Venezuelan elections: news we can't use

Preoccupied by other things, I haven't bothered to post about the Venezuelan elections. It had occurred to me, though, that despite all the rhetoric leading up to the elections, the U.S. media seemed bored. State and local elections without violence aren't very exciting, and Hugo Chávez didn't say anything inflammatory. Ultimately, these elections don't change the political map of Venezuela much.

So this morning's piece from McClatchy caught my eye for its impressively hyperbolic perspective. These elections, we learn, are in fact the sign of "another titanic battle" as Chávez seeks a new referendum to get another presidential term. The evidence? "Analysts said Monday." It seems he quoted two analysts, one of them pollster and often Chávez critic Luis Vicente León.

Much of the rest of the article quotes opposition Venezuelan politicians, who argue that Chávez will be weakened politically because he will have to negotiate more and the drop in oil prices will slow his projects, neither of which offer support for the article's hypothesis. The only evidence presented is that Chávez candidates won more votes than Chávez did in the failed referendum, but that is apples and oranges from an electoral perspective. A vote for mayor doesn't translate into a vote for a national referendum on Chávez.

Does Chávez want another term? Yes. Will he push for a new referendum next year? Maybe. This article, however, doesn't help us understand the likelihood.

Read more...

Rethinking U.S.-Latin American Relations

Today the Brookings Institution released a new report entitled, "Rethinking U.S.-Latin American Relations." The commission that put it together was co-chaired by Ernesto Zedillo and Thomas Pickering. It contains a variety of policy recommendations, though most (like stripping away restrictions against Cuba, albeit not the entire embargo) have been voiced quite a bit recently.

I must say that I agree with many of the report's recommendations. However, I find it lacking in imagination (I hate to say "vision" but that is what first came to mind). The prologue notes that the report is based on the following two propositions.

The countries of the hemisphere share common interests; and the United States should engage its hemispheric neighbors on issues where shared interests, objections, and solutions are easiest to identify and can serve as a basis for an effective partnership.

We have now reached Platitude Central.

In a 36 page document, the word "dialogue" came up 9 times. I didn't even bother counting "partnership" because there were too many. Given the recommendations, the general idea seems to be generating a lot of commissions, task forces, etc. to facilitate dialogue and partnership.

If it means to be serious about its goals, then this and related reports must first explicitly address the issue of difference. For example, the report pushes hemispheric economic integration. How do we achieve "dialogue" and "partnership" if other countries view this as contrary to their own economic interests?

Along similar lines, the report does not address what I consider a critical element in improving hemispheric relations: the acknowledgment of a massive gap between rhetoric and reality with regard to the state's role in the economy. "Partnership" must begin with the recognition that leadership is not based on talking market while nationalizing or partially nationalizing your own industries.

In other words, I don't see this study as "rethinking" much at all.

Read more...

President Bush hearts Latin America

Well, at least according to Dan Fisk, the National Security Council Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs. The administration's overall message is one I've mentioned a number of times, namely that the Bush administration has had an incredibly positive relationship with Latin America but that it gets no credit.

So the gist of this particular press briefing is that the administration has been at the forefront of improving Latin American economies, pursuing social justice, improving security, and that Bush had a total of 350 phone calls and meetings (is this the diplomatic equivalent to a body count?). In sum:

So again, in terms of the President's record in the hemisphere, this is, again, I think, a good opportunity to remind people of that.

Let me just highlight some very specific areas where I do think that this administration has not only improved the relationship with the hemisphere, but has laid a very solid foundation that the new President can build upon.

This is, we can safely say, the core belief of the administration as it leaves office. We did a great job, and nobody gives us any credit. We honestly have no idea why no one likes us.

Read more...

Journalists in Ciudad Juárez

I heard this story about the murder of journalists in Ciudad Juárez on NPR this morning, and recommend it (looks like the audio isn't available for a few hours). Aside from the very sobering issue of journalist intimidation, there is the unfortunate reality that it is increasingly viewed as commonplace. Vendors arrive at murder scenes and make good money, while the atmosphere is almost festive.

Read more...

Reading the tea leaves on immigration Part 2

I've been arguing that it is unlikely immigration reform will get tackled in the first year of the new administration. Here is some more support for that belief--Rahm Emanuel says that the administration will "throw long and deep," and go for "wholesale changes in health care, taxes, financial re-regulation and energy." Immigration is not in that list.

h/t King Politics

Read more...

Refreshing to hear

Tony Garza, the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, said the following in a speech:

"Mexico would not be the center of the cartel's activities, nor would it be experiencing these levels of violence, if it wasn't for the United States -- the major consumer of illegal drugs and the principal supplier of arms to the cartels."

The quicker we integrate that reality into our policies, the better. I do wish we had heard it more earlier.

Read more...

U.S.-Bolivian relations

During his trip to the U.S., Evo Morales met with Dick Lugar, who released a statement that included:

We hope to renew our relationship with Bolivia, and to develop a rapport grounded on respect and transparency. In this regard, after appropriate and constructive official contacts, I hope that we will have a U.S. Ambassador in La Paz soon, and that we will look forward to having a Bolivian Ambassador here in Washington, D.C.,” Lugar said.

In the meeting, Lugar and President Morales also discussed the importance of the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) which was suspended by President Bush.

“Lifting the suspension on the ATPDEA with Bolivia will strengthen the growing political and economic relationship between our nations and help bring new jobs and good will to the region,” Lugar said. Bolivians are concerned about the possibility of losing a market of $400 million dollars of manufactured Bolivian products that generate a significant number of jobs in Bolivia.

All to the good. The timing of a new administration is perfect for mending fences. Bad relations hurt Bolivia considerably, and so Morales should grab onto these kinds of statements to figure out a new relationship that asserts Bolivian sovereignty without shooting the country in the foot.

Read more...

The center in Latin America

Following up on my post about Latinobarómetro, Sara Miller Llana at the Christian Science Monitor quotes me in an article about how the poll shows the strength of the center in Latin America. The headline "Quiet Rise of Latin America's Center" hits the nail on the head. In the U.S., mostly what we hear about is conflict. We get juicy quotes from Hugo Chávez, see a diplomat expelled from Bolivia, etc., and so we get the impression that the region is falling apart. Yet in fact more and more Latin Americans believe their democracies are working well, and that the future looks brighter than it used to.

Read more...

Immigrants and the left in Latin America

The Miami Herald has an article about Mission Identity, the Venezuelan government's effort to expedite citizenship for immigrants, many of them poor (particularly from Colombia) and generally sympathetic to Hugo Chávez. At least according to Chávez opponents, the idea is to pack the upcoming municipal elections with pro-Chávez voters.

This made me think about how in Latin America the majority of immigrants are viewed as a problem for the right, regardless of where they are. In Chile, there is resistance from the right to allowing Chileans abroad to vote, because it is assumed they fled Pinochet and therefore will vote Concertación.

Even in the United States, Mexican immigrants vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, which contributes even more to Republican restrictionism.

The Chilean case aside, most immigrants are moving to find better economic opportunities, and therefore are most open to political parties that are viewed as more attuned to the disadvantaged, which is far more likely to come from the left. This is a generalization (i.e. some people may well vote for other reasons) but I think it holds pretty well. There are plenty of right-leaning expats, but their relative numbers are much smaller. Governments tap them more for their resources than their votes.

Are there exceptions? A small plurality of Mexicans in the U.S. favored the PAN in the 2006 presidential election, but 40% favored no party, so I would argue this tells us more about apathy than real support for the right. For Mexico, allowing expats to vote has more to do with maintaining economic contacts--regardless of which party is in control--than with domestic partisan politics. Cuba is another exception because the legacies of the Castro dictatorship loom over everything else.

But is there a large immigrant community somewhere associated with the right?

Read more...

