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...

Venezuelan Opposition in Comparative Perspective.

I have an article up at Latin America Goes Global on the Venezuelan opposition, taking lessons from two Chilean experiences with an opposition needing to unite in order to win elections. If you're interested, please just click.

Read more...

Libertarians in Latin America

Humberto Rotondo, a law student in Lima, wrote an op-ed for PanAm Post on libertarianism in Latin America, specifically arguing that libertarians in Latin America have screwed up by siding with conservatism.

In general, I don't think about Latin American libertarians at all precisely for that reason. It's like they barely exist because classical liberalism has been tied so closely to large, oppressive governments.

Instead of fighting one and siding with another, we must break these ideological ties and stop labeling ourselves as either “right” or “left.” It’s time we begin developing our own institutions and reclaim our political identity as liberals.

The question he does not ask is whether libertarianism can survive in Latin America without that large oppressive government. Every experiment in drastically reducing the size of government has led to massive discontent, in large part because doing so has benefited the elite so disproportionately, while hurting the poor. Latin America is the most unequal continent in the world, and classical liberalism exacerbates it. Experiments (like structural adjustment) that we could reasonably call libertarian have required sending police and/or the military into the streets.

Therefore what Latin American libertarians need to do is actually explain how they would be different from failed past economic models.

Read more...

A Central American Spring?

Louisa Reynolds asks at Foreign Policy if we're seeing a Central American Spring. I feel like this might be the wrong question. From its usage in the Middle East, the use of the term "spring" has come to mean rapid, transformative political change sparked by widespread protests (and sometimes armed rebellion). What I see in Central America is the slow, painstaking process of gradually strengthening domestic political institutions to increase horizontal accountability.

It's also not really accurate to say:

For nine weeks now, Guatemalans have been taking to the streets to demand dramatic change — an unusual sight in Central America, where corruption is the norm. 

Corruption may be the norm, but Honduras has seen protests since the 2009 coup so they're not unusual everywhere. Those protests demanded dramatic change but did not achieve it. Even Costa Ricans protest corruption. They are, though, quite a sight in Guatemala, and happening largely for external reasons (i.e. CICIG).

It's hard to see rapid transformation in any Central American country. I'd say the best case scenario is that presidents gradually come to understand that corruption will be prosecuted, that the international community continue to play a constructive role, and that Central American elected officials slowly demonstrate why citizens should trust them.

If Otto Pérez Molina actually resigns or is otherwise democratically removed before his term is over, it'll be historic. But I am not sure it'll mean long-term change, which is a lot harder and requires chipping away at an oligarchy that will not give up easily.

Read more...

Biden and Rousseff

Brian Winter has a fascinating story in Americas Quarterly about the link (which I did not know about) between Joe Biden and Dilma Rousseff. It's a very personal story, the conclusion of which is that Dilma loves him.

Rousseff marveled to her aides: “That man could sell an icebox in Canada.”

Check it out. It serves as yet another layer of complexity that cuts through the typical and simplistic "The U.S. is ignoring Brazil" or "Brazil is pushing back against the United States" stories we tend to get. There's a lot more to it.

Read more...

Latin America and Honduras Six Years Later

Yesterday marked six years since the illegal overthrow of President Zelaya in Honduras. Here are some examples of outrage at the U.S. role. There is plenty to be said in that regard, and clearly Honduras is far worse off as a result of the coup. But I find the Latin America angle to be missing.

I wrote almost daily about the coup, and what I feel gets ignored is how little Latin American leaders did beyond talk. Brazil (with El Salvador's help) did the most by orchestrating Zelaya's return to Honduras but that actually didn't lead to a solution--it just changed where Zelaya sat as the rest of Latin America waited for the United States to resolve the problem. Lula even called Zelaya to tell him to tone things down.

Hugo Chávez said the November 2009 presidential election was a sham so Venezuela would not recognize the winner, but then he did and they became BFF. Lula talked tough and back down. The OAS talked tough and backed down. Everyone talked tough and backed down.

I made a similar point in 2012 after the Paraguayan crisis. There is a lot of talk from Latin America, but seemingly very little interest in backing it up. Instead, all those governments made lots of statements, then quickly and quietly settled down and accepted the new status quo. I have no problem with criticizing the U.S. role, but I wish Latin American leaders had come together and gone beyond mere denunciation.

Read more...

U.S. and Latin American Relations 2nd Edition is Out!

I was very pleased to receive my new book in the mail:

This is ready for Fall 2015 classes. It's been seven and a half years since the first edition was published, and so has had a lot of revision (including a new brand new chapter).

Read more...

Bad Economic News for Dilma

All kinds of bad news for Dilma Rousseff these days. The Brazilian Central Bank increased its inflation forecast to 9% and increased its forecast for economic contraction to 1.1%. Meanwhile, unemployment crept up to its highest level in four years.

After two years of hearing how she was sticking it to the U.S. by not visiting, now her trip to see President Obama at the end of this month seems much more like something she needs to shore up her image at home. With economic problems and major corruption scandals, her approval rating is now at 10% and 65% of Brazilians think her government is a "failure."

Having just been re-elected, there is hope for recovery. Or this could be a long, miserable road.

Read more...

Cuba and Republicans

Cuba makes such strange politics. A group of congressional Republicans is trying very hard to put more restrictions on Americans' liberty and trade. According to the GOP platform:

In a free society, the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

But if you want to engage with Cuba, forget all that liberty and pursuit stuff.

Next, we have Kansas, where the Republican governor is facing criticism from everyone because of his incompetent budgeting. Both Republican senators from Kansas favor ending the embargo, and the budget crisis is making them even more vocal. One even already introduced a bill to end the embargo! That puts them squarely with President Obama and squarely against Republican presidential candidates (according to the Heritage Foundation, Senators Roberts and Moran are just above average in terms of how conservative they are).

