Tuesday, March 18, 2008

The OAS response

The OAS has issued a draft resolution regarding the Colombia-Ecuador incident, which does not say all that much. It “rejects” the Colombian incursion, asserting that it violated Articles 19 and 21 of the OAS Charter, but also “takes note” of Colombia’s apology. It then suggests creating “mechanisms” and “measures” to foster better bilateral relations. All the OAS documents surrounding the incident can be found here.

More interesting is the report of the commission that went to Ecuador and Colombia. Regarding the laptops:

[T]he OAS Secretary General and some Commission members held a brief meeting with members of INTERPOL who had come to Colombia at the request of that country’s government to conduct an expert examination of three computers, three USBs (portable memory), and three hard disks, which, according to the Colombian officials, had been found in the FARC camp. The INTERPOL delegates, accompanied by officials from the Administrative Security Department (DAS), informed the Commission that the results of their investigation would be ready in late April (p. 5).

Now, as for the differing versions of events:

The Government of Colombia indicates that the operation was initially planned to take place in Colombian territory because, according to intelligence information, Raúl Reyes was going to be at that camp that night. At 22:30 hours on Friday, February 29, they received human intelligence information to the effect that Raúl Reyes was at a camp located in Ecuadorian territory. For that reason they decided to carry out a dual operation on both of the identified camps. The two operations were carried out using different planes. During its flight over the area, the Commission was shown the location of the camp on Colombian territory and a map showing where the bombs were released [See Annex 6 – List of documents received by the Commission].

The Government of Ecuador expresses doubts about the –in its view—very short period of time in which the Colombian authorities decided to carry out the operation and regards it as unlikely that it was done on the basis of human intelligence data because of the precision of the bombing. The Government of Ecuador also states that, according to the investigation carried out by its Air Force technical staff, six 500-pound GBU12 bombs were dropped by planes flying from South to North and four more were dropped by planes flying in a North-South direction, from Ecuadorian air space. It also points out that, judging by the remains of the bombs found at the camp, their delivery required advanced technology, which, they say, the Colombian Air Force does not possess (p. 6)

From what I see, however, the OAS is not going to verify which version is accurate. Instead, it seeks to move forward and improve relations. But if we want to establish confidence, isn’t it necessary to determine the truth of the incident first?

Read more...

Monday, March 17, 2008

Salvadorans in the U.S.

I've mentioned my former student Gabriel Serrano before—here is a short profile of him. It is a great story about fighting for freedom of expression in a country controlled by a very conservative elite.


Read more...

Getting a Ph.D.

Chris Lawrence has good suggestions for undergraduates considering a Ph.D. in Political Science, with links to some really interesting discussions by people applying to graduate school. One major source of debate is needing to get a Ph.D. from a “top 25” school in order to get a “good job,” which then launched comments about what is “top 25.” In my view, it makes more sense to look at the school’s website and ask their graduate coordinator about what their placement record is—you can then see what types of jobs you would likely get, and make your decision accordingly. So I agree with Chris, who highlighted one response in particular from a long thread:

Whatever the rank of your program, if you have full funding and they have a decent placement record, strong faculty, and you think you can get the kind of training you want, then go.
And always keep in mind that a Ph.D. takes a long time, you’ll have little money for quite a while, and then the job market is stressful and unpredictable. In many ways it’s a weird profession.

Somewhat related, Dr. Crazy has a long post on the dynamics of publishing once you have a tenure-track position. It doesn’t fit me perfectly (i.e. all my journal submissions have been “cold”) but is still worth a look.

Read more...

Sunday, March 16, 2008

State reactions to immigration

Ever since Congress abdicated its responsibility and refused to pass immigration reform, numerous state and local governments have been passing their own legislation, often restrictive. Now, however, lawmakers in both Arizona and Colorado want to create their own guest worker programs to deal with labor shortage.

Ironically, Arizona and Colorado are two states that have been at the forefront of punitive legislation (Tom Tancredo is of course from Colorado). Therefore some members of the legislature (even Republicans, I should point out, as this is not always a clearly partisan issue) are trying to counter restrictive legislation they already passed.

Labor rights groups oppose the idea because they are concerned that state-level guest worker programs will lack sufficient protection for the workers (some opponents may also be against guest workers programs on principle).

Ultimately, this particular proposal is currently a moot point, because it would entail states taking over federal duties and therefore is not constitutional, unless Congress expressly delegates that duty. This may simply be a trial balloon--after all, it has not gone up for a vote--but it is yet another example of what a mess Congress has made.

Read more...

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Making a list and checking it twice

Some Congressional Republicans have proposed a resolution to put Venezuela on the state sponsor of terrorism list. What we should note, however, is that these particular Republicans are the usual suspects of anti-Castro policy (e.g. Connie Mack and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen). As a result, this doesn’t tell us much about how Congress as a whole will respond.

What virtually no one seems to be discussing is the cost that will be borne by U.S. consumers at a time of recession and in an election year if trade with Venezuela is severely restricted. The average person is only vaguely interested in Hugo Chávez, but is extremely interested in the cost of gas and food. So who will they blame?

Here is the text of the resolution.

Read more...

Friday, March 14, 2008

Colombia-Venezuela relations

Hugo Chávez called Alvaro Uribe and the two agreed to meet soon, both to discuss bilateral relations but also to improve the personal relationship between the two. The latter is especially important, because at this point Chávez has insulted Uribe in so many ways that he’d need a thesaurus to find a new one.

Bubbling right under the surface are the laptops, which are currently being examined by Interpol, and Condoleezza Rice’s constant hinting about putting Venezuela on the terrorist list (what is the current Vegas line on this?). Doing that will wreck dialogue between Venezuela and Colombia while also strengthening Chávez at home where, as Boz points out, his numbers aren’t currently too high.

Read more...

Thursday, March 13, 2008

No Argentina for you!

Condoleezza Rice is heading off to Brazil and Chile, and the NYT notes how she is snubbing Argentina for its ties to Venezuela. Last month Clarín reported that Thomas Shannon would be visiting Argentina before long, but apparently that didn’t pan out (at least yet—the article noted that no date had been set).

I think the U.S.-Argentine relationship is particularly interesting. The two governments are wary of each other but not exactly antagonistic. Each sees a benefit to being proper but not too friendly, but each sends a variety of signals--sometimes positive, sometimes negative--all the time.

