Oops

The Colombian government so mishandled the laptops it just seized from paramilitaries that it is admitting there was a big chunk of time during which they don't even know who might have messed with them:

Por tanto, la investigación concluye hasta ahora que estos computadores en Itaguí no estuvieron bajo custodia de la Policía Judicial del Inpec entre las 4 de la mañana del martes 13 y las 8 de la mañana del miércoles 14 y que a ellos pudieron tener acceso irregular otras personas.

To put it mildly, this is not exactly the best way to establish confidence with regard to seized laptops, and will certainly spark more questions about the FARC's.

I feel good, I knew that I would

Blogging is good for you. Scientific American interviews a Harvard neuroscientist who is studying the health benefits of writing a blog.

It does not say that reading blogs is good for you, so if you are reading this, you need to go post to get healthy.

Obama's proposed Latin America policy

In general, I like the Obama proposals for U.S. policy toward Latin America, particularly because some are bold, going against conventional wisdom and in some cases risking political backlash. Of course, it is common after elections to find a wide gap between campaign rhetoric and policy, but we’ll cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

--He does not assert that free trade is the centerpiece of U.S. policy. Free trade is not a prerequisite of democracy, which has been a central idea for both Bush and Pres. Clinton.

--Openly says that Cuba policy is a total failure, and said so to a CANF audience. He’s already been saying this for a while, but it’s still refreshing to hear.

--Treat Venezuela as an equal, even if you disagree with the government. It is sad that this is actually bold, but it is. (However, he also says that Venezuelan elections are flawed, even though Chávez lost the last one!)

--Reform the IMF and World Bank, recognizing their failures.

--Provide a path of legalization for undocumented workers. Meanwhile, McCain is backing off this proposal to appease his base.

--Also, I love this quote: “We are funding both sides in the war on terror and supporting some of the most despotic, volatile regimes in the world.”

On the other hand, there were a few things I disagree with.

--Colombia’s right to attack its neighbors. Would we also say that Mexico has the right to attack the U.S. to fight drug trafficking?

--He talks a lot about ethanol, Brazil’s use of sugar cane and U.S. biofuel producers, but says nothing about the problems associated with using corn. The issue is more complex than he suggests.

Obama, the CANF, and Latin America

I have to admit, I haven’t paid much attention to the Cuban American National Foundation recently. In my U.S.-Latin American Relations class I discuss it in historical context, for its policy importance under Jorge Mas Canosa (who died over a decade ago).

As a result, I read this story about Barack Obama giving a speech to the CANF with some confusion. Obama reiterated his oft-mentioned idea that the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with the Cuban government. Then what happened?

Obama's speech was warmly received and he was frequently interrupted by applause.

But there’s more. McCain had given a typical “I’ll be your hardliner man” speech a few days ago, which I assumed had been both expected and popular. Not quite:

Obama's speech offered a sharp contrast to the remarks delivered just four days ago by McCain in Miami. McCain's stay-the-course message was warmly received, but foundation president Pepe Hernandez said he was disappointed.

''We love Sen. McCain and we have been friends with him for a very long period of time, but we think at this juncture of history of the Cuban process we need to try new approaches and new methods,'' he said. ``There was nothing in his speech that we have not heard before.''

So even CANF is saying that nearly a half century of failure marks the time to come up with a fresh strategy.

Finally, the Obama campaign simultaneously released a document proposing a new Latin America policy. I do not think it is an exaggeration to call it bold. I’ll have to chew on it a bit.

Photo of the day

Don't mess with me when I want to cross home plate.

Immigration myths on cable TV

Check out Media Matters Action Network for a very cool article on the ways in which cable commentators—specifically Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly, and Glenn Beck—use their bully pulpits to spread myths about immigration: “cable news overflows not just with vitriol, but also with a series of myths that feed viewers' resentment and fears, seemingly geared toward creating anti-immigrant hysteria.”

Reading it will seriously curdle your liver. It focuses on specific myths: that immigrants commit more crimes; that there is a plot to create a NAFTA Superhighway that will destroy the country by leading to a North American Union; that Mexicans have a Reconquista plot to take back what was lost in 1848; that undocumented immigrants commit massive voter fraud; and that undocumented immigrants are spreading leprosy.

