Hillary Talks Anti-Embargo in Miami

I am not the first nor will I be the last to mention the historical importance of Hillary Clinton's speech in Miami on Cuba, but it's worth bringing up. She said:

“It’s time for [GOP] leaders to either get on board or get out of the way. The Cuba embargo needs to go, once and for all,” Clinton said. 

The 2016 Republican candidates “have it backward,” Clinton said. “Engagement is not a gift to the Castros, its a threat to the Castros. An American embassy in Havana isn’t a concession, it’s a beacon.”

This is a big deal. Clinton is the heavyweight of the Democratic Party and is now making ending the embargo a campaign pledge. President Obama's normalization of relations, which were announced only last December, are having the effect of making normal relations with Cuba more...normal. Even more importantly, she is a major candidate who will face a tough campaign (for anyone, following a two-term president of your own party is very difficult) yet still sees this message resonating in Miami! I'd love to see a study of the evolution of Florida presidential campaign rhetoric.

Back in 1992, Jorge Mas Canosa praised Bill Clinton for being very anti-Castro. As president, Clinton made sure to keep that allegiance, at least until he returned Elián González, by which time he was a lame duck anyway. And of course Al Gore, who was running for president, made sure to disagree because he hoped to win Florida. We don't need to get into how that worked out.

My overall point is that things have changed quickly. Not long ago, opposing the embargo would've been electoral disaster. Florida is an important part of our odd presidential electoral system, so candidates need to tailor their speeches to the local audience. That audience no longer needs anti-Castro red meat.

Read more...

Wikileaks and Latin America

Dan Drezner writes about Julian Assange's claim that somehow academics aren't citing WikiLeaks because they're cozy with the State Department and that international relations journals won't publish articles with such citations. Drezner's point is that for the most part the revelations aren't that interesting:

Indeed, the effect of WikiLeaks’ cables on American foreign policy was pretty mild — in contrast to, say, Edward Snowden’s revelations. It was so mild that I once had a Fletcher student ask me if Julian Assange was actually a CIA agent designed to bolster America’s image in the world, because it turned out that what U.S. diplomats said privately closely matched what they said publicly.

With regard to Latin America, I agree with this. Five years ago I wrote the following:

With virtually all of the cables on Latin America, we learn relatively little but get a fairly discouraging confirmation of what we already know...There's nothing shady or nefarious; instead, the overall effect is one of cluelessness.

The "discouraging" part I referred to was the Bush administration's way of dealing with Latin America. But my discouragement wasn't caused (or even changed) by WikiLeaks. I've yet to read anything in WikiLeaks that changed my way of thinking about U.S. policy in Latin America or suggested there was a deeper conspiracy of which I was previously unaware. In fact, one of my main reactions was to note the hypocrisy of dictatorships applauding transparency. Even Peter Kornbluh, whose body of work is based on declassified documents, made the point that the cables shed more light on Latin America than on Washington, and often provided a more nuanced (as opposed to more sinister) view of how U.S. policy is made.

Incidentally, Wikileaks got really annoyed at Drezner's post.

Read more...

Latin America in Middle East Terms

As a Latin Americanist, it is frustrating to have a congressional representative who thinks of Latin America primarily in terms of being a staging ground for Iran. His latest Facebook post asserts that Iran has a "footprint" in Latin America as well as in the Middle East. He actually argues that the Iran deal will increase the Iranian threat to the U.S. in Latin America. In general, he has viewed Latin America almost exclusively in Middle East terms.

Fortunately, I think this particular view is not widely shared--there are plenty of proponents but they're (currently) at the margins. Beyond the lack of evidence, though, there is the troubling tendency to propose Latin America policy without thinking at all of Latin America. This is a very Cold War-esque way of thinking. Whether or not a particular policy makes sense takes a back seat to whether it fits a prevailing narrative in some other part of the world. This leads to gross inflation of threat perception, which in turn leads to more bad policy.

Read more...

Middle Class and Ideology

Talking about the growth of the Latin American middle class is a thing these days. The Pew Research Center takes a look and yields a conclusion that defies ideology. The country that gained the most from 2001-2011 is Argentina. In the top 10 we also have Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico and Chile.

This is common, incidentally. I've written tons of posts about economic growth, commodities, trade, poverty, you name it. Very rarely does the ideology of the government matter nearly as much (either positively or negatively) as people claim.

