Around the world the way to deal with the aftermath of past violence and police states has yet to come to a definitive closure or method to resolve crimes of the past. Often the ruling class in one era of a society remains in the next era, whether it be a peaceful one or a continuation of state rule. Whether it be in Rwanda and Kosovo in the last few years or currently in places like Iran and North Korea, the dialogue on the past and search for resolution starts with those who have been affected personally, and often leads to at best a national dialogue on the issues of former rulers and regimes. Much of this opening of society started in the 1980s after the fall of police states in Chile and Argentina and has formed the framework for dealing with such atrocities worldwide. Documented cases of those missing have only been produced quite recently, as writers, journalists, lawyers, and activists make public crimes of the past.

On PBS next Monday Director Juan Mandelbaum brings his personal experience growing up in Argentina during the military junta to American networks. Information about the airing of the documentary is listed below:

OUR DISAPPEARED/NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS is the heart-breaking chronicle of director Juan Mandelbaum’s personal search for the souls of friends and loved ones, idealistic young students and activists, who were caught in the brutal vise of the right-wing military and “disappeared” in his native Argentina during the 1976-1983 military dictatorship. OUR DISAPPEARED/NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS will air nationally on the Emmy Award-winning PBS series Independent Lens, hosted by Terrence Howard, on Monday, September 21, 2009 at 10PM (check local listings.)

While this blog often addresses issues between nations and between power brokers on many of these nations, it is crucial to view political views from the perspective of those individuals who have suffered personal trials within the context of a larger political events or crisis. I encourage everyone to try to watch the documentary if living in the US or having access to a PBS station. If information for those you living outside to US is made available in accessing the film, I will post further information about dates or viewing times on this blog.

Please tune in!

The last month of economic news has been as diverse as the last 10 months of the same forecasts. With the start of July, the drop in recent markets worldwide and predictions of further problems in large economies such as the UK and Japan set to bring the recession further attention, but by mid month the result was that some US banks were making some profits, even paying back small sums of money to Mr. Obama and some auto manufacturers were not destined to be completely eliminated as stability slowly crept back into market forecasts. While these announcements will likely change in the next few weeks as SME’s continue to wind up their companies, the biggest market change seems to be coming from China and India. While many believe that only 8% growth in China may be the limit in order to stave off mass discontent among its population, growth rates of 5% or more in places like India, and lower yet stable rates in Brazil draw attention to hopes of an economic recovery coming from the recently famous super emerging economies of the BRICs. Of great interest and increasing popularity, Brazil, who has managed to maintain a stable growth rate in their economy since the 1990’s global economic troubles between 3-5% and was able to reasonably shield itself from the meltdown of Argentina’s economy in 2001. Brazil is beginning to change into the next large emerging market economy in form and function. The recent recession has taken the new Brazil and brought its relative successes in the last few months into the meeting rooms and policy branches of those economies who wish to change the relationship between North America and Europe towards South America’s largest and most promising economy.

In the Americas there are two large economies outside of the United States that while being hit hard by the recession, have managed to keep the core financial and economic systems of their countries in good shape. Canada and Brazil have stood out as two of the largest stable economies in the Americas and worldwide. With banking systems that have not collapsed and reserves of cash from past years of growth shielding some of the effects of the global economic crisis, both countries could begin to push the Americas and world economy back into positive territory. Limits to BRICs and other relatively healthy economies may be restricted formally and informally however depending on how the EU and US decide to react to other large economies worldwide. Effects on countries such as Canada and Brazil might be produced by restrictions coming from the new Buy America provisions in the US or as an example, be expanded by talks of a possible EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Limiting trade between NAFTA partners in North America and retracting from agreements between the US and trade partners in the Americas is what all trading partners of the US fear in the region as well as globally.

Many experts on global economics such as Zakaria and Khanna see the US as possessing a major role in the future world economy, but also one of shared influence and regional power as a necessity. Limits to expanding the economies of the Americas in a united fashion is seen in the lack of interest in regional trade agreements and the lack of support for trade agreements as with the one with the US and Colombia. While the US seeks to put pressure on its economic allies during the recession, the EU is seeking increased open trade with large economies such as Canada, India and China, and China is seeking many economic ties with countries such as Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Argentina and of course Brazil. Even Canada has ratified a trade agreement between itself and Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica and is working on agreements with CARICOM. Effects from Buy America might better regarded as the Buyer Beware provisions, as the US creates a policy environment to push its allies to trade with other economies outside of the Americas and produce economic legacies outside of the US which will strangle future growth of private industry in the US itself. As with any investor, the prospect of future governmental and trade restrictions by doing business with a US company or investor will produce negative incentives in the long run. With so few healthy investors currently, economic legacies such as Ford, Disney, Coca-Cola and McDonalds may be replaced by those created and grown in other healthy economies outside the US and the Americas…bad economic policy is simply a caveat emptor of economic growth.

Not all US policy experts agree with Buy America, and some even have been making attempts to approach Brazil as the next India or China. Mind month, the publication and discussion of the new book: Brazil as an Economic Superpower? Understanding Brazil’s Changing Role in the Global Economy was accompanied in Washington DC by a discussion of Brazil as a rising global economic power. This book launch and discussion followed the Brooking Institutions release of interesting economic data and reports on the region as a whole. Many of these discussions focus or Brazil or Latin America as the next China or India, but in reality the Latin American method or growth and that of growth in China, India and Russia only bare some basic similarities. Latin America and Brazil have traditionally depended on commodity prices principally. While the Brazilian economy is fairly diversified, a large portion of its GDP does come from commodity and oil prices, which is similar to a country like Canada who have a great deal of GDP linked to natural resources. Manufacturing in all economies, including Canada, Brazil, China and India have been greatly affected, leaving China with a growth rate of 6.1% in the first quarter of 2009. While oil prices and other commodity prices have bounced back and forth since 2008, manufacturing has taken severe hits in all nations. China and to a certain degree, India, depend greatly on the demand in foreign markets on US and global consumer spending. Entrepreneurial Organisations such as the SBA.org in the US and CFIB in Canada would be able to make the point that many of the jobs in the US and North America depend on SME’s, and with the increase in bankruptcies and the lack of business loans coming from banks in any financial state, the job loss will only increase and create a further decline in consumer spending. Manufacturing depends on its consumers being able to purchase its good and grow the economy. China, who produces many of these good in the US and EU are entirely dependent on these economies as their growth is directly linked to US and EU consumers. Brazil, while dependent on consumer spending has less than 40% of its trade with the US and is balanced by heavy industry, commodities and technology industries. While many of these sectors are hurt by the recession, it gives Brazil some added security in the long term within the global economy.