You just have to read the quotes from these shows, which are shocking in their intentional spread of false information and xenophobia. Obviously, I knew people like Lou Dobbs were focusing on immigration, but the actual things they say are mind blowing.

Call off the referendum?

Apparently both members of the MAS and the opposition are having second thoughts about the August 10 recall referendum, saying that it won't resolve Bolivia's political crisis. In fact, they are talking openly about suspending it if they can come to some sort of accord.

That might actually be the best of all possible scenarios. The referendum would be the spark for substantive talks, and the country could avoid what would have to be very acrimonious campaigns for the next several months.

Double dipping in Political Science

Inside Higher Ed brings up the issue of “double dipping” conference papers, referring to the practice of presenting the same paper (or at least a revised version) at two conferences. PS: Political Science & Politics, which is the “state of the discipline” journal for Political Science, published a series of articles on the topic in its last issue.

The main criticism seems to be that it pads a person’s CV, making it look like they wrote two papers rather than one:

Do those who fill résumés in this way gain an unfair edge over those who give fewer (but perhaps more original) papers?

The answer is a resounding “no” because it is based on the idea that conference papers are an important part of getting hired or even receiving merit pay. In Political Science, as in much of academia, what matters are refereed journal articles (or book chapters) not conference papers. As a member of a hiring committee, I am largely uninterested in your conference papers except to the extent that they became articles. If you present a paper twice and get it published then you are succeeding. The hiring committee (or at least all the ones I’ve been on) looks at the single publication, not really at the two conference papers that led to it.

In some ways, padding the conference paper section of your CV with multiple papers can be negative if you don’t have many publications. What it suggests is that you’re not translating your papers into articles.

And if you’re wondering, yes, I have double dipped.

So what's Fidel thinking these days?

Fidel apparently did not like the EU-LAC summit (here is the English version of his column in Granma). As with many of his columns, we have to follow him around a bit, from his childhood, to ancient Greece, and henceforth to Francis Fukuyama and Little Red Riding Hood. Mostly, he excoriates Europe for being imperialist:

That Europe shares with the United States extraterritorial legislation which, in violation of the sovereignty of their own territories, is increasing the blockade against Cuba by blocking the supply of technologies, components and even medicines to our country. Its publicity media is associated with the empire’s media power.

Also, the Spanish delegation was a bunch of hypocritical capitalist gluttonous drunks:

The banquet was coming. There would not be any food crisis on the table. The proteins and liquors would be flowing free.

Someday, it will be fascinating to learn—if we ever can—about the dynamics of this quasi-post-Fidel period. In a way, it’s like a good-cop, bad-cop scene, with Fidel talking tough and Raúl reaching out. Maybe it’s entirely orchestrated, maybe it just reflects their current views, or some combination.

Meanwhile, the head of the U.S. Interest Section is walking around with envelopes of cash for Castro opponents. It is, of course, only “humanitarian assistance” and has “no political purpose.” That is true if we define “no political purpose” as “hope to destroy the regime that we’ve hated since Eisenhower.”

FAQs: INTERPOL and the laptops

I finally had time to go through INTERPOL’s report on the FARC laptops. Although the entire document is 102 pages, the meat of it is only the first 39 pages, and is followed by appendices with photos of the laptops, thumb drives, copies of letters requesting INTERPOL’s help, etc.

Given all the questions floating around, I thought I would do a list of FAQs based on the report.

Did the Colombian government tamper with the files?

No. Much has been made about the fact that the Colombian government “did not conform to internationally recognized principles for the ordinary handling of electronic evidence by law enforcement.” All this means, however, is that they accessed the data directly and did not make “write-protected images of all eight seized exhibits” (p. 8).

Further, “INTERPOL found no evidence that user files were created, modified or deleted on any of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits following their seizure on 1 March 2008 by Colombian authorities” (p. 33).

Did INTERPOL verify the authenticity of the documents?

No. “The verification of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits by INTERPOL does not imply the validation of the accuracy of the user files, the validation of any country’s interpretation of the user files or the validation of the source of the user files” (p. 9).

This will definitely be the central point for those who argue that the documents are fake or doctored, and were created by the Colombian and/or U.S. governments.