Read more...

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Google Reader

Steven Taylor had mentioned using shared items in Google Reader--for a variety of reasons I had been thinking of switching from Newsgator, and finally did so. I am going to experiment with shared items, which are links to blog posts I happen to find interesting but don't necessarily blog about myself--the idea is to give as much exposure as possible to different blogs. You can click here to see them. I imagine I won't generally add more than one a day at most.

Actually, now I see that I can just create a widget on the right.

Read more...

Framing remittances

There is a new IADB report on remittances to Latin America, reporting that they are up to $66.5 billion, a 7% increase from last year, which is a lower percentage increase than in recent years. Remittances to Brazil actually dropped, and the authors cite a stronger Brazilian economy and currency. However, in Honduras remittances constitute a staggering 25% of GNP (Haiti and Guyana are even higher) and remittances to Central America increased 11% overall.

What I found most curious, though, was the way in which the media chose to frame it. The absolute amount continues to rise, so it is increasingly difficult to keep up the massive percentage increases year to year, regardless of immigration policy or other factors.

So the Miami Herald headline is: “Migrants’ Money Flow Home Slackens”

But the Arizona Republic has: “Migrants Still Sending Vast Sums Back to Latin America”

Read more...

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Renewed liberation theology?

Thanks to my student Kelby for pointing out that the Vatican has updated its list of deadly sins and that three of them sound surprisingly like liberation theology:

1. “Bioethical” violations such as birth control

2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research

3. Drug abuse

4. Polluting the environment

5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor

6. Excessive wealth

7. Creating poverty

As a staunch defender of “traditional” Catholic values, over twenty years ago Cardinal Ratzinger had made his view on liberation theology clear: “An analysis of the phenomenon of liberation theology reveals that it constitutes a fundamental threat to the faith of the Church.”

But if the last three (or really even four) items are deadly sins, then by extension capitalism—and the U.S. effort to promote it--is also sinful. This is what Latin American priests were saying decades ago. It is, strangely enough, just a tiny step from saying that the only virtuous ideology is socialism, or at least democratic socialism. It is also just a tiny step from asking good Catholics to denounce any government that is sinful, e.g. capitalist.

Read more...

Monday, March 10, 2008

Venezuela poll

I just discovered that Blogger does not archive polls. Apparently there are free poll services to use, and I may try to figure that out in the future for fun. But I am taking down the old poll, so will just write the results here, and we can see in late April how everyone fared.

Will the U.S. Add Venezuela to the "State Sponsor of Terrorism" List?

No: 33%
Yes: 47%
Yes, but next year: 19%
n= 21

Read more...

Drip, Drip, Drip

The Venezuelan government notes that the Rio Declaration will go down in history as an example for neighborly relations. There is nothing in the agreement, however, about the dissemination of information, and so the Colombian government’s strategy is to leak documents from the laptops.

Do it all at once, and interest will wane quickly. Do it bit by bit, keep getting attention, and the impact is greater. The current crop of documents has not been too damning of Venezuela, so Hugo Chávez has not responded—I wonder what will happen when that changes.

Regardless, it is important to note that, as far as I have read, no outside experts have yet looked at the laptops. Interpol apparently is sending people who will arrive in Colombia next week.

Read more...

Sunday, March 09, 2008

George Will on Cuba policy

George Will has written a column on Cuba, which shows relatively little understanding about Cuba itself, but which nonetheless argues for an end to the embargo. Therefore it is notable as another example of Republicans jumping ship on Cuba policy.

The thrust of the article is not to assume that capitalism will bring democracy to Cuba, by comparing it to China. We could, of course, argue all day about the relationship between capitalism and democracy (or polyarchy) but the fact is that Cuba is not much like China, politically, geographically, etc. I am a comparativist, but superficial comparisons (i.e. both countries were “communist” so political outcomes should be more or less the same) sometime obscure more than they reveal.

He also cites a history of Cuba “blaming” the United States, and before it Spain, for Cuban problems. It’s true—you should really blame yourself for colonial rule, slash and burn control tactics, then the U.S. writing itself into your constitution, then periodically occupying you before it stopped and just funded a dictator instead.

But what did I expect from George Will? He did, however, say the embargo is an utterly failed policy, and on that point he’s correct.

Read more...

Saturday, March 08, 2008

This is the end

The immediate crisis is—amazingly, given the heated exchanges--now over, but it happened so fast that a number of questions remain. As far as I can tell, the “agreement” is as follows:

  1. Colombia apologizes to Ecuador, and Ecuador accepts
  2. Colombia promises (in writing) it will not cross borders in such a manner again (the wording of this will obviously be important)
  3. Venezuela normalizes all relations with Colombia
  4. Colombia will not pursue any charges against Chávez
  5. Ecuador will investigate the charges based on the laptop information
  6. Nicaragua normalizes relations with Colombia

Fidel Castro argues that the only loser is the United States. I agree to an extent—the fact that the Rio Group represented a successful diplomatic avenue demonstrates Latin America’s ability to solve its own problems. The total U.S. support for crossing borders also isolates it (though that is not entirely new). As Boz points out, though, the OAS—and its General Secretary José Miguel Insulza—also comes out a loser to some degree because it emitted platitudes rather than solutions. This won’t be great for him as he eyes the Chilean presidency.

Both Correa and Chávez can claim victory, as they received the promise from Uribe, and can say they talked tough while seeking peaceful solutions. Uribe comes out fine, as for the price of an apology and promise he hit the FARC very hard, and has also called more international attention to the FARC’s activities in Ecuador and Venezuela.

But questions remain:

--What is the status of all that information on the laptops?

--Will Chávez continue to speak well of the FARC and its leaders? If so, would that affect this agreement?

--Is there any sort of agreement about how to patrol the borders?

--If Uribe gets info that a high-ranking member of the FARC is right across the border, what will he do? Does the agreement address that?

Read more...

Friday, March 07, 2008

Party at the Rio Group Summit


Perhaps because of the seriousness of the meeting, I love this photo (from El Tiempo). It looks like a class photo, where everybody is so joyful.

BTW, Uribe refused to join the fun. I guess when everyone is talking about condemning you, it doesn’t put you in the mood to say cheese and wave at the camera.

