Whatever people may think about Fidel Castro, he is likely one of the luckiest and most challenging leaders towards his opponents in the last three generations of world history. While his actions towards the surviving opposition, journalists and opposing leaders in Cuba is less than civil, and Raul Castro himself was responsible for executing much of their opposition at gunpoint, current leaders who wish to emulate Fidel and fight against Obama’s America might not be as lucky or as intelligent as Fidel Castro, and might find themselves on the wrong side of history as Western powers move towards a greater consensus and middle powers start to ally themselves with the West, China and other states which prefer to control their own destiny.

While the perspective of many Americans often is the opposite of their European colleagues, a similar 8 years of the Bush Presidency will likely not become an alternative to any policies of the Obama Administration. With respect to local US issues, especially the current health care debate, to become like Canada or Europe from a health perspective is often not desired and often not understood. Most Americans do actually have very decent health care coverage, as do most Canadians and Europeans. Administering such care often lacks in many systems from one problem to another. After living in the US, UK, Canada and Spain, I would say problems and scandals abound, but also that the debate in the US might allow other nations to debate their own systems and resolve their own issues respectively. The debate is the benefit, but locally nothing will change much in the end for the most part. The dialogue is of a certain value however as Obama and his international perspective, the move towards a right of centre government on the European continent and middle powers now being able to work with the US without being tarnished by Bush allow a consensus to be formed on how to approach trade with China, rogues states such as Iran, North Korea and to some degree Venezuela and find commonalities between Europeans, Americans and other similar countries in dealing with a globalised world where nations seem to be choosing where to camp and prosper for future security and economic strength. A good example of the fallacy of this in the UK will likely come at the political career of Mr. Brown and perhaps Mr. Blair, as the consensus seems to not look favorably on making economic deals in spite of security. Britain will most likely endure a political change in order to being itself on board and regain respect from its allies, soldiers in Afghanistan and its political class.

Fans of Castro or those who seem to believe they have as much luck and intelligence often are those leaders who have a substantial amount of oil or somehow have been able to gain weapons technology and have a population which is controlled and oppressed so that no information leaves or enters the nation. This latter example is that of North Korea, who seems to be forgotten on the world stage, at least outside of Northern Asia when they are not kidnapping Japanese or Korean neighbours or shooting surface-to-surface missiles towards Japan and Hawaii. While the North Koreans have more in common with old Soviets than old Cubans, it is likely that they will stay that way for generations as China seeks to re-integrate culturally with the world and keeps its foot on North Korea and its actions.

Iran’s popular uprising is slowly degrading Iran’s leadership and the legitimacy of the government to justify any legitimate justice in society through a government which is habitually hiding its abuses and justifying its nuclear ambitions despite any evidence of the latter. The regime will likely come to and end at the footsteps of its infamous Evin prison as its leaders seeks to murder more and more of its citizens in order to keep itself in power. Consensus on Iran will likely reach the point where Western journalists, citizens and others will be kidnapped or killed for having contact with the country and its regime, or the regime will play its last card like North Korea by claiming nuclear capabilities, but unlike North Korea who is surrounded by a weaponised China and Japan, Western powers and their political allies who have lost many in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan would likely come to brutal terms with Iran, especially since Iran’s Diaspora and locals have made a strong point to show the illegitimacy of their government and its lack of support. As well, the will of many in Iran to fight a full scale war to support a leadership who is illegitimate and likely will begin a war in order to regain legitimacy will be difficult. Weapons capabilities of Iran come with a few modern SAM batteries at best, not coming close to the defense capabilities of North Korean or even Venezuela. Iran will likely never reach the point of becoming a Cuba or North Korea, as people inside Iran have already published their new revolution and spilled blood in the 1980s and in 2009.

