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.

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

One of the greatest and diverse minds in public policy today is Fareed Zakaria. Once the host of a wonderful public policy show Foreign Exchange on PBS, Fareed Zakaria GPS is now likely CNN’s best and most in depth show on American media today. Zakaria has done much to add colour in the shadows of the current financial crisis debate. In the last two weeks he has written an interesting article on Canada in the financial crisis, and last week interviewed Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper regarding Canada’s relative financial successes during the crisis, speaking about the future of Afghanistan where Canadian soldiers have been fighting, and often with many causalities in the process. The article and interview compliments President Obama’s meeting in Ottawa with Mr. Harper in February and brings Canada into the sphere of the North American policy dialogue.

Zakaria’s Newsweek article has received a great deal of attention from Canadian media and bloggers. While he is correct in many of his conclusions, there are some details which should be taken in a more critical light. An invitation from myself to explore these issues with Fareed is always open. I will address some of my concerns below.

In Zakaria’s Newsweek article “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative” he argues that Canada, while being seen as an generally unexciting, uneventful and thus safe place, has been successful in creating conditions apart of all the banking systems in the developed countries in the world. Canada has not been affected by financial crisis like the US, UK or other similar nations and Canadian banks were indeed ranked number one by the World Economic Forum as the healthiest banking system worldwide. High leverage by Canadian banks have kept many of them afloat due to strict regulations and strict business practices that has kept Canadian banks secure, but that often have left many smaller healthy businesses from obtaining loans from private sector lenders. Canada’s banks traditionally were largely protected from outside investment, resulting in Canada having on average five major banks throughout the country over the last century. While this has kept many banks safe, it has also allowed a lack of competition in the Canadian banking market. Two examples of problems with this sector are very high returns coming from service charges laid on customers for many bank activities and overly restrictive loan conditions for SME’s. Protection from foreign competition and service fees have created excess cash for many Canadian banks, often being sourced directly from lower income customers who cannot invest the amounts of cash to avoid excessive fees to use essentially their own funds. In addition, mergers between Canada’s five main traditional banks have restricted open competition for service fees and banking services for customers in Canada. An opening of the banking sector a few years back did not curb fees, but allowed banks to enter the insurance market and offer those additional services. While foreign banks were able to enter the Canadian market a few short years ago, many had to run their retail banking services through established brick and mortar Canadian retail bank branches, taking further fees for clients who literally have no saving with the Canadian banks in order to use their account with another bank. While there are positives to the secure Canadian banking system, the end result where business takes loans and credit from these banks often are done so the bank assumes no risk whatsoever. Often incorporated company loans are tied to the personal assets of their principal investors, eliminating the tradition of Legal Incorporation and limiting further the ability of Canadian businesses to grow and be successful. With the security of Canada’s banking system is praised, a lack of credit to business is not a proper method to grow commerce in this economy in any nation.

The Canadian government over the last few years have been very sensible for the most part as argued by Fareed. The issue in Canada however is not the success of the Federal Government in Ottawa, but the lack of success of many regional governments and increased responsibilities of municipal governments over the last few years. Housing and the financial systems supporting many transactions have boomed in many Canadian cities, but like in many other places in the world it came from investments losing their popularity in mutual funds, and like in many markets being placed into real estate. While Canadian cities have currently stable housing prices in comparison to the US; where housing began the current decline, loss of employment, even in Canada and highly inflated prices and accompanying taxes have made cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary into municipalities where affordable living no longer exists. With large populations living in the centre of Canadian cities, it has become unaffordable for many who cannot afford starter homes or have had to move to another municipality due to increased taxes during boom times, and even more taxes being promised by cities in this bust time. While Canada has great fundamentals, some provinces and cities have often mismanaged their communities or have yet to feel the effect of a Canadian recession.