With regard to the middle class more specifically, the problem with this data is that it's four years old. I'd figure Argentina is holding steady but post-Chávez Venezuela is likely a different story.

Read more...

Misión 19

To celebrate our 15th anniversary, my wife and I had dinner at Misión 19 in Tijuana. It was fabulous. The restaurant was reviewed by the New York Times several years ago, as it was part of an overall effort to rebuild the city's image after being ravaged by the drug war.

There are no margaritas here. I had a cocktail with tequila, agave honey, lemon, and a jalapeño, while my wife had a light mezcal drink with fruit and a chile de árbol. She then had seared tuna and I had risotto. Meanwhile, the wine list shows how far the Mexican wine industry has come. The food was tremendous and the service was excellent.

I had not walked across the border in 15 years, and of course things have changed a lot. We had to wait 25 minutes in line to return, which was primarily because the immigration line was clearly understaffed. This seemed odd given how much money is being invested in the border. We had to suffer through an older American who talked loudly (of course!) and then in bad Spanish (of course!) on his phone about how they're "lookin' for El Chapo" and he's not an illegal so he shouldn't have to wait in this fucking line.

If you are in San Diego, make sure to bring your passport and check out Tijuana. It could not be simpler to park and walk across. If you have a destination already figured out, then you can just quickly grab a taxi. It's well worth it. And I hope you're not stuck with an obnoxious American on your way back.

Read more...

Negotiating With the FARC

A Colombian friend asked my opinion of the FARC negotiations. I said I thought the negotiations would in fact work out--she disagreed and thought Colombians would tire of the continued FARC attacks. But here is my logic:

--the FARC really wants it. In my opinion, the attacks can be attributed primarily to positioning (i.e. showing strength) or are isolated to units that have autonomy because of its decentralized structure. That's why they called another unilateral ceasefire and released a prisoner.

--President Santos really wants it. This is his legacy, pure and simple. He will have gone from someone perceived as Alvaro Uribe's puppet to the president who finally ended the war.

--the Colombian people strongly support the effort (see this extensive Gallup poll). The devil is always in the details, and the FARC could potentially overplay its hand with too many attacks, but overall Colombians support the negotations.

--President Obama supports it. It is not a major issue for Obama, but he's publicly supportive (including a State Department statement just last week) and it would buttress his own overtures to Cuba given where the talks are taking place.

There are plenty of wrenches that could be thrown into this process, but at the moment the key signs are positive. Or at least as positive as you're likely to get.

Read more...

El Chapo and Violence

Brian Phillips has an interesting article at The Monkey Cage about the effects of leadership removal on violence, using the case of El Chapo as an illustrative case. "Removing" (e.g. killing or imprisoning) the leader of a terrorist organization can be effective in reducing violence because of the psychological/leadership impact, but a criminal organization can become even more violent as would-be leaders fight to take control. As he points out, that latter point is the source of much of Mexico's violence.

As he alludes to, imprisonment works differently for criminal organizations than for terrorists, so the type of "removal" also matters. For me, the takeaway with El Chapo is that strictly with regard to violence, it makes no different at all whether he is in jail or on the lam. Either way, he is firmly in charge and there is minimal jockeying for power (or at least no more than normal). But if he gets killed, the Mexican authorities will have a brief time where they can claim victory and then things will get a lot worse.

Read more...

Reforms to "Wet Foot, Dry Foot"

It was inevitable that the "wet foot, dry foot" immigration policy would be a major issue in the U.S.-Cuban relationship. Oddly enough, getting rid of it seems to unite restrictionists and progressives. The former want less immigration in general, while the latter decry the preferential treatment.

There are really two separate issues. The first is the original idea of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, which is the preferential treatment part. Cuban emigrants just need to stay in the U.S. a short amount of time and they can become permanent residents (it was originally two years, then was reduced to one). There is no cap. The idea was that they were facing imminent persecution. Now we know that it's constantly abused--people are commonly claiming persecution yet going back and forth between the two countries. Even hard liners like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen openly acknowledge those abuses.

The second issue is the 1995 "wet, dry" revision. It famously stipulates that Cubans are only eligible if they make it to U.S. territory. That takes us into the absurd position of determining whether a derelict bridge is "land" (it is not!).

There is no valid reason to maintain the Cuban Adjustment Act at all. People in other Latin American countries face worse repression, and so there is no reason to single out Cubans. The "wet, dry" part is just icing on the cake of an outdated policy. Like other aspects of U.S.-Cuban relations, we need to get ourselves out of the 1960s.

