Mexico in 2009 has become the recipient of at least half of the most famous biblical plagues starting in 2008. This past week brought yet another earthquake to Mexico, the second this month that received some media coverage outside the country. In addition to a full scale drug war, H1N1 flu, an economic crisis, political jockeying, immigration issues, drug related and everyday corruption and a persistent high level of poverty, Mexico and its leaders could claim to have more on their plate than Barack Obama has to deal with in the US today and for the rest of his Presidency.

Debates of where the blame for much of Mexico’s ills comes from has brought in voices from opposition within and outside of Mexico, its NAFTA partners, the WHO, IMF, World Banks and the UN itself. However in a general perspective has Mexico’s leaders performed worse than most other leaders in similar positions? Felipe Calderon’s government while blamed for igniting much of the drug conflict has tried to do more to fight narcotrafficking than any other Mexican leader in the past. Support for his anti-drug initiative has come from the US and Canada and South America, and while drug markets and demand has been claimed as the root cause of Mexico’s conflict by many in Mexico and by even Obama himself, NAFTA has become collectively aligned fighting against cartels that are well entrenched from Cancun to Vancouver. While NAFTA has always been exclusively a trade agreement, heavy cooperation in fighting drugs that come through many commercial and immigration sources also is the route of much of North America’s trade wealth boom since 1994. Markets which create demand for narcotics also demand other products from Mexico, Canada and the US which are not drug related, but may open for easier access to narcotrafficking across borders. The end result is that cooperation and addressing the drug issues are the only option in reducing the drug trade in North America by maintaining strong ties between the three NAFTA neighbors. I request that if other policy alternatives are a better option that readers voice their opinion.

H1N1, or Swine Flu as it was called before the WHO’s public relations people set out to change the definition did start in Mexico despite some claims otherwise in the country of its origins, and it is still in debate who is to blame. Blame has been knocked around quite a bit in this latest crisis, starting with slow action by Calderon and Mexico’s government to voice the issue abroad, leading to the WHO’s slow action in issuing alerts, leading to practices by Mexico’s agricultural industry and large multinationals, to claims of a poor health system in Mexico that is often a stereotype of many in developed countries abroad. The political fallout will determine the end result of the Swine Flu, but what should be noted is the effective actions taken by Calderon, Mexican public health officials, industry and citizens who completely shut down the most populated city in human history numbering almost 30 million and the other 70-80 million Mexicans who quietly kept indoors and patient over more than a week in order to end the spread of Swine Flu in Mexico and abroad. This enormous feat of public health control should be awarded to Mexico who despite having so many current problems, lack of funds, and large populations to deal with was still able to better handle H1N1 than many developed countries handled SARS. While it was not able to contain H1N1 entirely, and a small outbreak in Chile and Japan has occurred recently, it will certainly be studied for generations to come in how to deal with national and international health crisis.

Some issues that have received little attention this past month have been the persistent drug war and some earthquakes in Mexico in the last few weeks. As always, immigration issues while always a constant on the borders only were addressed when Mexican immigrants got the Swine Flu or the influence of drug cartels or were linked to Mexico’s drug war in the US. These mainstay issues will likely reemerge very soon, which often ignore successes by Mexican officials and highlight possible threats to the US which vary in urgency. With deaths in Mexico easily competing with those in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mexico will likely keep its place on the front page and tv screens of many of its NAFTA neighbours…for better or for worse.

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.

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 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

In 1973, the murder of elected President Salvador Allende of Chile and many left wing and party supporters became the model of how repression and dictatorship in Latin America would dominate much of the region into the mid 1980s, and for Chile, consume the legal system and keep the nation in traumatic debate well into the new millennium. In a PBS documentary broadcast on August 19th 2008, filmmakers Elizabeth Farnsworth and Patricio LanFranco explore how one of General Pinochet's conservative judges at the time was now in charge of investigating the "disappeared" under Pinochet's rule since 1973. With the debate on Pinochet having its international rebirth in 1998 when he was detained in the United Kingdom on a question of whether he could be extradited to Spain for charges against him for conspiracy in the murders of a handful of Spanish nationals in the 1973 coup, the motivation for Chileans to challenge Pinochet's indefinite power in the Chilean political system and to question the old regime finally was presented to our Judge in charge of rewriting the past of a divided country. In their PBS documentary film The Judge and the General Judge Juan Guzman is interviewed and the past of Chile is examined as we follow his challenge in finding evidence after thirty years and his numerous troubles in charging and bringing justice to many of Chile's most important historical and current leaders.

