Summitry punditry

Eric Farnsworth says the U.S. needs to exclude Cuba from the Summit of the Americas.

Andres Oppenheimer says let Cuba come and then grill its government.

I don't have strong feelings on the matter, though I feel sympathetic to the grilling view. Boz argues that the grilling option could lead to an ALBA walk out, but I think walking away while complaining about democracy won't leave ALBA countries looking too good. Same goes with talk of the boycott.

For now, the official position of the U.S. is no.

"The countries of the Americas, by consensus at the 2001 Quebec Summit, made clear the Summit process is open only to democratic countries," the U.S. Embassy in Bogota said in an emailed statement Thursday. "The U.S. supports that shared commitment and looks forward to the day when a democratic Cuba takes its rightful seat at a Summit of the Americas. Sadly, that day has not yet come."

That's rather hard to back off from, unless perhaps you tweak the definition of "Summit process." One problem is that even Colombia is open to the idea of including Cuba. Increasingly, the U.S. finds itself with no allies when it comes to Cuba.

Allowing Cuba to attend in some capacity while also making it known that grilling will occur is perhaps a way to compromise a bit while not giving up on the idea that democracy matters.  On the other hand, this is a presidential election year and Florida matters, so Obama will feel a lot of pressure not to relent.

Read more...

Correa and the media

Rafael Correa's aggressive attacks against the media in Ecuador puzzle me a bit. He is a popular president with a considerable amount of power, and really doesn't gain much. Sure, he muzzles some opposition but they're weak to begin with. Plus, it does nothing to quell any discontent there may be in the police and military.

Instead, he shows himself to be terribly thin-skinned and brings a negative international spotlight to the country. In a country with a recent history of military intervention and instability, feeling insecure is understandable. I just don't see how going after the media makes Correa any more secure.

Read more...

Latin America or Bayer between the legs?

Please watch, and talk amongst yourselves about the craziest part. Is it the Latin American part, or not?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Such a short segment, yet such a tough choice.

Read more...

Venezuela needs oil revenue more than it needs Iran

Senator Richard Lugar offers the following logic about Iran and Venezuela:

Venezuela, in sympathy with its friend Iran, could at the same time cut off its oil exports to the United States or take other steps to disrupt oil supplies.

This makes no sense. Hugo Chávez desperately needs oil revenue, and desperately needs the revenue that comes from the United States. Further, he has nothing to gain by wrecking his own economy for Iran.

Let me spell this out further. Hugo Chávez is running for re-election this year.  He needs cash for his spending projects, and cannot afford a serious economic crisis, which oil disruption would foster.  I think it is fair to argue that the vast majority of Venezuelans would resent being punished for the sake of Iran, and the opposition would surge.

Chávez loves to stick his finger in the eye of the United States government, but does not do so at his own expense.

Read more...

Hispanic registering and voting

Here is a rather troubling graph from the Census Bureau regarding registration and voting by the Hispanic population in the United States. The register and vote less than other groups (though are very similar to Asians in those regards) and have voted more infrequently over time.

Latinos vote overwhelmingly Democratic, so this is major challenge that the party has not been successful at addressing. Despite all the talk of "the Latino vote" it is not a mobilized cohort.

Read more...

Otto Pérez Molina and legalization

The fact that Otto Pérez Molina proposed legalizing drugs is notable for several reasons.

First, it bucks all assumptions, including mine, that he would pursue a mano dura-only policy. Of course there is a military component but it goes far beyond just that.

Second, I can't remember a conservative president so openly talking about how U.S. policy is wrong: "We are not doing what the United States says, we are doing what we have to do." That sounds like Evo Morales.

Third, it is a sign that the United States has gradually been isolating itself. Even Juan Manuel Santos is talking about legalization. Overall there is now consensus across the ideological spectrum that the U.S. strategy in the "drug war" is failing, and that attention needs to shift.

The U.S. view on the drug war has changed little in the past 25-30 years, and the transformation of the conservative mindset in Latin America is catching it flat footed. This could become like Cuba policy, where the U.S. stands alone and claims without evidence that the policy is working.

See also boz, Americas Quarterly, Mike Allison.

Read more...