As Adam Isacson points out in a good post, even authentic documents reflect the biases, goals, etc. of the writers, which may not make for reliable versions of events. It depends on the document in question.

Why do some documents have a time stamp of 2009?

“Based on analysis of the characteristics of these files, INTERPOL’s experts concluded that these files were originally created prior to 1 March 2008 on a device or devices with incorrect system time settings. The appearance of these files on exhibits 30 and 31 indicates that they were either created while the exhibits were connected to a device with incorrect system time settings or the files were later transferred – after their initial creation – to exhibits 30 and 31 and the 2009 timestamps were transferred with the files” (p. 33).

What does that mean for understanding when certain documents were created?

“Based on the above, INTERPOL’s experts concluded that Colombian authorities should not rely on the time stamping of the files with future dates in these three exhibits (28, 30 and 31)” (p. 34).

So no one knows when those particular documents were created, and in general it calls into question the ability to create precise timelines with any of the documents.

Where did the analysis take place and who did it?

The actual analysis of the data took place in Southeast Asia and was conducted by technicians from Australia and Singapore who did not understand Spanish.

How much data is there?

“In non-technical terms, the volume of 609.6 gigabytes of data would correspond to 39.5 million filled pages in Microsoft Word and, if all of the seized data were in Word format, it would take more than 1,000 years to read it all, at a rate of 100 pages per day.” (p. 26). Quite a few, though, are just normal things anyone has on their computer (e.g. Microsoft Office programs).

Damage control

Hugo Chávez gave an interview to a group of American newspaper editors. Given the controversy swirling around him, this is a good move. Naturally, one of the topics was the U.S. presidential election:

Of the American presidential candidates, Chavez said, "It would be a lie to say I have no preference." But "I shouldn't say anything that would be used against someone."

Whoever is elected, Chavez wants to start immediate exchanges. "It is through talking that we can then come closer and share and compare our views and then reach an agreement."

If he is serious about that, then he needs to give Obama (because there will be no rapprochement with McCain, and certainly Chávez knows that) the ability to reciprocate, which means toning down the insults. Of course, this will also depend on the tone set by whomever Obama would pick for the key Latin America positions (even just the issue of not lumping Venezuela together with dictatorships, as Hillary Clinton has done).

Anyhow, he speaks his mind candidly and calmly. We could use more of that.

Also, he's got a button under his desk, and when he pushes it someone appears with a fresh cup of coffee. I want one of those.

Mérida Initiative portal

The Woodrow Wilson Center's Mexico Institute has put up a portal on the Mérida Initiative. It is well worth a look. There are all kinds of documents and statements by politicians, academics, and a variety of analysts. For example, Roderic Camp, who is the expert on the Mexican military, has this to say:

The relationship or potential relationship between the two militaries, and the Mexican military’s enhanced role in its anti-drug trafficking mission, has actual, potential and perceived consequences on civil-military relations and on democratic consolidation. These have been summed up as blurring the lines between appropriate and inappropriate domains for professional actions; expanding the managerial roles played by the military in society; increasing the influence of military intelligence operations; and enhancing the role military officers play in national politics and decision-making.

There are also links to the original legislation, briefings, testimonies, and the like.


h/t La Plaza

Importing Mexican police

Now this is a disturbing story from the Dallas Morning News:

Drug cartel attacks against Mexican police have become so violent and so common that some Mexican police chiefs are seeking safety in the United States.

Faced with cartel-sponsored assassinations that have claimed the lives of more than 25 officers since the start of May – including that of Edgar Millán Gómez, head of the federal police – and threats of further retaliation, some Mexican police are quitting their posts.

But three times in recent months, leaders of Mexican police have gone further, arriving at U.S. border crossings and applying for political asylum out of fear for their lives, according to Jayson Ahern, deputy commissioner of Customs and Border Protection.

Asylum is intended for those facing a “well-founded fear of persecution.” The U.S. government currently grants asylum to few Latin Americans, and I doubt this type of case will meet the standard.

The article does a good job of lining up the two main responses to such a development. First, you can argue that it underscores the need for the Merida Initiative (aka Plan Mexico). Second, you can argue that it shows how Mexican law enforcement is not equipped to deal with the huge influx of aid/weapons that the plan would generate. The quotes from members of Congress, however, were the opposite of what I would normally expect, because a Republican said the U.S. should not send military aid, while a Democrat said it should. At this point, I have to wonder what will happen if the country is flooded with new weapons.