Reading the tea leaves on immigration

There is a good analysis at New America Media about the prospects for immigration reform. Whether or not the Obama administration pursues reform may well hinge to a large degree on whether it can get the economy back on track, though it will also depend upon how much pressure comes up from civil society.

My hunch is that Obama will put the issue off, and that we won't see a legislative push in 2009. He does, however, need to look like he is taking action, so perhaps he will appoint a commission or something along those lines.

As the analysis notes, there are still actions he can take immediately. The most prominent is to end workplace raids, which he has called "publicity stunts." I expect them to stop, and given his past statements I also expect there will be a complete reappraisal of the border fence.

Read more...

Latin American politics blogs

So it appears that Blogrolling is dead, victim of some hacker. Therefore at some point I will have to manually switch all the links to Blogger's new blogroll feature. I am not sure when I will make the time to do so. In the meantime, here are some blogs you might like.

My friend Claudio Fuentes at Flacso-Chile writes about generational change and politics in Chile (in Spanish).

At Latin American Thought they're talking about the Venezuelan municipal elections.

Lillie at Memory in Latin America discusses the amnesty idea floating around Peru.

Security in Latin America has a provocative map of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Thomas at The Latin American Post examines Bolivian politics.

Benjamin Gedan at Small State looks at the embrace of U.S. culture versus U.S. foreign policy in Latin America.

Richard Grabman at The Mex Files talks about the Mérida Initiative.

Read more...

Latinobarómetro 2008

If you haven't already, take a few minutes to look at the Latinobarómetro 2008. It is chock full of info. Much of it, in fact, speaks well of the state of democracy in the region these days.

I will take just one example--the growth of the center in Latin America. The percentage of people who self-identify as centrist is 42%, which has been growing steadily over the past 5-6 years. Meanwhile, the percentage that self-identify as "left" has remained steady and is currently at 17%. The growth of the center has come at the expense of the right (which is at 22%, versus 31% in 2001) and those who in the past either did not respond or said "don't know" or "none," which fell from 30% in 2002 to 19% now.

The right has clearly fallen from its heyday in the 1990s, particularly as disillusionment with economic reforms grew. The left took no such hit. There was, in fact, a shift to the left, but it really meant from the right to the center. The Latinobarómetro analysis is that the center is voting for candidates of the left, and consequently keeping those elected leaders relatively moderate. There is some really interesting research to be done on the erosion of the right.

Trivia: which country had the fewest to self-identify as "right"? Chile at 11%. Colombia, not surprisingly, had the highest (33%).

Read more...

Immigration and the media

The Brookings Institution has released an interesting study entitled, "A Report on the Media and the Immigration Debate." Its core finding is that the media, but especially new media, has been a major contributor to policy stalemate. Some key conclusions:

• The media is crisis-driven, so the bulk of the attention is negative

• Especially with the rise of talk radio, bloggers, etc. the opposing sides are very loud, while the middle (which favors a mix of policy options) has little voice. Part of their conclusion is that traditional newspapers handled the issue better, so that in the past compromise was more possible. I'm not sure I buy this causality, but it's an argument worth contemplating.
  

• Thus, the public debate centers on extreme policy options (e.g. kicking out all undocumented immigrants) that will never be enacted
  

• The narrative focuses on immigrants themselves, and very rarely the broader forces that bring them to the United States, so the bigger picture is rarely presented
  

Money quote: "The breathless, on-and-off coverage--more opera than ooze--has mischaracterized a massive demographic event that has developed over decades and mostly through legal channels. And at the same time, it has helped create contours in public opinion that have rendered the enactment of new immigration policies ever more elusive" (p. ix).

Read more...

Noticias del sur

I've been meaning to point out an interesting site: Noticias del Sur. It links to a ton of articles on Latin American politics in addition to original articles, all of which are left of center. They are all in Spanish.

I've also been meaning to update my blogroll and call attention to a number of newer blogs on Latin American politics. I plan on doing that soon.

Read more...

The hoax: Sarah Palin and NAFTA

It was a well-conceived hoax, just outrageous enough but just possibly believable enough: the idea that Sarah Palin did not know Africa was a continent and that she could not name the member countries of NAFTA. Credibility was enhanced by the fact that it was reported by Fox News.

But it is all untrue. The McCain adviser is in fact fake, a fictional creation of a blogger, who also created a fake think tank the "adviser" belonged to. It seems all he did was email reporters, who then passed along what he wrote. It was then spread virally and mentioned by people like me further down the blog chain.

So my apologies to Sarah Palin, and to my readers. Even worse than being duped, now we once again know even less about her views on Latin America. I suppose that it doesn't matter much, or at least not for another 3-4 years.

Read more...

Russell Crandall's The United States and Latin America after the Cold War

I read Russell Crandall's The United States and Latin America after the Cold War, which takes a novel approach. It begins with the idea that the Cold War is over, but many people--particularly policy makers--continue to view Latin America within its antiquated framework, especially in terms of emphasizing security to an exaggerated degree over other factors like domestic politics in the United States. He examines U.S.-Latin Americans from the dual lenses of "Anti-imperialists" and those from the "Establishment," and the novelty is Crandall's goal of explaining the arguments of the opposing sides at the same time. There are fourteen chapters, each taking a look at different general topics (democracy, security, etc.) and specific countries.

The distinction between the two viewpoints is not always quite so simple, which he acknowledges, but it is a reasonable point of departure. The chapters then explain a wide variety of agreements, disputes, interventions, diplomatic overtures, etc. while showing what sorts of argument (usually in counterpoise) each side offered in support or opposition. The focus on balance could make it useful for the classroom, though given how many issues it raises, one would need to fill in knowledge that is taken for granted or mentioned rather briefly.

He argues that especially in the post Cold War era, the realist school just cannot explain the mix of policy players and the influence of domestic concerns. With this I have no argument (I note the shortcoming of realism in my own book) but I did feel like the theme of power really kept popping up throughout the narrative (for example, multiple times he cites U.S. Ambassadors in different countries making threats about what will happen if the "wrong" candidate is elected--sometimes it backfired, but the threats were based on everyone knowing what the U.S. was capable of doing). Even though it is certainly true that the old style "Big Stick" is not always apparent, the imbalance of power is very often central to understanding U.S.-Latin American relations.

So then what is the next step conceptually? To my mind, an important question is how to address Crandall's main point about intermestic policy without rejecting the relevance of power. I don't have a great answer, but I would definitely like to see more conceptual development in the analysis of U.S.-Latin American relations that could provide a framework for explaining policy dynamics. Cuba is a perfect example--U.S. use of power is integral to understanding the relationship, yet Obama's change of tone has much more to do with evolving domestic constituencies than anything else.

Read more...

Fidel Castro and his legacy

Fidel has written a book: La Paz en Colombia (Peace in Colombia). It will apparently be available for download, but I don't see it anywhere yet.

As a hilariously approving review in Granma attests, the book has three objectives. The first is to examine Tirofijo, the second is to look at the role of the U.S., and the third is to discuss "the real nature of Cuba’s links with the Latin American revolutionary movements and its long and sustained contribution to the search for a just, realistic and humanitarian solution to the armed conflict that is bleeding Colombia." The Granma article suggests this will go beyond Colombia to include Nicaragua, Grenada, etc. In other words, to provide Fidel's own spin before he dies.

His spin, though, might well be a fascinating one. Of course, retired politicians usually pump out memoirs to get their story out--heck, even Fulgencio Batista did.

Read more...

Venezuela and Russia

Mercopress discusses the latest on Russia and Venezuela, as they sign 15 cooperative agreements in a variety of industries. Dmitry Medvedev is expected to visit later this month. There are two things that really caught my attention:

First, one of the agreements is to set up a $4 billion development bank to finance projects in the two countries. The Bank of the South barely exists yet, and we need yet another development bank?