Federally, the Canadian Government has done well to shield itself from the worst of the global recession. The governing party of Canada made great commitments in 2007 and 2008 to bring attention to a waning economy and had put in many economic measures that likely kept Canada as a topic of praise for journalists like Zakaria and commercial and policy experts worldwide. The greatest challenge to Canada had received little attention however, where Canada’s Parliamentary Opposition recently attempted to bring down the current government only a few short weeks after an election. While never attempted Constitutionally in any Parliamentary democracy before, the opposition leaders sought to join into a coalition to take control of Parliament and remove the current sitting government after an election had taken place. The controversy to force policy changes on Canada’s current government met with much anger and reduced Canada’s sensible government into a holding pattern during the key months of an economic crisis, producing a new opposition leader, staunch lack of support by smaller opposition parties and has kept a Canadian bailout package in limbo to date despite having support by the two largest parties in Parliament. While Canadians are often seen as uneventful and sensible, many Canadians likely felt a great amount of shame, and party politics to date is still withholding proper policy from being implemented.

Fareed Zakaria also praised Canada’s immigration system, but security and immigration, while for most policymakers would have simple conclusions, looks better on paper for Canada than it exists in reality. While Canada has an unlimited acceptance of skilled workers, many professionals who come to Canada are not hired or given a reasonably acceptable opportunity for re-training to work and use those skills once they arrive in Canada. Canada in immigrant communities is seen by many as a country with the second most doctors driving taxis after Cuba. While a glib comment on the situation, in studies of a food bank in the Toronto area the majority of recipients of food aid were immigrants, and out of those, the majority had studied in universities before coming to Canada, many to Masters level or higher. In a CNN interview with Canadian Prime Minister Harper, Afghanistan was addressed as likely an unsolvable conflict due to the nature and history of the region. While debate in US media and political infighting in Canada followed the interview, a major issue of great future importance to security and immigration will be the current drug war in Mexico. In recent weeks drug violence in Vancouver has reached its limit with likely connections to the drug war abroad. Many in Mexico will likely seek refugee status in the US and Canada, and further security issues have likely started in connection with the transnational drug trade. While Afghanistan and the economy are major issues facing both countries, security and refugees from Mexico will likely absorb many concerns of all three NAFTA neighbors in 2009. Canada is indeed sensible, must be praised for its successes/or lack of losses, but also needs to be addressed in real terms, whether good or bad. The NAFTA partners can learn a lot from each other, but can also realistically focus its goals towards more “exciting” issues of North America. With praise should always come criticism. Thank you again Fareed Zakaria for your work!

Zakaria Speaking with Canadian PM Harper

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.

Hugo Chavez is set to open another referendum on allowing himself to be elected for another term in office beyond constitutional limits, but with the last referendum vote to increase his term in office losing by a small majority and his lack of popularity abroad being adopted by many in Venezuela itself, recent history will likely give him the measure he needs to either win or lose him power beyond Venezuela’s Constitution.

A list of pros and cons would easily draw a deep line on anyone’s page whether or not Chavez is more of a benefit or weakness for Venezuela and its neighbours. Recent diplomacy from Brazil had gained the release of captured Colombian government officials and other kidnap victims from the FARC, an action Chavez accomplished as well last year around the same time. The result was positive in both instances and gave Chavez a lot of clout, but support and documents found by Colombian officials during the two month Cold War between the two countries claimed evidence that Chavez was supporting the FARC in its battle against Colombia as well, illustrated for many Colombians by Chavez’s support for the FARC being recognized as a legitimate governing power after the release of some hostages to Venezuela. Eventually the rift was returned to status quo, and the Colombian government gave the FARC a strong coercive response, weakening the organization and pushing for more assertive diplomacy as video of Ingrid Betancourt and the ability of the Colombian Army made international headlines. Support for the FARC, even in Venezuela could not have helped Chavez, nor had nasty words from the respected democrat of Spain the King Juan Carlos towards Chavez in a public conference, helped Chavez be seen as a democratically elected leader in the process. Despite this, Chavez is still strongly supported in Venezuela. In recent regional elections he gained about half of the vote, and in the past referendum and in recent polls, he could win, albeit by a slight majority due to popular support in the country.

Poverty and rights should be the main focus for elections in Venezuela. Recent moves and disappearances have been brought to light against Venezuela’s opposition leaders, highlighted by the ejecting of officials from Human Rights Watch for a critical report on Chavez’s years in office. In the last month recent anti-Semitic actions in the country that were at least passively supported by the Chavez’s government, came through a policy of advancements towards Iran and comments on the conflict in Gaza. The reduction of oil prices and inflation numbers has brought Chavez closer towards losing financial supports for many of his anti-poverty programs in the last four months. While many of the programs during his term of office supplied much needed anti-poverty measures towards Venezuela and even other private individuals in Latin America, oil revenues may make this more difficult, and may make him lose his popular support to an unknown degree among his supporters in the country and reduce his influence in the region through less aid and loans to other Latin American countries.

