HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - Washington - 4 October 1980 - Number 1855

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Jiven

Hanson’s Latin American Letter from Washington, dated 4 October 1980 (Number 1855), analyzes U.S. direct investments in Latin America in 1979, focusing on Mexico and Brazil and discussing earnings, remittances, and plowbacks. It connects investment returns to the human-rights and political-policy context across the region, referencing developments tied to the Reagan administration, Carter policy, and cases in El Salvador, Colombia, Chile, and the related international responses.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

Rate of earnings on direct investments

Mexico and Brazil: 1979 returns

Human rights and U.S. policy discussion

El Salvador and selectivity of policy

Colombia and Amnesty International

Chile and the plebiscite context

Investment experience and data interpretation

HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER WASHINGTON 4 October 1980 Number 1855 Dear Sir: Rate of Earnfngs on 99Drect Investments: | | | Al1 Investments | | Manufacturing Only | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Mexico: | | | | | | | Rate of earnings | | 21.1% | | 20.8% | | | Rate of
Rate of | remittances
plowbacks | 5.6% | | 5.7% | | | | | 15.5 | | | 15.1 | | Brazil: | | | | | | | Rate of | earnings | 5.0% | | 5.1% | | | Rate of | remittances | 4.3% | | 6.3 | | | Rate of | plowbacks | | 0.7 | | -1.2 | Before we examine the newly-released data on the experience of U.S.HUMAN RIGHTSdirect investments in Latin America in the year 1979,the fortnight'sAGAIN:developments on the human rights situation warrant a further note.(1)You should ignore the confusing bombast which Reagan aides are dis-UNDERREAGAN?seminating in Latin America on the subject.They should not be touringthe area,however assured they feel of their place in the new administra-tion,since there is an abundance of confusion already,and also because if the quality of Mr.Reagan's advisers on other subjects is not higher thanis being displayed on the Latin American subject,it is unlikely that Mr.Reagan wi11reach the White House. (2)That is to say,no improvement in clarity of thinking is indicatedas yet.And when you consider the deteriorating situation achievedCARTER POLICYby Carter policles,that is a dismal thought.On August 4,DeputyON ELSecretary of State Christopher told the American Bar Association thatSALVADOR:"we are supporting the government of E1 Salvador and its reforms to"A LITTLEavoid a full-scale civil war."And the Senate Foreign RelationsKNOW-NOTHING OFCommittee had identified our Ambassador as the pro-consul.A COUNTRY" When the Carter appointee heading the Overseas Private InvestmentCorporation which insures investors against risks,in an interview withMulti-national Monitor,was asked why projects in E1 Salvador had been turned down whenthe government of E1 Salvador was involved,he explained that the underlying principlewas to avoid helping the government unless it altered the manner in which it treatedthe people.Then he went on quite correctly to protest the selectivity of the humanrights policy of the U.S.Government,protesting the failure to act against SouthAfrica as against the readiness to pounce upon the Salvadoreans just because E1Salvador lacks the capacity to hurt us.His term,"a little know-nothing of a country"was perhaps unfortunate but the issue to which he was addressing himself,theselectivity of human rights policy,surely is central The selectivity of human rights policy is not 1imited to the UnitedStates,of course.No more pious and virtuous defender of human rightsand protester against other nations'handling of human rights can be foundthan the Colombian Government.Yet,now its turn has come。AmnestyInternational has publicized that the Colombian Government is guiltyof torture of the political opposition,especially peasants and tradeunionists.The President of Colombia has replied by blasting AmnestyInternational as "an instrument of the terrorists." NEW EXPERIENCE FOR COLOMBIA 1 Coming at a time when Colombia is announcing plans to expand tradewith a desperate Cuba where human rights have long ago disappeared,andat a tine when Forbes Magazine in its expose of organized crime(the mob)is reminding its readers that "some law enforcement people will tell youthat the mob even controls whole countries -Colombia,for example,"it may be that the Colombian Government will now show more sympathy for countries whichhave had the misfortune to capture international attention earlier. The same Amnesty International,for instance,is accusing the BritishCHILEANGovernment of misleading the British public by withholding informationSITUATIONon the arrest and mistreatment of a woman six days before the BritishGovernment lifted sanctions on

FAQs

Which countries are highlighted for U.S. direct investment returns in 1979?

The letter focuses on Mexico and Brazil, explaining that roughly half of the investment in Latin America is in those two republics.

What caution does the letter include when interpreting the return rates?

It cautions that the rates of return refer to investments at historical book values, which may not fully reflect the potential of new investments.

How does the letter link investment analysis to human-rights policy?

It argues that U.S. human-rights selectivity and related political actions are central to understanding the broader regional context around investments.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Jiven