Read more...

Greece and Latin America

After a popular vote demonstrating support for the exact opposite, the Greek government has accepted painful structural adjustment in return for loans to help pay off old loans. Latin America did this in the 1980s and 1990s, and this is what happened over the long term: Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, Néstor Kirchner, et al. The PRI lost an election in 1988 as a result so had to steal it. The big difference with Greece is that a leftist is doing the dirty work. How you qualify as "leftist" after that is beyond me--Prime Minister Tsipras is being rejected by the left and will have to pass any deal by allying with the opposition.

On NPR earlier I actually heard an analyst say this is necessary "for the children." Not even being tongue in cheek. We'll see how well children do when their parents are laid off in droves. Understandably, people will be open to a populist voice that offers solutions free of European domination. It would be surprising if such a voice didn't emerge. I don't know Greek politics at all, but the Latin American example and logic are useful.

That said, the parliamentary form of government creates a really different dynamic. Latin American presidents have more power, so a Greek populist would have to do quite a bit more negotiating to pass major reforms. The Hugo Chávez means of reaching power would also not work because you have to be a party leader who forms coalitions--it's extremely difficult to appear out of nowhere and win the election.

Read more...

Media and the Fiery Pope

The Pope is going to Paraguay today, and of course everyone is paying close attention to the things he says. He is scheduled to come to the United States in September, so we should expect this attention to recur quickly.

For the media, this has meant inordinate attention to fire-related imagery. Just Google "Pope fiery." You can barely read anything without getting that, or perhaps incendiary, explosive, flame-throwing, or the like. Andrew Chesnut suggested "Papal napalm," which I like.

This is the same kind of imagery commonly used to characterize speeches by people like Nicolás Maduro, Rafael Correa, and Evo Morales. It suggests condemnatory, loud, but also somewhat threatening. The New York Times is already making the comparison explicit (with a fiery headline to boot!). By the time he gets to the United States, I would expect a fire-related word and "populism" in just about every article. Conservative denunciation will follow.

Meanwhile, a good drinking game is to read the news and take a drink each time you read about the Pope's words are related to fire. You'll be under the table before you know it.

Read more...

Pope Francis and Socialism

I'm quoted in this Associated Press story on Evo Morales' assertion that the Pope is espousing socialism. I don't think he is.

As my quote makes clear, we should not confuse criticism of capitalism with socialism. The Pope is definitely critical of how unbridled capitalism has a lot of negative effects--environmental, humanitarian, etc.--but he is not calling for government to take it over. What he wants is more attention paid to the human cost, recognition of why they occur, and then solutions. But the solutions are not necessarily socialist.

When the Pope comes to the U.S., we're going to hear a lot of Latin American stereotypes--Pope Francis is a populist like Hugo Chávez (or Juan Perón!), he's a caudillo, he's a socialist. It'll be nonstop.

Read more...

Inter-American Relations and Regional Disputes

Aaron Coy Moulton, "Building Their Own Cold War in Their Own Backyard: The Transnational, International Conflicts in the Greater Caribbean Basin, 1944-1954." Journal of Cold War History 15, 2 (2015): 135-154.

Abstract:

Incorporating previously-untapped Dominican, Costa Rican, and Cuban sources, this article reveals how the international Cold War and US policy towards Guatemala overlapped with long-standing regional conflicts in the greater Caribbean basin. During the post-war democratic openings, exiles with patron presidents or dictators composed two loosely-formed networks seeking to destabilise opposing governments. The resulting inter-American conflicts contributed to critical events in the region, most notably US officials’ Cold War-influenced policy to overthrow the Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz in the early 1950s. These conflicts persisted and continued overlapping with the international Cold War while often challenging US officials’ Cold War goals.

This is a good article, and I think has considerable contemporary relevance. The argument is that we always tend to see the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in a rigid Cold War/big powers manner. A more accurate view considers how leaders in different countries were working against each other in purely Latin American alliances.