Recent changes in the world economy have likely affected Chavez greatly. Some journalists and experts on the region believe this latest referendum is an attempt to gain support before the effects of inflation and the lack of oil revenue hits Venezuela’s poor. Poverty reduction is important for any future leaders of Venezuela, but populism and popular support can be easily lost if the balance of power changes, and funding cannot be provided for political support. With the election of Obama, Chavez has had to appeal in a positive manner towards the US, as did the President of Iran, and try to open dialogue towards the new President as scapegoating Obama would likely hurt Chavez more than help him. With the US regaining some legitimacy post-Bush and Brazil filling in the diplomatic gap with its own non-antagonistic poverty reduction strategies, Chavez might win the referendum, but lost popular support quickly after taking office for a third term beyond his rights in the current Venezuelan Constitution. Moves by Obama might make a world of difference in places like Venezuela and Iran, assertively addressing issues affecting the US, regional peace and minority and opposition rights in Venezuela and similar governments worldwide.

BBC World News this past weekend held an interesting discussion on the current global financial crisis and its possible future effect on the world economy in its show The World Debate. The discussion surrounded the policies governments, CEO's, banks and international financial institutions used that brought us into crisis, and how those institutions could remedy or perhaps worsen the current crisis, and passively accept responsibility the gains and losses in their communities.

The World Bank and IMF were addressed, as a constant debate in developing nations became a catalyst in the current situation. In the past, economic conditions that forced many countries into an economic system of development to secure loans were seen as forcing the allowance of poverty through savings. With some successes, many countries' small growth were dissipated with a recent hit from developed nations which either never took their donated policies seriously, or were irresponsible in forcing and international financial system that leads to crisis rather than growth over time. This perspective is not new in the developing world, and with many countries either finally producing some growth, paying back loans, and even becoming economic powerhouses, sacrifices by developing nations and their losses coming from abroad.

Banks and CEO's were diligently attacked in the debate, seen as the cause and maintaining the concern of many in the process. CEO's in fact, which have been criticized over the years for being overpaid, used to disassemble rather than build up their companies, taking decisions which border on legality and failing their communities through immoral investments were targeted in the debate. While many CEO's have since then been replaced, the way CEO's and obtained and trained and valued will likely have to change. Banks, as corporations themselves have become nationalised in many countries, and in others are facing tough government and public scrutiny as the cause and result of the credit crisis. The problem of confidence, more confidence of banks to lend as opposed to the confidence the public and industry requires of banks in a society was addressed in the debate. Credit, as a necessity of a healthy economy for small and large companies alike, private individuals and governments, is and always was the centre of the problems. Banks and financial institutions, while being seen at the same standard as other industries are in fact legislated with a great deal of legal rights, and government protection. The exchange is that those banks agree to lend and operate in sensible actions and respect its increased power and responsibility over society and various industries.

The actions of governments will likely have a large effect on the international financial order and the way commerce is done in their own nations. The beliefs that credit is the sole problem of this crisis are neglecting the informal agreement between banks, government and industry that are necessary for society to operate. Immoral and illegal activities must be determined as such before confidence in society can ever be restored. Eventually a new informal agreement between nervous banks and governments need to be reached, but no constructive plan to reform this relationship seems to be on the horizon. Microcredit financing, and small and medium sized business credits, often a success story in developing nations, might be an alternative to frozen credit markets in developing countries. Return to basics and reaffirming the informal contract between banks, governments, industry and society is not only an imperative, but is the only alternative to the global economic challenge.

With the recent anarchy in the global economic system and Macroeconomics textbooks being reedited worldwide, many experts in the field have gone silent or have admitted their inability to predict the latest collapse and inability to give a definitive answer to the problem. In the midst of this chaos, the traditional debate of American foreign policy is taking place, whether to open trade and whither protectionism in order to increase ties among the US and its allies, or whether to close all trade ties, appoint protectionist leaders into the new Administration and hope that countries which have less than reputable human rights records will not recall their loans in an attempt to soften their own economic issues at home. At the heart of the debate is whether the US, the pioneer of open trade in the Americas, should take Colombia as a free trade partner in the future.