I really would like to be a fly on the wall in some of these meetings.


Read more...

Uribe and a third term

Thanks to Adam Isacson for a reminder (and link to a timeline) about Alvaro Uribe’s comments last November, when he said that—like most leaders who want to stay in power—that he didn’t want to stay in power. But he would if there was some sort of catastrophe and his coalition couldn’t unite around another candidate. So hop on the bandwagon for yet another constitutional amendment for yet another presidential term.

Just anecdotally, yesterday I ran into a former student of mine at the gym—he’s a Colombian-American whose family is very anti-FARC (a cousin in the military was killed by the FARC) but still wary of Uribe changing the constitution to remain in power. A poll from last year had 53.7% favoring a third term (compared to about 80% approval rating). Of course the current crisis may increase that, but there are still many Colombians who agree with many of Uribe’s policies but don’t want him to keep changing the constitution for his own benefit.

Read more...

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Chile gets involved

Chile is now getting more involved in the Ecuador-Colombia-Venezuela conflict.

In comments somewhere (I don’t really want to dig back) Boz mentioned the Chileans photographed with the FARC. That is now hitting the fan in Chile, as a debate has begun about whether they were receiving training or just visiting (is just visiting somehow OK?) The government is putting police at the border on alert.

President Bachelet has criticized Colombia for violating Ecuador’s sovereignty, but when asked about Hugo Chávez also said that countries should not meddle in the affairs of others, and that any initiative intended to increase polarization is not the “correct way.”

It strikes me, actually, that since the Chilean Communist Party admitted the Chileans were there, it is also verifying the accuracy of the photos taken from a FARC laptop.

Read more...

FARC and kidnapping

From the beginning of this entire affair, a common concern has been that the killing of Raul Reyes jeopardized the continued release of people the FARC is holding prisoner. Fortunately, that may not be the case--they just released four of the six people kidnapped in January in a "humanitarian" gesture.

Today is also the march against violence, including that coming from paramilitaries and the state.

Read more...

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Venezuela, Colombia and the ICC

Given all of Alvaro Uribe’s talk of charging Hugo Chávez through the International Criminal Court, I thought I would take a look at how the ICC works, especially in the context of this particular case. I am not going to bother analyzing the details of the documents that Uribe says came from the FARC, but obviously Colombia would argue before the court that Chávez was aiding and abetting, with money, shelter, etc.

The ICC is governed by the Rome Statute, which entered into force July 1, 2002.

First of all, let’s dispense with the conventional wisdom that you can’t try a Head of State. From Article 27:

Irrelevance of official capacity

1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

Now, onto the charges:

From Article 6: the ICC defines genocide in the following manner:

For the purpose of this Statute, ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


At issue: I don’t see intuitively what group Uribe intends to show as the victim of genocide, and that is the crux of the legal argument. The FARC is horribly violent, but to my knowledge it has not sought to destroy any particular group, unless Uribe intends to argue that it refers to the entire population of Colombia. In fact, he’d be much better off trying for Article 7 “Crimes Against Humanity,” since it covers the FARC more clearly, especially since it includes kidnapping, which the FARC openly uses as a weapon.

According to Articles 14 & 15, Colombia would refer the case to an ICC Prosecutor, who according to Article 42 is “elected by secret ballot by an absolute majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties.”

According to Article 17, the Prosecutor will determine the case to be admissible if the state is “unwilling or geniunely unable” to prosecute the case on its own.

At issue: No one in Venezuela has ever charged Chávez with genocide. No one, in fact, outside Venezuela has done so either. The ICC is structured to step in when national courts cannot function. It would seem to me that Uribe would have to prove that Chávez’s genocidal actions not only were widely known, but that all efforts to charge him were being blocked in some manner.

From Article 22: “The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.”

At issue: if there is any ambiguity at all about the genocide charge, the case is dismissed immediately. However, if new evidence comes to light the charge can be revived.

Article 25 lays out how Colombia would likely argue that Chávez should be accountable for the FARC’s activities because it includes language like “aids” and “abets”:

Individual criminal responsibility

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.

2. A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be individually responsible and liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute.

3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:

(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;

(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;

(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;


Bottom line: the basic legal foundation is there, but it is very hard to imagine the case being strong enough to pass the initial prosecutorial phase, no matter what the computer files show.

Read more...

Tangled Web Part 3

I don’t know how long I’ll continue doing updates on this story, but it’s still far too interesting to set aside.

  • The Venezuelan government says it does not need Colombia for domestic food "sovereignty." Aside from Argentina and Brazil, it can also get its food from powerhouses like Nicaragua and Belarus. If trade remains disrupted, then Chávez will very quickly have to put his money where his mouth is.

  • Rafael Correa’s goal is to get Colombia to admit it violated Ecuador’s sovereignty and apologize, possibly even a censure. Most Latin American countries have expressed “rejection” (which seems to be the most common rhetoric being used) of the incursion in some form or another. They then want the OAS to deal with it.

  • Colombia says it already apologized, but it was one of those “we’re sorry that we’re being forced to apologize, and we would do it again” types of apologies.
  • Correa also made vague threats about “doing what it takes” to “defend ourselves” if Colombia does not apologize.
  • The Ecuadorian Minister of Internal Security suggested having a multinational force patrol Colombia’s border with Ecuador. That might not be such a bad idea.
  • The OAS emergency meeting did not yield a statement on the crisis:

An understanding was beginning to be worked out with Colombia admitting that a country’s territorial integrity in “inviolable” and can not be the object of “force measures by another country”.

However Colombia objected to the last wording and insisted that combating terrorism and terrorism financing is a priority for the (South American) continent and should also be included in the draft.

The Venezuelan delegate said that OAS would have no meaning if it wasn’t able to confirm that a sovereignty violation act has been committed against one of its members.


  • Lastly, the OAS has the laptops. So who gets to check them out?



Read more...

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Tangled Web Part 2

If anything, the Colombia-Ecuador-Venezuela crisis is just getting harder to sort out, and a solution seems no closer than yesterday.