The news on recent increases in growth in China and India are positive, but with many consumers losing jobs recently and many smaller industries only failing in recent weeks, it is hard to predict a concrete economic demand for consumer products and link growth in China to the markets it depends on. In reality, many smaller and larger US firms often depended on cheap operating loans from US banks, and without not only financially stable banks, but banks willing to give out loans to investors, it is impossible to justify any prediction of growth in consumer spending when SME’s are neglected from economic recovery and are the last to receive financial aid in the economic crisis, yet provide the majority of jobs in many developed countries. Countries like Brazil and Canada should be considered a relatively strong option for investors, as historically and logically growth seems more likely for all levels of industry in few similar countries in the long run and the avoidance of economic bubbles have been relatively successful in the past.

An interesting piece I encourage you all to read:
Latin America and the Economic Crisis: Designing and Implementing Stimulus Policies
Mauricio Cárdenas, Director, Latin America Initiative
The Brooking Institution

June 25, 2009 —
Dani Rodrik recently wrote in his daily blog that Andrés Velasco is the living example that sound macroeconomic policies have a high dividend. Chile’s decisive fiscal stimulus package—adopted last January—has made him President Bachelet’s most popular minister. Not too long ago, during the years of high copper prices, many Chileans questioned their government’s economic management for saving too much and postponing key investments. Of course, those critics are silent now. Events are showing that a commitment to rules that focus on long run objectives, rather that immediate gratification, pays-off.

But rather than talking about Chile, I would like to make a more general point regarding Latin America. Today’s conventional wisdom –and I say this in complete awareness that ministers generally adhere to, and oftentimes shape, mainstream views—is that stimulus packages are working and that Latin America will soon be out of the recession. In Brazil, for example, most analysts consider that the contraction is a thing of the past. I want to take issue with those views.

Let me start by stating what, in my view, is the conventional wisdom:

The adoption of sound macroeconomic frameworks, mostly since the late 1990s, allowed Latin America to bring down inflation and public debt. Foreign reserves are high for historical standards, reflecting stronger current accounts and access to external capital. As a result, Latin America is coping with this crisis much better than a decade ago. In fact, there has been no crisis, just a mild recession.

Key to the current episode has been the ability to conduct countercyclical monetary and fiscal policies. In the current phase of the cycle, policy rates set by the central banks have been cut to 0.75% in Chile (a reduction of 7.5 percentage points), 4% in Peru, 4.5% in Colombia, 4.75% in Mexico, and 9.25% in Brazil.

Fiscal stimulus has also been the norm, although the size and composition of packages has also varied from country to country. The largest expansions have taken place in Chile (2.5% of GDP), Brazil, Peru, and Mexico.

Macro-financial variables have shown remarkable stability. In 2009, inflation has been falling, exchange rates have appreciated, stock prices have increased, and spreads on sovereign debt are falling.

Even though production and employment figures are still declining –and GDP growth projections are being revised downwards– virtually all forecasts suggest that the recovery will start soon. The latest Global Development Finance Report from the World Bank (the less optimistic of the existing “official” reports) projects major rebounds in all economies. The difference between the 2010 and the 2009 GDP growth forecasts is 5 percentage points for the world economy. The corresponding figure is 5.4 percentage points for the OECD countries, and 4.2 percentage points for Latin America. The expected rebound is spectacular for Mexico (7.5 percentage points).

I think this view errs on the side of optimism. Latin America should hope for the best but prepare for the worst. By not properly considering the risks ahead, governments have the temptation of exhausting the policy tools and not reserving any ammunition for battles that are foreseeable. My critique of the conventional wisdom is based on the following four points:

The numbers on real activity and aggregate demand conditions which are coming out from Latin America are not that encouraging

Although it is true that retail sales in Brazil increased 6.9% in April (relative to a year before), industrial production registered a 14.8% contraction in May. In Mexico, where GDP contracted by 8.2% in the first quarter, industrial production fell 13.2% in April, and consumer confidence continued to fall in May. The Chilean economic activity contracted 4.6% in April and industrial production fell by 11.1%. The figures for other countries show a similar picture: Latin American economies are experiencing a deep contraction, and the evidence does not suggest a significant recovery underway.

Of course, all this could change with a big rebound in the second semester. But, is that realistic? The contraction in investment has been in the double digits during the first months of this year for the majority of countries in the region, and will have an impact on future growth. More importantly, investor and consumer confidence measures are very low and still falling in the majority of Latin American countries. We know from past episodes that it takes time –and a good amount of positive economic news– to reverse the direction of these perceptions, especially the consumer’s sentiment.

Latin America is betting on the rebound of commodity prices

China’s real GDP growth slowed to 6.1% during the first quarter of this year. Although several measures of real activity and domestic demand have been improving lately (investment grew by 32.9% in five months to May), exports continue to deteriorate. Chinese exports contracted by 26.4% in May, suggesting that there is excess capacity. To the extent that exports do not recover, investment will loose momentum as well as commodity imports, which have increased for stockpiling purposes. These are very negative news because they suggest that the surge in commodity prices will not last. Why commodities moved ahead of the fundamentals is not clear, but Latin America should be prepared to deal with prices which are more in line with lower Chinese import demand in future months.

Private capital flows are shrinking at an alarming pace

The World Bank projects that net private debt and equity flows to developing countries will decline from 8.6% of global GDP in 2007 to 2.0% in 2009. This is much worse than in the debt crisis of the 1980s or the Asian and Russian crises combined. Many in Latin America argue that the region is somehow immune to this trend, mainly because of the role that foreign direct investment plays in the region. This could be true, but at the same time, the evidence available suggests that FDI flows depend largely on growth in the OECD countries. With the major contractions expected in the U.S., Europe and Japan, FDI flows will fall in the medium term. The latest IMF data suggests that this is already happening. The investment projects under way are likely to be completed, but starting new investments is a different game. The recent drop in the cross-border M&A activity is a strong signal in this direction.

For the emerging and developing countries as a whole, private debt and equity flows will likely fall short of meeting external financing needs. The question is how much of the shortfall will affect Latin America. Some countries are better prepared than others. Countries with large current account deficits, strong dependence on tourism and remittances, and limited access to private debt and equity flows will suffer considerably. This of course, points in the direction of Central America and the Caribbean, where a sharp adjustment seems inevitable.

In the largest countries, with access to international markets, much will depend on the ability of private firms to roll over their debt. There are hundreds of corporations in these countries that borrowed in the international syndicated loan market and some that issued international bonds during the last few years. They hold the majority of the outstanding short term external debt as well as the medium to long term obligations coming due in 2009. Financing the public sector is not the problem; the real issue is how to refinance the large Latin American corporations.

The prospects in this regard are not all that encouraging. The supply of credit to the region could fall even further because there are mounting pressures on the capital position of the major banks. Liquidity problems in the global interbank market remain an obstacle for banks to fund additional assets, while tightening of credit standards has been generalized. Last but not least, government ownership (even if temporary and partial) of the large banks changes the priorities in the direction of domestic recovery in the developed world, rather than greater credit risk exposure in emerging countries.