With the announcement today of Canada and Colombia signing a free trade deal, the onus of the debate between trade vs. human rights has fallen on the US to determine in this latest round of trade deals with its strongest ally in Latin America. Colombia is an interesting case study indeed. Just a few shorts months ago the Colombian government was able to seriously assault its local terrorist threat, the FARC, with the capture and killing of many of the FARC's top leaders, the rescue of Ingrid Betancourt, and even were able to deal with threats from Chavez and arrange a cold peace and a handshake in the aftermath, all tasks which were unachievable by any of the partners of the War on Terror since 2000. Despite these achievements by the Colombian government, charges against them regarding assaults, arrests and disappearances of labour leaders in Colombia have become a catalyst for opposition in the US towards a US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Despite close ties between the two countries, the prevalence of trade between the US and many countries which on equal terms would be considered less democratic and human rights oriented, and the need for the US to reassure its allies of America's distain for protectionism after making it a major campaign issue and a top priority in industry bailout measures at home have become simply forgotten as recent history. The result of the New Economic Order is that Colombia's inauguration as one of America's number one partners has been abruptly forgotten and met with neglect. Many see the trade agreement as a continuation of policies leading towards a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas which has been permanently on hold and a reward to Colombia for beating back terrorist threats in its war against the FARC. Moderate supporters of the trade agreement see open trade as a means to supplement Colombia's illegal exports with legal commodities and give the majority of the country's rural poor an income to rely on that is not connected with the drug trade. Development activities in the past have seen some success with this open trade strategy, giving Colombia the tools to fight the drug trade through economics and bring down trade barriers from the US and even the EU and open agricultural markets abroad to its products. In the end however none of these issues are important, as Colombia has become an experiment in how to judge economic policy in the futurepoor timing indeed!

Among the traditional trade debate, looming issues regarding the financial collapse on the world markets has not merely changed the rules of the game, but has made confident policymaking a thing of the past in many circles. As a reaction to the economic collapse, the traditional closing off of America in times of global war and crisis often leads policymakers to remove America from the rest of the world, push through regrettable policy initiatives without needed moments of clarity and mortgage the future relationships of the US with its allies in order to avoid dealing with issue, which this time around started and will end with the US. The Colombian trade agreement is the first test of America's ability to form a future with allies who rise and fall with the US and its actions, or the beginning of America's fall from hegemony if it chooses to neglect Colombia, and its future allies in the name of temporary comfort in a future which it has gambled away in the short 60 year timespan of the American Empire. Choices in the next few months will determine whether the Americas and the rest of the world will continue into a new century with America as a key player, or return us to a world which looks more like the early 20th century, only with slightly different actors and millions more Japanese cars. Elections and economic crisis come and go, but rhetoric during times of trouble never allow the future to forget poor decisions of the past.

There are a few realities that have hit the world this past year and this past month, to which most of the world has been affected by to some degree. Luckily enough, the issues which affect most Americans have made the greatest impact in the last few weeks of the election campaign, and the decisions people will make when casting their vote will be based on how they wish to change the past, and how they wish to see themselves in the future. Both candidates have accomplished something remarkable. The last two election campaigns offered many a lack of choice in a candidate who they felt would really push the country in a proper direction. Eight years of George Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Economic Meltdown, 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, have left only candidates who can do the job available to be elected. Both Obama and McCain are good people, and either one is capable of placing their efforts into repairing a slightly damaged, well used and still well running America with a lot of work. Americans can do little wrong in choosing either candidate, but with the election close by and Obama likely to win, the following is a letter to Mr. Obama, and with some luck, Mr. McCain from the rest of the world who does not have a vote, but will be affected by their decisions as much as any American.

To start, the neighbours of the United States should be acknowledged for their constant support and connection to the United States. Canada and Mexico, despite issues of trade and immigration have done much in the last few years to accommodate not just Mr. Bush, but Americans as a whole. Currently Canada is one of the only developed nations who did not face complete economic collapse and places over 90% of their trade with the US. It should be acknowledged that trade and manufacturing in Canada has been hit as hard as in the US, and while NAFTA is blamed on Canada and Mexico, Canada is losing the same jobs, the same companies and the same households to tough foreign competition as much as the US. Canada is one of the world's largest oil producers and has always worked to move US energy out of the Middle East and grow stronger ties with Canada's energy and Canada's economy. Jobs being lost in the US, means jobs are lost in Canada as well. When the loss of jobs is blamed on NAFTA, it focuses energy and time on those who were never to blame for the economic problems in the US. To fight Canada and Mexico is to create scapegoats and lose four more years in improving the economy for all of North America.