Interpol and the laptop

Interpol says the infamous laptop was not tampered with.

The drives contained a vast trove of information — 610 gigabytes of data including 210,888 images, 37,872 written documents, 22,481 Web pages, 10,537 sound and video files, 7,989 email addresses and 452 spreadsheets, Interpol said.

The Venezuelan government says that the Venezuelan people, "in their infinite wisdom," will assert that the charges connecting Chávez to the FARC are false. That is not the same as saying the documents are fake. At this point I will most interested to see Chávez's reaction--will it be that all the files are fake (meaning that Interpol is either wrong or lying) or that perhaps they are real but are being misinterpreted? Or are there other options?

CFR report on U.S.-Latin American relations

The Council on Foreign Relations has released a new study entitled, “U.S.-Latin American Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality.” It has a lot of sensible ideas, which probably means many in the U.S. will view it as crazy and/or radical. It’s a long document, and I am just highlighting some selected issues:

The Task Force finds that the issues of persistent poverty and income inequality must be better targeted by U.S. policymakers beyond the largely traditional reliance on trade and democratization alone.

The document explicitly questions the assertion that trade and market reforms reduce poverty, and calls for U.S. assistance with homegrown solutions.

The Task Force finds that the drug trade flourishes from a volatile combination of negative socioeconomic conditions in producing and trafficking countries coupled with high demand for narcotics in the United States and Europe, and increasingly in Latin America itself.

And, combined with the above assertion, comes the idea that the solution to drug trafficking is not simply more market-oriented reform.

The Task Force finds that comprehensive immigration reform is necessary to create a system that better meets U.S. security, economic, and foreign policy interests, and must be a priority for the next administration.

This is absolutely true.

While recognizing the political challenges and the importance of multilateral solutions, the Task Force recommends that the next administration proactively support the liberalization of textile and agricultural policies, including reducing and eventually eliminating tariffs and subsidies on agricultural commodities, including tariffs on ethanol, and relaxing rules of origin requirements on textiles.

In other words, if the U.S. wants to push market reforms, it needs to do so at home as well. Talk, meet walk. I do not agree with their overall idea that the state should get out of the way in all areas of the economy (in the U.S. as well as in Latin America) but it is hypocritical to push neoliberal solutions abroad when we do not follow them at home.

The Task Force finds that the United States must officially recognize all countries in the region and should work to identify areas of common interest and cooperation in order to advance U.S. interests, regardless of the countries’ political identity; this includes Cuba and Venezuela.

The sad thing is that so many people consider this radical.

There’s plenty more, so everyone can take a look and decide for themselves.

It's like a hobby

I keep finding Republicans who think the embargo against Cuba is a bad idea, and it’s starting to feel like a collection. Some people collect stamps; I collect anti-embargo Republicans. My last one was George Will, and now via The Havana Note we have Brent Scowcroft:

My answer on Cuba is Cuba is not a foreign policy question.

Cuba is a domestic issue.

In foreign policy, the embargo makes no sense.

It doesn't do anything.

It's quite clear we can not starve Cuba to death.

We learned that when the Soviet stopped subsidizing Cuba and they didn't collapse.

It's a domestic issue.

Bolivia's referendum is set

Bolivia’s referendum is now set for August 10. I posted about this a few days ago, and thought I would raise some questions based on that.

First, it’s important to see how approval correlates to a “yes” vote for Evo Morales. I am sure we’ll be seeing some polls soon. As I mentioned before, strong rural voter mobilization could make an important difference, especially since that population is less represented in approval rating polls anyway.

Second, in comments Miguel raised the point about Morales’ declining approval. For an August vote, will we see a continued decline in the next three months? Will that correlate to a greater “no” vote? This raises the question of whether he currently has an approval floor below which he likely won’t fall (or, regardless of such a floor, how fast he would continue to fall).

Third, knowing that a vote against Morales simply means another election (as opposed to him being kicked out of office forever) will people on the fence decide to vote against him just to send a message? One disincentive for that strategy is concern over whether such a loss would spark violence.

Fourth, how much will violence--by both sides--mark the next three months in anticipation of the vote?