There is no ammunition left

The capacity of central banks to cut interest rates and of governments to provide more fiscal stimulus is very limited. Even in Chile, there is discussion that the fiscal deficit is already too high and that the government should bring it down again next year. The Mexican central bank has said that further cuts in interest rates are not likely, in line with the language other monetary authorities have used recently. In other words, fiscal and monetary policies do not have many degrees of freedom. If the world economy does not recover soon and private capital flows to Latin America remain low, there is not much that Latin American countries can do. Even worse, it is possible that some of the expansionary policies of the recent months will need to be reversed. This is already part of the debate in countries like Mexico, where the government may need a tax increase to cut the fiscal deficit in 2010.

In summary

In summary, Latin American governments and multilateral banks are betting excessively on a sharp economic recovery. For their projections to be right, a major recovery should be already underway. The latest figures, however, do not support that view. Even if the U.S. shows a moderate V- shaped recovery in the next two quarters, China’s imports, commodity prices, and private capital flows could still be the source of very unpleasant news for the region.

This weekend leaders from across the Americas have made their way to Trinidad and Tobago for the fifth meeting of the Summit of the Americas to discuss the future relations between nations in North and South America, the Caribbean and between others interest groups in the region. The Summit is often the centerpiece for inter-governmental discussions and policy formations between nations in the region. The last few Summits have been dominated by the formation of multilateral and bilateral trade discussions, albeit with slowly dwindling support for the FTAA since the Quebec City Summit in 2001, the Summit of the Americas has moved away from discussions of a multilateral agreements into the shiny and new 2009 Summit which seeks to patch up open ended policy debates in the region, address security issues and produce some form of future dialogue between the US and states which formally have had rough relations with the Americans in the past. The best evidence of this new Summit approach is the move by the Obama administration to open a dialogue with Fidel and Raul Castro which has been reciprocated this week, make open discussions of how the US and Mexico can claim their part in the drug war, create and new open-hand diplomacy towards Venezuela and Bolivia and have increased trade with traditional allies in the hemisphere. Below I will discuss the possibility of some future developments between the US, its neighbours in the hemisphere and relations between other members and internal struggles within some countries in the Americas.

This week saw an attempt on the life of Bolivian President Evo Morales. I was able to see a live discussion with President Morales via webfeed on the Summit Website earlier on Saturday which was quite impressive and needed to be noted. Bolivia has gone through a great deal of policy changes with Morales. As one of the first indigenous leaders in Latin America, Morales has shifted much of his policy into poverty reduction strategies and through popular support, and adjustment in the power structure in his country. With a recent protest to withhold eating until anti-poverty measures and land reform issues were passed through into policy by the Bolivian Parliament and a very recent attempt on his life, there is no doubt of his commitment to changing Bolivia. Support for Morales will likely remain due to his popularly with many poorer indigenous communities that give him a large support base politically. A possible opening of relations with Bolivia’s allies in Venezuela and Cuba with the United States may change the situation greatly. In most cases Morales will be there until he is unable to satisfy the popular elements in society or so greatly alienates what he refers to as the oligarchs in society that he is unable to withdraw from protests. Bolivia will likely follow the natural course of populists in the region, albeit hopefully without violence becoming an end result.

A possibly historic move by President Obama during the Summit might be a sign of thawing relations, as Barak Obama made his way to shake the hand of Hugo Chavez in an act of good will. While Chavez was criticized in US media recently for claiming that Obama needed to study up on Latin America, Obama’s active move towards open-hand diplomacy was met by a friendly response. Obama was even given a book about the history of Latin America by Chavez, but in maintaining his position Chavez handed Obama a book which some call an academic work which compiles a drastic account of state-to-state oppression by the US in Latin America. Despite slight posturing, an opening of a dialogue has already resulted in Venezuela re-instating its Ambassador to Washington and might result in some added passive economic ties between Venezuela and the US that builds on already existing trade in many markets between the two nations. The larger effect of Obama’s move to open dialogue further with Chavez likely comes from his very open and quick moves to re-initiate ties with Cuba. Although Cuba was ejected from the OAS in the early 1960s, thus did not have a formal representative at the Summit, Obama made it clear that a lifting of the travel restrictions on Cuba would be a priority as well as talks with Cuba’s leading family which were accepted by Castro before the Summit commenced. A discussion of this further by FPA’s Great Decisions program can be seen on a video titled The Latin American Left. Click here to see the video link.

Before the Summit, Obama went to Mexico to show his support for and claim some responsibility for the drug war now taking place in Mexico. Many in the US and Mexico believe that in order to conquer the drug cartels in Mexico itself, a concerted effort must be coordinated between the source of the narcotics in Mexico, and the source of weapons and main market for drugs in the US, and even the market in Canada where Canada’s Olympic city has been enveloped by a mini-drug war itself. In addition, Obama’s stop in Mexico City before the Summit brought Mexico into a similar light with the issues surrounding Cuba. The United States closest Latin American neighbors for the first time in two generations are finally being properly re-engaged, which sends a message to the rest of the region and creates a new energy for the Summit that shows the US as an open-hand to discussions in the region after many years of neglecting US-Latin American Relations. In his speeches, Obama sought to claim responsibility for US actions in the region in an attempt to clean old wounds between neighbours. He also stated that despite US actions in the region, it also must not become a scapegoat for all problems in the Americas. To see an article and video by the FPA writer Marco Vicenzino on Obama and Latin America, please click here.

The US policy towards Latin America has often been linked to free trade, and while the issues of trade and protectionism might not have been in the spotlight this weekend, America’s closest allies in the Americas have not forgotten the importance of this relationship. Economic powerhouses in the Americas such as Argentina and Brazil have been battling through the latest economic crisis but seek to open further trade ties with the US and other investors. China’s role in investment in Argentina and Brazil and other Latin American markets have started to rival those coming from the US, World Bank, IMF and IADB in levels of investment, albeit with more favorable lending conditions. Canada, the United States’ largest trading partner in the region sought to assist the US in opening relations with Cuba, to which Canada has always maintained, but hoped to keep the issue of trade protectionism in the focus of the Summit leaders as both developed and developing nations in the Americas would be greatly hurt if trade was sacrificed in the process of reinvigorating the economy in the Americas. A $4 billion cash infusion was also promised by Canada to the IADB during the Summit and moves towards a CARICOM-Canada FTA. An opening between the US and Cuba was seen as a positive for Canada as well, as support for trade between all three countries is seen as a benefit from US investment.

