Latin America

Edgar Millan Gomez was one of the latest victim and symbol of how the anti-drug forces of the Mexican Government can be attacked whenever and wherever drug traffickers wish to bring the fight. Gomez was one of the top officials in Mexico’s anti-drug war. He was considered one of the top security officials in Mexico and was one of the top people in charge of Mexico’s security forces. On Thursday he was gunned down, along with two of his bodyguards in a professional killing in front of his home. On Friday the tradegy continued as Esteban Robles, the head of Mexico’s anti-kidnapping agency was gunned down as well. Their importance was paramount as shown by the presence of Mexican President Felipe Calderon who attended to the issues and to their funerals soon after the killings.

The number of deaths in the Mexican “War on Drugs” has reached record proportions. In 2007 nearly 2,500 have been killed in conflicts connected with narcotrafficking, and in the first five months of 2008 that number has already reached 1,100. As a medium between narcotics coming in from Colombia through Mexico and into the United States, Mexico is considered as an untapped source of wealth for anyone who controls the illicit trade routes. This ever-lingering issue has shadowed all concerns of the Mexican Presidency as it affects immigration, security, trade and corruption in Mexico. Even when one of those key issues becomes a focal point of the political concerns of Mexico and its neighbours, behind the scenes the drug trade has found a way to overcome restrictions to sell the products that no one wants to discuss. This recent war in the streets has removed the silence on the issue and is forcing Calderon to deal with it in an open manner. Unfortunately Calderon is not controlling the media and security surrounding the issue, losing one of his top cops to a hail of bullets to the will of Mexico’s drug gangs.

The fear of many in Mexico and abroad is that Mexico might become the next Colombia in Latin America. While the two countries are quite different politically and culturally, the reality is that an inability for the government to control crimes in its territory can lead a country into a state of constant emergency and repel growth and progress for years, or even generations. While Mexico has not reached this point, this latest killing was a clear message to the Government and Mexico as a whole that they can control not only smaller cities in the north of the country, but can hit anyone, anywhere, even Mexico’s best warrior. The only positive elements of this scenario is that in Colombia there has been great progress on their war against the FARC and that has produced methods and successful approaches in dealing with narcotraffickers. We will have to wait to see if Calderon has the ability to create an effective and coordinated response to a drug war that can only get worse in the long run.

NAFTA was always something that created tension between the US, Canada and Mexico in areas of debate that were never an issue before the concept of free trade became an ethos of foreign policy. NAFTA, originally built on from the Canadian-American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), was a progression of the US-Canada Auto Pact which set to reduce barriers to trade in the auto sector, expanding through CAFTA to include other consumer good and into NAFTA, to integrate Mexico into a North America wide trade agreement. The benefits and costs never were ultimately weighted to one side or the other. Canada would benefit from a secured auto market and less restrictions in selling its good to the US, now numbering around 92% of Canada’s exports abroad. Mexico would benefit from becoming a base for manufacturing goods to sell into the US and Canada and allow for employment in their own country in an attempt to curb poverty and increase much needed investment into the Mexican economy. Both would benefit from having a NAFTA Tribunal which would allow for judgments in a binding forum which would assist the two countries in registering just disputes with its massive neighbour, the United States. In turn, US companies would be able to access those markets and allow for US multinationals to set up investments and cross border trade within their own organizations as well as with other companies. US exports to Canada and Mexico since 1994 has made these two countries two of the top importers of American goods. With a population of 32 million and 100 million respectively, Canada and Mexico rival some of the largest markets in the world for US exports. It is hard to measure the true benefit of NAFTA for each country, but with the stability of the modern Mexican economy, the great effect of US companies on the Canadian and Mexican economies and the ability for the US to have two of the world’s largest economies within its economic and political influence, NAFTA was seen as a success by many policymakers in all three countries.