With soldiers dying in Iraq, and allied soldiers giving their lives in support of freedom and lives in their own countries as well as the US, Afghanistan and Iraq need to be taken as a whole and the support should be given by the US to help fix problems abroad. According to Southern Pulse in their Oct 28th newsletter, over 4,000 people have died in Mexico's drug war, with 1,000 being killed in the last 50 days. Canadian, French, British and other allied troops have been taking heavy casualties in Afghanistan, making the region into a stalemate over the last 6 years. The worst problems have yet to be approached, with Darfur and Africa having yet to receive tangible attention towards genocides in the region which mirrors Rwanda in magnitude and action from the international community. Security in the United States cannot be achieved when those who support the US are under constant pressure and attack. Mexico has had as many deaths in the last year in battling the drug lords as soldiers have died in Iraq since 2003. A serious attempt in Afghanistan and a creative approach to Iraq must be achieved soon so other regions do not fall into chaos.

Immigration, while being solidified as a failed policy must start to acknowledge the existence of many from Latin America and Asia as players in the social framework, even if the legality of many residents are non-existent, they still are a part of every community in the United States. While illegal immigration needs a cathartic debate in America, those who have suffered from action, namely 2 million Iraqi refugees need to be addressed as well and accepted as people who are running from an Iraq which the US has not been able to claim victory and peace over. No greater respect to US soldiers and Iraqi citizens would come from a realistic approach that helps Americans, soldiers and their families, but also those so many fought hard to save; the Iraqis themselves. The use of the word "Change" and "Pull Out" will not stop violence and death in Iraq, only proper leadership will help end the conflict.

With a world depending on the US economy to operate, those nations in Latin America and Europe need a strong United States that will work and support their nations as those nations wish to work and support the US itself. While there is much criticism coming out of socialist governments in Latin America, the majority of nations who have spent the last few years in cooperation with the US and achieving great stability and peace within their own borders should be supported by the US and credit given to their development. Bad policy has created a situation where Chavez can attack Bush, as failure in leadership creates a large scapegoat, but good leadership with focus the attention on those local leaders like Chavez and allow for those democracies to eject problems in their societies. While not to the same degree, America's European partners have actually moved to re-engage with the US in a discussion to not only repair the current economic troubles, but also to re-invigorate the relationship of values and equality that should have always existed between Europe and the US. Elected leaders in the EU, Canada and Mexico have moved towards policies which have been considered traditionally American, and America will move towards a position where it adopts some trends from its partners, as well as hopefully cultivating respect with Europe and Latin America in the process. The future of the US will come with the future of Europe and the Americas. Leadership will only allow for a successful relationship in the future.

Emerging economies must be addressed to end this letter. China, India and Russia, as well as other nations have achieved a great deal of development, and with recent funds have been able to address national problems of poverty and development, many thought were impossible to tackle only 5 years ago. These countries have a right to compete and gain wealth, but if companies from the US and EU seek to find fortune in those countries and work with local companies which may produce harmful products or take away American jobs, than those American and European companies should be challenged and blame should not be placed on Canada or Mexico, who have lost much as well, and irrational barriers should not be placed on developing economies because companies from the US and EU take advantage of their consumers. To create scapegoats in this debate, is to create a situation where no one can foresee economic troubles, and regulation is left to create blameless policymakers in its wake. The crisis of the last 20 years was always not one of tangible losses, but in confidence, that companies and the government might and have lied to you, and that anarchy is unavoidable when problems ignite. Trade, finance and economics needs to work in society, as a parallel to democracy, in order to allow a leader to create any "Change" that is needed. The world needs a US presence, one with clear foresight and the ability to stop alienating its friends and address real threats to everyone's security. Only an understanding of the world who cannot vote will allow for any positive change to take place. A failure is no longer an option for America and their friends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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