I'll be curious to see how this plays out in the Republican primaries. Marco Rubio in particular will want to frame Cuba policy as a sign of Obama's weakness, yet this will be undercut by plenty of fellow Republicans.

Read more...

Distracting With Invasion

As I've told students many times, if a president is in trouble at home, then there's nothing like a good invasion to distract everyone's attention. The Venezuelan government created new military zones that actually include Colombian territorial waters. As you might guess, the Colombian government has sent a note of protest. This is especially prickly for Colombia, which already was supposed to cede territory to Nicaragua but refused and pulled out of the International Court of Justice.

For Venezuela, this builds on the simultaneous push toward Guyana's maritime borders (though as Boz points out, this could well be the exact same for Guyana's president).

I have never seen a theory of distraction, but it would be interesting to contemplate. Under what circumstances does distraction "work" (which itself would have to be clearly defined). Probably the most famous case where it didn't work was the Argentine junta's invasion of the Falklands/Malvinas. That, of course, was a real military exercise whereas Venezuela's claims are not. It's very hard to pinpoint where it works because so many other factors are at play. At the very least, though, we could look at approval ratings before and after some claim on another country's territory. Other variables would have to include economic indicators, how democratic the government is, etc.

As for Nicolás Maduro, it's hard to see how this will prompt Venezuelans to look beyond crime, inflation, scarcity, and the like.

Read more...

Guilty

I've been gone all week serving on a jury in a shooting case--here's the original news story from last July. It took five days, which was draining. It's weird to be immersed in one tragic day of other people's lives. We found Sam Babb Clonts guilty of Assault with a Deadly Weapon with Intent to Kill Inflict Serious Injury (we learned this is referred to as ADWIKISI). He'll now serve 69-90 months with court-ordered mental support.

I won't bother to detail everything, though I've heard this so many times I will probably never forget the narrative. Basically, three gun-obsessed people (two are roommates and close as brothers) get together to hang out and drink beer on the deck of a house. All three feel the need to keep their guns loaded and close to them. In fact, the two roommates both work either making or selling guns. At one point the victim changes into pajama pants, and even switches to a lighter gun as a result. That gun culture is just so alien to me. Why can't you keep your gun locked up, or at least leave it in the house, while you're drinking? Why in the world do you need your gun with your pajamas? What are you so afraid of?

An argument breaks out, some shoving and then hitting, and you end up with one guy shooting his best friend in the back three times with a Glock shooting hollow-point bullets. He would've shot at least one more time but his gun jammed (I now know what a "double feed" is. This was very close to a homicide, but the victim lived and is now paralyzed for life.

As it turned out, the victim was an entirely unlikable person, in my mind a bully and misogynist (as he explained in testimony, at one point he told his friend, "Tell your bitch to shut up"). But we do not have license to shoot unlikable jerks in the back.

One thing that struck me but which was never introduced was the fact that the two roommates were combat veterans (they served in Afghanistan) and the experience could've had an impact. We know how often there are wounds that we cannot see. Both men snapped, and one used his gun (to his credit, when the victim got mad he consciously took out his gun, removed the magazine, and set it aside). I hope Clonts gets the help he needs.

The defense didn't have much of a case, but needed only one juror (given the requirement of unanimity) so the attorney took us down a variety of useless paths, primarily aimed at showing how the police might've made errors in their investigation. Our deliberation never even touched on that. So we spent hour after hour listening to what ultimately was unimportant testimony (as in, why do we need details on who exactly put up the crime tape? Why spend 20 minutes asking about the mechanics of a gun firing? Did you really need to force us to listen twice to a 45ish minute audio interview with the victim?). We focused only on what the shooter did.

It was an unusual experience to hang out with strangers for so long hearing the exact same story again and again, and it became frustrating that we couldn't talk. By day 3 I wanted at least to chat, but you can't. In large part because we always had in stay in order, we referred to each other by our numbers (#8 was a really nice guy but famously often late so would get ragged for it). I was #5. It was a very diverse group of people, and we got along quite well--I don't even really know their names, but will not forget their faces. For five days of my life, I will receive a check for $92.

So now two men's lives are screwed up forever--one is free but will never walk, while the other will spend years of his life in prison. And there is no doubt in my mind that their need to have loaded guns close to them at all times is the primary reason they find themselves in this sad situation.

Read more...

Paul Barrett's Law of the Jungle

Paul M. Barrett's Law of the Jungle is an unsatisfying book. Barrett is a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek, and wrote about the Chevron case in Ecuador. Given the tone of the book, he also took what seems to be an intense dislike to Steven Donziger, the lawyer who was leading the anti-Chevron side. I lost count of the snide remarks. That colors the entire book.

The case itself is treated superficially since the focus is generally on Donziger. The basic thrust is that what Donziger says/does is suspect, and that Chevron's actions often (though to be fair, not always) can be taken at face value or considered to be logical. Barrett clearly views Chevron with sympathy, believing that at a minimum they are not responsible for cleanup since Petroecuador also spilled oil. The story is framed as a corrupt shakedown orchestrated by an unlikable ego-maniac. Yes, people may be suffering, but that's not Chevron (or Texaco's before it was bought) problem.

It's instructive, though, to see this fairly cold, pro-Chevron side of things. From Barrett's perspective, this is really a problem for Ecuador. After all, past governments made money from the oil and could've spent some it on cleanup. But they're too corrupt. Chevron can blithely walk away without a care, and without a shred of guilt. With all its investments, it actually was a positive force.