Second, Chávez said, "We have freed ourselves from Yankee imperialism" and then promptly seized a Canadian gold mining operation to transform it into a Russian joint venture. Since when are Canadians also Yankees?

Read more...

The embargo and the Caribbean

The Financial Times has a story that comes up every once in a while, but is worth keeping in mind. There is much anticipation that Obama will liberalize relations with Cuba, and if he allows U.S. tourists to travel there, then the rest of the Caribbean will be hurt. Before Castro, Cuba was a very popular destination, and there is considerable pent-up demand. In short, people will go to Cuba rather than to other places.

About 1.4m people visit Cuba each year– compared with 1.5m for the Bahamas, 2m for Cancún, 2.3m for the Dominican Republic, 1.3m for Jamaica and 2.9m for Puerto Rico.

But Cuba is expected to receive as many as 3.5m American visitors alone if the US changes its policy.

John Rapley, of the Caribbean Policy Research Institute based in Jamaica, said that since Cuban tourism was mostly directed towards the lower end of the market, one solution was for other islands to develop a higher end product.

Read more...

Simon Winchester's The Professor and the Madman

I read Simon Winchester's The Professor and the Madman because it was mentioned approvingly in Amman Shea's Reading the OED and it intrigued me. The upshot is that one of the major contributors to the original Oxford English Dictionary, Dr. W.C. Minor, was a brilliant medical doctor who also happened to be a paranoid schizophrenic and was therefore locked up in an insane asylum in England for murder. The book is primarily his story.

It is a fun and easy read, and so I've put it on the side bar. And as I read, it began to dawn on me that the OED was very much like an old version of Wikipedia. I never gave dictionaries much thought before, but obviously constructing one is a massive job. So what the editor--James Murray at Oxford--did was to advertise for volunteers. You would learn what particular needs the editors had in terms of quoting words in context (especially finding the first written use of a word) and then send in slips of paper: "The more quotation slips that came in to the iron shed he had built in Mill Hill, the better: He assured readers that he had an ample supply of assistants to sort them, and that his floors had been especially strengthened to hold them" (p. 135).

So what we now see as a venerable institution was in fact the result of thousands of people sending in quotations that they believed best fit a word. Since it was all by mail, they were as anonymous as they wished to be--in fact, Murray did not know for years that one of his most prolific contributors was locked up, believed people entered his room at night through spaces in the floor, and eventually even castrated himself.

Not that the comparison should be taken too far, because unlike Wikipedia the OED did have an editor with the final say on everything. Yet there is something to be said for the collaborative nature of both projects, and how very large public interest and participation made them possible.

Read more...

The never-ending saga of the border fence

The Department of Homeland Security has stopped bothering to pretend it is building the border fence in Texas, instead handing off the issue to the Obama administration. Only 3.3 miles out of 110 planned for Texas had even been built up to this point. With any luck, the same will play out along the rest of the border.

Obama has said some fence might be necessary, but that it would only be built after consultation and agreement with local authorities, which are most often against it. So hopefully some common sense will be injected into the situation.

However, this does not necessarily mean reform. Tom Barry at The Center for International Policy (who writes the blog Border Lines) notes that Rahm Emmanuel supports reform in principle, but deems it a "third rail" and so will likely try to convince Obama not to pursue it. I would also add that immigration is never listed as higher than third or fourth in a list of issues voters are most concerned about--the economy and Iraq dominate the agenda.

Read more...

Inflation in Latin America

Two days ago I mentioned the rise of inflation in Chile, and now we have news that Mexico's inflation has reached a 7 year high (though 5.8% is no crisis). Brazil is at a three year high. In the Chile post, I brought up the point that especially given a drop in oil prices and slowing consumer demand, inflation was not likely to continue rising. On the other hand, we don't want it to drop too much.

In fact, the buzzword for Europe and Japan is deflation, and it is causing great concern because it means there is little money in the economy and consumers just aren't buying.

We therefore have a situation where, given the global outlook, Latin America's mild inflation might be enviable, at least for now. However, we need to emphasize mild, because Venezuela's inflation rate is about 25%, and 35% in Caracas, and that will cause problems.

Read more...

Obama and policy toward Venezuela

I highly recommend reading the memo Francisco Toro and Juan Cristobal Nagel (at Caracas Chronicles) wrote to Obama about Venezuela policy options.

Read more...

"Only" in America?

As I've watched and listened to U.S. media commentary, especially after the election, something has nagged at me. This has indeed been an historic election, but in the United States we try to claim that we are the first to have historic elections. It can happen, we say, "only in America." I don't have links, but heard it from both Chris Matthews and Chris Wallace--if you google "obama only in america," you can get a feel for how broad the sentiment is.

In Latin America, I think of Evo Morales' impressively large victory in Bolivia in 2005, followed shortly by Michelle Bachelet's in Chile (remember that the U.S. has not yet elected a woman, unlike many other countries). What of Alberto Fujimori's 1990 election in Peru (will we see an Asian elected president of the United States?)? Or if we look at class, rather than race, there is no doubt that Lula's election in Brazil changed history--imagine an uneducated union activist running for president here.

It is truly remarkable that our president-elect is African American, and it says a lot about the progress being made in this country. But let us savor it without pretending that we're the only ones who have made such progress.

Read more...

Another election post-mortem: Sarah Palin and NAFTA

In August, I wrote a post about how no one knew anything about Sarah Palin's views on Latin America. Our ignorance on the topic is reflected in the fact that my two posts about her are the first to come up when googling "sarah palin latin america," and all I wrote was that we knew nothing.

Now we have a little more info. According to Fox News (via Foreign Policy's blog), Palin could not name the countries in NAFTA. She also apparently believed that Africa was a country.

Read more...

Inflation in Chile

Chile's rate of inflation rose to the highest level in 14 years, so that in October consumer prices were 9.9% higher than in October 2007. We've often heard that the price of oil is a critical (though certainly not the only) factor in inflation across Latin America, as transportation costs grew dramatically. Yet currently oil prices have fallen to just over $60 a barrel.

An obvious question, then, is how long it will take for consumer prices to reflect at least some of that drop. Plus, consumer demand in Chile is also slowing, so something has to give. I would assume a similar dynamic is playing out across the region.

Read more...

Obama and Latin America: election post mortem

Barack Obama ran on a platform of change, and so in the coming weeks we'll see if there is any sign of change in U.S. policies toward Latin America. For example, appointments to key Latin America posts will be indicative. However, the president-elect has truly massive problems on his plate, and thus it is doubtful that Latin America will occupy much of his time (which, indeed, raises the importance of those appointees, because they will wield even more clout).

Once he takes office, I hope that he meets immediately with Mexican President Felipe Calderón. The Bush administration had slowly thawed relations after the disastrous decision to ice both Chile and Mexico for voting against use of force in Iraq in the UN, but we need more. I hope Obama shows commitment both to immigration reform and to addressing the drug-fuelled violence that is poisoning both sides of the border. Both issues require close coordination and as much trust as possible between the two governments.

There are, of course, many other challenges, and there is an opportunity for real change. Relations with Latin America have nowhere to go but up.

Read more...

Elizabeth Dole

Fox News and NBC have called Elizabeth Dole's loss to Kay Hagan in the Senate. I hope that is true, given how horribly low Dole's ad campaign went, particularly against undocumented immigrants, not to mention the "godless" ad.

Read more...

Trusting political parties

On this election day, it seems appropriate to discuss the relationship between the public and political parties. The Latin American Public Opinion Project at Vanderbilt University has published a new study entitled, "(Mis)Trust in Political Parties in Latin America." The upshot is that there isn't much trust. There is a lot of interesting stuff (such as the fact that the young, urban population is the least trusting) but given today I will highlight the comparative angle.