The greatest concern for many worried about trade protectionism in the melee of new policies and ideas at the Summit is what to do about trade and countries such as Colombia, who is the United States’ strongest ally in South America, but is being battered by interest groups in the US and opposition in Canada for the extension of Free Trade between the US, Canada and Colombia due to human rights abuses against labour leaders in Colombia. Opposition to a Colombian FTA is so great that it is doubtful that a minority government in Canada will be able to ratify it, and despite the US having strong trade ties with China and an opening with Cuba who also have numerous human rights violations, a Colombian FTA has been placed in a holding pattern of policy formation in the US Congress. Perspective must be taken into serious consideration, as the US often cannot justify trading with some partners, and penalizing others such as Cuba for human rights offences. Colombia is a success story against the drug war in the Americas, and opening a stronger economy between Colombia and North America, while pressuring for increased human rights in the process is the only way the United States and re-establishes itself in its own backyard. This statement justifying an opening of relations with Cuba cannot stop at Cuba and the US trade relationship with China.

At the end of the 5th Summit of the Americas, success will only come with a strong arm extending towards an open-hand of diplomacy in the Americas. Obama’s policy towards countries with human rights abuses must be measured and moral in its development of relations that benefit the US and the Americas as a whole.

Click here to see the Reuters Video of Chavez Meeting Obama

Click here to see the Reuters Video of Obama on New Ties with Cuba

This week’s New York Times published a fascinating article about a topic that many experts on Latin America should find very intriguing. The article titled Deals Help China Expand Sway in Latin America by writers Romero and Barrionuevo was an analysis of China’s growing influence in Latin America, with examples of how Chinese liquid investment in many large projects in the Southern Cone and Andean region seek to take American influence via multilateral organisations and FDI and divide the regions investment among the US, EU, China and the rest of Asia.

Since the admitting of China to the WTO and the drastic change in global trade and manufacturing flows, China has become a benefit to some in Latin America and less of a benefit to others. The New York Times article goes into many examples of how Chinese FDI seeks to fund many large projects in the region, from a development fund in Venezuela, to a hydroelectric project in Ecuador and providing Argentina $10 billion in financial loans and Brazil’s national oil company a similar amount to ensure future projects will send a guaranteed percentage of future oil to China. Relations between the US and many of its southern neighbours often have been strained politically in places like Venezuela and Bolivia, or have been tied in with economic restrictions such as Argentina’s relationship with many international financial institutions which set high risks for investment in the country, often funded and controlled by US investment policy within those institutions. For some in Latin America, Chinese investment is not only a good alternative, but can equal the amount invested by the IMF, World Bank and the US itself as noted in the article.

Concern from American officials will likely become greater as China seeks to displace any US and European FDI and by-pass conditions set by many international institutions that often placed Latin American and other developing countries into a position of forced policy measures. Chinese investment, most notably in Sudan and other parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia are starting to become an alternative source of funds for many countries which prefer to receive investment, but do not want conditions on their local policies, namely those which affect human rights and those connected to poverty reduction strategies. A benefit to a country like Argentina, who’s loan defaults in the past has placed it in a position where poor investment ratings still linger from 8 years ago, have received Chinese investment without major sacrifices at this point. However, places like Sudan, who are responsible for one of the largest ignored genocides since Rwanda receive not only Chinese investment in developing their oil industry, but are also suspected of receiving arms which some have connected to human rights violations in Darfur. Investment without any restrictions or a moral compass was not always practised by those in the West; especially during the colonial period, but the international investment community must decide how investment should be dealt with in the future to avoid mass slaughter of innocent communities, whether it be Chinese FDI or from the West.

Investment in Latin America has often been seen in a different light, depending on the attention Latin America has been paid during various American administrations. The Summit of the Americas this weekend comes on the heels of one of those moments in history where Latin America is becoming re-engaged, at least for the first few months of the Obama Presidency until there are added problems in the Middle East once again. The issue often seems not only one of Economics vs. Security, but one of the Americas being seen as one complete investment block/FTAA vs. a source of illegal immigration and narcotics. Often this debate plays out using clear statements of interest, referring to Latin America as a region described as America’s backyard as opposed to statements linking narcotics, illegal immigration and terrorism in much of US media on Latin America. A debate on US policy always accompanies the region, wavering as Latin America fades in and out of their sphere of influence with attention due accordingly. This challenge does have a distinct element however in 2009, as Mexico continues to fight a full scale drug war and continues its very close economic ties to the US, and Cuba and the US opening dialogue between Raul and Fidel Castro and the Obama administration. These issues may keep the US tied to regional policy until those issues lose interest, as has always been the case. Luckily some policies linked with security and partnership often pay off, as Colombians have seen in 2008-2009 and some successes with Plan Colombia and in Mexico with the Merida Initiative, not always a media attention grabber, but long term policy nonetheless.

Likely future Chinese investment may re-ignite the debate on trade with Latin America if it is seen as a major threat. The US must decide in the end where it wishes to develop its trade policy as those in the Americas seek to promote their own investments abroad if the US does not wish to pursue major investment and trade in the Americas. Debates on NAFTA and trade agreements with countries like Colombia must be taken as policies which benefit not only the United States, but the Americas region as a whole. In reality, trade between those countries in South America had on average less than 40% of their trade with the US and a significant amount with the EU and Asia. China has now displaced the EU as the second largest investor. Countries such as Canada, America’s closest trading partner has signed trade agreements beyond NAFTA, with Chile, Costa Rica and are discussing an FTA with Colombia and even the EU. According to writers such as Khanna and Zakaria, the US must consider its role in the Americas as its leader and develop its interests beyond security in the region if it is to maintain investment in a strong United States. China as a matter of investment policy is often not competing in places where the US have established strong investment ties, but in those areas where the US have been absent. The next decade of American policy towards the Americas will likely been discovered in the Summit of the Americas this weekend, determining the viability of a Fortress Americas in future US investment policy.

In the last two weeks while markets tumbled, the amount of information about common issues such as poverty, the food crisis and even the economies of otherwise notable countries have also dwindled as American candidates preach of change and the rest of the world deals with economic aftershock. While Europe and the US slowly absorb their financial industries into the public purse, other middle countries and emerging economies deal with the problems and try to seek out the positive aspects of the world's financial capitals plunging into chaos.