Venezuela is the most curious example, as support for the poor and measures against Chavez has given him more legitimacy due to strong opposition and addressing poverty issues directly, but moves towards closing down opposition media, enabling himself to be elected indefinitely and making it illegal to criticize the government. As he tours the palaces and homes of leaders who have openly killed many of their own citizens in other nations, Chavez seeks to turn Venezuela into an Iran or eventual North Korea optically, but the severe opposition and debate in Venezuela and open discussion about Chavez inside and outside of the country by many from Venezuela and others with interests in the region keep Chavez as more of an empty threat than anything else. Colombians, who are enduring yet another cold war with Venezuela often do not have issues with Venezuelans themselves, and vice versa. Despite this, Venezuela has purchase some advanced weaponry from Russia and China and is seeking closer economic ties with Iran, seen in Chavez’s recent tour of the Middle East and opening petroleum trade with Iran. The popular support of Chavez, coming from poorer rural supporters ties in well with a history of poverty and popular uprising in Latin America, but when popular support in Iran is met by unequivocal support by Chavez of Iran’s regime, it simply leads leaders and Kings of other nations to simply tell his to quiet himself, as opposed to opening a dialogue on poverty reduction and popular support for all, whether it be Iranians on the streets of Teheran or impoverished in the slums of Caracas. Ties with Iran might do so much to see Venezuela as a possible target, but no one takes Chavez serious enough it seems to come to a consensus on the issue…A problem that Fidel Castro never had with Cuba since the Missile Crisis.

I would like to direct FPA readers to a post by fellow blogger Sean Murphy of FPA’s Global Film Review Blog.  Sean seeks to give interesting and concise reviews on his impressions of films from around the globe and wished to present his impression on the film Fidel: The Untold Story below. Please read below and check out Sean’s blog here:

By Sean Murphy:
This documentary is a love letter to Cuban leader Fidel Castro.
Director Estela Bravo doesn’t try to hide her adoration of the man many in the developing world look up to.
Using archival footage and interviews with friends, relatives, and celebrities, Bravo paints a picture of a person who has not lost his idealism.

The film covers every part of Castro’s life, from his humble beginnings to his time as a leader who has outlasted nine United States presidents.
“Fidel: The Untold Story” also shows how Castro was at first a proponent of representative democracy but was pushed to the wall by the United States and chose to seek aid from the Soviet Union.
Some glaring omissions in this film include coverage of the brutal repression by the Castro government of any opposition.
Bravo wants to paint a bigger picture.
She shows Castro with people like Nelson Mandela and several other African leaders whom he had helped in the past.
And there is Bravo’s portrait: Castro the perennial revolutionary, the friend to the downtrodden, and the gadfly to the capitalist world.

Her film also reveals how the United States can claim it dislikes communist Cuba but opens its doors to communist China. The grudge against Castro is personal.
So, if the viewer is to take away anything from this film is that Castro – demon or saint – is one of the more fascinating characters of the last century.
“Fidel: The Untold Story,” which is unrated, runs for 91 minutes.
Murphy can be reached at  Lojano at comcast.net

As a great fan of films from Latin America and abroad, I would like to present to readers of the Latin America Blog one of our fellow bloggers, Sean Murphy of FPA’s Global Film Review Blog. Sean seeks to give interesting and concise reviews on his impressions of films from around the globe, and has been nice enough to point out three reviews of films related to Latin America to be linked to on this blog. The blog reviews can be found by clicking on the title of the films. The Motorcycle Diaries is a story about a young Ernesto “Che” Guevara taken from his journals at the time. Sean also wrote about two other films, a documentary called Che Guevara: Where You’d Never Imagine Him and La Sierra, a film about three young Colombians living outside of Medellin and how poverty and narcotics affects their lives.

I encourage everyone to check out Sean’s Global Film Review blog and check out these films as well. I personally hope to see some remarkable films about Latin America and the world via Sean’s advice and hope you will frequently check out his blog as well.

The last few weeks in the Latin American world has been anything but calm. Coming off meeting of the G20 and Summit of the Americas, the region has moved towards many intended transformations in policy and relations with the US and the EU. Some of these major changes are discussed below.

Mexico: With a severely damaged economy, an epic drug war, corruption and now H1N1 Flu, Mexican President Felipe Calderon likely feels more like the recipient of biblical plagues as opposed to Mexico’s overworked president. Shutting down the largest city in the world for 5 days is no easy task, but with Mexico’s already suffering argo-business and tourism industries on the edge, an outbreak was the last thing Mexican business and the Mexican people needed at this time. The economic impact of the flu will be severe, and many will likely offer additional financial support to Calderon’s Mexico well after the hysteria of Swine Flu subsides. While the blame for the outbreak is being tossed between the WHO and Mexican officials, impressions of the unknown nature of the Mexican healthcare system is routinely being critcised by those outside of Mexico despite the extreme and sensible measures taken by Mexican officials in the process. Anti-Mexico feeling is likely not raised by a significant degree past the normal levels of criticism, but caution from areas such as Hong Kong; where SARS originated, and China, where Mexicans visiting and living in China were quarantined despite showing no signs of illness are not helping relations between the two countries. President Calderon even sent a plane to collect his citizens, in between public announcements that have brought a great deal of order to an otherwise chaotic Mexico City. For a detailed account of the Swine Flu, please read R G Wallace’s blogpost called The NAFTA Flu on his blog Farming Pathogens here.