Recently NAFTA has been attacked by Hillary Clinton and to a lesser extent Barak Obama in their bloody and senseless campaigning towards degrading the Democratic Party. With the support for Hillary Clinton coming from many blue collar workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other manufacturing regions in the US; NAFTA, Mexico and immigration has become the keys to winning seats over Mr. Obama and his calls for Change. Damage has not only been inflicted on the Democrats, but on America’s neighbours. Countries like Canada and Mexico who have given a lot of support to the US, despite the poor impression of Mr. Bush in both countries, have been fairly good neighbours with the US in the last few years. Canada alone has born the brunt of much of the conflict in Afghanistan since Al Qaeda resumed its offensive two years ago, with most US forces stuck in Iraq. Mexico has opened its oil and petroleum industry towards the US, bringing closer economic ties despite the move by many American companies to China and away from Mexico. Mexico even has taken great steps to alienate Cuba, once a friend of the island nation, now in a cold peace with the Communist nation. The costs and benefits of NAFTA were summed up recently in the North America Leaders Summit in New Orleans where Mr. Bush, Stephen Harper of Canada and Felipe Calderon of Mexico met to discuss the future of North America.

The first volley of issues came as a response to Clinton’s campaign strategy to re-negotiate or scrap NAFTA. The North American Competitiveness Council, a group of 30 business leaders issued a statement promoting NAFTA and its increase since 1994 to creating trade amounting to over a trillion dollars. They also commented of how recent protectionist dialogue would do little to improve the relationship between the countries. Much of the losses of recent employment has come from American companies moving to China, so beating up on NAFTA and not addressing China trade when assisting blue collar workers in the US may simply hurt the relationship with the few neighbours Mr. Bush hasn’t already alienated in the last 8 years. This attack does nothing more than give a false solution to the US economy except for gaining a few votes for Mrs. Clinton and stirring sentiments against Latino immigrants in the US and trade in general.

Despite many in the US attacking Canada and Mexico for taking American jobs and wanting to integrate into the US, and many in Canada trying to tie Prime Minister Harper into the conservative right in the US to prompt and election, the Canadian Prime Minister has been strong in taking a stance on resolving NAFTA and other issues involving its neighbors. Mr. Harper has done a respectable job in addressing problems in NAFTA such as softwood lumber, defining Canada’s role in Afghanistan as a force to create a sustainable environment for aid, and his environmental policies has done a great deal to benefit Canadians and dialogue with Americans alike. Mr. Harper addressed Mrs. Clinton’s assessment of its neighbours as well, making the strong point that in this global energy crisis, Canada is one of the world’s largest exporters of petroleum and gas to the US and has a reserve some say as large as Saudi Arabia.

Harper has always been amicable to the US President, but is clearly not a George Bush of Canada. His support of Canada’s national healthcare system and standing social policies would be savored by many Democrats in the US during an election campaign. Harper clarified his relationship with Mr. Bush at the Summit: “What I appreciate most, what I’ve appreciated in our relationship over the past couple of years, is the fact that whether we agree or disagree, we’re always able to talk very frankly, very upfront,” Felipe Calderon of Mexico also promoted the benefits of NAFTA, helping to grow the Mexican economy to one of its most stable periods since the late 1960s. Both leaders, while surely realising the unpopularity of President Bush, coordinated their address at the Summit in support of NAFTA and against major changes or eliminating the agreement altogether. In the end, anti-NAFTA talks will likely progress into anti-China trade or simply disappear when Clinton loses the nomination for her party to Mr. Obama. With the recognition of America’s neighbours as true colleagues, issues of trade, aid and immigration can be addressed in a progressive manner in Obama’s or McCain’s first term of office.

In an article released last week by Spiegel International, evidence of FARC activities have been discovered after the killing of one of its leaders in Ecuador last month. The article goes into detail on what information was discovered. Information about the state of Ingrid Betancourt was detailed in the files. What most expected, is that she is quite ill and is putting up a strong front against her kidnappers. Another piece of valuable information is that the FARC is also in possession of 30 kilos of Uranium, not suitable for making bombs but useful in the production of armor piercing rounds which can cut through most modern tanks and APC’s possessed by the Colombian military.