Read more...

Jury break

I was called for jury duty yesterday and this will likely take several more days. So I have to take an unexpected (and unwanted) break.

Read more...

U.S. Policy Toward Chile in the 1980s

Victor Figueroa Clark, "The Forgotten History of the Chilean Transition: Armed Resistance Against Pinochet and US Policy toward Chile in the 1980s." Journal of Latin American Studies (June 2015): 1-30.

Abstract: The history of the transition to civilian rule in Chile largely overlooks or marginalizes the role of the armed and confrontational forms of resistance to the dictatorship. This article traces the pre and post-coup history of the Left’s engagement with armed forms of struggle and evaluates the effects their incorporation into the struggle against the dictatorship had upon the regime and the Reagan administration. It concludes that armed resistance was a major factor in determining US policy to Chile during the 1980s, and therefore played an important role in the transition as a whole.

Really interesting and provocative article, using a host of primary sources, both from Chile and the U.S. Clark makes the case that the militant left is mostly excluded from analyses of the transition. What he argues is that its activities actually made the Reagan administration more likely to favor a transition, fearing an unpredictable result.

One question is how much the militant left was the decisive factor versus others. It's not always ignored. Peter Kornbluh discusses it in The Pinochet File, and while acknowledging fear of instability makes the case for Pinochet's violence per se as causing a shift in the Reagan administration. The military government was becoming an embarrassment with its overreaction (though, to be fair, one could argue that overreaction isn't possible without something causing it). In The Pinochet Regime, Carlos Huneeus also notes the role of the militant left, but makes a more institutional argument about the internal divisions in the armed forces and the timing of the plebiscite itself.

These are, literally, academic debates. Clark's is provocative because it provides far more legitimacy to what were (and often still are) labeled as "terrorist" attacks. If we accept that they helped prompt a peaceful transition, then we must also accept that they are sometimes beneficial. That opens up an entirely new debate.

Read more...

Rousseff Criticizes U.S. Sanctions

In a speech to EU leaders, Dilma Rousseff spoke specifically about U.S. sanctions against Venezuela.

"We Latin American and Caribbean nations will not permit unilateral measures aimed at promoting a coup, nor policies aimed at isolation. We know that such measures are counterproductive, ineffective and unjust. As such, we reject the adoption of any kind of sanction against Venezuela," Rousseff said.

Three points:

First, as I've said before, these sanctions are counterproductive, primarily because they make it more difficult for Latin American presidents to criticize Nicolás Maduro.

Second, even while saying that, Rousseff is pursuing improved relations with the United States, so we should not overstate the effects.

Third, Maduro did not attend the meeting, which I would've thought was right up his alley. He tweeted instead. He also cancelled a scheduled meeting with the Pope. So what gives?

Read more...

Understanding Protests in Latin America

A Bloomberg story notes how protests are everywhere in Latin America, attributing it to the end of the commodity boom. However, I am left unconvinced about the causal link between economies and protests.

For example:

--Chile's student protests started in 2011 while copper was still high
--When Venezuelan protests broke out in March 2014, oil was still over $100 a barrel
--there are protests in Guatemala, yet the IMF predicts pretty strong economic growth there
--the article cites corruption in Panama, yet there is even stronger growth there

The problem lies in lumping all these things together:

From Mexico to Chile, Latin Americans frustrated with scandals, stagnant economies and government incompetence are taking to the streets. Often they are protesting the very populist leaders they rallied around over the past decade, when rising wealth from a commodities boom fueled a surge in government spending and helped mask corruption.

In some cases economies are not stagnant; in other cases governments are not incompetent. There are scandals all over, but they are also not all new--if anything scandals and corruption are a constant. So the causation is not so clear.

Take the case of Guatemala. The economy is not stagnant and corruption has been a long-standing problem, yet now is making huge waves. As Mike Allison has blogged about, the protests seem to stem from the creation of CICIG and the timing of elections. In other words, there are protests and they're a new thing, but they're not caused by economic factors.

Read more...

Russia and Backyards

The Russian Foreign Minister says paying attention to Latin America isn't a jab at the United States.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrovsaid Russia's ties with Latin American countries have long historic roots and are based on common economic interests. 

Asked whether Russia was trying to boost ties with Latin American countries in response to the U.S. building up ties with Ukraine and other ex-Soviet republics, Lavrov said "we aren't supporting the concept of backyards and aren't following that logic."

If you believe that, I have some Siberian beachfront property to sell you. Whatever "long historic roots" Russia (really meaning the Soviet Union) has, they've been based on ideology, not economic interests. And Vladimir Putin is absolutely obsessed with the backyard principle, just as the United States is. Five years ago when Putin came to Latin America, Pravda proudly asserted that Russia was displacing the United States and creating a new geopolitical order.

Read more...

The Mexican Left

Boz has a nice rundown on the Mexican midterm elections. What immediately struck me was how the Mexican left has fallen apart. AMLO left the PRD and formed Morena, which now means that neither gains many seats. The nine years since AMLO's occupation of central Mexico City have not been good for the party. Further, you would normally think a green party would lean left, but in Mexico the Green Party is quite conservative.

This is particularly unfortunate in a country that faces major human rights problems that conservative parties/governments aren't doing a good of handling, and in some cases are directly causing. In comparative perspective, the Colombian left is weak because it gets too much association with the FARC. In Brazil the right is weak in large part because of its association with the dictatorship. It's tempting to say a similar dynamic is at work in Mexico because of how AMLO went off the rails, but it's hard to say.

Regardless, I think the health of Mexican democracy depends on a strong left that can counterbalance the PAN and PRI. Unfortunately it's currently going in the opposite direction.

Read more...