Cuba: Cuba’s opening and dialogue with Barak Obama comes on the heels of the election campaign and numerous surveys’ showing the lack of support by many Americans for a trade embargo on Cuba. Writer Alvaro Vargas Llosa of the Washington Post Writers Group wrote an interesting piece on Cuba and Free Trade in last week’s The New Republic. Llosa, who initially supported America’s embargo on Cuba, discusses his reasoning and rationale with many detailed examples for pushing his opinion towards the other end of the spectrum. While he still maintains his support for freedoms of individuals to travel and communicate with whomever they wish, he argues how trade and the absence of financial growth may have actually contributed more to the maintenance of the Castro regime as opposed to helping grow grassroots opposition towards it. Llosa’s numerous examples of regimes who have decayed from within in comparison to Cuba is definitely something worth pondering, but without the ability to re-write history, and re-write Cuba, the only option is to move towards sensible policy in the future, whether that involves Free Trade with Cuba, an embargo or simply a slow and progressive opening of Cuba while pressing for human rights in the process. The Llosa article named Free Trade can be seen here.

Venezuela: Two impressive articles have come out recently speaking about the future of Chavez in Venezuela and its new relations with the United States. In another Washington Post Writers Group article called Regift, Please!, Llosa discusses the book given to Obama by Chavez called: Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galeano. Llosa goes through the main thesis of the book and argues against the intellectual capacity of Chavez and seeks to disassemble the perspectives of the book published originally in the early 1970’s. The book argues that Latin America has always been an absolute victim of colonialisation and imperialism from Europe and the US respectively. In the context of the early 70’s, many of Galeano’s perspectives likely gained a lot of support throughout the decade and remains with many to this day. While growth in Latin America had come in some degree since that time, most of the region sought to ensure Import Substitute Industrialisation measures since the late 60’s well into the 1980’s and growth, while improving in times of economic boom, often ensured that the impoverished in the region were hit the hardest by economic collapses in the 1980s, 1990, post-2000, and even as we speak. Beyond growth and poverty, political issues between the US and various regimes in Latin America had great effects on the development of rights and freedoms in places like Chile, Central America and other specific cases where the CIA is claimed to be involved in the region. While Llosa is right to counteract the claims of Galeano in his book, the context of Latin America in the 1970s and its effect today did create many that might agree with Galeano to some degree, even if they are not supporters of Chavez. In recent works, Galeano perhaps tempered his arguments for a more modern Latin America, but ironically the funds coming in from sales of Open Veins likely made him wealthy in the process. Please place blog comments below. Llosa’s article can be read here.

Human Rights Watch and Chavez: I did write about these issues in the past, and Jose Miguel Vivanco of HRW, who was ejected from Venezuela for a report on Chavez could not state in better than in his article: Exposing a Chavez Charade. I wish that Vivanco’s words make a strong statement on rights in Venezuela, so I have posted a link to it here, and have pasted it below for all to read. Please leave your feedback on all articles and a response to your impressions Human Rights Watch has on Chavez’s Venezuela:

Exposing A Chávez Charade
by
José Miguel Vivanco
Published in the Washington Post
May 2, 2009

Published in the Washington Post José Miguel Vivanco, director of the Americas division

(Mexico City) - President Obama came under fire last month for sharing a smile with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez at the Summit of the Americas. Critics say that Obama was wrong to be friendly with a foreign leader renowned for his anti-U.S. antics and authoritarian tendencies. It might be expected, because I am a human rights advocate who has documented Chávez’s authoritarian policies and suffered the consequences at the hands of his security forces, that I would share this criticism. But I think time may show that Obama did the right thing.

Already, Obama’s overture has made it more difficult for Chávez to use his personal feud with the U.S. government to divert attention from his country’s problems. It will also be easier for the Obama administration to pursue a serious multilateral effort to pressure the Venezuelan government to reverse its authoritarian approach.

Venezuela is a complicated country. To its credit, it has competitive elections and independent political parties, media outlets, labor unions and civil society organizations. While Venezuela is plagued by chronic human rights problems such as police killings and deplorable prison conditions, there is no systematic denial of fundamental freedoms, as in Cuba. Nor is there an armed conflict with widespread violence by illegal armed groups, as in Colombia.

Yet the Chávez government has actively undermined democratic institutions that are essential for safeguarding the rule of law. It has strengthened the state’s power to curb media freedoms while abusing its regulatory power to threaten and punish critical media outlets. It has systematically violated workers’ basic right to freedom of association and sought to undermine the work of local human rights advocates.

Perhaps most troubling, the Chávez government has effectively neutralized the judiciary as an independent branch of government. This disregard for judicial independence has only fed fears that a recent wave of corruption charges against prominent Chávez opponents — including the opposition’s most recent presidential candidate, Manuel Rosales — could be a campaign of political persecution orchestrated by the government. While the Venezuelan justice system should be prosecuting corruption, it needs an independent judiciary for such prosecutions to be fair and credible.

To deflect criticism of his authoritarian policies, Chávez has relied heavily on a tactic favored by his friend and mentor Fidel Castro: routinely accusing human rights advocates of conspiring with the United States to topple his government. When, for example, the highly respected Venezuelan nongovernmental organization PROVEA issued its annual report on human rights in December, Chávez’s interior and justice minister declared on national television that the PROVEA workers were “liars” who were “paid in dollars.”

In my own case, after Human Rights Watch released a report in Caracas last fall, a colleague and I were forcibly detained in our hotel by Chávez’s security forces and summarily expelled from the country.

How did they justify this abuse of power? By claiming, falsely, that we had violated our visa requirements and were conspiring with the U.S. State Department to undermine the government.

No one familiar with our work, or that of PROVEA, takes these absurd allegations seriously. Yet such allegations resonate with some audiences in Venezuela and elsewhere in the region, ultimately serving to undermine discussion of the country’s human rights problems.

Indeed, the reason such allegations have any resonance is that the U.S. government does have a long and sordid history of conspiring to topple democratic governments in the region. And when Chávez’s opponents sought to oust him in a coup d’etat in 2002, the Bush administration initially welcomed their effort rather than joining in the near-universal chorus of condemnations from democratic governments in the region. This blunder badly damaged the Bush administration’s credibility in the region on issues of human rights and democracy. It also made it much easier for Chávez to cast debates over his policies as merely part of a political and personal contest between President Bush and himself.

Obama took an important step toward ending this dynamic when he extended his hand to Chávez in front of the cameras. He took an even more important step when he acknowledged the “historic suspicions” of U.S. intervention in the region.

That said, a smile and handshake from Barack Obama won’t solve Venezuela’s human rights issues or U.S. problems with Venezuela. And it would be a mistake to pursue a better relationship with Chávez for its own sake, or out of fear that otherwise he will fall under the sway of countries such as Iran, or because Venezuela has oil — as Hillary Clinton suggested in a recent congressional hearing.

Lowering the drama between the United States and Venezuela is worthwhile because it creates an opportunity to focus the region’s attention on developments in Venezuela. In the coming months, the administration must seize that opportunity by expressing concern about policies of the Chávez government that have undermined the independence of Venezuela’s democratic institutions. The United States should also work with regional allies to establish an appropriate multilateral forum — at the Organization of American States or elsewhere — to engage Venezuela on this issue.

Obama’s symbolic gestures were essential to setting the stage for such meaningful engagement. If his administration follows through as it should, the next time Chávez tries to label all human rights criticism as a U.S. conspiracy, few people in the region will take him seriously.

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.

Fareed Zakaria GPS this past Sunday brought one of the most popular leaders in Latin America to English speaking viewers with an interview with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva. With questions of the economic crisis, oil, relations with Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia as well as Brazil’s role as one of the world’s largest emerging markets and role as the healthiest economy among the BRIC nations, Lula’s words will likely have an effect beyond Brazil and well beyond Latin America as a whole.