Not all countries, even developed ones, are in the same position as their European and American counterparts. In an IMF report published in the second week of October, countries such as Sweden, Australia and Canada were credited with having very stable banking systems with well regulated capitalization requirements and having sturdy foundations to best weather the latest economic storm. Canada stood out as one of the best, influencing their own election for Prime Minister and allowing the fiscally prudent Conservative Party to absorb many opposition party seats despite having a campaign during the financial crisis that is often blamed on incumbent government policy. Since the start of the Canadian election, the Canadian Dollar plunged from 97 cents US to 79 cents US as commodity stocks lost value. With over 87% of Canada's trade going to the commodity hungry US, Canada has taken steps to keep the liquidity in their financial system and even had talks with President Sarkozy of France before his left the meetings of the Francophone to begin talks for a free trade agreement between the EU and Canada. Despite economic turndown and the drop in Canada's currency against the US, trade will likely finally open up to the EU and Latin America in order to keep relatively cash rich Canadian companies in the mindset of investing their "non-losses" into economies overseas. Activities between the EU and the US played out in the same narrative last week as Sarkozy's mission to save capitalism and create a new global economic order, a Bretton Woods II, lead him into talks with Bush in the US to coordinate a common response to the failing markets. Sarko's proactive approach even reached into France's cultural policy, by planning trade talks with Canada while trying to bring ties between Canada's English speaking and French speaking communities closer and maintain stability in the only G8 country which has not plunged into chaos. Stability in some form in the developed world is what the EU and US need, even if not inside those economies themselves. It is likely that while traditional blue chip investments will not maintain their blue chips forever, it is possible that places like Canada and emerging economies may take some benefits with the losses in the global economy.

With so little information about emerging economies coming out of mainstream media in the last two weeks, some interesting dynamics have been playing out in the process. While not a complete paradigm shift, some investment chatter has been moving towards placing money in China and India due to the recent cash rich position of those economies despite recent losses there as well. While today there was a talk of a financial rescue package between China, Japan and South Korean with its ASEAN partners, relatively China is not the worst off in Asia. While the Chinese and Indian economies are highly dependent on the purchase of consumer goods in the US and EU, cash which has been acquired in their recent economic booms will enable cash rich companies in those emerging markets to purchase shares in many failing companies in the EU and US and might place Chinese and Indian companies in a position to not just be on the production end of product development, but also purchase the ability to vertically integrate their industries by way of relatively cash rich Chinese and Indian investors. This new position does not wholly account for the fact that China and Japan own a good size of US debt, and while Tokyo's Nikkei is feeling the crush of the crisis, the 1/3 of US debt owned by China will only spur emerging markets into a relatively better position despite current losses in China and India as a whole. Even the Middle East is feeling some benefits, as the rise in 2007-2008 oil prices have left many producing countries with money to burn despite recent falling oil prices this month. This will be remedied as well as OPEC will be meeting this week and after to curb the fall in global oil prices and maintain oil at the relatively high level despite the losses in the US and EU and falling demand for their products. In the end, Dubai might replace London and New York to become the place to go for the best and brightest coming out of Oxbridge, Yale and Harvard.

An interesting dynamic has also been created in a region, which has veteran experience in dealing with economic crisis. Latin America has always suffered in the past 30 years since the last oil boom and recession in the 1970s due to poor economic policies, schizophrenic investor confidence and pure bad luck. Only recently have countries like Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina and Mexico been able to weather an economic collapse and pay back their past debts. Initially, the realization that the economic storm has finally come from the US and not from their own economic crisis was not being played down to any degree by Latin American leaders. Initially the strong Brazilian and Venezuelan economies lead leaders in those countries to direct concern about the US collapse away from South American markets. While not commonly known, trade between many countries in South America is often less than 40% with the US. While Canada and Mexico have taken measures to re-capitalise with over 85% of their trade being conducted with the US, South American countries believed their trade position, balanced economies, and well earned savings would allow them to be passed over in the latest crisis. With the collapse of the EU and Asian markets, Latin America followed with a 12 percent drop in the Brazilian exchange Bovespa and the biggest drop in Mexico's Bolsa since 2000. Despite this, IMF predictions of growth in the region in 2009 made in April of this year only shifted down slightly from 4.4% to private investor predictions of a growth rate of 3.5% for Latin America as a whole. With many investors putting their funds into the US Dollar for safety reasons, the paradigm shift, that other economies might be seen as safe investments beyond New York, Tokyo, London and Paris might buoy investor confidence in emerging economies and relatively cash rich nations in order to diversify their funds further as investment risks grow at home to the benefit of stable markets abroad. While not all emerging economies will benefit, as in those like Mexico and Russia which have been hit hard despite keeping afloat and massive recapitalisations, markets such as Brazil, India and China might be able to increase confidence in their economies in the long run and balance many diversified portfolios if economic management and legal protections can be ensured in the next few years. While the paradigm shift has not yet occurred, it is evident that a change in the global economy that was going to take another generation has perhaps emerged in the last month. With losses come opportunities, and with nervous investors and bad policies at every turn, only intelligence, patience and luck will determine if change will occur and create a new economic order.

CNN made a great acquisition taking on policy expert Fareed Zakaria and giving him his own show, Fareed Zakaria GPS which allows for a diverse perspective and a balanced international approach to a network which is often known for its Washington point of view as opposed to the perspective of global politics and policy.  The international perspective needs to be understood from the point of view of Paris, Singapore, Beijing and others. Originally the host of a PBS show and author of the book The Post-American World, Zakaria will likely become one of the most important authors on foreign policy in the next few years.

In a week of economic turmoil, Zakaria in his show F.Z. GPS decided to interview political experts from Singapore, India and China in order to get their point of view on current economic and political activities involving the US and other countries. While many perspectives were discussed, it was diverse in that countries like Singapore, India and China did not fare poorly during the last eight years of the Bush administration. While criticism did come about regarding Afghanistan and Iraq and perspectives regarding Russia's current move into Georgia, Bush's reputation is not wholly being shared by many in the Asia-Pacific, standing out in contrast to the distain for Bush in Europe, the US and even in Canada. The Canadian example is an interesting one. Currently there is a national election underway where in a recent election debate, issues concerning the country came down to 3 of 4 opposition leaders bringing the debate down to its lowest level and simply accusing the current Prime Minister, Steven Harper of being another George Bush. While Bush is not a Canadian leader and is extremely different to any existing Canadian politician, the real policy debate was wasted and the electorate was treated as people who only decide how their communities are formed based on whether George Bush's name is shouted out enough times on television. While Bush may not be popular in the Western world, the effect of using him for political gains outside the US can be just as harmful in forming illogical policy decisions based on someone who has no real effect or relation to a government outside the US at all. While the responses from many Asia-Pacific experts was logical and measured, often similar debates about the last 8 years in the Western world are foggy at best.