Mainstream Media and Rafael Correa

There's a short discussion about Rafael Correa at The Nation. The upshot is that he's not Hugo Chávez, he's not a typical populist, and he's one of the most popular presidents around. He is, however, extremely (and now famously) thin skinned.

We need to see more of this sort of realization in the mainstream media, which has drummed populism and "bad left" characterizations into the public for many years. We're seeing Venezuela implode, but that's not the case elsewhere. There is no leftist bloc. Instead, we're seeing presidents juggle capitalism and social democracy in ways that don't resemble Venezuela at all.

Read more...

Jim Luers, Man of Mystery

Via Caracas Chronicles: what a great story. The Venezuelan government invented a White House spokesman named Jim Luers, who denied the allegations against Diosdado Cabello. But no such person exists.

Until now on Twitter! I saw that @RealJimLuers started following me, which then made me wonder who this was, given his title is listed as "White House Spokesman and FBI Agent for the Western Hemisphere."  Nice! He is "deeply offended by allegations that I do not exist." His photo also looks exactly like the Secretary of the Treasury.

Telesur's Facebook page triumphantly talks about him (with lots of triumphant comments) but interestingly the link to their own website no longer works. I don't know how made him up and I don't know who's tweeting, but thanks for the entertainment.

Update: he has a blog too!

Read more...

Intelligence Services in Latin America

At World Politics Review, Chris Sabatini writes about the threat to democracy of intelligence services in Latin America.

Since transitioning from authoritarianism to democracy, civilian governments in Argentina, Chile, Peru and Colombia have made great strides in curtailing the autonomy of the armed forces in terms of accountability for past abuses, budgeting, promotion and operations. But in all these countries, the military and intelligence services have retained a degree of autonomy over specific missions and their operations, referred to as “reserved domains” in the Latin American democracy transition literature of the 1990s. Recent events have demonstrated how far the region still has to go in improving transparency and civilian control over the intelligence services.

I agree. Back in the mid-2000s I did research on this, which grew out of my interest in Chilean civil-military relations, and published this article in 2008. This is something that should get more attention than it does. I wrote primarily about autonomy, but Chris notes the serious problem of presidential abuse and politicization. Unreformed (of poorly reformed) intelligence services are bad for democracy, bad for the armed forces, and in fact are not positive in virtually any sense.

Read more...

Cell Phones in Cuba

I happened upon this cartoon (by Miguel Morales) in Granma and it caught my attention for several reasons.

The idea here is that a woman is speaking very loudly into her cell phone and people assume she's doing so to call attention to the fact that she has a cell phone. About 2 million out of 11 million Cubans have a cell phone. So I take it as a joke about scarcity in the official state newspaper. Now, the state blames the embargo--rather than socialism--for the lack of telecommunications, so perhaps it's an indirect criticism of that and recognition that relaxation of relations will increase cell phone use along with its annoying side effects.

Read more...

Grover Cleveland Syndrome

Multiple polls show Michelle Bachelet's popularity as incredibly low, with the latest putting her at 26%. We know the news about her son's corruption scandal and her response of firing her cabinet. But what doesn't get noted is the broader question of returning to the presidency after a break. She was very popular her first time around, but she couldn't hold onto the magic. A similar situation played out for Oscar Arias and Alan García.

Let's call it the Grover Cleveland Syndrome. In his first term, Cleveland rode prosperity and received accolades as he fought corruption. He still lost to Benjamin Harrison, then came back four years later and got hammered by economic crisis, which led to his own party deserting him because of how unpopular his policy responses were.

Are there successful examples? If not, or if there are very few, it leaves the question of why the second term is problematic. Is there such a thing as momentum, which you lose once you leave office? Are people less forgiving the second time around for some reason?

Read more...

Poorly Argued NYT Article on Professors and the Media

The New York Times has an article about how professors want to get their research results reported by the media. Unfortunately, it confuses or conflates disparate issues.

First, it notes the danger of people getting research results reported before they are peer-reviewed. They give one example but I don't think this is very common.

Second, it focuses exclusively on a tiny handful of universities.

Still, the benefits to academics of generating media attention may be subtly skewing their research. “The pressure is tremendous,” said James Heckman, an economist at the University of Chicago and the winner of aNobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science. “Many young economists realize that they win a MacArthur or the Clark prize, or both, by being featured in The Times.”

OK, fine, but that is not true for 99.99999% of professors. I think the norm is for deans and other higher-ups to appreciate getting noticed in high-profile media (because it reflects well on the university) but they don't exert pressure in that regard.

Third, "impact" should not be confused with "media."

But popular media attention increasingly works in a candidate’s favor as well. For tenure decisions, “I’ve gotten letters,” Dr. Heckman said, “that ask me to assess the impact and visibility of a person’s work.”

We ask tenure reviewers to assess the impact and visibility of a person's work. That's the whole point. But I don't think the reporter understands that--we mean things like citations, not being mentioned in popular media.

Fourth, the article does not note the long-standing (but gradually changing) resistance of professors to "translate" their work into op-eds, blog posts, etc. More people do this than in the past, but still it's remarkably few. This doesn't necessarily mean showing new and sexy results, but simply helping the general public get a more nuanced view of a policy issue.

After the financial crisis, however, the public and the news media became more interested in serious research, and scholars responded by seeking more coverage. 

I don't see how the financial crisis relates to this at all. And I don't think this is driven by the public. Instead, the author should note that scholars themselves started pushing their peers in this direction. At least this is true of political science.

In short, the article leaves the impression we are in this dangerous era where attention-grubbing professors are throwing caution to the wind for the sake of getting their names in the media. I just don't see it.

Read more...

FDI to Latin America Plummeted in 2014

From CEPAL:

Flows of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) towards Latin America and the Caribbean declined 16% in 2014 to total $158.803 billion dollars, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) revealed today. This result reverses the growth trend seen during the last decade—with the exception of declines in 2006 and 2009—since a further reduction is forecast for this year.

That's a significant contraction. If you look more closely, you should be reminded of what I repeat constantly, which is that there is no clear correlation with ideology. Mexico and Venezuela are way down, while Ecuador and Guatemala are up.

And this is also not new:

“ECLAC believes that Latin American and Caribbean countries’ policies should not be oriented towards recovering the amounts of Foreign Direct Investment achieved in the last decade, but rather towards attracting the FDI that contributes to productive diversification,” said the Executive Secretary of the regional organization, Alicia Bárcena. “This means articulating FDI with industrial policies and national development strategies based on equality and environmental sustainability.”

Productive diversification and sustainability. So simple yet so difficult.

Read more...

The Hapless Venezuelan Opposition

This isn't anything new, but it still has to make you shake your head. After years and years of complaining about Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro and the state of the Venezuelan economy, the opposition remains as divided--or even more divided--than ever.

One of Venezuela's most high-profile politicians has called an anti-government march on Saturday, but the main opposition coalition is not endorsing the protest, underscoring fissures among critics of the country's socialist government.

...
On Tuesday, the coalition that includes Lopez's party said it would not endorse the rally because it had been unable to reach a consensus under the circumstances. The statement suggested the difficulty of coordinating with an imprisoned leader, though even when he was free, Lopez clashed with other opposition politicians about the wisdom of big street protests. 

In other words, we have some massive ego collision going on. Add to that the fact that collectively the opposition has done nothing to explain to Venezuelans why they deserve their vote. It's hard to imagine anything but a tiny minority of Venezuelans wanting Leopoldo López in charge of anything. He symbolizes the rich, elite, out of touch politician that brought Chávez to power in the first place.

Whenever legislative elections are finally announced (and the fact that they haven't been is ridiculous) then the opposition faces the very real problem of Venezuelans choosing to a) stay at home; or b) vote for the devil they know.

Update: check out the Inter-American Dialogue Q&A with several different people on the same topic.

h/t David Smilde

Read more...

Pragmatism of the Latin American Left

If you haven't seen the new site Latin America Goes Global, then you should go check it out--lots of good analyses there. It's the brainchild of Chris Sabatini. I have an op-ed in there on the pragmatism of the Latin American left. I argue that the left is far less radical than commonly claimed, and that Latin Americans themselves are centrist.

Read more...

Academia and Think Tanks

I've been chewing on Tom Medvetz's critique of Charles Murray at The Monkey Cage. Not because of Charles Murray per se, but because my own experience with think tanks doesn't jibe well with Medvetz's. His take is highly dismissive, using the word "policy experts" very consciously in quotes.

For Murray and other “policy experts,” media visibility, fundraising power, and political recognition all amplify and strengthen one another. But maintaining the veneer of intellectual detachment requires a delicate relationship with the academic social sciences. This is why being an “outsider” in this arena suits him well. Murray connects his work loosely to academic debates, earning a smattering of social scientific recognition and elevating himself above mere ideological bluster. But that connection must remain superficial. Were Murray to submit to the usual checks on social scientific rigor—especially peer review—or get bogged down in the fine-grained details of academic debate, he would undermine his standing with donors, politicians and journalists. More broadly, he would undermine his position in the peculiar game that determines who counts as a relevant expert in American public debate, which is more responsive to the preferences of donors, politicians and media gatekeepers than to the rules of scientific judgment.

The clear implication here is that people at think tanks who do not engage in peer-reviewed work are--by definition--not rigorous and therefore need quotations around them. I am really uncomfortable with the generalization.

Thinking of Latin American politics, in the U.S. I've read and even gotten to know people at the Center for International Policy, the Washington Office on Latin America, the Americas Society and Council of the Americas, and the Council on Foreign Relations, among others. For my dissertation work in the late 1990s, I spent a year at the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Socialas (FLACSO) in Santiago, Chile. Without FLACSO, I couldn't have done my dissertation research on the Chilean military, because the high level of respect they earned opened doors for me. What I've found collectively over the past two decades is a really impressive group of people who do incredible research, some of it more interesting, and often more widely read, than academic work in peer-reviewed publications.

Many of the people working at those think tanks are experts, not "experts." I read and cite their stuff even though it's not in Journal of Politics. There are people in think tanks who do crappy work, but same goes for academia. It's the quality of the work that matters, not the institution of the individual doing the work.

Read more...

Changing Latin America Drug Policy

The New York Times has an editorial today applauding the shift in thinking about the "drug war" in Latin America. What I find odd is that the Obama administration is not mentioned at all. Instead, we get generic references to "the United States," "American government," and "Washington." But none of those amorphous things changed U.S. policy: President Obama did.

I see this as significant primarily because Obama deserves to be credited with this policy change in conjunction with the other two big ones: immigration and Cuba. He waited a long time, but in all three cases he broke through years--or even decades--of rigid thinking. "Washington" didn't do this. If anything, "Washington" fought him tooth and nail because the status quo is good for a lot of people regardless of how effective it is at achieving stated policy goals.

Read more...

Argentina Wants Cuba to Pay Up

For all the talk of leftist solidarity in Latin America, money still talks. Argentina is angry about debt, and applauded Vladimir Putin's announcenment that it would write off about 90% of Cuba's debt to Russia. But when it comes to Cuba owing Argentina money, ideology goes out the window. Amazingly, that debt dates back to Peronism's last days before the 1973 coup. Cristina Fernández (like all her predecessors) wants it paid up.