This article addresses this oversight by demonstrating how the US-sponsored overthrow of the Arbenz government in 1954 represented one of various interAmerican regional conflicts throughout the greater Caribbean basin in the 1940s and 1950s. During the democratic openings of the mid-1940s, Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, Honduran dictator Tiburcio Carı´as, and Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo monitored movements of anti-dictatorial exiles into Guatemala and Venezuela who networked with students, journalists, and political leaders in support of a transnational anti-fascist ideal. Simultaneously, dissident Guatemalan and Venezuelan exiles reached out to Somoza, Carı´as, and Trujillo in a transnational and anti-communist opposition to the Guatemalan Revolution and the Venezuelan government of Ro´mulo Betancourt and the Accio´n Democra´tica party. What emerged were two loosely-formed transnational networks which ‘Latin Americanised’ the region’s foreign relations by pursuing conspiracies against one another against US officials’ policies. A ‘revolutionary’ network of anti-dictatorial exiles with patron presidents serving as regional proponents carried the ideals of the post-war democratic openings into the 1950s and actively challenged dictatorial and military regimes. A ‘counter-revolutionary’ network of dissident exiles with patron dictators and military regimes as regional proponents sought to repress and eliminate their opposition through intelligence-sharing and a series of coup plots.

Good points. I wouldn't say they've really been ignored, but they are downplayed, It is definitely important, though, to better understand how Latin American leaders defined "anti-Communism" and how it affected their behavior.

In Latin America today, this is relevant because in the United States we have a fairly rigid sense of "leftist," which masks the different ways it is defined in Latin America and how regional disputes influence how Latin American leaders act. You can dive deeper and see where Venezuelan opposition leaders go, how student leaders interact across countries, etc.

Read more...

Would Marco Rubio Roll Back Cuba Changes?

I'm quoted in this story about Marco Rubio's position on Cuba policy. He is setting himself apart but not only opposing Obama's changes but by saying he will roll them back if he becomes president.

I don't think he actually would. If he is elected president, he won't take office until the beginning of 2017. By then people will be accustomed to the changes in Cuba policy. That includes both U.S. citizens and Latin Americans. He would have to start his presidency by alienating a large chunk of his own electorate and ensuring that U.S.-Latin American relations would be tarnished for the next four years. Now, that's certainly possible, but there would be enough potential backlash to make him think twice.

What also occurs to me is that I am not even sure this message is going to matter much in the primaries. As my quote gets at, Cuba is just wrapped up in a bigger package of Obama foreign policy criticism. Most people will not vote on Cuba, and those who do increasingly are unpredictable. Many Cuban Americans wants engagement, and many non-Cuban American Republicans want the freedom to trade with whomever they want.

Read more...

Evo Morales' Gift to the Pope

Evo Morales gave the Pope a crucifix in the form of a hammer and sickle. It is a established prize based on a carving by assassinated priest Luis Espinal that the president has handed out before and which is intended to suggest dialogue.



This is a poor job of PR by the Bolivian government. The Pope clearly was not expecting it and didn't like it--he looks like he took a big bite of a lemon and he actually says, "Esto no está bien."

But it's memorable, I'll give him that. Remember that he gave Condoleezza Rice a coca-lacquered guitar.

Read more...

The Pope and Latin American Politics

I'm quoted in this article by David Agren on the Pope's visit to Latin America. He does a nice job of placing the Pope in a political context. The point I make is that he has been criticizing the status quo whether it is left or right (a few days ago I blogged about the conservative reaction). I agree with his point that the Pope has emerged as a regional leader at a time when there aren't any.

Read more...

Marco Rubio Doesn't Like Reagan's Approach

Marco Rubio has an op-ed critical of Obama's Cuba policy. It is extremely difficult to understand the logic.

First, he says this is a Faustian bargain. I don't think this is what he means. A Faustian bargain is one in which you sell your soul for riches. I am guessing he refers to the "legacy" issue, but as I've already argued that makes no sense. He does mention U.S. businesses, but it's not clear to me whether he blames capitalism--it would be far more interesting and ironic if he did.

Second, he says we should learn from history:

Just as we have stood on the right side of history against the repression of other totalitarian regimes, we owe the Cuban people more time so we can get it right and not worsen their situation.

The problem here is that President Reagan--who credentials are untouchable for Republicans--had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union while also criticizing the Soviets for human rights abuses. By the way, he went to the Soviet Embassy to give condolences for Leonid Brezhnev! So it makes sense to have diplomatic relations. It gives you leverage you lack otherwise.

I assume that Rubio would issue a complaint that Reagan was soft on Communism.

Read more...

Impeachment Talk in Brazil

Boz writes about impeachment talk in Brazil. Gossip is gearing up bigtime: Dilma wanted to commit suicide! She won't last! Don't invest! Brazil should adopt a parliamentary system (though remember it already voted against it before)!