What was most striking about the recent information is the evidence found linking Hugo Chavez with the FARC. Beyond mere sympathy for their cause, the documentation lists funds and weapons from Chavez’s Venezuela going to FARC rebels in Colombia. Despite threats by Chavez against Colombia a few weeks prior, it is in fact Chavez who is supplying arms against Colombia via the FARC according to Spiegel International. Details of Chavez’s assistance to the FARC includes $300 million in aid to the FARC as well as arms from the Venezuelan military and even a suggestion of giving the FARC shares from Venezuela’s oil revenues. Moreover, suspicions of Venezuela’s cooperation in the drug trade have been a constant concern of the Colombian government. The FARC makes most of its revenue from narcotics, but getting the drugs to Europe and the US is said to be done in some part through Venezuelan airports. An estimated 30% of the narcotics are said to go through Venezuela to outside markets according to Colombian drug authorities. A captured narcotics boss even referred to Venezuela saying “Venezuela is the drug trafficking mecca” in a statement made after his arrest.

With the release of this evidence to the international community is will be interesting to see how much the EU and US are willing to support a possible hot conflict in South America. With the War on Terror siphoning resources, a US election which is increasingly anti-trade and protectionist and years of ignoring foreign policy issues in the Andean region by most countries, Colombia has had little effective aid in the last 8 years except from Sarkozy of France. Evidence of the possible direction of the next US President may have taken its form in the recent discussion of opening a Free Trade Agreement with Colombia. The current debate between President Bush and the Democrats in Congress concerns threats in Colombia against local labour leaders. A debate to suspend the FTA has strong support in reaction to Colombia’s record of violence against local labour leaders, according to Human Rights Watch. Alternatively, the debate to increase trade has been linked with the current battle against the FARC in Colombia by addressing poverty in the country through helping grow the Colombian economy and eliminate the need for a paramilitary state and the need for drug money to support the underground markets in Colombia. The export of flowers and coffee and other agricultural products, grown on massive scale in Colombia may have the effect of displacing the need for illegal crops and create new markets for Colombia’s legal commodities. To date, Bush is pushing to pass the FTA through despite opposition. Trade might become the major election issue indeed, with Clinton gaining a lifeline from much of the debate against Obama who has taken a recent hit due to comments made about small town Americans. And it continues on and on…

An April 17th article by the Economist.com challenges the issues discussed above. The Economist suggests that for the last 6 years of Uribe’s Presidency, he has done everything a US ally who is fighting a War on Terror should do, and that is to win. His successes in driving the FARC from Bogota towards the small grottos in Colombia’s jungles and his support for the US Plan Colombia has made Uribe a poster child for US support abroad. With challenges due to human rights issues in the US Congress and the likely failure of a future FTA, pressure on Uribe may be limited as temporary trade measures currently in place can be extended towards Colombia. The real effect of US pressure as suggested by The Economist may have little weight as the security situation in Colombia, as support by most of the population in Colombia, takes precedent over any politics abroad. A possible end to the FARC and Uribe’s hand in those action will prove to reward Uribe in a Colombia free of major internal threats and strong enough to resist pressures from Washington. With threats from its neighbours as well, Uribe will likely get as much support as he needs if Colombia is threatened with any coercive actions which may help the FARC or the drug trade in Colombia originating from a foreign power. The US will likely be seen as abandoning its allies if it lets Colombia be attacked from abroad. It will be a likely paradox for the next President, if they give aid for security reason, but will not allow trade and development in the process. US Foreign Policy may seek to aid in a success in Colombia, as failures in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan may be the only legacy of US Foreign Policy for the next decade.