Recent discoveries of oil off the coast of Brazil, technology, industry and the traditional agro-economy in Brazil has taken the country out of economic chaos of the 1990s into a position of becoming the next China or India of the Americas. While Brazil has taken a hit in the latest economic troubles worldwide, Brazil stands out with Canada as the two countries in the Americas where a fracture of the financial system has not been considered an eventual conclusion by its government, experts and media. Despite what some call an overly positive outlook that Lula has on Brazil, the methods and conservative financial regulations which developed from past economic crisis will aid Brazil, and might save it from the worst effects of the economic downturn and gives Lula an interesting position when speaking on the economic crisis. When asked about AIG and the current problems in the US, Lula cited greed as the culprit, and suggested that greed and the culture of greed would always result in a worse situation for Americans and others worldwide, unless something is done to change that reality.

The election of Obama according to Lula comes with the realization that Brazil and the US share a similar characteristic as nations which often are more powerful than their neighbors, and hold the obligation to offer a hand to those who are smaller. His metaphor for the situation comes from his love of boxing, where he suggested that if one is weaker and falls during a match, it is not the weaker one on the floor who should offer his hand to the larger, it is the one who has the power in that situation who should offer his hand, referring to Obama’s opening of dialogue with Cuba and in response to Fareed’s question about how Obama should handle Chavez and his anti-US approach in various speeches and policy options. Lula’s perspective is an interesting one. As an incredibly popular leader who considers himself a socialist, albeit maintains many conservative economic policy reforms, Lula has positioned himself as a powerful diplomatic voice between the divisions between the traditional economic elite and socialist/populist leaders which often create large divisions in most other Latin American countries. His interview on GPS likely is a move towards bringing in closer ties with Obama, while placing Brazil as an intermediary between the US, Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba and allowing Brazil to become a responsible regional player on the road to becoming an important international economic player. The ability for Lula and Brazil to cross boundaries is not an easy role to assume, but the ideas expressed from its leaders is a promising one, especially if Brazil is to become the mortar holding together the reputation of emerging economies in the near future.

Click here for Fareed Zakaria’s interview with Brazilian President “Lula” da Silva

The state of Latin America has changed a great deal since the start of 2009. The fate of many nations in the region have been affected by recent losses in oil revenues, problems with financial liquidity and questions about the future of populism in recent economic crisis. Economics, while always an issue in the region has also placed many countries in the position to aid in strategy developments abroad regarding international economic worries while others might have voted in placing wheels on economies in decline. Rights and the changing face of some nations remain undetermined, while bloggers and writers at FPA explore many of these issues in weekly blogs.

The first major change in the region was the referendum on term limits in the Venezuelan constitution. With a slight percentage majority, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has won his ongoing battle to allow him to reform the Venezuelan Constitution of 1999 and allow the two term limit of office for the Presidency to be extended indefinitely for elected leaders in the country. Supporters of Chavez and the opposition in Venezuela have vigorously debated on the legitimacy of the vote. Many anti-Chavez activists felt that media suppression, threats, and claims of political violence have arisen out of the last years of Chavez’s Presidency since the loss of the last referendum two years ago. Legal debate on the issue has also abounded as democracy in the country has adopted many legal and political characteristics. A history of the term limits and activities by Chavez and the opposition can be seen here.

The new 2009 FPA Blog on Cuba started last month with many interesting and in-depth posts on the world’s most famous island. The attention on Cuba comes with three major events which will affect the country greatly this year. The 50 year anniversary of Castro’s revolution was celebrated by many Cubans this year, but also frowned on by many anti-Castro activists in Cuba and abroad. A great effect as well is the move from Fidel’s rule to that of his brother Raul Castro. With the health and age of Fidel Castro waning slowly over time and Raul taking up positions of full control, the end of Fidel may come about with celebrations this year as well. With Obama and Raul Castro, there has been a slight move towards a thaw between US-Cuban relations. Some polls suggest that many Americans, and even those in Florida’s Cuban expatriate community have also become more open to relations with Cuba, mind you slight developments only have lead to very slight progress at the moment. The year of 2009 may change things permanently in Cuba if these three elements become larger issues this year.

Another intriguing FPA Blog that will have many crossposts with the Latin America blog is the FPA’s Rising Powers blog. Fascinating posts on Latin America’s influence on the globe have been published, focusing on Brazil and with references to Mexico and their relations to other Emerging Markets have taken shape since the beginning of 2009. With blogs on Latin America, Mexico, China Trade, Cuba and Rising Powers all producing great articles, there will be a lot of future coordination between FPA bloggers in the process. Please refer here to FPA’s Rising Powers Blog where blogger Roger Scher takes a look at Brazil as Latin America’s arising giant.

Latin America, while feeling ignored for the better part of eight years was one of President Obama's first international meetings that held the weight of his future power in his discussion with Mexican President Felipe Calderon last week. Mexico has spent the better part of 2008 fighting an intense conflict against internal drug cartels and towards the end of the year Bush and Obama have set to dedicate $400 million to help counter the violence taking hold in Mexico. Called the Merida Initiative, it mirrors aid sent to Colombia that started nearly eight years ago to help quell drug cartels in that country. Success of these initiatives has brought on a great deal of criticism, but the attention from the US is often due in these circumstances. With over 4000 deaths due to Mexico's drug war in the last 12 months, Mexico may become closer to the US as violence spins out of control.

Threats to the US since 9/11 have come mostly from non-state actors. From Al Qaeda to drug cartels, the method to fight them often is unknown as popular movements motivates unknown people to seek fortune, political change, extreme ideals and in almost all cases are fuelled by poverty. With the exception of agreements made with North Korea, George Bush was seen by many as a reflection of overbearing power that the hegemony of the United States used to enter nations despite local and international protests, in order to serve its own interest and punish others indefinitely. This debate rages on, but in those countries that were not directly in conflict with the US, their leaders often invoked Bush as a scapegoat for problems in their own countries, whether it was America's fault or a way to adjust public perception away from local government errors and policies.

President Barak Obama may change the dynamic of the situation by simply presenting the optics that would reduce the ability of leaders in populist states to place blame on the US for local troubles and push for more populist support among their population. Mexico traditionally has felt strongly influenced by the US, whether the US had great influence or not. Recent cooperation on Mexican security and a reopening of trade ties had brought Obama closer to Mexico, pulling anti-American feelings away from those of Cardenas' nationalisations of the 1930s and enabling a new relationship between the US and Mexico to flourish in troubled times. While this may be temporary, Mexico and the US have learned that they gain nothing from being divisive, and Calderon and Obama will likely not change this in the next four years.

Populism of the past has not been better represented in recent years than with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia and Castro in Cuba. While Morales exists through popular support internally and from Venezuela, and Castro is coming to the end of his days, Chavez has been able to take popular support and high oil prices in the last few years and apply it to not only anti-poverty measures, but pushing his support beyond Venezuela's Constitution to push for indefinite power. Chavez has been known to quell journalistic opposition by increasingly extreme measures and by placing blame for his country's ills on Bush and Uribe. In very recent history however, three factors have cut Chavez down to the role of elected official where he will have to leave office at term due to lack of popular support. Initially the referendum to increase his term of office indefinitely was rejected by Venezuelans, albeit by a slight margin, and a second try at a referendum drags with it accusations that media and opposition has been attacked or shut down. Nothing makes this clearer as when representatives of Human Rights Watch were assaulted and ejected from Venezuela for their analysis of Chavez during his term of office. The second grand effect was the cutting of oil prices by half, in a country where all other industries have been culled for the sake of oil, which is controlled by the government and is used for political reasons. Talk is never cheap when is it bathed in oil revenues, but Chavez will likely lose a lot of support when he realizes that he lost 40% of his savings, like everyone else has in the last two months. The third possible strike against Chavez is the loss of Bush and America as scapegoats for problems faced by Venezuela's people. Obama, which not yet addressing Latin America beyond the meeting with Calderon is not seen as a divisive figure in Latin America, and comes off more as someone who could have easily grew up in the streets of Havana or Caracas as opposed to growing up through the military like Chavez or as inheriting his position as President through channels in the upper class in a region where wealth and poverty is the determining factor of power in society. While this might not eliminate the US or even Obama as being seen as abusing the power of a hegemony, it will simply show the US as a country where any citizen can come to power through their own efforts, a reality that does not exist in Venezuela or few other states.

The greatest challenge to Obama might be that of the Middle East, and he is very aware of this fact. With conflict in Gaza, the government of Lebanon being challenged daily by Hezbollah, Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan to boot, Obama will have to challenge issues and popular support in many of these regions, and as a result have to solve issues by coming to terms with populism and policy in Iran which could easily tilt the region to peace or chaos if support in Iran allows for it. While many Middle Eastern experts see anti-American sentiment as justified or simply as political posturing, the reflection of support and opposition in political movements in a country like Iran has never been simple rhetoric. Opposition in Iran goes well beyond simple human rights abuses and has gone to the point of the murder of local and foreign journalists and politicians, the legislation of laws allowing the execution of coverts and the arrest of Baha'I leaders for the second time in a generation, the first being murdered in prison and the most recent being taken without charge in a continual attack on minorities and political opposition in Iran. These incidents are few examples of a long list of abuses ignored by the international community. Populism in Iran could go in either direction, as the country has one of the highest number of people under 35 and also has been greatly affected by the change in oil prices, which could lead to a situation of grave unemployment and populist leaders to gain a great deal of power if a tone of anti-Obama or conflict through Hamas or Hezbollah can place Obama in the same light as Bush when attacks or retaliations are claimed by allies of populists in Iran or nations allied with the US in the region. While poverty, oil and political repression abounds in many countries in the region, Obama will likely lose any support in the region, and has already been attacked by regional media on his first day in office. The strength Obama has in this case is that the silent opposition and those who are at the receiving end of threats by Iran's populists could change their tone when oppression and Barak Hussein Obama challenges, builds and offers and alternative to threats by someone who is a non-traditional leader of the free world. This however will never succeed if an America based on a just tradition will not push for justice of those in the region who are sitting in prison waiting for the day of their possible execution. While Chavez will likely lose his seat in power, Iran's populists sit at the centre of a peace process in the region. Compromise and posturing is common in populists movements, but human rights should be at the forefront of any actions taken in the region for President Obama.

With the victory of Mr. Obama in the US Presidential elections a wave of celebration washed over the world media as praise for Obama took place, and in many cases rightly so. He is not only the first African-American President elect in US history, but more so a change from eight years of the Bush administration that can be argued was the worst eight years in Presidential history. While historians quibble over whether Bush was in fact the worst President, or a close 2nd or 3rd, challenges to the abilities of Mr. Obama have already taken place. The Economist Magazine made headlines in the election as the premiere economically conservative publication endorsing Mr. Obama, which is often on the left in his policies and by no means a conservative. Letters to the Editor were by no means gentle, and a number of them critical of The Economist's endorsement, and a few supporting it but criticizing it for support for the wrong reasons.

In reality, both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain are fine individuals that are forgotten for their real talents, in being able to reach out to the other side for support. With Bush paralysing any support by the Democrats for his policies due to a laundry list of often anti-constitutional problems and controversies, McCain had been the only Republican that represented the majority of Americans and also many people who voted for Democrats in the last election. If Obama is to win the next election, he must focus his attention on the middle, and might even do well to cooperate and appoint some of the moderate Republicans in order to bring America together after eight years of being pulled apart. With nearly 47% supporting McCain in the election to Obama's 51%, and economic collapse and eight years of Bush and a War in Iraq, Obama can only survive with support from people like McCain, or perhaps hire McCain himself to work in his administration. To take a line from many action hero movies, "It is crazy, but it just might work," as in America, if Arnold can be the Last Action Hero and be elected to lead California, the 4th largest economy in the world, anything can happen.

Critical support for The Economist's endorsement often came from non-American readers, who see Obama reasserting himself as the leader of the free world and placing multilateralism as the core of his foreign policy. What seems to be lacking is support for America's closest and most effective allies, those within the Americas. With NAFTA becoming a heated debate between Obama and Hillary, even producing one of the elections first scandals, Canada and Mexico have been perplexed at how Obama might issue policies that could strangle the Canadian and Mexican economies due to a US economic collapse, a high degree of fear about debt with China and trade with China, that for some reason Hillary Clinton blamed on NAFTA, and the focus on Castro and Chavez, who oppose most activities coming from the US. All this has come with the virtual ignoring of America's allies in South America that have won many battles against terrorism, poverty, economic collapse and improving democratic institutions. Another major issue, which has brought more death to Mexico than Afghanistan and Iraq combined, is the nearly 4000 deaths that have come about since early 2008 in Mexico's drug war. With the rescue of Ingrid Betancourt and the pulverization of much of the FARC's command and control, the drug war has moved well into Mexico where the country has little luck keeping even its most senior officials safe and deaths from the conflict have reached as far north as Canada to as far south as Argentina. With illegal immigration not having a solution since last year's debate on the new Immigration Bill, and whole new issue has already arisen inside all of America's allies, on the border and inside the US itself that has been ignored completely by the candidates. With the next major issue in US policy not being seen on the radar of either candidate, it is questionable how the US will treat its closest and most important allies in the next four years.