There are countless articles mentioning impeachment, but they don't actually ask why it would be possible. That's not even clear for Brazilian analysts.

If you're curious, here is the relevant portion of the Brazilian constitution (their English translation).

SECTION III
Liability of the President of the Republic
Article 85. 
Those acts of the President of the Republic which attempt on the Federal Constitution and especially on the following, are crimes of malversation: I – the existence of the Union; II – the free exercise of the Legislative Power, the Judicial Power, the Public Prosecution and the constitutional Powers of the units of the Federation; III – the exercise of political, individual and social rights; IV – the internal security of the country; V – probity in the administration; VI – the budgetary law; VII – compliance with the laws and with court decisions. These crimes shall be defined in a special law, which shall establish the rules of procedure and trial. 

Article 86. If charges against the President of the Republic are accepted by two thirds of the Chamber of Deputies, he [sic!] shall be submitted to trial before the Supreme Federal Court for common criminal offenses or before the Federal Senate for crimes of malversation. The President shall be suspended from his functions: I – in common criminal offenses, if the accusation or the complaint is received by the Federal Supreme Court; II – in the event of crimes of malversation, after the proceeding is instituted by the Federal Senate

The question I have is whether the major Petrobras scandal is impeachable at all because Rousseff was not president at the time. I would think her removal would only be possible if the corruption was linked to her presidency (say, her re-election effort) but that'll be up for debate.

What the opposition may well do is push the idea of impeachment as far as possible, such as publicly trying to gather the necessary 2/3 votes in the lower house, which if my math is correct would be 344 votes. In the Chamber of Deputies there are 29 parties in 16 blocs. There is lots of talk but actually getting those votes is a different story. Nonetheless, it creates public pressure, which might be augmented with protests. Will a combination of scandal, protests, impeachment talk, abysmal approval ratings, and a weak economy be enough to force resignation?

Read more...

Peace Negotiations and the PR Battle in Colombia

Steven Hyland was just in Colombia and blogs about the government's PR messages in favor of the peace negotiations. It's interesting how they specifically target both young and old audiences.

And they're not the only ones with a PR campaign. The FARC also produces professional videos, including this one that looks like any news cast.



The FARC has come a long way. This was just two years ago:

In another break from tradition, the FARC announced its participation in the talks, not through a drab communiqué but by releasing an upbeat music video called "Me voy para La Habana" or "I'm going to Havana." 

The video is pretty basic. It looks and sounds like one of those low-budget MTV productions from the early 1980s. But Colombians were struck by what they saw. Instead of defiant guerrillas with guns, the video shows smiling rebels in fatigues and Che t-shirts playing bongos and rapping about their hopes for peace.

Yay Marxism! Or something like that.

I've not seen any analysis of the PR battle that is going on outside of yet attached to the peace negotiations, but it would be worth studying to determine its impact (or even how the two sides try to gauge its impact). Both are trying to strengthen their position and are tailoring their messages accordingly.

Read more...

Pope Francis and Latin American Conservatives

Lots and lots of news about the Pope's visit to Latin America. What I find interesting is that I can't remember the last time conservative elites felt threatened by the Pope. If anybody speaks for that elite, it's Mary Anastasia O'Grady, and she is ticked off.

But this pope is very political and his politics, if we take him at his word, favor statist solutions to poverty. In terms of appearances that puts him on the same side of many policy debates as the region’s socialist tyrants.

Chilean elites are nervous about him too because they figure a lefty Pope will favor Bolivia's territorial claims. Republicans in the U.S. say he's selling socialism to Latin America.

Ultimately, I don't see the Pope's visit having much of a lingering effect, but I like even the brief insistence that it's the Pope's job to make oligarchies feel uncomfortable.

Read more...

Coca Cultivation in Colombia

The UN says that coca planting in Colombia increased 44% in 2014. Meanwhile, over at Insight Crime there is a nice, concise discussion about how UN estimates differ from US ones.

Some thoughts:

First, this will be used in criticisms of Juan Manuel Santos' decision to stop aerial spraying. The practice is extremely unpopular in Colombia and extremely popular in the United States, where no one has to deal with the effects.

Second, looking at Colombia in isolation is problematic because we should also understand whether coca planting/cultivation is changing elsewhere. Are we seeing a balloon effect or something else?