While new economic giants such as China and India had their perspectives shown on F.Z. GPS, it is curious to see what the last eight years have brought to countries in the Americas, and why certain policies such as immigration has been largely ignored in the recent election campaign. The focus of the Bush administration in early 2001 was immigration and the relationship between the US and the rest of the Americas regarding free trade and the FTAA. Mostly in 2008, the issue of immigration has remained a regional one in the US, concentrating around states on the US-Mexico border which take immigration to heart, but has not become a major election issue. Trade, mostly an issue with China for the US has been brought up in many border states along the US-Canada border. Talks of renegotiating NAFTA to bring jobs back to Americans was rampant, despite the issue having a lot to do with the US relationship north and south as opposed to its ties eastwards. While Mexico has ever increasing numbers going to the US illegally and a severe drug war which has taken more lives in 2008 than US lives in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, the debate on immigration was mostly nullified last year when Bush tried to pass one of his final bills opening up an immigration policy that might rationalize the current status quo on the border. After 7 years of the War on Terror, the original policy issues from 2001 were addressed, but with such complex problems and the lack of support for anything Bush ties his name to, the issue of immigration in the US will not change at all for years to come. In reality, as pointed out in the FPA Immigration Blog, some illegal immigrants are even leaving the US due to the current economic crisis and many in the US are starting to see the effect of Bush policies as changing the perception of America into a country which as one CNN reporter said, is no longer a "beacon of freedom and hope".

The rest of the Americas in the last eight years have done better than many would expect in the Western world despite many issues impacting the US itself. Canada currently stands out as one of the only countries in the G8 that is not suffering economic collapse, due to very prudent financial policies, good leadership by many governments over the last 5 years and a long term economic boom and national surplus. While being attacked in the Clinton campaign over NAFTA, Canada has been able to not be seen as another China to the US on trade and was able through a great deal of legal debates to come up with a deal on softwood lumber and push Chapter 11 decisions on NAFTA towards a more equitable framework where states have regained much of their power over companies in the NAFTA rulings. Canada has separated its support from the US, ie. regarding not supporting with troops in Iraq, but many citizens support Canadians in Afghanistan and trade with the US. Canada has not fared poorly at all, even weathering the current global crisis with merely slow growth, and keeping a lot of funds in the country and allowing cash rich Canadian companies to buy out many American and European assets if they wish. Canada's oil industry had a lot to do with this, but in the long run 8 years in Canada has not had many ill economic effects.

Brazil is currently lead by prudent left wing leader Lula and has become a beacon for reform and investment in South America. Since financial collapses that characterized the country in the 1990s, Brazil has been able to maintain a balanced level of growth and social reforms that has brought confidence into Brazil and has made it the next likely emerging economy to become another China or India. While political issues still exist to a great degree, oil and slow progress seems to be paying off and Brazil will likely weather this economic storm with a few scratches and bruises, but keep afloat. Chile is in a similar situation. With left leaning leaders and prudent economic policies and progressive social policies, stability may become a mainstay of many countries in the Americas in the future.

Venezuela also has stood out from many of its neighbours. While Brazil has benefited a lot from its oil reserves, Venezuela has had its oil reserves propel it into a forum for Chavez's influence in the Americas and remains Venezuela's only notable source of revenue. Venezuela often uses actions by Bush as the motivator of policy decisions, mostly in cases where the US has ignored Venezuela and Latin America in the last 8 years. In reality, the involvement the US has had beyond some trade policy in the last 8 years has been very minimal, only opening up further ties with economically stable countries who stabilized themselves, and not having any heavy response to populist claims by Chavez and others who often use Bush and supposed actions by the US to justify all types of local policy decisions by populist leaders. While the degree of US involvement in Venezuela is not known but likely is minimal, countries like Colombia have been able to use local and US assistance to independently address local issues. The Colombian Army's rescue of Ingrid Betancourt and American hostages from the FARC was seen as a Colombian initiative and praised by the US as solely Colombian. Ironically the FARC later was accused of having been supported by Chavez himself, mimicking accusations he had against Bush in interfering in local politics. Increasingly criticisms of Chavez come with the diminishing influence of Bush. Without Bush as a scapegoat, it will be hard to place Obama in a negative light and accuse the causation of problems in Venezuela on the President of the US. Recently a critical report on Venezuela lead to the coercive expulsion of human rights leaders from Venezuelaactions which will reflect poorly in Chavez in the future with no Bush to blame for the future.

Many other countries in the Americas have been set with their own local issues and have had some support and acknowledgement from the US in positive and negative manners. Mainly the US in the last 8 years have ignored Latin America due to The War on Terror, and minimal support and ties with the US has not had a negative effect for many in the region and their development. Ignoring the Americas, the backyard of the US and important future allies is not an option, as pointed out by Zakaria in his statements and book. A strong America's’ will do nothing but help the US reintegrate into the international community if respect and independent policies are supported by the next President of the US and progress of the Americas is valued and not hindered. Reactionist trade policy and calling the opposition George Bush when no coherent discussion is available to win votes in an election is not acceptable on any level. Policy cannot be formed by name calling, and any politician who uses this tactic does nothing but to embarrass themselves and their supporters in a democracy. The Bush era is over, and only working for new opportunities is an acceptable conclusion.

In 2001 the head of the Inter-American Development Bank spent much of his time fighting speculation that one of Latin America's giants, Argentina, had enough national reserves to maintain a 1:1 ratio between the Peso and the US Dollar and maintain confidence for investors that they would have their investments returned with acceptable risk. Five Presidents later and six years later, Argentina is fighting to stave off another economic crisis with some added funds in the bank, promises to pay back much of its international debt, and many of its creditors suffering from an economic collapse which might ironically place Argentina in the position to gain added investments if its reputation can handle the latest wave of financial crisis to hit the globe. It is doubtful this will happen of course, but with poor economic and political leadership in the US, the world and its source of international funds have taken a process that was expected to take 40 years and reduce the US into a shared global power into a change in the world economy which is today's reality.

Questions which always have arisen are whether regulations or political leadership had the ability to avert crisis that come from decisions made in private industry and in private boardrooms. One argument regarding Argentina is that loans given to The Argentine and other countries by international creditors place complete onus on the borrower to assume ALL risk in the transaction. As with small business loans in many financial markets, the tradition of incorporation and all of its legal rights for an investor to be separate from the company with separate legal identities is signed away, leaving all risk in the transaction on the head of the borrower. The problem with this on a micro level reflects that of the macro level, leaving all risk on the borrower, but not placing any onus on the lender to make a business decision on their clients in order to avert losses to the company. Like with international lending, risk is always taken by the borrower, so when there is a problem in the relationship, bad business decisions by the lenders result in a situation where gains are taken as profit, but if there are losses the borrowers must go well beyond reasonable measures to pay back a loan that might have been given without consideration to risk, as lending in the modern era has been able to avoid the Invisible Hand of the market as poor economic decisions have little effect on irresponsible lenders who see no ill effects from giving bad loans to people and countries who have no rights to shield themselves from the market.