The reality in Chile is often a surprise for many outside of the country who may not understand how Pinochet remained in power for so long and how a society could be able to challenge their past with many of the key figures in 1973 still obtaining so much influence and support in the country today. Many Chileans who were targeted by the government often left, if able to leave, or were arrested and murdered in their own country for their political ties and ideals. Many Chilean communities arose as refugees since that time and remain as strong contributors to their new nations. Like Judge Guzman himself, many in Chile at the time did not know of the repression occurring in their country, as much of the discussion was closed at the time and since then until relatively recently, and those who were disappeared often received more attention outside of Chile than inside the country. Much of this came in a lack of discussion by the repressed in the country by way of terror by the government, and by ideals which saw left wing movements as creating the narrative in order to unfairly discredit the leaders of the coup at the time. As many did not see in Chile, Guzman himself admitted to being unable to see beyond the political struggle at the time and closed to the limitations of media and the terror which was set upon political opponents of General Pinochet at the time. In the narrative of the documentary Guzman makes the clear point that evidence of the past criminal actions were sunk under the sea, physically and metaphorically, in an effort to erase the "disappeared" from history. Fortunately the Judge was made aware of this fact in his investigation and took to rediscovering the dead off the Chilean coast and finally succeeded in opening a legal case in Chile against its former dictator.

Like many situations of past repression and genocide, nations often are not able to prosecute past leaders of nations as their regime still remains in power or is able to limit discussion of their past actions due to current fears of reprisals in the country. Like Chile, much support in country which historically had strong institutions and government can turn into repression and violence if enough limits are placed on free debate and media, but also where some governments are supported, either innocently or directly, by a populace that may benefit from a change in power in any country. Chile, as a country which had some of the most vibrant political movements in Latin America was torn apart by infighting between left wing policies and violent reactions by right wing movements which set trauma as one of the main characteristics in Chilean society. While Judge Guzman will never fully succeed in his actions, the dialogue itself creates its own value in rewriting a history which has all but disappeared itself. The documentary film can been seen by clicking here.

The global economy has recently hit a turning point, where the environment and a massive rise in oil prices sets to change the way we live, trade and do business. Not since the 1970s has such trauma in oil prices pushed policymakers into emergency mode, scurrying to satisfy the electorate which is convinced of a future environmental disaster by balancing policymaker's inability to alter oil prices with the ever rising inflation and food prices. The major debates on how to handle the environment and the oil shock however have differed in policy and approach outside of the US and Europe, where many oil producing nations and developing nations feel the immediate effect, either by the dominant nature of the energy industry in their country or massive food shortages due to high levels of poverty in their streets and shantytowns. While no country can claim a victory over inflation in the current global economy, some strategies might work better than others in oil producing and developing nations.

In the FT.com article Latin America pays the price for fuel subsidy by writer Richard Lapper, the author details the pros and cons of fuel subsidy policies in the region. In the Americas there are three main types of countries to note in this latest oil crisis. The first types are those like Venezuela and Mexico, who are for the most part oil producers. These countries have a benefit to some degree in this crisis, as they have what everyone wants. Hugo Chavez and Venezuela has gone from $US 7 billion in oil revenues in the last two years to nearly $US 54 billion. The result of this is that Venezuela subsidizes its fuel to keep it at 4 cents a litre, but also loses an approximate $11US billion in export revenue because of their subsidization of fuel in the country. Mexico, while a net exporter of fuels also is paying an approximate $19US billion to re-import refined fuel product so it can also maintain a fuel subsidy inside the country. The result however is that the state is taking these costs as opposed to the citizens and industry themselves. At 4 cents a litre and 69 cents a litre at face value, oil exporting nations can likely keep their fuel prices low for some time and avoid the political turmoil that is overtaking many of their neighbors. In Asia, many countries who are also sensitive to inflationary pressures have given up subsidies altogether, allowing their reserved to remain stable while inflation and poverty rise dramaticallya lose-lose situation with few options.