The real problem may be a current of anti-trade in the upcoming US election. While Colombia does have issues with its labour leaders, countries like Mexico and even Canada have been placed in the penalty box in Clinton’s speeches towards the electorate in Pennsylvania in order to gain more votes by poking at trade and immigration issues with its neighbours amidst the growing concern over trade with China. Depending on who becomes the next US president, it is certain that trade with any country in the Americas will be threatened if it will gain more votes for their candidate. Unfortunately reality and politics may never meet in that dialogue and US relations with its neighbours and assistance to Colombia will continue to be a problem for another 4 years of the American Presidency. The next vote will likely have as great an effect on America’s neighbours as it does on Americans themselves. The most interesting result may be to what degree will the next President placate China while placing economic and security concerns on its friendly neighbours to the north and to the south. What remains to be true is that a conflict in South America may mirror the next decade of international politics, which unfortunately may be as obtuse as the last eight years of ineffective foreign policy towards Colombia and Venezuela.

Behind oil export and above tourism, remittances from Mexicans abroad to their home country makes up a large part of the cash that builds homes and futures in many Mexican communities. With the recent economic crisis in the US, America’s neighbours are starting to feel the fallout of the Mortgage Crisis that is slowly presenting problems in countries outside of the G8. With many Mexicans living in the US in hard hit areas, those funds that used to pay for medicine, food, homes and everything else for families of migrants from Mexico are now suddenly being cut off with great effect.

With a decline in remittances of 7% since last year, many in Mexico who were just keeping afloat may slip into poverty this year. Many small villages who sent their young men and women over the border and who often are mired in economic troubles are the hardest hit communities in Mexico when economic troubles loom. With remittances to Mexico increasing five and a half times since 1997 to $24 billion, these funds are not only a necessity, but is Mexico’s second largest source of foreign revenue. What also seems to focus the tension on Mexico is that areas in the US where Mexicans have migrated to are also those worst hit by the crisis. While migrants from El Salvador and Guatemala are also affected, those communities often have settled in the Washington-Maryland areas which have been less affected by the crisis according to The Washington Post.

The likely effect of the crisis outside the US may result in more illegal migration across the border. Despite the troubles in the US, communities in Mexico near poverty will not weather the lack of funds as easily as much of the United States. Economies tied in with the US will slowly feel the effects of economic troubles in their largest export market. The lack of sympathy for future trade agreements and harder policies on immigration will also likely take hold with the poor economy and continued anti-NAFTA and FTA sentiments in the US Congress. The next American President will have a lot of repair work when beginning his or her job in 2009.

On March 20th Steve Paiken of TVO.org’s The Agenda had a discussion on Cuba After Fidel and a possible boycott of the Olympic Games. This international panel first discussed the ability and rationale of boycotting the Olympics due to accusation of Human Rights abuses against the Tibetan people and later on a full discussion on the future of Cuba from the perspective of locals, US Experts, Cubans expats and the international community on Cuba after Fidel’s control. The discussion can be seen here and the video on the TVO.org March 20th Video page.

The panel’s discussion hit some key issues important to foreign policy towards Cuba. A comparison of policies towards China when abuse of rights is accepted by the international community, as compared to the heavy sanctions on Cuba for less abusive acts was the glue between the discussions of the two issues. Much of the criticism comes from the openness of the US and other countries towards China when many of the policies towards Tibet run contradictory to policies which support an embargo of Cuba. While rights abuses by any country are unacceptable, it is those who are abused which suffer from inconsistent policies which allow trading partners to ignore political pressures while placing a small country into poverty for the same reasons. Ideally, abuses by Cuban and Chinese officials should not be accepted for the sake of trade, and policies should not starve citizens of any country in an attempt to protect them from the abuses of the own government. This was the case during the oil sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War, which lead to the starvation of many innocent civilians at the behest of Saddam Hussein. Bad policy which leads to increased suffering of politically oppressed people should be clearly unacceptable in any rights based society.

I encourage our FPA readers to take the time to watch the TVO program. Please address these issues in our blog comments accordingly.