While Argentina has announced this month that it will make moves to pay back its international creditors (Risk insurance for Argentina is very high or not offered), what is the effect if a whole industry makes poor business decisions and the borrowers simply return their capital and leave the lenders with large numbers of very nice houses? The root of the mortgage crisis is the obvious result, but it must be challenged on three levels. We must return to the ideas of Adam Smith and the root of modern capitalism. Fundamentals such as the Invisible Hand of the market is the basis of the US economy, but in an industry where risk can be passed off to the consumer, sold into the larger market or as we see in the Bail Out, allow for private companies to claim profits but make US taxpayers and government cover their losses, private gains are created and losses are made public. The free market cannot sustain itself as lenders do not take any substantial risk and thus make business decisions which would lead any other company in any other industry into swift bankruptcy, but in the financial industry allows mortgage lenders to make irresponsible business decisions without the consequences of market forces to bear on those decisions.

Regulation and government intervention must be considered, as with such a unique industry which relies heavily on non-risk and government regulation and bail outs, the market forces on the financial industry must invite regulation in order to maintain its non-risk positions and insure losses by way of the national reserves despite poor decision making by those in the industry themselves. The root of financial industry theory is that the market will determine the right course of action for people, but that regulation is needed to insure that losses will not create a catastrophe in the process. In Argentina, the failure of the economy forced banks to literally lock people out of their private savings so that a run on the currency would not create a collapse. Luckily the US does have reserves to cover the losses, but did the crisis comes from regulation impeding the free market, or does the free market simply not work? I would argue that since risk and consequence is the result of any business transaction, an industry which prohibits other industries from growing without giving sensible risk to the lender cannot vent its problems on regulation and a government that is insuring any and all mistakes made as a result of poor decisions collapsing their industry as a whole. Regulation is a key issue as it allowed mortgage lenders to sell their risk into wider financial markets and is the reason why the current catastrophe has echoed worldwide, but the same regulation also is there to keep the US out of the chaos of Argentina, namely, to maintain confidence in the US economy that risk of losses is low and that the market is strong. So is regulation a barrier to the free market and caused the current problems, to some degree it did allow for problems to arise, but mostly due to an industry making decisions without consequence and giving the risk to the public in many forms with no constructive losses to financial companies or threats of real losses to their own private companies.

Leadership, while likely the most media friendly issue and less complicated than the equations needed to understand the Bail Out, has done little to address the true need for proper regulations, the true market effects of the financial industry and creating laws which protect consumers. They have done little to protect the national reserve and provide that economic decision making should bear consequence on those decision makers in private industry and remove the corporate veil for larger financial companies as is the case with many business borrowers and consumers of the financial industry which need those companies to help grow their local economies and communities. As debated by Mr. Obama in last night's debate, the financial crisis we have to date is the final legacy of the Bush Administration, but while a Bail Out may make this issue last week's news, the massive amount of borrowing from lenders in cash rich China, Dubai and other wealthy emerging economies in the last eight years and the economic alienation of US allies in the process in places like Europe, Canada and Latin America may take a process of normalization of investment trends from the US to the world into a situation where those new lender countries will be on par with the US immediately. It was thought by writers like Zakaria and Khanna that over a course of 15-35 years, the US will become one of many economic superpowers in the globe, but due to poor leadership and a financial industry which has chosen to give the death kneel to the American Empire of the 20th Century, measured predictions by those authors will likely come true before the paperbacks of their recently published books become available. The next President, whoever he is, will likely be a better choice than anyone in the last 20 years, and will spend the better half of the next four years cleaning up America as he bears the responsibility for cleaning up everyone else's mess. Like the formidable Cristina Kirchner of Argentina, charm can only go so far when you are the caretaker of a crisis from the past. Suffering politically from chaos which she cannot end and did not create, Obama or McCain will inherit one of the worst jobs you can have in the financial industry, the country's official risk bearer.

In much of the popular political debate in English speaking media, issues of defense and economy often shape the question of what is considered a democracy. Defensive explanations for altering a country towards a democratic systems is most notable in Iraq and Afghanistan, where many who took the stance similar to the Bush administration that the actions the US and its allies took in Iraq were for the democratization of the country and its people. While the true effect of the war in Iraq will most likely be seen only in hindsight, the strategy of democratization of foreign countries in order to ensure stability was used before Iraq and Afghanistan were issues on the world stage, often claiming that open trade and stable economics is the root is democratic government.

Two of the regions which took to democratizations through economics were Asia, most notably China and Latin America. The first example, while a great success story in economic policy for China, is very much devoid of democratic ideals. To claim China as more of a democracy for its open economic policies is likely as creditable as saying the US is less democratic with the recent bout of economic troubles plaguing its financial industry and citizens as a whole. While an open economy can help with stability and help ensure democratic institutions, it is not the seed in which democracy is produced, and is often used as a rationale for linking democratic governments into those non-democratic ones by way of just cause. No one would argue that a stable economy does not help a democracy, but it is an issue of great debate if one can claim that an open neo-liberal policy is the root of a democratic system. Just this week the US Government took to paying down the debt of some of America's largest private companies, and even assumed control of Fannie and Freddie, bulking the trend of privatisations in the 1990s and post- 2000 era which was adopted by many in regions like Latin America in order to place corruption and populism in the background and grow democratic institutions from the ground up using private capital. Now government intervention is helping the economy, at least in crisis, and Latin America is progressing somewhat with a leftist leader in Brazil with sensible economic policy, a populist in Argentina who is dedicated to paying back her country's debts, an increasingly privatized Chile which is the darling of the region and a very populist Hugo Chavez trying to bring the region back into the 1970s with a lot of oil money and many words with have done little towards his popularity this year, even pushing the King of Spain to tell him to shut up on international television.

Venezuela has stood out as a pariah, linking his modern policies to those of past governments in the region which sought to claim economic independence from the US by way of populist policies and anti-foreign investment strategies. Neo-liberal economic activities by those in the US and other investor countries were often the catalyst for populist policies which could always look at failures in Iraq and other democratizing nations by way of defense or economic policy and gain local support by way of failures abroad. An interesting shift has taken place however, with the neo-liberals losing much of their influence and democracy and economy as a theory being unravelled with each American voter voting for anyone but Bush, as too do populist lose their support as the focus shifts from Bush to their local policies themselves.

This past year has been a clear example of how the waning interest in Bush has lead to increased criticisms of Chavez and his personal activities and policies as leader. With the year beginning with an insult from the King of Spain, well respected for his assistance in the democratization of Spain in the late 1970s, Chavez helped in the release of some kidnap victims in Colombia, followed by his open support for the FARC in Colombia and threats of attacks on Colombia due to their assault on a FARC leader in Ecuador and eventual pulling and reinstating of Ambassadors between the two nations. In a page from the same playbook, on September 11th Chavez pulled his ambassador from the US and recalled his own in support of political troubles between the US and Bolivia and claiming that the US Embassy in Venezuela was being used in an assassination plot against him within Venezuela itself. Despite all of these activities, the Bush administration has had little reaction to Chavez, allowing Colombia to take much of the lead on dealing with the FARC and Chavez while the world cheered the release of Ingrid Betancourt, and justified claimed that Chavez has been supporting the FARC and the drug trade which has left Colombia in ruins for the last 30 years. Sympathy and support could no longer be blamed on Bush and democratization in Latin America, as the narrative moved on, Chavez has been seeking a role to play in the next stage of the region's politics, hanging on with oil revenues and seeking to increase his power before oil prices and political ideals bring his term in office to an end involving economic collapse or violence.