The second type of countries in the Americas are those developing countries which require fuel to be imported and set their fuel prices with subsidies to ease pressure to its citizens from world fuel prices. The most notable country is Chile, importing almost all of its oil, Chile also added $US 1 billion to its energy stabilization fund and reduced the price of fuel via subsidies to 10 cents less a litre. While this has resulted in an immediate reduction in inflationary prices for Chileans, it also costs the state much in reserves which is never a good sign in the Latin American context. Argentina and Ecuador are following suit, raising fuel subsidies to $US 11 billion and $US 1.46 billion respectively. Colombia, which plans to tax oil companies to ease pressure on its own subsidies, hopes to create $US 3 billion in revenues from these taxes, but still plans to subsidize energy on its own in the process for at least the next year. Peru stands out, as its subsidies are being slowly reduced, but at the loss of its citizens who have already incurred a 4 cent per litre increase in prices.

The reasons for diverse policy on fuel prices in the Americas are a result of the chaos that fell over the region from the oil crisis in the 1970s. Many countries like Mexico and Brazil, who are net energy exporters, took the initiative in the 1970s and 80s to borrow funds at very low rates to fund the expansion of their oil industry and take advantage of high fuel costs at the time. When the price of oil dropped, and their loans were recalled, it left not only Mexico and Brazil in shambles well into the 1990s, but turned the entire region into a case study for economic collapse and record high levels of inflation and inequality. Brazil, with its recent step by step anti inflation policy has boosted investor confidence, aided by recent discoveries of massive oil fields in Brazilian waters and a stable growth rate, spurred on by the growth of good economic policy and political responsibility. This has occurred in the last few years however, after inflation and economic collapse from the 1980s until the new millennium. Unlike Venezuela, Brazil has sought growth through political cooperation, economic diversity and an opening up of trade and social policies, allowing it to remove itself from becoming a nation dependent on one major energy export and avoid future political chaos by trying to be inclusive to all elements in society. A fruitful result in Brazil is the popular use of sugar cane based Ethanol fuels being used in the country in autos and industry, with a policy balance being created so food prices are not strongly affected. Part of much of the food crisis is that oil raises the costs of shipping and new unstudied environmental policies have created a strong reaction to the global rise in corn prices, a possible Ethanol fuel source which has not run any cars yet, but have put many of the world impoverished into starvation. With inflation being the curse of Latin America, and oil often becoming the root cause of much of the regions economic collapse, even in oil producing countries, Latin America needs to find a proper balance between taking advantage of oil and reducing poverty, and subsidies their nations with clever fuel policy and maintaining national reserves. There is no definitive answer to the modern oil crisis, there are just policy options to keep nations afloat.

The third type of countries in the Americas which have a diverse fuel strategy are those developed countries which are feeling the effect of the rise in oil prices. While many are already familiar with the US position on the issue, a country such as Canada needs to be examined as well. Canada, unlike the US is a major oil exporting nation with massive reserves in the province of Alberta, which is thought to have as many untapped oil resources amounting to that of Saudi Arabia by some speculators. Canada's fuel policy however does not subsidize its local retail petrol stations, but charges similar world prices to many other developed nations who do not have a large fuel resource. While the Canadian Government has no plan for a fuel subsidy, there are some measures taking place to move its large auto industry into more environmentally friendly technologies. Short term pains affect many in the country as automobiles in such a large country are a necessity, and transport is a requirement for Canadians to maintain itself and allow for economic opportunities for all people across the country. Fuel policy has elicited some reactions however, where in the Province of British Columbia, a energy surcharge has been places on residents of the province to raise energy prices to the benefit of the environment, and the detriment of small and medium sized companies that are being exterminated by high fuel prices and will no doubt be gravely hurt by extra taxes which will raise the cost of all functions of society. With nearly 70% of Canadians working for small and medium sized enterprises, the government in the province has done nothing but to aggravate many in the process. In reality the best motivator of environmental technologies are high fuel prices, but when there is a natural rise in the price of fuel, adding an energy tax on top of it produces minimal environmental gains at the hands of citizens who not only are at a loss from the market price, but are in competition with others who also suffer from high energy prices but do not have the burden of an extra tax. This strategy has been adopted by the Opposition leader of Canada's Liberal Party, Stephane Dion (sse above picture), who wishes to place a Carbon Tax on top of Canada's industry during the fuel crisis, creating higher fuel prices in Canada, likely to go above any other country in the world. While the environmental technologies will benefit from higher fuel prices, taxing a country in the middle of it for the benefit that has already been achieved is simply absurd. With the current party leader having a poor record on environmental policy when he held the position of Environment Minister in the last government, it may be that Canada becomes the country that has the largest number of oil reserves in the developed world with the highest fuel prices in the developed world if Dion is elected based on his energy policy for Canada. At the moment, Canada has one of the most stable economies in the world, which could easily become history with poor policy making by whoever claims the leadership in the next few months.