I was happy to read a clever article called: Linking NAFTA and Immigration by Ted Lewis of the San Diego Tribune as he discusses the campaign issues and how they are being spun to effect the campaign and America’s neighbours in a negative fashion. Lewis suggests that reform in NAFTA and effects on the poorest in the three member states needs to be addressed in a logical fashion, and not via the lens of the complete benefit of free trade or lowbrow electioneering. Addressing poverty and its root causes of increased unemployment in Mexico needs to be addressed in any future NAFTA negotiation. Lewis states that much of the illegal immigration comes from a lack of economic progress in Mexico since the agreement began and has lead to massive amounts of immigration to the US. Lewis also mentions that the electioneering between Obama and Clinton creates arguments against free trade, and in my impression creates intentional dissent in the US against Canada and Mexico. While Obama was blamed for not being serious in changing NAFTA, Clinton has used this small scandal to re-ignite her campaign. Ironically, the alienation of friendly foreign governments was always something linked with Bush, but support for the next Clinton Presidency may rest on the backs of Canadians and Mexicans alike if it continues to hurt Obama.

With much of the support for the Clinton campaign coming from the blue collar democrats in the northern states and America’s traditional industrial heartland, it makes sense that Clinton would use Canada and Mexico to blame for poor US policy in the past, much of which came under her husband’s term in office. In reality, the Mexican economy has purged its traditional weaknesses since 1994 and has maintained a solidly valued Peso, growth in the long run and even produced a more equitable government with the PRI dominated Presidency toppling a few years after NAFTA came into effect. The reality is that Mexico is a developing nation in many ways and has problems which 10 years of trade policy could never resolve in its best performance. To end poverty and develop a country a generation is needed to end generations of poverty and inequality. Targeted anti-poverty policy is needed to help remove the 30% of Mexicans who live in poverty and have always lived in poverty. Economic progress in Mexico has created such negative results because the flow of money often reaches the poorest last. This is the trend in almost every country where poverty dominated the political agenda. No one has addressed this in the Obama camp, and with the Clinton campaign it seems that immigration and NAFTA come second to embarrassing Obama as much as possible.

While poverty and success in Mexico’s economy can always be debated, the main issue of concern is that anti-immigrant and anti-NAFTA effects of running a negative campaign. It seems apparent that even though NAFTA is a mixed blessing, the current concerns with China seems to be targeted towards America’s neighbours. While China has a right to progress economically and diversify its society as it wishes, Americans need to debate how they want to proceed with their neighbours and China in a logical, fair and respectful manner and choose where they wish to take America in the future. No country can live in a vacuum, but every country has the ability to take measured and fair responses to grow its own economy and produce trade and development to assist its own people, create a net benefit in jobs and reduce poverty.

In a response to one of the FPA’s blogs, a candidate for Congress in the US claimed the wholly negative effects of NAFTA and America as losing its sovereignty over NAFTA. I responded in kind in order to dispel myths which seek to create straw man arguments of America’s friends and neighbours. I encourage readers to read the responses to the blog and address their concerns in kind. All fair points of view are respected and I encourage open debate. The response is noted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog: Paranoia on the Frontier: NAFTA and the US Election

Messages of distrust between the Colombian Government and Hugo Chavez were considered no more than showboating after Hugo Chavez made headway in getting two Colombian citizens released, followed by open support for the rights of the kidnappers to be represented as a legitimate political party. Anger and frustration in Colombia which has been literally torn apart by the FARC and other rebel groups over the last 30 years put Chavez on the hit list of Colombians inside their own country and those in the Colombian Diaspora who often left their places of birth due to problems derived from the conflict in Colombia. Upon the death of Raul Reyes, one of the FARC leaders killed in a camp in Ecuador, a diplomatic scrum has begun between Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. Ecuador is accusing Colombia of intentional violations of their territory with the recent attack. Colombia did apologize, yet made clear their claim today of support by the Ecuadorian and Venezuelan Governments for the FARC and Colombia’s right to protect its own sovereign territory from terrorist attacks. The last piece of the drama comes with Hugo Chavez. By placing a number of heavily armed troops on its border to add flames to his theory that Colombia wishes to attack its neighbor and himself personally, an Andean War has perhaps taken its first steps. Currently, Ecuador and Colombia have removed their diplomats from each other’s embassies and have no diplomatic communication beyond Chavez’s saber rattling, or more specifically the sound of marching and the screeching of tanks surrounding the borders of Colombia on either end.

Conflict in South America has always been considered much as a Cold War between neighbors who never took actions beyond minor skirmishes. In the era of South American military governments in the 60s and 70s, many disputes over territory were the catalyst for countries like Argentina, Chile, Brazil and most everyone else purchasing some of the most advanced equipment, Exocet missiles and even in the case of Brazil, an old aircraft carrier to keep their neighbors at bay in the event of a hot conflict. Ironically, the heaviest conflict was in the early 80’s between the UK and Argentina when local unrest and economic tensions lead General Galtieri of Argentina’s military government to divert attention away from local issues by attacking a disputed territory known as the Maldives Islands/Falkland Islands. Galtieri’s strategy of conquest did nothing more than to end his own career and reduce the last of his support in Argentina to nil and deal one of the final blows to the era of South America’s military dictatorships.

In a classic sense the political fate of Chavez may come with his verbal, and now physical adoption of the dispute between Colombia and Ecuador. Along with verbal accusations of Colombia’s intention to murder him and his recent mobilsation of his armed forces, Venezuela has been investing in some very advanced and high tech weapons from the Russian army since the Presidency of Chavez began. In addition to Chavez’s rearming of Venezuela, his support has also started to wane with some Venezuelan groups as seen in his loss in a referendum to increase his powers under the Venezuelan constitution. Some may see Chavez as taking the strategy of General Galtieri in assuming a conflict, but the will of the Venezuelan people to give their children and blood on behalf of the FARC and Chavez is likely not as strong as Colombia’s wish to turn itself back into one of the most promising countries in the region, free of terror, economic strife and threats from their borders. Support from the US may balance out Colombia’s military capabilities as well, as its Air Force and Army are equipped for conflict with rebels and AK-47’s and not new Venezuelan Sukhoi fighters or armored tanks.

Another territory in the world this week that seems to have similar problems as Colombia are Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Like Colombia, conflicts from outside its border are influencing the lives of its people. As well, parts of the country considered to be under the right of control of the government and people are in constant civil distress. Another similarity is that no one knows how to solve the problems, but everyone can agree that aggressive influences from outside the border will do nothing more than keep Israel, the Palestinian people and Colombians in constant conflict at the behest of a Chavez or similar malcontent in their respective regions. Colombia has always had unfortunate experiences with rebels inside its territory, but hardly anyone can doubt the impatience the Colombian Government will have with a full attack from its neighbors who are seen as supporting rebels and making the Andean region into the next Middle East.

No other issue seeks to dominate the next few months than the troubles in the US economy. Besides the well documented mortgage lending scandal, the roots of the fragile US economy are the movement of large amounts of manufacturing jobs to China as well as the approximately one-third to one-half of US debt that is held by China, Japan and other foreign creditors in order to assist the US fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the last week of campaigning a new nemesis has been created within the dialogue between Clinton and Obama, that is the NAFTA agreement and the threat Mexico and Canada pose to the US economy.

In reality the United States has often determined the course of NAFTA and its rulings since the agreement came into effect with Canada and Mexico in 1994. Until recently, Canada and Mexico have been the top trading partners with the United States, switching between Japan and the EU for top spot which has recently been adopted by China. Trade with the US and its neighbors is more than 92% with Canada and approximately 80-85% in Mexico and has increased more than 100 percent with both neighbors since 1994. The US’s NAFTA partners do not only export to the US, but import the majority of their goods from the United States, becoming a net benefit to US exporters in the process, especially those in border states such as Texas, California, Michigan and New York.

Problems encountered by the Canadian and Mexican governments often had to deal with the reality of the US holding a lot more economic weight and power in commercial activities, political weight, and control in official NAFTA hearings which often did not have any real power in enforcing its decision inside the US. Of great concern was NAFTA Chapter 11 which details the rights of companies to have legal recourse over government policies if they believed harm was done to them. This was one of the first times in international law where a company was represented without the support of a country, as before Chapter 11 only states had legal rights of representation under international law. In case law, American companies and policymakers who for the first time promoted the ability for a private company to gain a legal reward often supported this policy. The results were cases such as Metalclad, where a Mexican municipality was denied the right to stop the creation of a waste management plant, despite its concerns that it would harm the local environment. In S.D Myers, a Canadian law preventing the ban of toxic waste to the US was challenged as well, despite the regulations being there to protect the health and safety of the environment in both jurisdictions. Change only came in recent appeals in the NAFTA appeals hearing regarding Methanex, which challenged California state policy to prevent environmental damage inside the United States itself, the first of a number of appeals limiting the rights of companies over governments, namely the governments of California and the US.

Despite the recent criticisms by Clinton and Obama, it was Bill Clinton who ratified NAFTA during his time as President with no opposition from his wife, as well Obama who did little to appease the passing of NAFTA until the United States opened trade relations with China upon its acceptance into the WTO. The effect of the Methanex appeal is that the US trade policy has moved towards fair and equitable treatment of companies. As seen in the newest version of the US Trade Act and new trade agreements with Singapore and others, public policy is paramount over a companies rights over its investment as long the treatment is fair and equitable with due process and just compensation. This turn around took place not for Chapter 11’s negative effects on Mexico or Canada, but on the US itself. Policies from the US and American Labour Unions challenging Canadian softwood lumber, or taking the production of corn, a staple of Mexico, and limiting it through NAFTA rules was a power advantage of the United States over its greatest trading partners in many cases. As seen in NAFTA tribunal cases and trade policy, the US has nothing to fear from its neighbors, but more from its debt and poor leadership which has sent American jobs and money to China. Criticisms of Mexico and Canada have died out long ago, and do nothing but create scapegoats such as NAFTA in order to win votes in Ohio and Texas.

John McCain this week showed his prudency in this election campaign. Despite talk of referring to Mr. Obama as Barak Hussein Obama and actions by his opponents in defacing America’s good trading partners in Canada and Mexico, McCain had tried to keep the election campaign free of issues which seek to rip apart the country and mire the election in issues which do nothing more than to create a false crisis and give the Presidency to someone who can create the most paranoia for the American people. Ironically this tactic that was used so effectively by Bush is being countered not by the Democrats, but by another Republican. In reality, the Democrats are creating a lot of political tensions for something which has been created by American companies themselves. American companies have moved to Mexico and put Mexican companies out of the agriculture business while solidifying their control over staple Mexican products. American Auto manufactuers have taken advantage of the state sponsored health care system in Ontario to set up auto manufacturing in Canada. While these moves do hurt American manufacturing, it is the policies of American companies which have taken employment across the border.  Companies such as Walmart and other retailers have created the most intense changes in the modern US economy by taking advantage of loose rules and laws in China who is slowly absorbing the world’s manufacturing base without Labour Rights or accountability to its employees. Clinton and Obama would do well focusing on China as opposed to scapegoating Mexico and Canada. These two countries do more to purchase American goods than any other countries in the world. It is hard to manage a relationship with a giant, but it is impossible when that giant claims to be the victim of trade, when its certain the American people are being set up to be the victim of politics.

With the retirement of Fidelito, an assessment of the positives and negatives of the Cuban Revolution has taken place in media all around the world. People hate Castro as much as others love him, mainly because while he has injured many and denied basic rights to activists living in Cuba, he has also earned the respect of others by standing up to the United States and living long enough to brag about it. While this perspective dominates most of the globe, in Latin America there is a third dimension to Cuba. Success with specific social policies places Cuba in high regard in the areas of healthcare as well as anti-poverty policies in comparison to the rest of Latin America. Latin America is considered by many as the most unequal region in the world between the wealthy and the poor, accounting on an average 35-45% or higher of the population of the region living below the poverty line. Cuba on the other hand is well known in the region for having a less severe poverty than its neighbors. Cuban doctors and institutions are the regions best in many areas of medicine and medical research. These pros and cons of Castro’s Cuba has created the divided impression of the outcomes of the Cuban Revolution, especially among Latin America’s poor and those who have had to overcome multiple economic crisis in almost every country in the region since the 1960s.

Taking from the pages of Castro’s policies, Hugo Chavez is seeking to expand his support beyond those struggling to live in Venezuela towards others in the region. While Chavez has an amicable working relationship with most of his neighbors, his reputation in recent events has taken a beating. While he did help rescue kidnapped Colombians from the FARC, he also accused Colombia of plotting his assassination. He even angered the King of Spain who is considered a hero by many in a conference in Spain and few months ago, being told to bluntly “shut up” as recorded on Spanish TV by the King. Chavez also lost much of the support of his own people, losing in a referendum to solidify his power in Venezuela in recent weeks.

This week the International Herald Tribune did a story on Venezuela’s “Mission Miracle”, where Chavez for the last four years has sought to put the oil revenues of the recent boom to good use by giving free eye surgery to many who cannot afford in throughout Latin America. In many countries in Latin America the social heath care system leaves much to be desired, with private care and insurance covering many upper classes and leaving those who cannot afford it the inability to get more expensive treatments in the social health system. The issue of access to health care is currently a major one in the US election and could spark an election in Canada, a country which shares many attributes of socialized medicine but often cannot afford to treat many for complicated surgeries in good time as is the issue in Latin America. In the region, the same problems are exacerbated ten-fold with more than half of the population in some countries unable to access newer forms of treatments for the majority of their families. For this reason Chavez’ has gone to bring those in from all over the region to receive eye treatment which is often not as evasive as other surgeries and which allows people to maintain their vision, a vital necessity in a part of the world where people often have only themselves to keep them afloat. Newer and simple eye treatments are very expensive, but it is a simple way to cure the worries of many impoverished and ill patients all over Latin America.

In reality the support for Chavez comes from one hard reality in Latin America. Poverty and populism often comes together in one form or another, and if you seek to deal with issues on poverty you will always get a lot of support, no matter how tactless you many seem in dealing with the international community. While Fidel often had a lot more finesse than Chavez, many leaders in the region give Hugo a wide breadth because they know that poverty in the region is a never-ending problem and no one really knows how to solve it. With democratization in the region comes the power of voting, and people in dire straits will do what is best for their own personal lives…even if Chavez never shuts up and loses more tact in the future, people will vote for the person who will address their personal concerns in Latin America and in the next few elections throughout the Americas.

The Foreign Policy Association and The European Courier in February 2008 produced a Video Interview on Chavez’s Venezuela and the future of democracy in the country in a frank discussion with former UN Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations for Venezuela Diego Arria. In the interview, Arria describes how Chavez’s actions in the last few weeks and over his term as President have done nothing but to hinder the progression of rights and erode the political structures which exist in Venezuela. Chavez’s recent actions in accusing Colombia of working with the United States in order to assassinate him and his support of FARC rebels in recent political statements will only hurt Venezuela in the long run, according to Arria. The question of Democracy and Freedoms are compared with the legality of Chavez’s political actions in the recent loss a referendum to extend his Presidential powers and his suppression of Venezuelan media and the rights that oppose his Presidency. Arria also goes into how Chavez is keeping Venezuela out of the recent political and economic progress in Latin America that started in many nations of South America and offers his views on the possible outcomes of Chavez’s time leading Venezuela in the near future. Please take the time to listen to Arria’s sobering interview!

To see the FPA/European Courier interview with Diego Arria, click here.
To see Diego Arria’s Interview Video see below or click here: