."This too bearsIT DOESN'Tdirectly on the potential trade-offs in the Mexican-U.S.relationshipHAVE TOand may be found by Mexican decision-makers somewhat less optimistic.EXIST." The authors of that paper start with Energy Secretary Schlesinger's his-HISTORICtoric error in 1977 when he proclaimed that gas should be consideredERROR"gone"because the Carter Administration saw only 237 trillion cubic feetof gas,with little potential for more,for a country using 19 TCF peryear. On the basis of a vested interest in pessimism,the Carter AdministrationREVISEDhad commissioned a Market Oriented Program Planning Study.But theGASdirector,a former Exxon geologist,found the volume of available reservesESTIMATESto be tremendous.At least 500 trillion cubic feet in the United Statesand most likely much more.And the U.S.Geological Survey said that asingle deposit in Louisiana might have resources of 24,000 trillion cubicfeet(over a thousand years supply at current consumption rates)。 The Administration could not tolerate estimates of that size,so incon-sistent with its propaganda line,and relieved itself of the experts in favor of amore pessimistic appraisal. Now,the authors of the paper to which we are referring you,point outthat the Colorado School of Mines(which has a better estimating record than most)put current reserves at 1000 TCF or 55 years supply.…The Overthrust Belt is lined with gas.another area paralleling the western slope of the Rockies is equally pro-mising…The Anadarko Basin(Oklahoma)bulges with gas.The Ellsworth field of A1-berta finds its promoter showing 150 TCF of reserves and estimating capacity at 400,which is more than Mr.Schlesinger estimated "for the rest of time."And from thatoperator comes a U.S.reserve estimate of 1400 TCF. Mexico,the paper asserts,has found 100 TCF,and may run it to 1000trillion in a few years. The paper continues:"It is an exaggeration to say that we can lay ourENOUGH FOR Ahands on a thousand years worth of gas,one prominent gas executive says,THOUSANDbut not by much(repeat,but not by much)。 And the American GasYEARS?Association is cited as finding that a 50%increase in gas consumptionEVENwould be no problem for existing lines now.WITHOJTMEXICOThe point is that historically the Executive Branch weakens the U.S.bar- gaining position externally by having to lie to the Con

FAQs

What does the letter say about the U.S. administration’s trade justification?

It argues the administration’s “justifying” approach is misleading, emphasizing developing-country trade gains rather than humanitarian or balanced considerations, and weakening the U.S. external bargaining position by forcing Congress-facing narratives.

How is the energy crisis commentary used in the letter?

The letter recommends related energy-crisis analysis to highlight that gas and reserve estimates may affect potential trade-offs in the U.S.-Mexico relationship, contrasting pessimistic official expectations with larger reserve assessments.

What congressional issues does the letter raise regarding trade and procurement?

It describes vigorous protests in the Senate and House over Brazil winning a French order for training aircraft, with claims that political considerations and procurement fairness toward domestic producers are at stake, including threats to reassess military procurement rules.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Jiven