While predicting fuel policy for the future is a gamble for many policy makers in the Americas, they must be accountable in their actions not to overcompensate via fuel subsidies at the expense of national reserves, as inflationary pressures do not simply result from the cost of living, but also from currency fluctuations and national reserves. Balanced policy may make the oil burden less dramatic, but it is important to address the issue with a policy that does not only address the environment and commerce, but also food prices and poverty as people should always be a priority above ethanol and environmental policy theories in forming energy policies in the Americas. While all countries have learned a lot from the crisis of the 1970s, not every country will escape possible damages from this most recent bout of oil shocks. Sound Policy is the key, but offers no assurances to the fragile economies of Latin America.

The European Union and Latin America have always had amicable ties, via trade, culture and administrative and legal traditions. Immigration from Latin America to the EU has often been able to avoid the conflict and debate that are common in the United States, where millions of immigrants from Latin America are more of a campaign issue than a sociological blessing. The European Union may have angered some of their Latin American friends however, with the new EU Immigration Policy creating a collective grumble throughout immigrant communities in Europe and among Latin American leaders themselves.

It is not common to have so many Latin American leaders, often with varying political stripes, to have complete agreement on an issue or a set of issues. Ironically, the past two weeks have produced not only new relations between Hugo Chavez and Alvaro Uribe, but produced a collective grumble by all leaders during the Mercosur regional summit and other policy discussions against the new EU Immigration measures. It is not secret that Spain and the EU have become the new destination for many legal and some illegal immigration from Latin America. The new EU policy seeks to detain possible illegal immigrants for a period of up to 18 months before deporting them, leading many Latin American leaders to perceive the EU as placing issues of immigration on the immigrants themselves, allowing policymakers to avoid the responsibility in dealing with immigration in the EU on a proper legal and equitable level. This led Latin American leaders to sign a joint declaration against the new EU immigration policies during Mercosur summit. In addition, some leaders threatened restrictions of Venezuelan oil, and possible restrictions of grain and other agricultural products leaving the rich fields on Brazil, Argentina and other countries that have been hit by the recent food crisis. While Latin America is not the only region to be angered by the new EU policy, it is one of the regions that are considering a collective reaction against Europe on behalf of the hundreds of thousands living there illegally which originate from Latin America.

The question that remains is whether the new EU policies are a just approach in dealing with illegal immigration or whether they warrant a strong reaction from Latin America and other countries around the globe? While the 27 member EU nations did pass the new Immigration Policy to be implemented in 2010, many have varied time restrictions regarding detentions of illegal immigrants. In reality, the EU policy is not only addressing illegal immigration coming from Latin America, but is greatly focused on the 51,000 illegal boat people coming into Spain, Italy, Greece and Malta that arrived in 2007 alone. Many of these illegal migrants end up drowning on their voyage to Europe, presenting the EU with a diverse humanitarian problem in dealing with illegal immigration. The new policy awards voluntary deportations, but also penalizes migrants who attempt to frustrate officials in dealing with their deportations as well. Families and children also have some rights extended, but as a whole the new policies are a lot stricter than previous laws protecting the EU from illegal migration.