Yes, there is plenty of hypocrisy in here. More important, though, is the reminder that states pursue their own interests, which clashes with ideology regularly. Ideology often loses. That's true for all states. Left, right, or anywhere in between.

Read more...

Oscar Romero's Beatification

Check out journalist Carlos Dada's discussion of Archbishop Oscar Romero in The New Yorker. He points to the dispute about how to characterize Romero on the eve of his beatification.

Romero was indeed deliberately and intensely political. He discovered the power of the archbishopric and decided to use it to influence the Salvadoran political process in favor of the victims and against the military regime. But his direct confrontation with the established powers can’t explain his assassination. He was killed because those powers thought they could get away with it. And they did, because Salvadoran history, for them, was a lesson in controlling the system through repression.

Even more biting:

The Church has now declared that Romero was killed because of his faith. Yet the death squads, the military, and the wealthy financiers of his killing all professed to be followers of Christ. Some of them, still alive, are active members of church communities, give lots of money to Catholic conservative organizations, send their kids to Catholic schools, and never miss a Sunday Mass. They say that they have God to thank for all their possessions (never mind their corruption, exploitation of the poor, repression, impunity, and historical position as the effective owners of the state). On religious grounds, they firmly oppose abortion, gay marriage, and birth control. They were not opposed to killing thousands of people who challenged their point of view. And, during the reigns of John Paul and Benedict, they also had leverage in Rome.

The gospel of prosperity is well-known in the U.S. as well, and is equally nauseating. Romero was killed because of his faith only to the extent that he embarrassed and threatened those who saw religion as a vehicle for wealth accumulation. In other words, I am rich and therefore I must be blessed. By definition, those who are poor are not blessed and not trying hard enough.

As a non-Catholic (not to mention non-religious) person, I find this whole sainthood process pretty baffling. Nonetheless, as a political scientist it is fascinating to see the politics behind both his death and his legacy. And what you see is a man of deep faith who used his position of influence to challenge the violent elite, which was an enormously selfless (and highly political) act, and then he paid for it with his life. For me that's enough for sainthood.

Read more...

Measuring U.S. Influence in Latin America

Frank Mora has an op-ed in the new Latin America Goes Global website. He makes a similar argument to what I've repeated many times, which is that the commentariat does not measure U.S. influence very well.

Perhaps most perplexing is when analysts point to the vacuous anti-American rhetoric of increasingly irrelevant Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (Bolivian Alliance for the People of Our Americas—ALBA) or when governments refuse to toe the line on U.S. policy as indicators of erosion. 

Worst of all, pundits like to point to the dramatic decline in economic and military aid or the absence of an all-encompassing policy with an exciting moniker such as the Good Neighbor Policy or the Alliance for Progress as proof that the U.S. is ignoring the region and therefore ceding influence to others with a clear anti-American agenda. The desire for some anachronistic overarching policy or catch phrase for the U.S. leadership in the region are misguided—if not out and out facile—indicators for evaluating effective U.S. support and leadership in the region.

Yes! As I've argued, grand strategy often mean bad strategy, so we're better off without one.

Rather than focusing old time notions of levels of economic and military aid or large inspiring policy declarations, analysts and policymakers should focus their attention where policy and its return (i.e. influence) is most impactful—communication, contact and exchange that improve the daily lives of Latin American and Caribbean citizens.

This is also true, but since it's hard to measure it doesn't receive adequate attention. It's much easier to note the lack of grand strategy, or focus on rhetoric, or tally off foreign aid numbers. There is a lot happening on the ground and that's what we should try to focus on.

Oddly enough, this is a problem both for the left (which sees lack of influence as a victory) and the right (which see lack of influence as President Obama's fault). They're both insistent and both wrong.

Read more...

SECOLAS 2016 Call For Papers

Check out the Call For Papers for the 2016 meeting of the Southeastern Council of Latin American Studies, which will take place March 10-12 in Cartagena, Colombia.

It's going to be a great conference in a great location.

Read more...

History and U.S.-Cuban Relations

Thanks to Steven Hyland for pointing out this excellent article by Lou Pérez on the historical context of current U.S.-Cuban negotiations. Pérez is one of the most respected historians of Cuba and U.S.-Cuban relations, and has published something like five million books on the topic.

His key point is that U.S. and Cuban views of their relationship have always been different, and remain so. That fact alone makes negotiation extremely tricky, in large part because U.S. policy makers tend not to understand--or choose to ignore--the Cuban perspective.

He concludes:

The aphorism that the more things change, the more they remain the same seems to be on full display. Old habits are indeed difficult to break. 

Americans persist in seeking to insert themselves into Cuban internal affairs, the Cubans insist on defending self-determination, vowing never to “renounce the ideas for which it has struggled for more than a century.” The policy change announced on December 17 appears to be less a change of ends than of means.

In class I always show this document from the George W. Bush administration, the report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba from 2004. It is a remarkable document that basically asserts the United States will reshape everything you could possibly imagine in Cuba, from schools to trash pickup to protection of coral reefs. From the executive summary:

As a new Cuban government initiates the process of establishing the rule of law, safeguarding human rights, and creating a new climate of opportunity, a variety of programs and services are identified that U.S. public and private sources could provide to the Cuban people over the medium- and long-tem. It is expected that such assistance would come not only from U.S. Government agencies and contractors, but also from philanthropic foundations, non-profit expert organizations, and businesses investing in Cuba’s future. Cuban-American and other U.S. citizens and organizations would be involved in these efforts.

It is stunning in its blindness to Cuban reality and its paternalism. Clearly, the Obama administration is a different animal, but fully jettisoning that paternalism requires effort.