In the United States, we need to ask ourselves hard questions about our own democracy when only 32.4% of the population trusts political parties, which ranks us 14 out of 22 countries surveyed. In Venezuela, where Chávez has railed against parties for years, and which of course is usually labeled a dictatorship by U.S. politicians, the number is still higher (37.2%). In Mexico, it is higher yet (41.5%).

In the U.S., one result has been a rising number of independents/unaffiliated, as people lean in one ideological direction or another, but feel little connection to specific parties. Maybe U.S. parties ought to go talk to their counterparts in places like Chile and Uruguay (each at 41%), and ask how they maintain the trust of their citizens.

Read more...

Obama at UNC Charlotte

I went to see Obama speak this evening at UNC Charlotte, along with 10,000-12,000 other people in rainy weather (though, fortunately, it stopped before he arrived). So it is exciting not only to have NC in play for the election, but also to have Obama come to my own university.

It was an upbeat crowd (even with the weather) and an upbeat speech, I assume the normal stump speech, though he noted the death of his grandmother, which happened early this morning. The positive tone was noticeable, as in fact he praised John McCain several times.

What's amazing is that 2.5 million people have voted in NC, so turnout is already 41 percent.

Read more...

Obama and Chávez

Hugo Chávez says he is willing to meet Obama if he wins the election, which for Obama is dicey timing. Given the incessantly repeated "no preconditions" message from McCain, Obama's campaign issued a strongly worded statement in response:

Hugo Chavez does not govern democratically and relations between our countries will not improve unless Venezuela respects democracy and the rule of law. That is the clear message that Barack Obama will deliver to Venezuela as president.

I am not at all sure how an Obama administration would deal with Venezuela. However, these types of statements come up a lot, and always raise the same question--if democracy is the key precondition to good relations with the U.S., then how will we deal with China, Saudi Arabia, etc.? The answer, of course, is that democracy isn't the litmus test for anything.

Read more...

The Latin America paranoia round-up

I had happened to see various news stories recently, and realized they fit a pattern. Or is it paranoia if it happens to be true?

• Alvaro Uribe says there are terrorists in his military
• The Ecuadorian government says the CIA has infiltrated its military
• The Nicaraguan government says some EU ambassadors want to overthrow Daniel Ortega
• Hugo Chávez says Manuel Rosales is plotting to kill him
• An official from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security says Latin America is chock full of Islamic extremists
• Along the same lines, the U.S. and Colombian governments say Colombian narco-traffickers are funding Hizbullah (with the hilarious sentence, "Hizbullah officials were unavailable for comment.")
  
• Evo Morales says the DEA is spying on him

Read more...

Violence and the U.S.-Mexico border

On October 14, the State Department issued a travel advisory for Mexico because of murders associated with drug cartels. It simply asked people to be aware and take common sense precautions. Now, however, my dad forwarded an advisory sent out by the administration of San Diego State University, the likes of which I don't ever remember seeing, given its specificity. It is aimed at people connected to the military (which in San Diego is a lot of people). Caps are in the original.

CREDIBLE INTEL REPORTS INDICATE A HIGH POSSIBILITY OF
INCREASED VIOLENCE BY DRUG CARTELS SPECIFICALLY IN TIJUANA, MX DURING THE PERIOD OF 1400 FRIDAY, 31 OCT 08 TO 0600, MONDAY, 3 NOV 08. IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED THAT ALL MILITARY MEMBERS AND DOD PERSONNEL AVOID VISITING MEXICAN BORDER TOWNS THIS WEEKEND, SPECIFICALLY THE CITY OF TIJUANA./"

It is incredibly sad how drug-related violence has been sweeping through border towns. We need a binational solution that does not limit itself only to arming Mexican law enforcement.

Read more...

The Bush administration and Latin America

I'm glad I have Condoleezza Rice to set me straight, because I was under the impression that the Bush administration was unpopular in Latin America. From a Televisa interview:

You know, I think this President has really changed our approach to Latin America, which, quite frankly and sadly, for a while was seen through a Cold War prism. If you were from the left, you were against us, because that was associated somehow with the Cold War. We’ve wiped that away. And we have excellent relations with governments of the left and with governments of the right. The only thing in common is that they govern democratically, they’re trying to invest in their people, they are accountable to their people, they’re fighting corruption. And I think the United States has been a really good partner in Latin America (inaudible).

I wonder what that "inaudible" was all about. Perhaps coughing to suppress laughter. The same day (October 23) she had a press conference with Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Patricia Espinosa, where we learned the Bush administration is also totally uninterested in anyone's ideology.

The governments of Latin America come from a wide range along the ideological spectrum, and President Bush has made very clear that there is no ideological test for cooperation and friendship with the United States. We have excellent relations with governments from the left, we have excellent relations with governments from the right, we have excellent relations with the center. Whether you’re talking about Brazil or Chile or Uruguay, or you’re talking about Colombia or – we have a broad range. There is no ideological test.

She ran out of time, but had planned to discuss how strong the U.S. economy is, how McCain will win in a landslide, and how she wishes she had been governor of Alaska because that's how you get the best foreign policy experience.

Read more...

The Colombian military and "false positives"

The Colombian government has fired 27 army officers, including three generals, for being involved in the murders of civilians, who were then dressed up to look like guerrillas. The point of such murders was to increase the guerrilla body count, for which soldiers would receive benefits. These are euphemistically referred to as "false positives." There are several very positive outcomes of this action.

First, since the purge included soldiers of all ranks, it sends a signal--that will likely need to be repeated--that this sort of thing won't be tolerated at any level.

Second, the soldiers are going to be tried in civilian, not military courts. This is important because the latter are beyond civilian control and typically much more lenient.

Third, the army is now going to measure success through demobilizations and captures. Better late than never.

Fourth, Uribe is finally admitting that such actions take place, whereas up to now he's been denying it. No doubt that such denials contributed even more to the overall sense of impunity.

Read more...

Voting in NC

I voted today, and had to wait an hour and 15 minutes in line. There is an explosion of early voting in North Carolina, where the race is neck and neck, something we're not accustomed to. Lines are often 1-2 hours. Very exciting to be in play for the presidential election.

Read more...

Heraldo Munoz's The Dictator's Shadow

I just read Heraldo Muñoz's The Dictator's Shadow: Life Under Augusto Pinochet. I wasn't sure what to expect from a political memoir, and before starting wondered if I would get bogged down and keep it mostly for reference. After reading, however, I concluded that I would recommend this book to any non-specialist interested in understanding the Pinochet era. Meanwhile, those who already study Chile will appreciate his insider view and engaging writing. He has held numerous high level political positions and is currently the Chilean Ambassador to the UN.

What I appreciated most about the book was how well it explained very complex issues. Several stand out. The relative stance of the Socialist (of which Muñoz was an active and militant member) and Communist Parties during and then after the Allende years is definitely important, and he has a lot of personal anecdotes. He details the schisms in the former and the radicalization of the latter, and the challenges of coalition building.

Pinochet's arrest is also no simple thing. The people involved, the laws being applied, and the labyrinth of British law are summed up in a really accessible way that incorporates the conflicting political pressures that were in play: the Chilean government, human rights groups, the British opposition (especially Margaret Thatcher), the Spanish judiciary, vociferous Pinochet supporters, etc.

Pinochet is an easy person to caricature, but Muñoz captures his different sides well--the disciplinarian, the diplomat, the Cold War dogmatist, the liar, the family man, the Chilean nationalist, even the old man. I love the quote he has from Pinochet, who claims Chile under his rule is a democracy: "We do not oppose ideas. Ideas are respected. What we oppose is that ideas be spread or that some may attempt to apply them here in the country" (p. 195). Or, much later, when asked about how enormous sums of money were placed in banks around the world: "I forgot. My glycemia was very high in those days" (p. 290).

Muñoz is also nuanced when discussing the role of the United States. The Nixon/Kissinger years are beyond defense, but the Reagan years are not so clear. He credits the National Endowment for Democracy, often vilified in Latin America, for helping to register voters for the 1988 plebiscite that defeated Pinochet. The Letelier murder in DC continued to confound relations and so after an initial honeymoon even the Reagan administration eventually wanted to see at least some human rights progress, though he also discusses the strong support Pinochet had from many members of the administration. Later, the Clinton administration played an important role in declassifying documents and even during the George W. Bush years, Pinochet's corrupt association with Riggs Bank became public as a result of U.S. investigations in terrorism and money laundering. (He does take a poke at John Bolton for failing to understand the Chilean government's position on Pinochet's arrest in Great Britain).

My only quibble: the book seeks to frame Pinochet as completely in the past, so that when Bachelet took office, "Nobody was thinking about General Pinochet anymore. He was the past" (p. 298). Clearly this isn't true, as Muñoz himself was obviously thinking very hard about Pinochet and his legacy. Pinochet the person is dead, but his influences will linger for quite some time.

Read more...

FTAs and immigration

Jorge Castañeda wrote an Op-Ed for the Houston Chronicle about the opposition to free trade agreements in the United States. He argues that more attention should be paid to the structure of economic deals between Latin America and Europe, which broaden the scope beyond trade. His suggestions are quite ambitious:

First, clear and explicit human rights and democracy clauses should be included, along the lines of similar clauses in the Mexican and Chilean Economic Association treaties with the EU. Second, more specific provisions on labor, the environment, gender equality and indigenous rights are needed, as well as antitrust, regulatory and judicial reform provisions, for reasons both of principle and political expediency.

Although there have been enormous improvements in most of these areas, there remains a huge agenda, particularly with regard to breaking up or regulating monopolies.

These revised agreements should include bold, enlightened provisions for infrastructure and "social-cohesion" funds, since these can make the difference between muddling through and true success.

Free-trade advocates should not view Obama's demand that these deals be revisited as a mistake, but rather as an opportunity to improve and deepen them; McCain's supporters should not see the incorporation of all of the aforementioned inclusions as "European nonsense," but rather as a way to narrow the gap between the agreements' promise and their actual results.

Improving Mexican and Central American infrastructure, education and rule of law, or improving Colombian and Peruvian drug-enforcement efforts and respect for labor laws and human rights, are all in America's interest, and free trade agreements can help rather than harm such efforts.

I agree with the notion that we should not pretend that trade is separate from other issues, as the U.S. tends to do. I also agree that the U.S. is inextricably linked to Latin America, and therefore we should pay closer attention to how we can actually achieve the goals we proclaim about trade, immigration policy, etc. which means taking a broader approach.

What Castañeda leaves out, unfortunately, is how to sell his idea to Congress. If anything, his plans would be even more unpopular than free standing FTAs because they would cost more and I can already hear the complaints from both sides of the aisle that they would give Latin Americans our hard earned money.

Read more...

Chilean municipal elections

Chile had municipal elections yesterday, which were widely touted as providing clues about the direction of the 2009 presidential election. The Concertación shows clear signs of strain. For example, for mayoral positions, it won 38.43% of the total vote, versus 40.49% for the Alianza (the coalition of the right). It did, though, win 45-39% for city councils (down one point from 2004).

Senator, former president, and once-again presidential aspirant Eduardo Frei argued that the weak showing demonstrated that the Concertación needs to have open primaries for a single candidate. Meanwhile, presidential candidate Sebastián Piñera boldly claimed that if the Alianza won this election, "we think we'll win the presidential elections."

These elections do not tell us much we didn't know before. It is a familiar story--the Concertación is sagging under the weight of 18 years of rule, but the Alianza simply cannot land any sort of political knockout punch. Polls show that, as of now, the election is the Alianza's (and presumably Piñera's) to lose. But a year is a very long time.

Some trivia: Lucía Pinochet, daughter of the dictator, was elected to city council in Vitacura, the richest part of Santiago.

Read more...

McCain and Chavez

The McCain campaign is now running an ad, saying that voting for him will prevent an "international crisis," using Biden's recent comments about Obama. The ad includes a picture of Hugo Chávez. What sort of international crisis does McCain believe Chávez might initiate? I can't think of any crisis Chávez would be capable of launching.

Read more...

Palling around with terrorists

A foreign head of state orders a bombing in Washington, DC, which kills two people, an act intended to strike fear into that dictator's opponents. Then a U.S. senator later goes to the country, has a "warm" conversation with said dictator, and is given a posh vacation to boot. How does that sound?

One is Augusto Pinochet and the other is John McCain, as described by John Dinges, who has been covering Chile (and South America generally) for decades.

Ironically, Bush administration officials are now concerned about leaving the country, fearing they might be arrested just like Pinochet.

h/t Boz and Marc Cooper - comments on both posts trying to defend McCain are highly entertaining

Read more...

Obama in Spanish

Michelle links to a 30 second TV ad Obama did entirely in Spanish. That accent is not too shabby.

Read more...

More on Dole getting nasty

Last week I posted about the ad I received from Elizabeth Dole, attacking Kay Hagan on the issue of illegal immigration. Now Russell shows his own from Chapel Hill.

It appears that Dole has nothing left to do but this.

Read more...

A Compass for Colombia Policy

Four groups (the Washington Office on Latin America, the Center for International Policy, the U.S. Office for Colombia, and the Latin America Working Group) have just jointly published a document entitled "A Compass for Colombia Policy." They propose seven broad steps:

1. Use U.S. aid and leverage for human rights and the rule of law

2. Actively support overtures for peace

3. Support expansion of the government's civilian presence in the countryside

4. Protect the rights of internally displaced persons and refugees

5. Protect the rights of Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities

6. Ensure that trade policy supports, not undermines, policy goals towards Colombia

7. Get serious--and smart--about drug policy

The document is particularly useful because it goes well beyond platitudes and offers thoroughly cited and very specific suggestions for change.

In terms of getting a new administration to listen, I think the most compelling parts of the document are those that specifically link suggestions to policy goals of the United States. For that reason, #3 is especially good. Spreading non-military state institutions (courts, road-builders, doctors, etc.) can play a large role in reducing local support for guerrillas and, hopefully, drug traffickers as well.

This is also why I like #6. At no time have I heard anything in the U.S. about the consequences (unintended or otherwise) that will accompany an FTA. John McCain explicitly campaigns on the notion that the status quo benefits Colombia, and we need the FTA because it gets U.S. companies into Colombia. There must be programs for the people who will lose their jobs as a result; otherwise they will turn to the illicit economy.

Thus, if I were someone trying to convince a new administration, I would to explain how #1, for example, helps us. Elected officials in the U.S. use soaring rhetoric about being a model for the world, etc. but we all know policy makers need to have a concrete reason for doing good. Using leverage runs head-on into the "we're punishing our ally" argument that has been used for decades to avoid pressing allies for democratic change. The only possible way to get around that is to supply convincing reasons why it helps the U.S.

I will conclude more optimistically, however, by noting that the U.S. Congress does indeed pay attention sometimes. The report gives credit where credit is due in that regard.

Read more...

A few more words on Latin America and Russia

The State Department's news site has an article on the relationship between Russia and Venezuela. Thomas Shannon (the Asst Secretary of State) expands a bit on his notion that Russia does not pose a threat, and that there is no new Cold War. I thought this quote summed it up well:

“Venezuela has bought a lot of weapons from Russia — about $4 billion worth of weapons. And this is something that has caused concern throughout the region, largely because no country [in the region] is buying this many weapons or [these] kinds of weapons,” Shannon said.

But Shannon said a military threat is more than simply buying weapons.

“It involves doctrine. It involves training. It involves capacity,” he said. “And at this point, all the Venezuelans have are weapons.”

And in addition:

“I don’t think there is a new geopolitical reality,” he said. “Quite the contrary. I think what we have in the Americas today is a region which is really coming of age in an important fashion, and a region which is establishing itself in the world as emerging economies and emerging democratic powers.”

I think this might be contradictory, though it is still early to tell. The "coming of age" may well in fact signal some sort of "new geopolitical reality," though it will not enter on extra-hemispheric powers like Russia.

Read more...

McCain almost bombed Cuba, my friends

The latest rhetorical inanity is the Biden/McCain exchange about the Kennedy administration. Biden, who has kept amazingly quiet thus far, said enemies would test Obama immediately, just like they did Kennedy, but he has "steel in his spine," perhaps not unlike Doctor Octopus. Anyhow, McCain took the opportunity to say that in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he almost bombed Cuba long before he wanted to bomb Iran, thus demonstrating that he has been "tested."

So what to make of all this? It is entirely possible that some country would test Obama, but as Angus points out, Biden's message came out very weird. As for McCain, he doesn't ever explain what the outcome of the Near-Bomb Experience test was.

Maybe we just need the Canadians to put it all into perspective. The National Post's headline about the story is:

"McCain reminds voters how (very) old he is"

Read more...

Latin America doesn't care much about the election

I can't tell you how often I've seen mention about how Latin Americans really hope Obama wins the election. Gallup just published a poll showing that such an assertion is simplistic. Although it is true that more Latin Americans prefer Obama over McCain, the vast majority don't care. The "don't know/refused" respondents reached 63% in Central and Mexico, and 58% in South America.

In fact, there appears to be a direct correlation between the number of "don't know/refused" and wealth. Wealthier countries care more, while the poorest believe that it makes no difference at all.

For all the hot air about Colombia, still only 49% of Colombians believe the election will matter to them. This is the highest percentage in the region, but still quite low given the "life or death" portrayal provided by FTA supporters. And even more telling, Colombians who do care prefer Obama over McCain by a 38-16 % margin.

Read more...

Obama and socialism

I don't tend to get very worked up about campaign rhetoric until it reaches extremes. Maybe I have just become numbed to it. But there is no doubt that the McCain team is crossing the line from exaggeration to insanity. The latest message is to brand Obama a socialist, which is laughable, though not as insulting to my intelligence as saying that his policies are just like Cuba's.

I did a double take on that one. From Mel Martinez:

"Where I come from, where I was raised, they tried wealth redistribution," the Cuban-American senator said. "We don't need that here. That's called socialism, communism -- not Americanism."

Say what? I mean, seriously, where do you even start with that one?

Kudos, then, to Colin Powell, who had this to say:

"Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them -- in roads and airports and hospitals and schools," President Bush's former secretary of state said. "And taxes are necessary for the common good, and there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less.

"For us to say that makes you a socialist, I think, is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate."

Read more...

Which came first, the trafficking or the consuming?

Reporter Jens Erik Gould at Bloomberg has a nice article about the political responses in the U.S. and Mexico about drug-related violence. As the violence escalates, Mexicans of all political stripes are emphasizing the essential fact that everything stems from consumption of drugs in the United States:

Felipe Calderón: "We are paying a very high price for the consumption of drugs in the U.S."

Cesar Camacho Quiroz, member of Congress from the PRI: "the prevention campaigns haven't been very successful, and the fight against street-level drug dealing is practically nonexistent in the U.S."

Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico's Ambassador to the U.S.: "There are many in Mexico who do feel the U.S. isn't doing enough because they do see bodies piling up on our side of the border."

It is notable that when we read about drugs in the United States, the word most often used is "trafficking," as if the movement of drugs alone was the problem. But, of course, that movement exists only because there is a final destination, namely the consumer in the U.S. Without that consumer, there is no traffic.

This is certainly not a new debate, but I do think Mexico is becoming more vocal than it has ever been. A small but important rhetorical change would simply be to refer equally to trafficking and consumption. A larger step would be to put as much attention and funding in reducing consumption as we do in reducing trafficking. But don't hold your breath:

The Bush administration proposed cutting spending on drug treatment and prevention programs by $73 million, or 1.5 percent, in the 2009 budget which hasn't been approved yet.

Read more...

Immigration enforcement: recession proof

When I taught a senior seminar on immigration and politics a few years ago, some of my students joked they were looking at the Border Patrol, since it might be the fastest growing employer anywhere. Now, from an article in the Wall Street Journal it appears that ICE Air is the way to go:

While U.S. airlines downsize and scrimp on amenities, one carrier is offering its passengers leather seats, ample legroom and free food. But frequent fliers probably don't want a ticket on what may be the fastest growing "airline" serving Central America.

The article does not get specifically into the total budget, but says it costs the government $620 per person, and last fiscal year it deported 76,102 people. That is a total of $47,183,240.

Unfortunately, in general the article is very fluffy (do I care whether the bologna sandwich tasted good?) and fails even to ask the most important question: how many of these people are likely to get back into the United States in the near future? I cannot pinpoint a percentage, but I have to believe it is substantial.

If you really want to feel ill, just read the comments after the article.

Read more...

LungStrong 15K

We did the LungStrong 15K this morning. Every year there is a 15K at Lake Norman (just north of Charlotte) and it is my favorite race of the year. The weather is perfect (though a bit windy this morning), there are a lot of nice views, and it is a good distance to push yourself a bit.

My son is pushing the limit of the jogger strollers, but despite the cramped space still napped most of the race.

Read more...

Elizabeth Dole gets nasty on immigration

I just received an ad from Elizabeth Dole in the mail, telling me how horrible "Liberal Kay Hagan" is because of her views on undocumented immigrants. It uses imagery of a person being arrested, and then on the inside has an eerie photo of a guy up against barbed wire. The ad also has two photos of Kay Hagan--is that so you know who precisely to hate if you run into her at the supermarket?

I guess she figures she needs to get negative, because she is currently behind Hagan by several points.

Read more...

Latino myths

One of the interesting topics we discussed on the radio this morning is the persistence of myths with regard to Latinos (this was also the theme of the book The Latino Threat, which I reviewed last month). One of the callers mentioned her concern about illegal immigration, particularly that people come to the United States and "demand we change our language." None of us participating in the show had ever heard anyone make such a demand. Yet such myths persist.

We know the myths exist, but I would like to know more about their origins and dissemination. Federico Subervi, who is in the School of Journalism at Texas State University and was on the show (because he is giving a talk here later in the month) argued that it originates with the most intensely anti-immigrant groups, and then spreads through talk radio and some political candidates.

This seems plausible enough, but the range of myths is so broad, the number of them so large, and they are so pervasive. They have deep historical roots and plenty of coverage even in the mainstream media. It would be fascinating to focus on specific myths and uncover the ways in which they emerged and then were disseminated.

Ultimately, I also think there is an unfortunate gap between academia and the public. There is a lot of very important research being done on Latino health, criminality (or lack thereof), use of public services, learning English, etc. but it doesn't penetrate enough beyond universities and think tanks.

Read more...

Human Rights Watch brings Venezuela and Colombia together

On the one hand, Human Rights Watch's report on Colombia is "ridiculous" and "full of lies." On the other, its report on Venezuela shows it is working in concert with the United States to destabilize Chávez's government.

There really aren't very many groups that anger Hugo Chávez and Alvaro Uribe equally. Maybe the two presidents can come together in their common hatred.

Read more...

Discussing Latino politics

For anyone interested, I will be on WFAE's Charlotte Talks tomorrow morning from 9 to 10 to discuss Latino politics and the election:

Latino Politics
North Carolina now ranks 11th nationally in its percentage of Latino residents. With the election coming up, we'll find out what's important to Latinos as a voter group and how those issues are being covered by the campaigns and the media (or how they're being ignored).
Guests
Dr. Federico Subervi - Professor, Mass Communication, Texas State University
Dr. Greg Weeks - Assoc. Professor of Political Science, UNC Charlotte
Ruben Campillo - Advocacy Coordinator, Latin American Coalition

Read more...

The third debate and Latin America

The third presidential debate, which I found to be the most interesting to watch of the three because there was more direct engagement, included a surprising amount of Latin America. First, however, I want to point out that immigration did not come up, except McCain briefly accusing Obama of misrepresenting his position on the issue (a very kettle-like statement, that). Look, I know that the economy is the big issue, but in three debates and 4.5 hours we couldn't even give it a few minutes?

The first Latin America reference was McCain saying he favored opening up our markets to Brazilian ethanol. Give him credit for that--it is an unpopular stance and does go up against a powerful lobby. Obama didn't say anything about it.

But then, suddenly, Colombia became a major point for McCain. He criticized Obama for not supporting the FTA, and Obama responded by referring to the murders of trade unionists. Adam Isacson has a clip, showing how McCain's eyebrows went haywire while Obama was saying that. I actually was watching the debate on a laptop, which didn't have that split screen, so I didn't even see that the first time around.

McCain bungled the FTA theme. If you did not know anything about the topic, his answer was too confusing to make any sense of it:

But let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that Sen. Obama opposes. Right now, because of previous agreements, some made by President Clinton, the goods and products that we send to Colombia, which is our largest agricultural importer of our products, is -- there's a billion dollars that we -- our businesses have paid so far in order to get our goods in there.

Because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our country for free. So Sen. Obama, who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that's helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that's killing young Americans.

And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us create jobs in America because they will be a market for our goods and products without having to pay -- without us having to pay the billions of dollars -- the billion dollars and more that we've already paid.

Even if you do untangle that, McCain's point is off kilter. He argues that the current situation favors Colombia, and that an FTA strongly favors the United States to "create jobs in America," not in Colombia. He does not explain how that is good for Colombia. Ultimately, it matters very little, because voters are not very interested in Colombia. They are even less interested in whether Obama travels to Colombia.

There was also brief mention of ending dependence on Venezuelan oil (you know, that sha-VEZ guy) and NAFTA. Especially in a tough economy, the latter (along with the Colombia FTA) is unlikely to resonate with voters for McCain.

Read more...

Immigration and the debates

Immigration was not mentioned in the first two debates, which is the result of poor moderators (has anyone had anything good to say about the moderation thus far?). This, despite prior predictions that immigration would be important in the debates.

I hope it is raised tonight, but I do not have my hopes very high. And if Bob Schieffer doesn't raise it directly, neither candidate will mention it voluntarily.

Despite the media attention on the Latino vote, in general the candidates just do not want to talk about immigration reform. Instead, they wage TV ad wars in Latino markets, often in Spanish so that no English speaker knows what they're saying.

I want both of them put on the spot. They are afraid of possibly alienating restrictionist-minded voters, and we should not let them off the hook.

So c'mon, Schieffer, please make the candidates a bit more uncomfortable.

Read more...

More on Russia and Latin America

After my previous post on the topic, I talked to a reporter at U.S. News and World Report, who wrote this story.

Read more...

Nationalization, the U.S., and Latin America

Several weeks ago I posted about how the United States government was talking about nationalization, but refusing to call it that, and how it had criticized nationalization for any other government. Now the New York Times picks up the theme, at least with regard to the former (unfortunately not for the latter) and it is past due. It discusses how the U.S. has a long history of nationalization in times of crisis, including Montgomery Ward, of all things.

Elsewhere, government bank-investment programs are routinely called nationalization programs. But that is not likely in America, where nationalization is a word to avoid, given the aversion to anything that hints of socialism.

“Putting this plan on the table makes a lot of sense, but you can’t call it nationalization here,” said Simon Johnson, an economist at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “In France, it is fine, but not in the United States.

This is true. But this lie we tell ourselves about how we are not the slightest bit socialist is destructive. It makes us criticize others who are not as different from us as we like to think. After all the lectures to Latin American leaders about free market principles, tightening your belts, living within your means, reducing spending, etc., etc. we cannot even admit that we are nationalizing. The problem is that in the future, we will continue to criticize others for doing so because we will never accept that we actually did it ourselves.

We hear all the time about how the U.S. image in Latin America is badly damaged and that it exerts no leadership. One concrete measure to reverse these trends would be simply to admit, in a major speech to a Latin American audience, that the state plays an important and necessary role in the economy. That we can disagree about the extent of the state's role, but that even the most powerful economies cannot rely on markets alone. That there can be, and must be, a balance between the entrepreneurial impulses of capitalism and its destructive tendencies.

Read more...

Francisco Goldman's The Art of Political Murder

Francisco Goldman's The Art of Political Murder: Who Killed the Bishop? is remarkable investigative journalism, in a country--Guatemala--where it is no easy task. It is about the 1998 murder of Bishop Juan Gerardi, a champion of human rights. But it goes far beyond that, delving into the deep-seated corruption, the incredibly powerful military, and the fear that create serious obstacles to the rule of law and accountability in the country. It reads like a thriller.

I lost count of the number of judges, prosecutors, and witnesses who were threatened, killed, and/or fled into exile for their words and actions. Even in exile, they were followed and harassed by military intelligence. The fact that prosecutions took place and survived appeals is a major step forward for Guatemala, albeit an initial one. The case nabbed some of the small fry, but the higher-ups remain untouched. Threats were even made openly in court, using hand gestures in the shape of guns. Or, as one officer said during cross-examination, "There is no greater or more beautiful glory for a soldier than to see his enemy lying dead at his feet" (p. 242).

There is always good reason for fear. One of the key people involved in the murder was Colonel Byron Lima Estrada (and his son, a Captain). See here for declassified documents about him through the National Security Archive. They were both convicted, along with another member of the military (later murdered in prison) and a priest.

Goldman leaves room open for hope. He made one highly relevant point about generational change:

It was also significant that the prosecution and the judges were relatively young, all under forty, and hadn't believed what older, more experienced people believed: that you could never get a verdict like this in Guatemala (p. 259).

Along similar lines, he ends the afterword (an addition for the paperback version) writing about young Guatemalan investigative journalists he met. With luck (and courage), perhaps they can pry open the institutionalized corruption. Indeed, the publication of this book may well have helped push things in the right direction. An article in The Nation published in June talks about how widely read the book was, despite being in English. Parts were translated, made into pamphlets, and then possibly contributed to Alvaro Colom's victory over Otto Pérez Molina, who was also implicated in the murder.

My only small criticism would be that it can be hard to follow at times. There is a (non-alphabetized) list of people in the back of the book, but people change positions, disappear for a while and then come back, etc. It may well be that no author could juggle so many people.

Read more...

$7.5 million a mile

That is the current GAO estimate of the cost of the border fence. And how are things moving along anyway? Well, ''We do not keep a running total of miles as they are completed."

No worries, we trust you.

Read more...

State sponsors of terrorism

The Bush administration has taken North Korea off the list. Can anyone say, without giggling or avoiding eye contact, that Cuba is more of a terrorist threat than North Korea?

Read more...

Garcia accepts resignations of everyone but himself

And his approval is at 19%. This is why almost a third of Peruvians would vote for Fujimori again.

Read more...

Immigration policy and unintended consequences

The San Diego Weekly Reader published a long and really informative article (the reporter's name is Geoff Bouvier) about the changes taking place at the U.S.-Mexico border around San Diego. Although there is a lot of interesting stuff, one point in particular caught my attention. Time and time again, U.S. policies create unintended and unfortunately unforeseen consequences. In this case, a reinforced border wall, expanded Border Patrol, and technological gizmos were supposed to deter would-be migrants from crossing.

So what was the effect? Here is a quote from an ICE official:

“Since Gatekeeper began, the smuggling has become a lot more organized,” Rogers says. “Where there used to be a lot of mom-and-pop organizations or a lot of people who would come up to the border and wait around and then just jump the fence and try — and maybe even try four or five times before they’d get through — they can’t do that anymore now. There’s double layers of fencing and lights and cameras and helicopters and Border Patrol agents on motorcycles and ATVs and horses. There’s so much infrastructure built up along the border now, we’ve kind of interrupted that migratory pattern where someone would come up and work for a couple of months and buy up a bunch of furniture and TVs and take them back south after the picking season, and then they’d come back up after the holidays. But that doesn’t happen anymore because we have so much organization now. But that’s also caused the smugglers to get a lot more organized. And now we’re seeing the drug cartels getting involved. They’ve noticed that the price for smuggling aliens has increased to the point that it’s pretty lucrative now. So the drug cartels are starting to charge these smuggling organizations a fee or a tax to work in their areas.”

The policy has created the potential for immense profit, and thereby contributed to violence and other associated problems.

And does the wall stop people from trying? Nope.

Hopeful Mexicans will try to go over, under, or through the mesh fence. Panels of it are riddled with patches where cuts were made, areas near it show signs of digging, and Renteria explains that ladders are jerry-built with rebar poles to go over the top, despite the risk of injury from the concertina wire.

Read more...

Latino voting

I've been writing about the dynamics of bilingual campaigning--now the Washington Post has a short article about Obama's increased efforts to get some Spanish-language attacks on McCain. It concludes:

The ad will air for an undetermined amount of time starting Wednesday in Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico, according to Obama campaign spokesman Federico de Jesus. Both the Obama and McCain campaigns have focused virtually all of their Spanish-language ad efforts in the "Latin quartet" of states, where Hispanic voter turnout could significantly tip the scales in favor of either candidate.

Despite periodic references to Latinos being a "swing vote." the Latino vote is already overwhelmingly Democratic. Just as with African Americans, as the article mentions the key for Obama is not convincing Latinos to vote for him but rather to get people registered and then get them to the polls.

Read more...

Political consequences of the economic crisis

The jokes are running rampant, like Hugo Chávez talking about "Comrade Bush" and his socialist policies. Clearly, Latin American leaders who have been labeled as adversaries by the United States are making much hay out of the crisis, which has involved truly massive state intervention by a government that proclaimed so loudly and confidently that massive state intervention was inherently evil. But what are the longer term political implications? Since we are in the midst of the crisis, it is still very early, but here are some thoughts.

First, the U.S. message about getting governments out of the economy will never be taken seriously again. This does not mean a rejection of capitalism per se, but for Latin America it means vindication of mixed economic models of its own choice.

Second, it gives a boost to more economic integration in Latin America. I am skeptical of the chances for integration because of historical antagonisms, rivalries, etc. but this crisis provides more support for those arguing that Latin America needs to come together. Let's see what happens in the summit later this year.

Third, it spurs further erosion of U.S. hegemony in the region. Bush administration policies had already contributed greatly, but Latin American governments feel more and more comfortable resisting U.S. pressure (of various sorts) and/or establishing relations with extra-hemispheric powers. Erosion is not the same as "disappearance" but things just ain't what they used to be.

The next question is whether the new administration will recognize the changes that have been taking place. There is a greater chance with Obama, but he or McCain will inherit so many problems that Latin America will barely register. But if U.S. policy (and rhetoric) is not altered to meet new realities, then the points outlined above will deepen to the detriment of the U.S.

Read more...

The so-called "new Cold War"

In previous posts I've been discussing the sudden references to a "new Cold War" in Latin America, based upon Russia's relationship with Venezuela and its mention of interest in other Latin American countries (for the moment, mostly Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua). I thought it would be useful to break down some of the key aspects of the real Cold War to see what similarities exist.

1. Two adversaries with opposing ideologies, accompanied by strategies of spreading one at the expense of the other. This is clearly not currently in evidence. Russia is not spreading ideology--I'd be hard pressed to define Putin's ideology in any case. He has interests that are based on power, not ideology. In other words, Putin is not trying to "spread" a counterpoint to the United States in Latin America.

2. Proxy wars that avoid direct confrontation. Russian support for Venezuela is not intended to keep a Russian-friendly government in power, though it is intended to send a message to the United States. Unlike the dynamics of the Cold War, the United States government dislikes Hugo Chávez because of his own characteristics, which have nothing to do with an outside power.

3. Threat of devastating war. The stakes now are important, but not life or death. There will no nuclear war over this and most likely no armed conflict at all.

In short, I hope the "new Cold War" label is soon discarded. It is both overly alarmist and misleading.

Read more...

Chilean presidential candidates

Ricardo Lagos has said he will not be running for president next year. In August I posted about a poll showing Lagos second behind Sebastián Piñera when Chileans were asked who they thought the next president would be. I would think front runner status for the Concertación now goes to José Miguel Insulza.

Read more...

Colombia and a new "Cold War"

It seems that this "new Cold War" theme is all the craze, no matter how inaccurate it is. The new twist is that Colombian Defense Minister (and future presidential hopeful) Juan Manuel Santos is now also playing it up:

"Russia, with its 16,000 nuclear bombs, has a great desire to be a key player in the world. But its presence in the region will promote a return to the Cold War," Juan Manuel Santos said on Colombian radio Caracol.

Speaking ahead of an official visit to Russia, he said the plans for Russian naval exercises in the Caribbean in November could "affect the balance of power in the region and its stability."

In reality, all Russia's maneuvers do is provide an excuse to claim that regional stability is at risk. Colombia has the most to gain by far of making a big deal about Russia's presence, because that will be used as ammunition for passage of the FTA and for more weapons, training, etc. from the United States.

Read more...

The VP debate and Latin America

Unless I missed something quickly, the only reference to Latin America during the debate was from Sarah Palin, who continued the line about Obama saying he was open to dialogue with adversaries, such as the "Castro brothers."

The McCain campaign clearly believes this is a winning argument, because it gets repeated over and over. But does it resonate? The Havana Note reports a recent poll showing 60 percent of likely voters believe we need to revise our policy toward Cuba. Support for the embargo is eroding over time, and I have cited many Republicans who think our current policy is a failure.

McCain and Palin need to convince voters in the middle, but I really wonder whether those voters agree that it is a bad idea to meet with people like Raúl Castro.

Read more...

Russia and Latin America

The media is playing up the idea that we might be entering a new Cold War of some sort, which among other things entails deep Russian involvement in Latin America. Russia is playing this up, with Venezuela deals and military maneuvers, discussion of a closer relationship with Bolivia, and rumors about Cuba. Boz had a good recent post on the topic.

There is one point, however, that I never see mentioned but which is important and has historical precedent: Russia is primarily interested in the United States, and so all of these alliances are contingent upon relations with the U.S. If U.S.-Russia relations improved, Putin would feel no compunction about backing off and/or ignoring promises he's made to Latin American leaders. The Soviets screwed Fidel Castro and humiliated him more than once. Putin doesn't care about Latin America. He is not trying to "compete" in any significant way in the hemisphere, and likely won't in the future either.

If I were a Latin American president, therefore, I would hop on the bandwagon as quickly as possible and get some goodies before they're gone. My hunch is that Hugo Chávez is well aware, and so is successfully milking the situation while it lasts. I doubt he has any illusions about brotherhood with Russia (or Iran, for that matter). Thomas Shannon, who has been one of the few people in the Bush administration to talk sense about Latin America, argues that Russia-Venezuela ties are no threat and "aren't likely to endure."

So let's see what signals the next administration sends to Russia. That will tell us a lot about what Russia does next in Latin America.

Read more...

Quiz

According to the UN, Sudan has the highest number of internally displaced citizens. What country is second? Iraq? Afghanistan? Maybe Kenya or Zimbabwe? Nope, it is Colombia. In the first half of 2008, 270,000 Colombians fled their homes, which is up 41 percent from the first half of 2007. If that doesn't blow your mind, then nothing will.

Read more...