Island madness

The Falklands/Malvinas saga is a depressing morass. There seems to be precious little sanity on any side.

--The press on the islands is crazy.

--The situation is so ridiculous that Sean Penn, that noted Latin Americanist, even gets press about it.

--Cristina Fernández wants to score some nationalist points.

--Even Argentine soccer wants a piece of the nationalist pie.

--The British governments is acting insufferably arrogant.

--Along similar lines, the Obama administration's moderate view generates vitriol from British conservatives.

--ALBA helps to ratchet up tension.

--Fidel Castro tries feebly to make a joke about it and ends up sounding incoherent.

--Even Argentines can be confused about whether the islands really belong to them.

--I guess the 500,000 sheep on the islands don't care whether they are British or Argentine, but the situation is so ridiculous that the human inhabitants feel the need to proclaim, "We're not all sheep farmers."

There just doesn't seem to be any middle ground. Control over the Malvinas is part of the Argentine constitution and British control over the Falklands is part of the EU treaties. It is framed as a zero sum game and both governments have staked a major political claim from which they cannot retreat. The two probable outcomes seem to be either armed conflict or figuring out a way to punt the still unresolved issue into the future.

Read more...

How not to make state immigration law

With a sad echo of Georgia, an Alabama lawmaker says he did not even think about the immigration law he voted for, and now has buyer's remorse.

"My bill is to correct those unintended consequences that is putting undue hardship on Alabama citizens." 

Senator Gerald Dial is leading the charge to change parts of the illegal immigration law.  

He says he didn't consider the long-term consequences of the law when he voted in favor of it and has introduced a bill to amend parts of it.

I wrote about this sort of thing last year, when the governor of Georgia said he needed to study the law after he had already signed it.

This is a trend that would be risible if it weren't so galling. These laws affect millions of people in a very direct way and received intense media scrutiny, and these lawmakers could not even bother to read them, much less ask questions about their probable impact?

To say these are "unintended consequences" is misleading. Perhaps they were unintended, but they were foreseen.

The lesson here is that if an immigration law comes up in your state, you should assume that the loudest proponents are likely the most ignorant of it.

Read more...

Academic writing rules

I happened to come across the Get a Life, Ph.D. blog, which is focused a lot on writing. Writing is the lifeblood of any academic, since publication of written work determines success in our discipline. There are now a number of different blogs that focus on writing, or at least the mechanics of getting something ready to submit for publication. It's a useful thing to discuss.

What tends to turn me off, though, are the rules. The explosion of blogs about academia mean a concurrent proliferation of people prescribing academic rules. Increasingly, I cringe when hearing rules you must follow to succeed. I like suggestions, but rules grate. Take the following:

Don’t stop for anything. It is only 20 to 30 minutes, and nearly all phone calls, emails, visitors, and even bathroom breaks can wait.

That would kill me, and I mean kill me dead, and I just don't see the point. I don't understand why I would willingly become the prisoner of a timer, especially if I really need to go to the bathroom. By all means, try it if you like. If it works for you, then great, but look at it as one rather odd possibility as opposed to a rule.

Look, we all have rhythms. Some like night, some like morning. You like office, you like home. You like checking a particular citation as you go, or you don't. You like longhand, or you like typing. You like saving PDF sources, or you like printing a hardcopy. You like checking email, or you don't (why this obsession with not checking email? Doesn't make sense to me). If you have kids, then you work around their schedules, which defy all easy rules. You do well in 1-2 hour chunks, or 20 minute speed sessions. Some like writing groups, others prefer solitude. You like self-abnegation, or you don't.

So make sure you don't get discouraged if other people's rules don't work for you.

See also my post on ignoring advice for academic bloggers.

Read more...

Quote of the day: Honduras

"They took off, and there I was. The democratically elected president of Honduras, standing in my pajamas in the middle of a runway in Costa Rica," Zelaya says. "I said to myself, 'So this is that great new future everyone is talking about for Latin America?' "

--Mel Zelaya

Read more...

Chile's weak Congress

Joel W. Johnson, "Incumbents Without a Campaign Finance Advantage: Competition and Money in Chile's Congressional Elections." Journal of Politics in Latin America 3, 3 (2011): 3-33.