Read more...

Juan Pablo Villalobos' Quesadillas

Juan Pablo Villalobos' Quesadillas is a sometimes surreal dark comedy about Mexico the 1980s. The original Spanish title was "Si viviéramos en un lugar normal" (If We Lived Somewhere Normal). I'm not sure why they changed it so drastically--in the novel quesadillas are constantly mentioned as something like an economic indicator of the protagonists' family (i.e. how many you get, how thick they are, etc.) but the theme of the book is bigger.

That theme is basically that Mexico will do what it can to crush you (which along with the dark humor also made me think of the novels of Paco Ignacio Taibo II). The family lives in El Cerro de la Chingada, which the author himself translates as "the hill in the middle of fucking nowhere." And as the teenaged protagonist noted:

But all this about being middle class was like the normal quesadillas, something that could only exist in a normal country, in a country where people weren't constantly trying to screw you over" (p. 28).

And the novel takes you on a bizarre journey, often really funny, that centers on getting screwed over. This includes a Mexican family where all the children have Greek names, as well as class conflict, cow insemination and alien abduction. There's no way to understand how those come together without just going ahead and reading it.

Read more...

Colombia: No Spraying For You!

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos announced he was ending aerial spraying of coca. The New York Times interviewed Adam Isacson:

The decision ends a program that has continued for more than two decades, raising questions about the viability of long-accepted strategies in the war on drugs in the region. 

Colombia is one of the closest allies of the United States in Latin America and its most stalwart partner on antidrug policy, but the change of strategy has the potential to add a new element of tension to the relationship. 

Just last week, American officials warned that the amount of land used to grow coca in Colombia grew by 39 percent last year as aerial spraying to kill or stunt the crop, already a contentious issue here, declined. 

“The folks who run counternarcotics never want to give up any of their tools, and there are pockets of discontent inside the U.S. government with this decision,” said Adam Isacson, a senior associate of the Washington Office on Latin America, a research group.

This is a major shift, and the Obama administration should roll with it, which would actually improve U.S.-Colombian relations. Unfortunately, for right now the U.S. government's response is to deny there are any potential health problems when people are sprayed by glyphosate, and invoke the fear that the "drug war" will unravel if they don't get sprayed. What the Obama administration should be doing is acknowledging the legitimate concerns of Colombian farmers instead of arguing with them. It's just counterproductive.

One problem with aerial spraying was the tendency for it to be a high-profile solution that overshadowed the need for more permanent solutions, such as increasing the role of the Colombian state, which are much more difficult and much less sexy. Let's move our focus to more lasting (but more boring) solutions.

Read more...

US and Latin America in 2025

I read this article by Bill LeoGrande in the Huffington Post on the U.S. and Latin America in 2025 and immediately kicked myself for not thinking of the idea first. What a fun idea. For the most part he has a pretty optimistic view. For example:

Following successful experiments in Colorado and Washington, most other states will legalize marijuana for recreational use, drastically reducing the profitability of this segment of the illegal drug trade. At the same time, Washington politicians will embrace the stance pioneered by Barack Obama's administration and treat narcotics addiction as a public health emergency rather than a "war on drugs." Gradually, the consumption of cocaine and heroin will decline, and the contraction of demand will put even greater pressure on the profitability of the trafficking cartels. That will enable governments from Colombia to Mexico to finally get the upper hand against the traffickers, reducing criminal violence and corruption -- just as the end of Prohibition in the United States enabled U.S. authorities to get the upper hand against the Mafia.

Let's hope so! This outcome alone would have a major impact on the region, and on U.S.-Latin American relations. Despite the Obama administration's stated shift on drugs as public health, there is still serious disagreement about strategies to fight the drug war. It was only just yesterday that the U.S. grudgingly accepted Colombia's decision to stop spraying herbicides.

Read more...

Venezuelan Elections Sometime This Year

The Maduro administration has finally announced there will be legislative elections later this year, though in typical fashion it is not quite sure when. Here is a pretty testy announcement from the state news agency. This comes after the Brazilian foreign minister publicly said he pushed the government to do so.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira said he met with Venezuelan government officials this week and told them a date must be set quickly for the National Assembly election that is meant to be held before the end of the year. 

"I insisted that elections should be called as soon as possible and held within the legal time frame," Vieira said at a news conference.

As a result, rightly or wrongly this announcement is being framed as the direct result of that pressure.

I feel like over the past six months or so we're seeing more small cracks in Latin America with regard to Venezuela, a sense of losing patience. Latin American leftists in Uruguay and Chile have made critical remarks. I wouldn't make too much of this, but public statements from prominent politicians are not insignificant.

Update: even Ernesto Samper is delicately saying that Venezuela needs to fix the date ASAP.

Read more...

Update on US Military Rape Case in Colombia

The Colombia rape case has taken a new and unfortunate turn. Adriaan Alsema of Colombia Reports writes that he was duped about the claims of abuse in 2004. He's the one responsible for helping spread news of the case, which had appeared in Colombia's truth commission report (a report that has no fact checking).

His account gets a bit confusing (and he's obviously really angry--you can read the whole thing to see why), but I take it as follows. He believes the 2004 allegations are bogus, and the person who wrote about them in the official report actually says he heard about them on TV once but can't remember where. Journalist Manuel Rueda recently wrote about this in Fusion.

Vega said that he got the number from local media reports from 2004. He said the information was also included in a 2008 thesis paper on U.S. military contractors written by Anna Kucia, a political science masters student at the University of Berlin. 

But the “sources” cited in Kucia’s thesis are the same references to Colombian media reports from 2004. She characterized it differently. She wrote that in August of that year, Colombian media blamed U.S. contractors for “producing twelve pornographic floppy discs and 53 videos” with local women in Melgar, but does not specify how many girls were in the videos. Kucia says some of the women who participated in the videos were promised money, but were never paid. 

“Many of the women were forced to leave their hometowns due to humiliations they and their families have suffered,” wrote Kucia, who now uses the married name Barrera. She did not respond to Fusion requests for comment. 

Vega, for his part, said he didn’t have time to dig any deeper into the sexual abuse claims before publishing his report. 

“I didn’t have an opportunity to do fieldwork,” Vega told Fusion. “I’m not a journalist or a sociologist…and I was asked to limit the number of pages. So I relied on the sources that I just told you about.”

What Anselma notes, however, and what I think is important, is that media attention on this one particular (and seemingly false) case has distracted everyone from other cases. As I had written not long ago, the U.S. Army started an investigation, but only for that case. It can then report this one is false, leaving the others uninvestigated. So:

You can pretty much figure out what’s next. Colombia’s Foreign Ministry is likely going to receive an update from the US Army saying they have concluded the investigation of Vega’s accusation and that this accusation proves to be false, as the embassy allegedly already found out in 2004 and had been reported by Fusion and Colombia Reports on Friday and Saturday. 

The remaining credible allegations of misconduct or even abuse will remain in impunity as nobody seems to want to take up the responsibility of going through the diffuse claims carefully.

What's next? For the U.S. and Colombian governments, probably nothing. Anselma concludes:

The only way this can be turned around is by Colombian authorities like the Ombudsman’s Office and the Family Welfare Institute assuming their responsibility and carry out their own investigations, parallel to the one the American army says to be carrying out. Or by American and Colombian mainstream media doing their fucking job. 

Until then, alleged child molesters are back in their American neighborhoods, making them a potential domestic threat.

So we'll see. On a side note, it's a reminder that someone may well read your Political Science Master's thesis!

Read more...

Stagnant Latin American Left?

That, anyway, is what former Uruguayan President José Mujica suggests in an interview.

P. ¿Viene una época difícil para la izquierda latinoamericana? 

R. No sabemos. La derecha tampoco está dando muchas respuestas, no creo que pueda hacer maravillas. Yo creo que estamos en un momento de retroceso de la izquierda en Europa y cierto grado de estancamiento en América Latina.

This is a good point. We see crises of low commodity prices but also of serious corruption, which are hitting multiple countries with leftist governments. As Boz points out, presidential approval ratings in UNASUR countries are hovering right around 30%. At the moment, the Latin American left has very little new to offer. Yet neither does the right, beyond simply asserting that its different. The free market mantra doesn't carry the same weight it used to given the suffering its extreme versions fostered.

Mujica was famed for his down-to-earth presidency, and has always been ready to speak his mind, yet without ideological baggage.

Read more...

Coca Cultivation Up in Colombia

Adam Isacson notes that coca cultivation in Colombia is up. I'm taking his graph:

The key point he makes is one I talk about in my Latin American Politics class--the absence of the state.

[T]he presence of Colombia’s state has not improved in coca-growing zones, as Colombia has put fewer resources into the “National Consolidation Plan” and similar efforts to bring government services into neglected areas. The “stick” has declined, but so has the “carrot.”

A similar dynamic plays out in southwestern Colombia, where the government has ended aerial spraying but hasn't developed new programs.

Eradication has also been limited in zones, like the Catatumbo region in Norte de Santander, where the government has been negotiating with organized farmer protests. While the government has abstained from aerial spraying in these zones, however, there is little evidence to indicate that it has replaced spraying with other methods, such as voluntary eradication agreements or manual eradication.

Reducing coca cultivation is not just about ending dangerous eradication practices like aerial spraying (though I should mention that it's a welcome development). It's about moving the Colombia state into areas that have been been historically ignored. That means not just crop substitution but infrastructure.

It also means dealing with the massive displaced population. As it turns out, places like Norte de Santander are precisely also where there is a lot of continued conflict. Unfortunately, that's an angle you don't normally hear about, especially from policy makers.

Update: And I wonder what the effects will be from the Colombians returning home because Venezuela's economy is crashing?

Read more...

Mexico's Role in Obama's Plan to Take Over Everything

Did you know that members of the Mexican army and federal police are in a camp inside Texas, along with members of ISIS, and that President Obama put them there so he could launch an attack and then proclaim martial law in Texas, which of course is what he's been trying to do all along?

This is what the Governor of Texas believes and he deployed the Texas State Guard to keep an eye on the Navy Seals who apparently are part of the plot. The Texas Department of Public Safety has said this is nonsense, so at least someone is sane.

Conspiracies are normally entertaining, but they get scarier when they're articulated (or at least not rejected) by those in positions of power. Just ask Venezuela. And what do you know! The Venezuelan government just repeated its claim that U.S. joint military maneuvers with Spain are a pretext for invading Venezuela.

Maybe President Maduro and Governor Abbott should meet and share notes on their respective conspiracy theories.

Read more...

Ideological Reactions to the Summit of the Americas

The reactions from the left and right to the Summit of the Americas are funny. So on the left we hear that Latin America beat back the imperialists. The fact that this means Cuba will be more integrated into the U.S. capitalist system seems not to register, but let's leave that aside for now. Meanwhile, the right is mad that the U.S. is opening to Cuba, and figures he has raised expectations too high. The fact that all he did was return things to a more normal level seems not to register, but let's leave that aside for now.

This is very similar to the question of "losing" Latin America, which I've harped on for some time. The right and left often agree on that. The right thinks Obama is weak, while the left thinks it means the imperialists are losing. They're both wrong.

Read more...