In reality, democracy is and always will come from he construction of institutions which promote relative equality while balancing power in the hands of the people and their representatives as opposed to one leader. In Latin America there is an added dimension however, as poverty and democracy allowed for those in need of basic needs to have some influence on the government via voting, not a characteristic of a fully functioning democracy, but a move towards creating institutions and political movements in the long run. Economics, while not the source of democracy, is needed to ensure stability and create an environment where proper laws and rights can be formed around the relationship between citizens in the economy. Democratization can work if it is not seen as an alternative or used in the same way as populism. The intricacies of rights and culture create the economic relationship, in the same way in which the ambitions of one individual is not always reflective of the country itself. The result of each is often harsh, with failed democracies being born out of the policies of the last 8 years of Bush, also being reflected in a recent Human Rights Watch report on the restrictions on rights which have resulted within the last 10 years of Chavez in Venezuela. In either case, it seems that an end of an era in the Americas will come to an end with a new President and possible reductions in oil prices and support for Chavez as its result.

The HRW Report "A Decade Under Chavez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela," can be seen here.

For articles on the Expulsion of Ambassadors between Venezuela and the US, see the articles below:

Associated Press

International Herald Tribune

CNN

Argentina has always been marked by two political trends that have been eventful enough to attract the attention of foreign investors and playwrights alike. Regarding investment, Argentina has always been a special case because of the large amount of potential in its economy that often seems to end in varying degrees of chaos as opposed to bringing the country on to another well deserved economic level. The second trend has always been that of having power couples in the Presidency during times of economic upheaval, without a doubt an interesting dynamic, but in recent history likely not exciting enough to be put on Broadway. As Nestor Kirchner's popular term in office was finally concluded by the election of his wife, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the beginning of a Presidency which is entangled in the result of years of populist policies and less than ideal economic planning began and has been taking a toll on the popularity and support of President Cristina. Cristina has not been adopted as the next Evita by any means, but likely has a few strong words for her husband regarding the current predicament. Publicly she has made other moves to slow the decline in growth from 8% to 5% and again place Argentina on the world stage for investment and commerce.

In a Sept 4th Economist.com article on Cristina Kirchner's national financial problems, the issues surrounding Argentina's new economic troubles were discussed targeting the recent decision to pay back much of the loans from the country's financial crisis from 2001-2002. The targets of the repayments are the Paris Club nations, especially Japan and Germany who have taken a loss on their loans to Argentina since 2002. Cristina hopes that the repayment of loans will secure future investment in Argentina and allow for enough financial security for lenders, creditors and export financing agencies to reinvest in Argentina's economy and national infrastructure without fear of losing their funds in another economic collapse. Despite much blame towards the IMF and international lending institutions during her husband's term in office, Cristina has had to assume the obligation of dealing with those same creditors in order to move the country to the next economic level and avoid taking 15% interest on loans from countries such as Venezuela who has mastered losing investment in all but one of its industries in the last decade. As the Economist argues, this move could have avoided a lump sum payment, and have been done earlier and over time, but is a positive step for investor interests in Argentina, albeit a small one as other debts still remain unpaid in the larger scheme of Argentina's ever present repayment obligations. An added effect could be the eventual loss of the Presidency by Cristina due to an ever increasing loss of popularity and an inability to claim financial problems on poor IMF policies after taking repayment advice from them in the end of the debate. While Cristina Kirchner has achieved alot in her political career and may end her Presidency with a mere lack of popularity and avoid a legacy of corruption and scandal as many past Presidents have not done in the past, it is unlikely that an end of economic troubles in Argentina will alter the trends of the past to any great degree or make Cristina the next Evita and Broadway star.

With Olympic fever set to bring the world to China, much interest on the future of China on the world stage is seen as having its debut today, crowned by the lucky number in Chinese culture, 08/08/08, set to being at 8pm. With external writers and leaders and internal government officials set to bring China into its new position of influence, the effect of Chinese foreign policy, timid by Western standards, has become an issue of global public discussion, highlighted by internal struggles from the recent earthquake, housing issues and of course Tibet.

Another external issue has yet to be discussed, that may prove to be the greatest influence on world commerce and culture coming out of China, the people themselves. For generations Chinese communities have crossed to other Asian countries, the West and even parts of the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe. The Americas have been one of the greatest recipients of Chinese culture and communities, having not only come to the US, but with large communities in Canada, the Caribbean and Latin America as well.

In Canada's largest city alone, Toronto according to many experts has a community of between 200,000-300,000 alone. Many of these immigrants have come after the opening of Canadian immigration in the 1960s, which was closed to many non-white immigrants after the late 1800 to well into the second half of the 20th Century. More recently, ties with the Commonwealth and interest in Canada brought many from Hong Kong to Canada before the return of the small nation to China. Mainland Chinese, as well as Taiwanese and Chinese communities from Malaysia, Vietnam and Singapore also have resided in Canada, many mainlanders living in central Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver, know for its diversity and home to many from different parts of Asia.

Latin America and the Caribbean also have received large communities from China as well, albeit more historically than recently in large numbers. In Mexico, the early 20th Century brought more than 5,000 Chinese immigrants to northern Mexico, near Mexicali. This small community which survives today at one point outnumbered traditional Mexicans and formed many cultural organizations to bring in other Chinese people from the East, while developing their community in Mexico and as Mexicans over the last 100 years. Cuba also is known for its connections with China, seen in its prominent Chinatown in central Havana. While being very Cuban with a strong Chinese influence, many Chinese came to Cuba, a US protectorate for the late 19th to mid-20th Century, to work in labour and to build US infrastructure as in the US on the islands on Cuba and Puerto Rico. Jamaica, Nicaragua and Panama also obtained many of their Chinese migrants for similar reasons, making the Caribbean one of the notable destinations for Chinese and other immigrant groups from around the globe.

In South America, while many Japanese immigrated in large numbers to Brazil, Argentina to a lesser degree, many Chinese immigrants also moved to Peru with large numbers coming to Venezuela. Venezuela has one of the largest Chinese immigrant communities to historically settle in Latin America. Recently new immigration from Mainland China and Taiwan has come to Venezuela and Latin America as a whole. While this blog cannot go into great detail on every community, it is worth researching many of these communities worldwide and show how China's past might create strong ties to China's future in the world.