  • We have the famous laptops, but so far we only know what the Colombian government is telling us. I’m going to bother speculating until we get more info. Colombia needs to offer up something other than accusations to start ratcheting this down.
  • Ecuador has broken diplomatic relations with Colombia. However, the government said that the wounded members of the FARC would still be handed over to Colombia. Correa is also going on a trip to garner support from around the region.
  • The U.S. government got involved by telling Venezuela it shouldn’t be involved, and said the crisis should be resolved with dialogue. You know, because that’s the way the U.S. always solves things.
  • Venezuela has kicked out Colombia’s diplomatic corps, and government officials continue to criticize the Colombian government. Venezuelan authorities have halted trade at the busiest border crossings, which will obviously have economic repercussions in both countries.
  • The OAS is meeting this afternoon to start addressing the crisis.

Read more...

Monday, March 03, 2008

What a tangled web

The death of Raul Reyes is having quite an effect on Colombia’s neighbors. Hugo Chávez is trying to portray it as an act of war since Colombia launched the attack into Ecuador. Rafael Correa, meanwhile, has recalled his ambassador, denounced it as a violation of sovereignty, and sent troops to the border, but his rhetoric has been more muted. Even as he criticized the way the attack was conducted, he emphasized that he condemns the FARC's actions and understood the gravity of the Colombian conflict. But we also need to see the effect of the captured laptops that purport to show the Correa government was negotiating with the FARC.

Of course, the Venezuelan government criticized the operation itself, saying it was a setback for any solution to the political conflict in Colombia, since the FARC had just released more hostages.* Chávez himself said the entire affair was all imposed by the United States, and lamented Reyes’s death, calling for a moment of silence for the “good revolutionary.” Lots and lots of references to lackeys, empires, etc. Finally, he sent troops and tanks to the border, and closed the Venezuelan embassy in Colombia.**

I don’t see Chávez’s bluster about war resonating with much of anyone, not even domestically, where I am willing to bet that most Venezuelans are perfectly happy if a violent guerrilla leader is killed (if anyone knows of a poll about Venezuelan attitudes toward the FARC or Colombia in general, please leave a link--Boz has some discussion of this). Does this saber-rattling matter to the average Venezuelan?

One obvious key to this conflict is the dialogue between Ecuador and Colombia. If they reach some sort of agreement, then the wind will be taken out of Chávez’s sails. However, this crisis is constantly evolving--in particular, we need to see how Correa continues to respond.


* Regardless of Chávez’s rhetoric, anyone who cares about the well-being of the hostages should at least ponder this logic.

**Apropos a previous post, we can safely say that Venezuela will not respond to Colombia’s suggestion of having talks…

Read more...

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Virtual success of the virtual fence

The virtual fence at the border doesn't work. Anyone with a brain saw this coming. The funniest part is the way in which "failure" is phrased: the pilot project "resulted in a product that did not fully meet user needs."

Read more...

INCSR report for 2008

The State Department’s 2008 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) is now out.

From the Introduction:

The following major illicit drug producing and/or drug-transit countries were identified and notified to Congress by the President on September 14, 2007, consistent with section 706(1) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228):

Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela.

Of these 20 countries, Burma and Venezuela were designated by the President as having “failed demonstrably” during the previous 12 months to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements and take the measures set forth in section 489(a)(1) of the FAA. The President also determined, however, in accordance with provisions of Section 706(3)(A) of the FRAA, that support for programs to aid Venezuela’s democratic institutions is vital to the national interests of the United States.

Other highlights:

  • Last year, I noted how coca cultivation in Colombia had increased significantly between 2005 and 2006. In the report this is portrayed simply as the result of increasing the survey area. The 2007 net cultivation numbers are not given, and I cannot find the explanation for why that is the case, though it must be in there somewhere
  • Bolivia comes out quite favorably, though I must say it seems odd to tout the use of the DARE program there, especially since it was even dropped from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School system because it doesn’t work
  • Ecuador—and even Rafael Correa specifically--is also discussed in very positive terms. Side note: contrary to initial reports about cooperation, Correa has recalled his ambassador from Colombia in protest of the operation that killed Raul Reyes.
  • Even Cuba comes out looking pretty good
  • The Mexico section is a pure lovefest
  • The language on Venezuela is even more scathing than last year:

Venezuela is a major drug-transit country with rampant high level corruption and a weak judicial system. Lack of international counternarcotics cooperation and a shift in trafficking patterns through Venezuela enable a growing illicit drug transshipment industry. Despite continued USG efforts to sign a mutually agreed upon addendum to the 1978 USG-Government of Venezuela (GOV) Bilateral Counternarcotics Memorandum of Understanding, Venezuela has refused to cooperate on most bilateral counternarcotics issues. Consequently, the President determined in 2007, as in 2006 and 2005, that Venezuela failed demonstrably to adhere to its obligations under international counternarcotics agreements.

  • There is an interesting little nugget in the section on Uruguay: “free trade zones afford relative anonymity for the movement of cargo, including illicit substances.” In other words, the U.S. government is saying that the proliferation of free trade also encourages drug trafficking?

Read more...

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Referendum conundrum

Both Miguel and Boz have discussions about the intimidation and undemocratic procedures (e.g. not allowing debate) used to pass three laws in Bolivia, which combined create a situation where a new constitution will go up for a vote on May 4, and another vote will determine whether only the national legislature can convoke a referendum, thus making the autonomy votes in Santa Cruz and Beni (on that same day) illegal.

In December, however, Evo Morales announced that he would convoke separate referenda on whether he, the Vice President, and the nine prefects should remain in office. It seems that about two weeks ago, a government spokesperson repeated the possibility in the event that negotiations failed. It seems that negotiations did indeed fail, so what happened to that proposal?

Read more...

Friday, February 29, 2008

10 more months

Despite the hemming and hawing, the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act was extended by the U.S. Congress for another 10 months. Democrats had pushed for longer, but Republicans want it tied more to passing a Colombia FTA. I take this to mean that if no FTA is passed this year, the Republicans (I assume in the Senate, given the ability to prevent a vote, though maybe there are also enough wavering Democrats in the House) will block the next renewal.

But, of course, that means passing a new and controversial FTA in the midst of a presidential campaign, which itself is occurring the context of a sluggish economy, during which voters are naturally going to be even more leery than usual of trade deals.

Read more...