Third, how does this relate to cocaine demand elsewhere, including the U.S., Latin America, and Europe? If demand is increasing somewhere, that requires immediate and visible attention.

Fourth, why does the White House not explain its methods of estimation? We could learn something useful from why estimates vary. For example, are they WAGs?

Read more...

Padres Stink 2015

We're now through 81 games, which is exactly half the baseball season. When I was a kid I would always see what the statistics would look like if doubled to be an entire season. Way back when I think I had Ed Whitson with well over 20 wins for the season, so that tells you how useful it can be.

However, it is notable that after the huge trades, the Padres are now on track to be 76-86, which is exactly where we were in 2012 and 2013, and one win short of 2014. That alone is depressing. We're in fourth place, 7.5 games behind the first place Dodgers. We're on pace to score 664 runs with 774 against. Last year we only scored 535 and then only let in 577.

The leader of this supposedly power-hitting team would have 28 home runs (Justin Upton). Nobody has a slugging percentage over .500. Upton also has the highest WAR at 2.7. He leads most major offensive categories (and would almost have a 30/30 because he currently has 15 steals) ahead of Derek Norris, who is having a nice season but who will wear out as catcher who then sometimes plays first base on his off day (unless Austin Hedges starts playing a lot more).

James Shields would have 14 wins and 246 strikeouts, though at 0.9 WAR is behind Tyson Ross for starters, and even behind Joaquin Benoit and Brandon Maurer for all pitchers. Maurer is actually having a great season in a mediocre bullpen. The vaunted Craig Kimbrel has a 0.3 WAR and would have 40 saves, which is the definition of unexciting.

People like Buster Olney have started the drumbeat of the Padres needing to start selling by the trade deadline. Given all the hype going into the season, I can't imagine that happening, and I still have hope we can eke out a wild card spot.

Read more...

Bob Corker and Venezuela

Republican Senator Bob Corker, who is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is in Venezuela. It's unusual for such a visit to please everyone, yet at least for now it is. It is being labeled by the U.S. media as an effort to smooth relations while the far right labels it an effort to pressure the Venezuelan government. María Corina Machado had the same impression. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan government itself says that in a meeting Corker recognized the advances the Maduro government is making.

Corker himself has made no statement, which is not surprising. Why say anything when every player thinks you're on their side?

The balancing act with regard to Venezuela isn't new. Last year Corker blocked the Venezuela sanctions for months, which made people like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen angry. He eventually released it, citing Venezuela's refusal to extradite Hugo Carvajal, who is wanted on drug charges in the U.S. Even while doing that, though, he emphasized the need for regional dialogue.

I'm not really sure why Corker is interested in Venezuela, though it may simply have to do with concern over oil access. Yet while he's a hawk on Iraq, for example, he is much more restrained than other Republicans on Venezuela.

Read more...

Criticism of Restoring Ties With Cuba

Today President Obama announced that Cuba and the United States would open embassies and restore normal diplomatic relations. As usual, I immediately went to see not only what critics said, but how they framed their criticism.

Some of these are well-worn and ignorant of the fact that our past polices are precisely what helped legitimize the Castro government. Ending isolation is very risky for the Cuban government, but it is facing a major demographic challenge in addition to the risk of relying on the teetering Venezuelan government.

There is a new one criticism, namely legacy, and it's curious. The argument is that Obama is pursuing this policy to burnish his legacy, or to "go legacy shopping," as Ileana Ros-Lehtinen put it. Another Florida representative phrased it as a"legacy building bucket list." So many people are using this that I have to figure it's been planned.

What I find odd is that none of them dispute the fact that this will help Obama's legacy. In other words, it is widely viewed as popular in the short-term and as something that will make him look good in the longer term. If both of those are true, then we need to face the strong possibility that the policy is in fact a good one.

Here are some other excerpts:

Marco Rubio:

“Throughout this entire negotiation, as the Castro regime has stepped up its repression of the Cuban people, the Obama Administration has continued to look the other way and offer concession after concession. The administration's reported plan to restore diplomatic relations is one such prized concession to the Castro regime. It remains unclear what, if anything, has been achieved since the President's December 17th announcement in terms of securing the return of U.S. fugitives being harbored in Cuba, settling outstanding legal claims to U.S. citizens for properties confiscated by the regime, and in obtaining the unequivocal right of our diplomats to travel freely throughout Cuba and meet with any dissidents, and most importantly, securing greater political freedoms for the Cuban people. I intend to oppose the confirmation of an Ambassador to Cuba until these issues are addressed. It is time for our unilateral concessions to this odious regime to end.”

John Boehner:

"The Obama administration is handing the Castros a lifetime dream of legitimacy without getting a thing for the Cuban people being oppressed by this brutal communist dictatorship,"

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen:

As the Ladies in White, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez, Yris Perez Aguilera, and other pro-democracy leaders are routinely harassed, beaten, and imprisoned, the Obama administration has continued to turn its back on the Cuban people in order to pursue its goal of providing as many concessions as possible to the Castro regime. Not surprisingly, this administration has shown that politics trump policy in its decision-making process. Opening the American Embassy in Cuba will do nothing to help the Cuban people and is just another trivial attempt for President Obama to go legacy shopping.

Jeb Bush:

“The real test of the Obama administration’s rapprochement with the Castro regime in Cuba is not whether President Obama’s legacy is burnished with dubious diplomatic achievements and photo-ops, but whether improved relations between Havana and Washington advance the cause of human rights and freedom for the Cuban people,” the 2016 GOP presidential candidate said. “The ongoing detention of dissidents and continued human rights abuses suggest the administration’s policy is failing this test.”

Rick Perry:

Mr. Perry, a 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said the decision is the “most recent example of this president’s foreign policy that ignores reality in exchange for surface level political ‘wins.’”
“The truth is that since the Castro brothers assumed power in 1959, their policies have changed very little,” Mr. Perry said. “The Cuban people today are not any freer politically or economically, and President Obama has failed to account for what the Castro regime has done in the last several years that warrants such an enormous shift in a longstanding U.S. policy of economic embargo and diplomatic isolation.
“There is no indication that further normalization will do anything to actually liberate the Cuban people or advance American interests,” Perry said.

Bob Menendez:

Our demands for freedoms and liberty on the island will continue to be ignored and we are incentivizing a police state to uphold a policy of brutality. It is long past due for the United States to require concessions and changes from Cuba and thus far, we have seen neither. A policy of the United States giving and the Castro brothers freely taking is not in our national interest and not a responsible approach when dealing with repressive rulers that deny freedoms to its people. An already one-sided deal that benefits the Cuban regime is becoming all the more lopsided.”
"This is the only government in the Western Hemisphere, which the Obama administration has chosen to establish relations with, that is not elected by its citizens. The message is democracy and human rights take a back seat to a legacy initiative.”

Ted Cruz:

"President Obama announced today he is continuing his policy of unconditional surrender to Fidel and Raul Castro by rewarding one of the most violently anti-American regimes on the planet with an embassy and an official representative of our government. I, for one, want the Cuban people to know that there are still those who stand with them, and who know the Castros for what they are. I will hold any nominee President Obama sends to the Senate to be ambassador to Cuba, and I will work to disapprove any new funds for embassy construction in Havana, unless and until the President can demonstrate that he has made some progress in alleviating the misery of our friends, the people of Cuba."

Read more...

Attitudes Toward the Environment in Latin America

There's a new AmericasBarometer article from the Latin American Public Opinion Project on Latin American attitudes toward the environment (by Claire Evans, a doctoral student at Vanderbilt).

The report puts the post‐materialism school of thought to the test and finds it does a poor job of explaining why so many individuals in the Latin America and Caribbean region express environmentally friendly attitudes. Socioeconomic status, measured by the wealth and education variables, has no effect on such attitudes in the pooled analysis for the LAC region. Age is also not a significant predictor of environmental attitudes. An individual’s urban (versus rural) place of residence and gender do predict individuals’ environmental attitudes, albeit by relatively small amounts.   These results reveal a hole in our understanding of public opinion and the environment. In a region that is facing other difficulties, why is it that such a large portion of the population is willing to sacrifice much needed economic growth in order to ensure sustainability?  

People of limited means are interested in the environment even though protecting it may not be beneficial to them personally in the short term. People in rural areas in particular see firsthand what the problems are.

This also means there is a reservoir of support for protecting the environment, which is something individual leaders have talked about, but also is an element in U.S.-Latin American relations. Just yesterday Brazil and the U.S. pledged to get to 20% renewable energy by 2030. There is room to broaden the discussion in campaigns, especially presidential ones, and gain political support by doing so.

Read more...