Abstract (full article is ungated)

Research from various countries has shown that incumbents in legislative elections raise and spend more money when they face a tougher contest. A statistical analysis of Chilean candidates’ campaign finance disclosures shows the opposite: an inverse relationship between incumbent spending and electoral competitiveness. This occurs because Chile’s deputies are relatively limited in their influence over policy and pork and because the congressional electoral system makes most competitive contests relevant only to the intra-coalitional balance of power. This account implies that political finance is as much a function of political systems and the supply of contributions as it is candidates’ demand for funds, and motivates several hypotheses about campaign finance in Chile. Among others, the analysis confirms that incumbents and challengers compete on a level playing field, spending similar amounts of campaign finance. The paper also illustrates that incumbents and challengers fare equally well in Chile’s “secret” donation system.

There is a glass half full/glass half empty vibe here. It's good that incumbents can't vacuum up enormous amounts of money that give them a large advantage against challengers.

The reason for this, though, is that the Chilean legislature is weak. I learned this early on when studying civil-military relations. The military budget is really out of legislative hands, and defense policy comes from the military and the executive branch. Without much power over money, members of Congress can't help special interests, which then have little incentive to give them contributions.

It's notable that although the electoral system is changing in Chile, the essential role of the legislature is not. Coalitional dynamics might change, but members will still lack the power of pork.

Read more...

How not to conceive of policy

I love this quote from David Rivera, a Republican Congressman from Florida, because it so perfectly encapsulates how to fail when making Latin America policy and to achieve the opposite of what you want. He is referring to leftist governments.

“Yes, we should isolate them and use sanctions,” he said. “But at the same time: To truly end the spread of socialism, we should do everything we possibly can to get a closer relationship with the people of these countries … There are so many NGOs (non-government organizations) promoting education, cultural communication, human rights and much more. We should promote this, help them grow, to prevent an anti-American message.”

Here's the plan. We hurt the citizens of the country as much as possible economically, which will then give them a more pro-American viewpoint and help foster regime change. It has worked wonders in Cuba.

Read more...

Bad arguments about the Latino vote

CNN has an opinion piece on the importance of the Latino vote for the 2012 election that perpetuates the bad arguments I've periodically written about. There are three major problems.

First, growth of the Latino population does not mean there are registered voters. This should be common sense when you're dealing with a cohort with lots of foreign born individuals. He cites North Carolina without discussing the extremely low number of Latino voters. There is a tendency to conflate current and future trends.

Second, immigration is not the most important issue to Latinos when deciding who to vote for. It just isn't. How many polls do we need before people start internalizing this fact?

Third, this is just wrong:

Hispanics lean Democratic, but it's not a base Democratic vote. Hispanics cast their ballots on issues and in favor of the candidates rather than for the party, much like 40% of the population, which is now considered independent.

Latinos are overwhelmingly a Democratic base. They definitely do not just "lean." He falls into the very common trap of believing that "independents" are truly independent. In fact, a minority are.

In short, the Latino vote is definitely important, but not in the sweeping, generalized, simplistic manner too often portrayed.

Read more...

Mexico travel warning

The State Department's travel warnings could be a source of interesting research. Given the importance of tourism, for example, how much do they deter Americans from going to particular countries?

In this context, the State Department just revised its travel warning for Mexico. It goes state by state with an unflinching and detailed look at violence.

Nevertheless, U.S. travelers should be aware that the Mexican government has been engaged in an extensive effort to counter TCOs which engage in narcotics trafficking and other unlawful activities throughout Mexico.  The TCOs themselves are engaged in a violent struggle to control drug trafficking routes and other criminal activity.  As a result, crime and violence are serious problems throughout the country and can occur anywhere.  U.S. citizens have fallen victim to TCO activity, including homicide, gun battles, kidnapping, carjacking and highway robbery.  

According to the most recent homicide figures published by the Mexican government, 47,515 people were killed in narcotics-related violence in Mexico between December 1, 2006 and September 30, 2011, with 12,903 narcotics-related homicides in the first nine months of 2011 alone.  While most of those killed in narcotics-related violence have been members of TCOs, innocent persons have also been killed.  The number of U.S. citizens reported to the Department of State as murdered in Mexico increased from 35 in 2007 to 120 in 2011. 

