During a conference on “Democracy under Pressure” that took place in November 1992 under the aegis of the North-South Center, a Venezuelan political scientist observed that, when all is said and done, the much-touted changes in the Venezuelan political system will probably not amount to much. The two major parties, which have exercised a near monopoly over electoral politics for the past 20 years, would doubtless pull in 80% of the vote in December (1992), only this time with strong local and regional leaders running as candidates.

Some politicians, government officials, and political analysts in Venezuela would agree that electoral reform, decentralization, and the growth of neighborhood associations — features of Venezuelan political life which have become increasingly marked over the last 15 years — do not alter or challenge the status quo in any fundamental way. On the other hand, there are also a number of political activists and commentators who, despite some disagreement as to the future direction of these changes, would argue that these developments are extremely significant.

Aside from the United States, Germany is Latin America's .most important economic partner. Despite this fact, Germany has never appeared to have a very strong overall relationship with the region and, due to its postwar history, has never developed a true “Latin American policy.” For obvious reasons, Germany has given high priority to (1) relations with its Western neighbors and (2) its security relationship with the United States. As far as its policy towards the South goes, it has tended to concentrate on major actors, such as Egypt and India, and its relations with Brazil should be viewed in that context.

The absence of a defined policy does not mean that Germany lacks a visible profile in the region. The role and image it projects reflects a relationship that is much broader, and far more complex, than its economic and diplomatic activities in the region would indicate.

Recent literature on regional integration has stressed the key role that emerging trading blocs will have in shaping the world economy of the 21st-century. With the end of the Cold War, policymakers have refocused their attention on economic issues. Economic trends — such as rapid changes in research, technology, capital flow, and trade patterns — have assumed a new importance. Increasing competition in world markets has induced industrialized countries to cluster together in regional economic blocs. This has been the case with the European Community (EC), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signatories (the United States, Canada, and Mexico), and possibly Japan and its East Asian neighbors. However, these experiments in regional integration differ appreciably in nature. For instance, the EC explicitly seeks an economic and political union, whereas the NAFTA is simply a free trade area whose goal is the eventual elimination of restrictions on investment flows.

An important issue for many US citizens, particularly those who live in the inner city and in major urban areas, is the level of administration concern regarding the impact of drugs on US society and the relative priority the administration assigns to drugs as a policy issue.

In mid-October 1993, the Clinton administration released an interim policy statement setting forth its proposed strategy for national drug control. Consisting of both domestic and international components, this strategy seeks to downplay the drug issue as a priority driving the new administration's policy agenda. Within the United States, the drug policy is linked to other important domestic goals and is envisioned as just one of the elements in efforts to spur economic growth, reform health care, curb violence among the nation's youth, and “empower communities.”