After the EU Policy is implemented in the long run, the true effectiveness of the EU Immigration Policy will show its true colours. Protests from Latin America will likely not lead into true economic sanctions however, unless there are massive abuses against their citizens in the EU. In the end, many still will enter the EU illegally, and this is unlikely to change. The effectiveness of the new policy will come when people are actually caught and deported, which is still the fate of the minority of illegal immigrants in most countries in the world. Morality and immigration policy is still to be debated in Latin America and the EU, but it is certain that a solution to these issues is far from an absolute success in immigration policy in any region of the world.

For Video on the Mercosur Summit and Latin American leaders and EU Immigration, click here.

In a few past events associated with the Foreign Policy Association, many organizations associated with the region brought Latin American ideas to New York and have seen the point of view of many of Latin America's most innovative leaders addressing internal and external issues via the FPA and associated institutions:

Most recently Heraldo Munoz, the Chilean Ambassador to the UN gave a talk at Grupo Santander in New York regarding the release of his new book, A Solitary War: A Diplomat's Chronicle of the Iraq War and its lessons. Munoz worked in the UN Security Council during the beginning of the Iraq war and under Kofi Annan's term as UN Secretary General. His book details the difficulty in dealing with an increasingly independent US security policy and a UN that was facing many challenges in maintaining its role as a viable international institution among the inability to contain the world's remaining superpower. A speech by Munoz was given at Grupo Santander to compliment the launch of his latest book. It can be found on the FPA website here.

The FPA's Children Blog last week reported on the talk given by Alejandro Toledo, the former President of Peru in April of 2008. In his talk at the Americas Society, President Toledo spoke about Democracy and Populism in the political process in Latin America and how his role as one of the first indigenous leaders to be elected in a Latin American nation reflects the new populism now present in the political process of many nations in the region. With the constant problems of poverty and new democracies in Latin America, the votes of many of Latin America's poor has created drastic political change within many countries such as Peru, Bolivia and Venezuela. Alejandro Toledo, the eventual successor to Peru's indicted former President Fujimori was one of the first leaders to not only lead a quiet revolution against the controlling powers in his country, but also become one of the first indigenous leaders to come from a background of poverty and child labour, to lead his country as President. A video of the talk given by President Toledo can be seen on the FPA's website here.

In two complimentary blogs on Alejandro Toledo's talk, Cassandro Clifford of the FPA's Children Blog posted on Alejandro Toledo's personal history as a child labourer and how the issue affects many in poverty in Peru. In a second post, the issue surrounding child labour itself in Peru is detailed in a thoughtful and informative posting after the Toledo post. The posting about Toledo can be found here on the Children Blog, and the accompanying post can be found here. Thank you Cassandra for all your work.

On May 14th 2008 the Americas Society/Council of the Americas and the National Endowment of Democracy hosted the Secretary-General of the OAS, H.E. José Miguel Insulza in their offices in New York to discuss how the OAS is helping develop democracy and democratic institutions within modern Latin America. With the current state of affairs in Latin America, democracy in its true form is a strong contender in many Latin American nations. As the historical forum of discussion and voice for the states of Latin America, progress and diplomacy has always worked best with the assistance of the OAS and the Americas community in resolving issues in the region.

The future of Latin America is often seen in two perspectives. One is the US and its approach to other countries in the Americas. Many in the United States see Latin America as its proper sphere of influence. While many in Latin America would prefer an increasingly independent status, the reality of geopolitics is that for better or for worse, the United States has had a lot of power in determining the future of Latin America via economic relationships, political ties and support to groups and officials in various Latin American countries. The question now is based on how the US wants to approach the region in the future. With economic successes in Mexico and Brazil and Chile, and diplomatic challenges with Venezuela and Bolivia and a mix of both with every other country, the opportunity to reengage after five years in Iraq will determine how the US progresses in the future as a regional power or a source of conflict for many of its neighbours.

In his new book The Second World and in an interview with Edward Baker of Strategy+Business, Parag Khanna of the New America Foundation discusses how the future of geopolitics will likely take shape in the future. With power becoming divided among China, the US and the EU, many regions of influence which he refers to as the Second World will often become influenced by one of the three main powers. These middle powers have yet to determine which influence they wish to presume, but as Khanna points out the opportunity for influence comes only from those powers and their ability to coordinate their diplomacy in a productive fashion. As with Latin America and the OAS, the region is essentially available for diplomacy and will be the determining factor of future influence of the US in the near future. Isolationism and the fear of working within the international community will only hurt the US in the future. The OAS and Latin America is seen as the answer for many, as Edward Baker states: "The answer lies right under our noses."

 For Video of the May 14th discussion with the OAS click here.

For a Video Interview by Charlie Rose with Parag Khanna click here. 

For further discussion ofthe issue of US influence in the World, see The Washington Post article The Rise of Non-Americanism by Fareed Zakaria by clicking here. 

I was lucky to be able to see a lecture at the LSE by the newly minted head of Argentina's national bank after the first President Kirchner came into power. This was, as many know after a series of failed Presidents in a record amount of time and a massive financial collapse of Argentina's economy. He was an impressive speaker, and basically said he was the new guy, he was sorry about what happened with the old guy, and that fiscal responsibility, proper market regulations, and slow and progressive growth was the only way to cure burst economic bubbles and ultra liquid financial markets.

In an op-ed by Paul Krugman of IHT.com he seeks out to compare the recent financial sub prime mortgage crisis to failed economies of Latin America pre-2001. While the United States definitely has come into financial crisis because of immoral lending practices, the foundations of the US economy are still strong and has a history of reforming market practices through economic policy and legal enforcement.

While many industries in the US are strong, the comparison between Latin America and the US is like comparing Bananas to Big Macs. In Latin America the crisis of Mexico, Brazil and Argentina were often not just connected to one product market or one industry, but was a result of hyper investment in newly promoted ventures in those countries, a response to state run industries being sold off while they still could produce a profit for in debt governments, and investment regulations which did not regulate hyper liquid investments which could leave the economy with one click of a mouse. While the US also has a massive amount of debt, perhaps one third of it via China, payment of debt was never and is not currently regulated by outside forces such as the World Bank and IMF. Outside debt lending obligations often put many Latin American countries into situations where debt payments pushed more of their population into poverty. At crisis levels of around 30-40% under the poverty line on average in the region, the effect on a country like Argentina is one of a Great Depression, not merely a Great Recession.

In Latin America the economic crisis often resulted in complete systems and economies collapsing due to market bubbles bursting in the Developed world. While the US dollar is down against many currencies, it also allows for US made good to become more attractive to local consumers and leaves foreign imports at a competitive disadvantage. There is also the fact that many trading partners of the US kept their currencies artificially low in order to sell more to the US. The current accusation is that China is currently doing this, and not more than three years ago it was known that Canada's 64 cents US to one Canadian dollar was so low to help exporters to the US even though the value was likely 74 cents at the time. While Latin American countries such as Mexico, Chile and Brazil are now seen as surviving the current global economic storm, the US will also do so as they all currently have decent regulations and good economic fundamentals.

The issue with the US sub prime mortgage market and the new complexities of the banking system in recent years will effect the US greatly, but mostly it is a massive shot against the world banking markets and that industry. This has come about due to regulations which are not in time with the current markets, but also is a result of immoral, irresponsible and illegal business practices taking place in that industry which create overvalued products and economic bubbles. What the United States has in its favour however is the willingness and ability to prosecute those in any industry who seeks to hurt US markets and the economy with illegal business practices. While not always prosecuted in Latin America or worldwide, corruption and illegalities in commerce in the US is becoming more difficult as competition authorities and regulators crack down on actions which hurt the US and world economy. With actions against Enron, Microsoft, Conrad Black and others, the US economy has the ability to never enter a Peso Crisis or another Depression as their fundamentals will often adjust with haste to address any minor crisis in the US Economy. This does not mean the US will do well, but it does show that it can avoid hyper-inflation and market crashes which has plagued Latin America since the 1960s. Let us hope this becomes the case in most of Latin America as well.