On its face, this would not appear to be too good for tourism. People already hear all kinds of news stories, often exaggerated, but this is the government talking. So are would-be tourists affected?

It's debatable. The Mexican government reported that it hosted more foreign tourists in December 2011 than ever before. This has included a 10 percent increase in Americans visiting. The government expects a surge this year, since apparently people don't mind potential violence as long as they get a chance to experience the end of the world.

Read more...

HispanTV

Check out Iran's vaunted entrance into the Latin America news business, HispanTV. Scrolling around, my first impression is that it simply duplicates Telesur. There are three main themes:

--the importance of Venezuela

--the importance of Cuba (seriously, the lead story for Latin America is currently "Paraguayan Foreign Minister Visits Cuba")

--disgust with the developed world

In other words, the same as Telesur, which actually has more on the Middle East as well.

What this suggests is that such a network will have limited influence. What fresh content does it have to offer that Hugo Chávez is not already providing? In short, is it reasonable to argue that anyone in Latin America will look more favorably on Iran--or Iran's worldview more generally--as a result of this network?

Read more...

Pendergraph in the 9th

I wrote yesterday about my member of Congress retiring*. Former County Sheriff and current County Commissioner Jim Pendergraph tweeted his intent to run mere minutes after Sue Myrick's Facebook announcement. Obviously that was no coincidence. There are more potential names, but I haven't yet heard any other official announcements.

Pendergraph is solidly against anything but enforcement with regard to immigration. In 2009 I wrote an op-ed in the News & Observer about the 287(g) program, which he implemented in Mecklenburg County, and he responded rather testily.

Democrats are saying the seat could possibly be won by a conservative Democrat, especially given redistricting. It is true there are a lot of unaffiliated voters, but my sense is that they lean Republican. I will have to wait and see more evidence. This will be an interesting ride since our governor also announced she would not run again, plus the presidential election.

*this article helpfully reminded me that she first ran back in 1994 on a platform of term limits.

Read more...

50 years of the Cuba embargo

I've repeated myself about the Cuba embargo, probably excessively. But I cannot give up the opportunity to note its 50th--yes, fiftieth, as in big five-oh--anniversary.* I won't belabor any points, but will simply note what it has accomplished. In no particular order:

1. Giving Fidel and Raul Castro an excuse for their own economic failings
2. Isolating the United States in the world
3. Isolating the United States in Latin America
4. Denying economic opportunities to U.S. exporters
5. Denying Cubans the opportunity to have contact with the United States
6. Accentuating the influence of a micro-constituency in Florida

Ironies abound here, but the worst (or best, depending on how you view it) is that the policy was explicitly intended to enact regime change, but instead the Castro regime is the longest lived in the history of Latin American dictatorships.

I want, and I mean really want, to read an argument about how the embargo has advanced U.S. policy goals, human rights, or democracy. I've never been able to find such an animal.

*in fact, some economic restrictions were already in place under the Eisenhower Administration.

Read more...

Sue Myrick retires

My member of Congress, Sue Myrick, has announced she will not run again in November. Faithful readers may remember that she has said many outlandish things about Latin America. She is also vociferously opposed to immigration reform (especially since she believed Venezuela was smuggling people into the U.S. through Mexico).

I live in North Carolina's 9th district, which is a funky-shaped safe Republican district (it is funky partly to allow for the even funkier 12th district; lawsuits are currently underway regarding redistricting). It seems the last Democrat to win a seat in this district did so when JFK was elected president. Mecklenburg County overall went for Obama in 2008.

Myrick has held the seat for 17 years, so there will be an interesting scramble. I assume the victor will similarly be opposed to immigration reform, but I can only hope that he or she has a more reasoned view of Latin American politics.

Twitter is currently humming.

Read more...

Failing to stop failure

Nicholas Casey at the Wall Street Journal explains a vicious but avoidable cycle in U.S. policy toward Latin America. Republicans charge that the Obama administration is losing influence in Latin America, but then retaliate by blocking nominations, which in turn reduces U.S. influence even more.

The Republican strategy has left many in the U.S. government perplexed about how to engage the vast territory. Even in countries where relations are frayed, ambassadors usually have links to the local president's office and Washington policy makers, influencing everything from business disputes to elections. Embassies without ambassadors are usually led by diplomats called charges d'affaires, but they only serve on a temporary basis. 

"Obviously, embassies continue to work on important issues without an ambassador," said a senior U.S. government official close to the case. "But not having an ambassador muffles our voice. There are things that need to be spoken about. The bully pulpit just isn't as effective without an ambassador."

It is a disturbing trend. It is hard to see the utility of cutting off channels of communication and influence. Certainly doing so does not give the U.S. more leverage. In classic form, in the article Roger Noriega is quoted in the article as saying it is good to block nominations, though not when he himself was blocked, because that was "obstruction."

The entertainment value of Roger Noriega notwithstanding, this all points to the fact that U.S. policy goals in Latin America (and often elsewhere) are decoupled from effective strategies to achieve them. I challenge anyone to explain how nomination blocking serves to further specific policy goals (as opposed simply to the domestic political goal of thwarting Barack Obama) in the region. Instead, we are left with the argument that we must send the proper "signals" to governments we don't like, even though these feeble messages are ignored or even mocked.

The odd thing here is that if you want to meddle, and many conservatives very much want to meddle in Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and elsewhere, then historically ambassadors have made excellent meddlers. It is a very powerful position. Instead, there is a pattern of biting off your diplomatic nose to spite your political face.

Read more...

Undocumented immigrants in Kansas

Dear Undocumented Immigrants in Kansas,

We realize that we need your labor. It has become quite clear that you are doing necessary jobs that our residents are not applying for. Therefore we are going to talk to the federal government about making it easier for our businesses to hire you. We're glad to have you working for us!

There's just one little glitch. We don't really want you here. Sometimes we just feel like shooting at you from helicopters and we are concerned about your "olive complexion." We definitely don't want to spend any money on you or your children. So we will make sure you cannot get food stamps and that you are ineligible for worker's compensation.

So we appreciate you coming to our great state and boosting our economy, and will endeavor to treat you as poorly as possible. Thanks!

Your truly,

The State of Kansas

Read more...

Confused about the Bay of Pigs

Classic. Just...classic. From Unredacted--great blog of the National Security Archive--the CIA argues that release of the last volume of its internal history of the Bay of Pigs would "confuse" people and so it should remain secret.

The idea that scholars would come to "erroneous" conclusions is hardly an argument at all. Historians and political scientists disagree on just about everything, and more primary documents will more likely lead to useful debate rather than some unified view the CIA would consider "distorted." Further, given how much debate there still is about the Bay of Pigs, it is hard to imagine what kind of bombshell remains that would alter that debate very much.

Either way, it's insulting. The public has a right to know (and even a right to be confused!). Even if the CIA historians are discredited for this case, then that is an important part of history as well.

Read more...

Military DREAM

An article at The Hill asks whether Democrats should support a version of the DREAM Act that only includes military service. Both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney claim to support that, though of course Romney only did so on his way to Florida.

Striking a compromise would allow Republicans to earn some points with Hispanic voters and lessen pressure on Republican lawmakers to support more comprehensive immigration reform. 

Walking away from possible common ground, however, could leave Democrats open to criticism that they missed a chance to make incremental progress. 

I don't think Democrats have much to fear. Latinos overwhelmingly support the DREAM Act, but my hunch is that support would drop like a stone if it meant only funneling people into the military.

We actually just had this discussion in my Politics of Latin American Immigration to the United States class. There are several points to keep in mind (and some of these ideas, I should note, came from a student discussion).

First, the DREAM Act is not intended to grab desperate military recruits who don't really want to be there. If you make the armed forces the only option, then that's what it becomes. Immigration and militarization is a delicate mix.

Second, the military is downsizing as we try to end two wars. Therefore it makes little sense to have it be the only option.

Third, through no fault of their own many people are ineligible for the military but are primed to go to college. They are out of luck under this plan.

Politically, Democrats likely have more to gain by insisting that the DREAM Act--which has majority support in the country--be passed in its entirety, and let Republicans explain why they refuse. I hope someone is putting out some polls as we speak to see how all this is perceived.

Read more...