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Military intelligence

I’ve criticized Venezuelan (and Chilean for that matter) spending on arms, but the recent Senate Arms Services Committee hearing is still nuts. We have National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and DIA chief General Michael Maples offering up our best intelligence on Venezuela:

  • Venezuela might be helping the FARC, but all the evidence suggests the purchased rifles are going into armories
  • Venezuela “could very well be” destabilizing neighbors, but we have no evidence of it
  • Chávez might have bought the weapons for domestic control, but we have no evidence of it
  • As a topper, in Cuba the move from Fidel to Raúl may spark mayhem, but we have no evidence of it

This is just from a short news story—who knows how many more would be in the original transcript. I’m glad to see that intelligence dollars in the U.S. remain so well spent.

What else do we have no evidence of?

Read more...

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

LASA letter on Cuba

I am a member of the Latin American Studies Association, so I have my own little stake in the letter sent to President Bush by LASA and several other groups asking for a change in Cuba policy. As everyone who has even glanced at this blog knows, I am in favor of lifting the embargo. However, I don't agree with the rationale the letter uses to argue for easing of some restrictions:

I write on behalf of the organizations listed below to urge you to lift the restrictions that you imposed on academic and family travel, as well as remittances, to Cuba in 2003 and 2004, in recognition of Cuba’s first presidential succession in nearly 50 years and as a way to increase U.S. contacts with Cuba as it now begins a transition to a new generation of leadership.

First, we should not view the transfer of power from one old dictator to his equally non-democratic brother as anything but dynastic succession, so this is not something deserving “recognition.” Second, given the old guard choices made by the political elites on Sunday, there is no “transition to a new generation,” at least not as of now.

Instead, the letter should have emphasized that the restrictions strengthen the Castro regime and hurt the average Cuban, and as such are counterproductive and isolate the United States unnecessarily. Yes, we should increase contacts, but that should occur whether or not there is any "transition."

Read more...

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Venezuela-Colombia

Alvaro Uribe’s Foreign Minister says the president is willing to talk to Hugo Chávez, and that Colombia would really like the Venezuelan Ambassador to return to Bogotá. I’ll be interested to hear Chávez’s reply, because his opponents believe he wants to use enmity with Colombia for his own benefit. Some sort of rapprochement with Uribe would deflate that argument. My impression is that they don’t like each other much personally, but friendliness is not a precondition of diplomacy.

This can work in Chávez’s favor in another way, because the United States likes to use the Venezuela/Colombia tiff as a means of criticizing Chávez. Smoothing the rough edges between the two leaders (to the extent possible) would also deflate that to some degree. Uribe, meanwhile, will be able to retain good relations with the U.S. while opening up talks with Venezuela about border problems. A hostile neighbor definitely does not benefit Colombia.

So let's see what the Venezuelan response is.

Read more...

Monday, February 25, 2008

Graham Greene's Getting to Know the General

I read Graham Green’s Getting to the Know the General: The Story of an Involvement. It is a highly laudatory and quite quirky view of Panama under Omar Torrijos, who invited Greene (then in his 70s) to visit several times and brought him along to the Panama Canal Treaty signing ceremony in DC. One thing I appreciate about reading Greene’s various treatments of Latin America is that a non-Western Hemisphere viewpoint is not so common.* I would put it on my sidebar, but apparently Amazon doesn’t even have an official image for it.

He spends most of his time with a trusted Torrijos aide named Chuchu, and essentially they careen across the country, with short forays into Belize (Greene is not even entirely sure why Torrijos sent him there), Nicaragua and Cuba, meeting a wide variety of people. What he finds is a moderate leftist populism, though he doesn’t like calling it that.

Some of the populism seems almost mean spirited, as Torrijos listens to the demands of yucca farmers for better wages. He had already decided to raise their wages, “All the same, he added, he would keep the peasants guessing for a while—for his amusement and theirs” (p. 75). That is not the “social democracy” Greene keeps claiming Torrijos practices, which he also calls “direct democracy.”

“To me it seemed that the General was practicing a direct form of democracy, though the General’s enemies would have called him a populist, a word which is now commonly misemployed and used as a sneer” (p. 106). He bases this on the fact that his Oxford Dictionary’s definitions don’t jibe with what in fact everyone else agrees is populism. Nonetheless, someone who at one point labeled himself the “Maximum Leader” and was never elected can hardly be called democratic. It is, however, certainly preferable to Manuel Noriega.

If there is one thing we learn about Graham Greene, it’s that he loves his cocktails. He writes repeatedly about sucking down rum punches, and complains when he finds himself at lunches where only water is served. After any teetotaling lunch he then must go find some rum punch. On one of his later trips, he is distressed to find that the bar where he got the best rum punches had become a bank. No alcohol at lunch was simply uncivilized.


*Along these lines, not long ago I started reading Spanish author Manuel Vázquez Montalban’s The Buenos Aires Quintet, a novel centered on the effects of Argentina’s Dirty War, but found it too wandering and uninteresting to finish.

Read more...

Sunday, February 24, 2008

WOW, Major Political Change in Cuba!

Made you look. Raúl is officially the new president.

Read more...

Calling for policy change

This is a few days old, but 104 members of Congress from both parties signed a letter (here is a PDF through the WOLA website) asking for a complete review of U.S. policy toward Cuba: “Our policy leaves us without influence at this critical moment, and this serves neither the U.S. national interest nor average Cubans, the intended beneficiaries of our policy.” That is almost 25% of all members, an impressive total that likely will continue to grow, though perhaps only gradually as people start paying more attention. But also look for more governors to work behind the scenes to expand the existing agricultural trade program. Further:

Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), the acting chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced in a statement he would hold hearings to determine what impact Castro’s retirement could make on the island.

Apparently Democrats also have what they believe are strong candidates running against the South Florida embargo stalwarts. They are well entrenched, so I have no idea how realistic the challengers’ chances are.

Read more...

Saturday, February 23, 2008

McCain Cuba response

Quote from John McCain about Barack Obama’s Cuba policy prescriptions:

'Obama said that as president he'd meet with the imprisoned island's new leader `without preconditions,' '' McCain said. ``So Raúl Castro gets an audience with an American president, and all the prestige such a meeting confers, without having to release political prisoners, allow free media, political parties, and labor unions, or schedule internationally monitored free elections.

''Meet, talk and hope may be a sound approach in a state Legislature,'' McCain said in a dig at Obama's experience as a state senator before his 2004 Senate election. ``But it is dangerously naive in international diplomacy. . . .''

I take this to mean that McCain will also refuse to meet with the leaders of countries like China and Saudi Arabia, where they are not doing all the same things that Cuba is not doing.

Oh, I forgot, those countries are not on the State Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism list so that means they're OK.

Read more...

Friday, February 22, 2008

Debating Cuba policy

In the debate last night, Obama and Clinton addressed Cuba policy. I like the Obama quote: “But I do think that it's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies. In fact, that's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference.”

Further, he supports loosening travel restrictions for family members and remittances, which shows he is reaching out to that new generation of Cuban Americans that is less ideologically rigid. It is also bold to come out and say current policy is a failure:

OBAMA: I support the eventual normalization. And it's absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure. I mean, the fact is, is that during my entire lifetime, and Senator Clinton's entire lifetime, you essentially have seen a Cuba that has been isolated, but has not made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and personal freedoms that are so important to the people of Cuba.

So I think that we have to shift policy. I think our goal has to be ultimately normalization. But that's going to happen in steps. And the first step, as I said, is changing our rules with respect to remittances and with respect to travel.

And then I think it is important for us to have the direct contact, not just in Cuba, but I think this principle applies generally. I recall what John F. Kennedy once said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. And this moment, this opportunity when Fidel Castro has finally stepped down, I think, is one that we should try to take advantage of.

Hillary Clinton on the same topic, emphasizing the need to keep current policy going:

CLINTON: Well, Jorge, I hope we have an opportunity. The people of Cuba deserve to have a democracy. And this gives the Cuban government, under Raul Castro, a chance to change direction from the one that was set for 50 years by his brother.

I'm going to be looking for some of those changes: releasing political prisoner, ending some of the oppressive practices on the press, opening up the economy.

Of course the United States stands ready. And, as president, I would be ready to reach out and work with a new Cuban government, once it demonstrated that it truly was going to change that direction.

...

But there has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting, without preconditions, with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. And it should be part of a process, but I don't think it should be offered in the beginning. Because I think that undermines the capacity for us to actually take the measure of somebody like Raul Castro or Ahmadinejad and others.

CLINTON: And, as President Kennedy said, he wouldn't be afraid to negotiate, but he would expect there to be a lot of preparatory work done, to find out exactly what we would get out of it.

Read more...

Thursday, February 21, 2008

McCain and Fidel



See Mike Peters' site for this and other cartoons

Read more...

State sponsors of terrorism

In my U.S.-Latin American relations class yesterday, we discussed Fidel’s retirement, and a student asked if this would change the issue of Cuba being on the State Department’s State Sponsored Terrorist list. I remembered that Cuba was on there for harboring members of the FARC, but my student Kelby emailed me about the various other reasons. This isn’t new, but I hadn’t paid much attention to the rationale, which makes for some weird reading.

Nowadays only Iran, North Korea, and Cuba are on the list. Gadaffi is a good guy now, so Libya is off. Sudan is said to be cooperating and so is not a full member of the list anymore either—no, I swear I did not make that up. Genocide, apparently, is not state sponsored terrorism. But I digress.

Here is the State Department link, and check out the very first sentence:

“Cuba continued to publicly oppose the U.S.-led Coalition prosecuting the War on Terror.”

--So Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism because it speaks out against the U.S. By the way, since when did “War on Terror” become All Capital Letters? Since the Iraq War is part of that, then I suppose much of Western Europe must also be in this category.

Cuba also “maintained close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran.”

--I take it that Russia should also be on the list.

“The Cuban government continued to permit U.S. fugitives to live legally in Cuba and is unlikely to satisfy U.S. extradition requests for terrorists harbored in the country.”

--I guess the U.S. must also be on the list, since we harbor Luis Posada Carriles and refuse to extradite him. Oddly enough, the report mentions him and fails to see the irony. Instead, it uses that case to claim Cuban hypocrisy.

BTW, the report also notes that “Venezuela is the only nation certified as "not fully cooperating" that is not a state sponsor of terrorism.” The next of these terrorist reports will likely be in April. You know many in the Bush administration want to get Chávez on that list. Will they realize that doing so would be so blatantly political that it would likely only help Chávez?

This deserves my very first poll—check out the side bar.

Read more...

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Taxis in Chile

I just happened to run across report of this poll from hotels.com that ranks Santiago taxis as the worst in the world. The thing is, I have indeed had taxistas asking me where to turn, etc. They have, however, been very friendly about it...

I can't imagine they are the worst in the entire world, though.

Read more...

How long for reform?

In their annual address to the Utah legislature, the state’s two senators (Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, who were on opposite sides of McCain-Kennedy) predicted that Congress would likely not address immigration reform for at least another five years. As I take it, the upshot is that the issue is just too difficult, so we aren’t going to bother. The abdication of responsibility never ceases to amaze.

Nonetheless, it is interesting that McCain is now going to be the nominee, despite all that pandering that Romney et al did by making a big deal about immigration. People are simply not as worked up about immigration—even illegal immigration--as the media makes it seem.

h/t Bender's Immigration Bulletin

Read more...

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Fidel's retirement

So Fidel has resigned the presidency of Cuba, and is retiring, thus making official what had become de facto. Here is the official statement published in Granma (they seem not have translated it into English quite yet). He will now be a “soldier of ideas” who will continue writing his “Reflexiones” column.

You have to admire the way Fidel and Raúl have managed this long transition, which has been amazingly smooth and has consistently kept their enemies off balance and guessing while still still reassuring their supporters in Cuba.

Trivia question: how many dictators step down to become journalists?

Read more...

Monday, February 18, 2008

The politics of credible threat part 3

As Boz notes in a new comment to last week's post, Hugo Chávez has backed off his threat to cut off oil exports to the United States, but rather said that such an outcome would occur if the United States attacked Venezuela. I wonder whether he will refrain from making that same threat again.

Read more...

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Baseball bullets

A brief break from Latin American politics to remind everyone that baseball is back.

  • Padres pitchers and catchers have just reported to spring training and the first game is February 29. Finally!
  • Am I the only one who thinks the “body language expert” analyses are rather annoying? With Roger Clemens on 60 Minutes and in Congress, these experts have analyzed every lip licking, shoulder shrugging, head bobbing and ear scratching. I wonder if my students can use this to determine if I am lying in lecture.
  • The Padres will be playing in China next month. I find this very cool in theory, but hope it does not generate injury in addition to good will.
  • I read Cait Murphy’s Crazy ’08, the story of the 1908 baseball season, when after an intense pennant race (and a famously disputed game when Fred Merkle failed to touch second base) the Cubs won the World Series. Great book for anyone into baseball history.
  • Will anyone sign Barry Bonds? Even Barry Zito, who defended Bonds, admits he’s glad Bonds is no longer a Giant

Read more...

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Daniel and Barack

Steven Taylor mentioned this IHT story about Daniel Ortega endorsing Barack Obama, saying he is laying the foundation for “revolutionary change.”

Further down, however, the article also notes that Ortega is sending Nicaraguan soldiers to WHINSEC, formerly called the School of the Americas, even though he believes that it was tied to torture in the past. Last October Bolivia announced it would no longer send soldiers (if you’re interested, see my post, which includes comments from WHINSEC staff).

Ortega did not explain why he approved the training, but said he would try to ensure officials did not turn into "torturers and killers."

The current Ortega incarnation is really pretty fascinating.

Read more...

Friday, February 15, 2008

New Colombia march

Adam Isacson has a great discussion about the anti-paramilitary violence march planned for March 6 in Colombia. At first glance, the idea seems uncontroversial, but then the Uribe government denounced the idea, saying it was planned by the FARC.

“I personally will not participate, as I did enthusiastically in the march against the FARC,” was the response of José Obdulio Gaviria, a presidential advisor considered to be President Uribe’s chief ideologist. “It will be difficult for Colombian society to participate in this type of event, when we just finished marching against the people who are convening it.”

Gaviria’s words are terribly unfortunate. Not only does a top Colombian government official reject the March 6 protests, he alleges that its organizers, the National Victims’ Movement, are indistinguishable from the FARC. This is the worst sort of slander, and the Colombian government must not let it stand.

Read more...

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Normal blogging to resume shortly

I've been sick and am now trying to catch up on a million tasks and emails that I've been neglecting. Back soon.

Read more...

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The politics of credible threat Part 2

Following up on yesterday’s post about Chávez threatening to cut off oil exports to the United States, it occurred to me that recently he has been making a wide variety of domestic nationalization threats as well. I hadn’t paid close attention, but they really start adding up:

Banks

Milk plants

Food distributors

Asphalt companies

Idle land

So we have a string of relatively recent threats but no actions taken. Chávez may be painting himself into a corner with this combination of escalating rhetoric and inaction. Capitalism is thriving in Venezuela, but in large part because investors and business owners believe their private property to be safe. Acting upon all those threats would cause a serious ripple effect. On other hand, not acting on them makes him more and more like a paper tiger, in a domestic environment in which the opposition is feeling stronger after the defeated constitutional referendum.

Read more...

Monday, February 11, 2008

The politics of credible threat

Thinking through Hugo Chávez’s recent threat to cut off oil exports to the United States, which he has made numerous times, it seems like a strategic mistake to make a threat that isn’t credible. Even the markets largely ignored him.

I can’t help but think there is a crying wolf angle to this situation. Unfortunately for Chávez, Venezuela remains heavily dependent upon the United States, which despite rhetoric has not changed significantly since Chávez first took office. Cutting off exports would hurt Venezuela much more than the United States, which would exacerbate already existing domestic political tensions.

Making threats you cannot follow up on ultimately leads to being ignored and taken less seriously, which then weakens Chávez politically. If he carries it out, I will eat my words, but it is hard to imagine.

Update: I hadn't seen Boz's post, which makes a very similar argument.

Read more...

Sunday, February 10, 2008

The ambassador answers

On Monday I mentioned that the U.S. Ambassador to Colombia would be answering questions submitted by email. I had been thinking of a potential question but then, I have to admit, I completely forgot about it. For your edification here are the questions and answers he gave.

They start off with a questioner who cannot spell “Colombia.” Then they move to some really hard hitting stuff, like what college major you should have to enter the foreign service, what travel warnings exist, how much visas cost and whether he likes being ambassador.

To be fair, he does take questions about human rights, including one asking about government abuses, but even then the answer moves off to how great the FTA would be, and how U.S. exporters would benefit.

We can all feel good that he really likes being ambassador, though.

Read more...

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Blogging and conferencing

Many thanks to Russ Bither-Terry from Rulablog, who invited me to come to the UNC-Duke Consortium Latin American Studies conference—yesterday’s sessions were at Duke. This is a great example of what blogging can do. I would never have known Russ otherwise, and would not have attended without him. Not only did I get to meet him in person, but also got to see some old friends as well (since I got my Ph.D. at Chapel Hill).

The day’s panels ended with Ariel Dorfman, who gave the keynote address. I had not met him before, but yesterday had the opportunity to chat with him a few times, and to tell him I use his play Death and the Maiden in my Latin American politics class. If you have not read the play, you should (you can also watch the movie with Sigourney Weaver et al, but I didn’t think much of it).

Dorfman’s talk really centered on the idea of telling the truth. At the end, he read the article (“Letter to an Unknown Dissident”) he published in February 2003, shortly before the Iraq invasion. Here is a copy I found online. I had not read it before, and it is really powerful. As he said in his talk, it has the potential to anger everyone. But it is the truth as he sees it, as someone who was hunted by a dictatorship and anguished about what to do.

Read more...

Friday, February 08, 2008

Bachelet not moving up

The latest Adimark poll puts Michelle Bachelet’s approval rating at 43% for January, down two points from December (but up from November). They tend to get slightly higher results than CERC, but still pretty close. All polls show her stuck in neutral. Her last cabinet shuffle was just last month, but I really doubt it will resonate in her approval. We're now past the halfway mark in only a four year term, so with each passing month political recovery becomes more and more remote.

Read more...

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Protesting the FARC Part 2

Thanks to Ana-Isabel, a Colombian student of mine who sent me some photos emailed to her by friends back home. She also gave me this link to more photos at El Tiempo. In all, impressive stuff.





Read more...

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

The latest Caravan of Death case

An active duty Chilean army general, Gonzalo Santelices, has resigned because he was implicated in the Caravan of Death (for a great book on that topic, see Patricia Verdugo’s Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death). Commander in Chief Oscar Izurieta praised him for retiring, which takes the scandal out of the active ranks (there is, however, a fund for officers who need lawyers in human rights cases). Nonetheless, such a quick army response is positive, and there are no longer the typical “close the ranks” responses from the army.

Under questioning by a judge, Santelices had acknowledged that as a young lieutenant in October, 1973, he followed orders and transferred 14 prisoners from a jail in northern Chile to a desert area where they were executed by firing squad. He said he did not take part in the executions.

However, there is an interesting twist. The presiding judge in the case said he believes General Santelices bears no criminal responsibility. Given his age at the time, as someone who just graduated from the Military Academy, he would have quite possibly been shot had he not obeyed the order.

Gutierrez said Santelices directly participated in the killings because "he selected the 14 victims, handcuffed and blindfolded them and then took them in an army truck" to the execution site.

If you are a family member of the one of the handcuffed, blindfolded, and ultimately murdered victims, then the issue of criminal responsibility is not so vague. We'll have to wait and see what the current judge decides.

Read more...

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

The different faces of Daniel Ortega

Daniel Ortega met with State Department and DEA officials in Nicaragua and announced he is “committed” to the war on drugs. An interesting angle is that he wants to affirm Nicaraguan control over islands/waters claimed by Colombia.* He brought up the issue with the U.S. officials, emphasizing that patrolling for drugs will require going beyond Colombia’s claimed boundaries.

Ortega is doing quite the balancing act. There aren’t many presidents who will chat it up with Hugo Chávez one week and the DEA the next. There also aren’t many presidents who would try to use the U.S. to get something out of Colombia.


*Interesting case, since the argument is that when Nicaragua signed agreements in the late 1920s, it was occupied by the U.S. and therefore the agreements are invalid. This is similar to the arguments Cuba uses about Guantánamo.

Read more...

Monday, February 04, 2008

Ask the ambassador

The U.S. Ambassador to Colombia, William Brownfield, will answer questions about U.S.-Colombian relations submitted online. His answers will be posted on Friday.

h/t Plan Colombia and Beyond

Read more...

Protesting the FARC

The Associated Press has a story about today’s Facebook-led global “One Million Voices Against FARC” march (which includes a noon meeting in Charlotte—I would consider checking it out but have class at the same time) and how it reveals some of the splits within Colombia about how to deal with violence and even who exactly to protest. In particular, the Democratic Pole will hold a separate rally to protest all violence, including the paramilitaries. Families of hostages also do not support the protest, saying it should be pro-freedom and not simply anti-FARC.

Meanwhile, the FARC wants Hugo Chávez back into the mix and so has announced they will release three hostages who are in poor health. Everything is fine as long as the FARC continues to release people without conditions but it’s hard to see the situation improving much otherwise.

And so the question becomes: does all of this change anything or do we remain on square one?

Read more...

Sunday, February 03, 2008

U.S.-Argentine relations

According to Clarín, Thomas Shannon (Asst Sec of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs) will soon visit Argentina as part of a broader strategy to strengthen U.S. ties with the country and put the Maletagate scandal to the side.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner seems to be playing this very well. On the agenda will be Argentina’s desire to renegotiate its debt without being forced to sign an agreement with the IMF. I suspect that the U.S. will make that work. It’s like a Latin American non-aligned movement, where governments can play the two antagonists off each other, benefiting from both.

But the U.S. benefits as well. There is nothing to be gained by alienating Argentina, and much to be lost. Just basic signs of diplomacy—so long missing—can go a long way.

Read more...

Saturday, February 02, 2008

UNC Charlotte Homecoming 5K

I ran the UNC Charlotte Homecoming 5K this morning, a fun race through campus that I do every year. Unfortunately, there were too many good runners in their 30s so I won no prizes (small races with limited competition are really my only hope of placing). It was a good opportunity to see all the new construction in parts of campus I don’t get to very often—we’re growing very rapidly.

Read more...

Friday, February 01, 2008

The impact of local government

Rebecca Weitz-Shapiro, “The Local Connection: Local Government Performance and Satisfaction With Democracy in Argentina.” Comparative Political Studies 41, 3 (March 2008): 285-308.

Abstract: In light of extensive decentralization in much of the world, analyses of citizen satisfaction with democracy that treat citizens as subjects of their national governments alone are incomplete. In this article, the author uses regression analysis of unique survey data from Argentina to explore the relationship between local government performance and citizen satisfaction with democracy. She demonstrates that there is indeed an important link between local government performance and citizen system support but also that citizens distinguish between qualitatively different types of government performance. Certain measures of local government performance, such as corruption, have ramifications for citizens' evaluations of the functioning of their democracy and even for citizens' faith in democracy per se. At the same time, other types of local government performance, such as local bureaucratic inefficiency, do not reverberate beyond the local sphere. These results suggest mixed implications for future democratic stability in Latin America.

So local government performance plays a very important role in determing an individual’s support for democracy (i.e. Tip O’Neill’s “All politics is local”) but not all local issues are of the same magnitude. She also differentiates between support for the country’s democratic institutions and democracy in the abstract.

Merely getting bad service (measured here with the variable long line) probably upsets local residents, but the results shown in Tables 1 and 2 suggest that this alone is unlikely to alter a resident’s evaluation of how her government works or her democratic beliefs. At the other extreme, local government corruption seems to decrease an individual’s satisfaction with how democracy works in her country and is even capable of shaking her faith in democratic government. In between, substantively important (but not criminal or morally questionable) government behavior such as poor information provision is correlated with how a citizen evaluates her government’s performance but not the value she places on the principles underlying that system of government.

This made me wonder about a slightly different line of inquiry that would be worth an empirical study: what aspects of local government performance affect presidential approval ratings? Which local variables most/least affect an individual’s perception of a particular president, as opposed to democracy writ large? To some degree—I am not sure how much—this could help explain persistently high approval ratings in the face of national scandal, but perhaps also dropping approval even when the national scene is free of serious problems. We would also have to control for whether the party of the local government was different from that of the president.

Read more...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP