Europe and the United States had often inherited many benefits from economic growth in the pre-2008 era. One of those consequences, especially for those countries on the border or across the sea from developing nations is legal and illegal migration into their economies. Due to the recent economic troubles a lack of work has prevailed and often manual labour jobs have dwindled, leaving legal and illegal migrants with few options for employment. Signs of “reverse migration” back towards their countries of origin took hold with many illegal migrants living in the United States eight to nine months ago. Now with unemployment rates pushing 20 percent in many European countries, many immigrants in European countries are making their way back to their hometowns.

In a New York Times article this week an analysis of why and how European migrants are returning home was published. The focus of the article was on migrants in Spain, often coming from Eastern Europe and South America to work in an economy that was the source of the EU economic boom since 2000. Spain and Ireland were known as the two EU countries in the last few years that have benefitted from innovative and continuous economic growth after the year 2000. The rate of inter-EU and immigration from abroad expanded their economies, population and cultures in return. Now many immigrants to Spain have become the first to leave the country with an unemployment rate of 17.4 percent. Responses to these issues have come from many sources. The Czech Government, in an attempt to ease the pressures on Czech émigrés has offered 500 Euros to help their citizens return to the Czech Republic. In Spain, the Spanish Government has offered legal immigrants from South America their unemployment payment in one lump sum if they agree to leave Spain and not return for three years. Many others have simply left back to their home countries without any assistance as one migrant to Ireland said: “it is much easier to be at home with family and with friends and not to have a job,” she said, “than to be here and not to have a job.”

Problems in places like Europe and the US might be difficult, but problems from the Economic Crisis in Eastern Europe and South America have not been much better. This week the World Bank and IMF have been working out methods and strategies to help economies in the developing world and now even developed countries in dealing with financial problems worldwide. While unemployment rises and the debate carries on within global financial institutions, problems in developing nations continue to rise and develop into massive crises as the result of increased poverty. One notable example is the conditions in Mexico. With a full scale drug war competing with deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq combined, losses from the financial crisis and the current Swine Flu taking hold in Mexico, reverse immigration may have unknown consequences as a result of millions of people not being able to cope within their home country or their new country. While unemployment rates in the US and Canada are no where near 17 percent like in some European countries, the difference in the economic structure of the systems in North America may not provide decent paying jobs which help families to survive an economic crunch for more than 8 months or so. In the end, policies to help stabilise developed and developing economies might help some people, like those returning to South America from Spain in providing some living expenses for a few months or a few years.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Associated Press

International Herald Tribune

CNN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two countries have stood out in their respective regions as economically progressive policy successes in the last ten years. In Europe, Spain along with Ireland have seen much of the positive development and economic growth when the rest of the EU has been wrestling with high unemployment rates and drastic changes in governments. In Latin America, Brazil under Lula and under the former Cardoso Administration have grown at a steady positive rate, breaking the traditional Latin American plague of economic collapses and large booms that seem to be commonplace in almost all South American economies to date. With success, the importance of Spain and Brazil have taken on a new form in their regions and abroad. Traditionally the place of the United States, these emerging regional powers now seem to be inheriting some of America's traditional problems.

Brazil has always been a country of immigration. The population of Brazil, while taking in only some immigrants from Asia, Africa and Europe in the last few years, was one of the countries that absorbed much of the world's immigration since the 1880s. This open policy remained, and while economic problems and changes from populist, to military, to democratic governments took shape since the 1930s, immigration remained strong as long as there were jobs to be done in one of the world's largest countries. With traditional economic instability and some recent success, many Brazilians have chosen to go abroad to either find more work or utilize their assets to enjoy life abroad. In Spain, this emigration from Brazil has taken a foothold with both emigrants coming and living illegally for work or working in legal low paying jobs, as well as those upper middle class Brazilians coming to make a life and career in Spain as professionals and entrepreneurs.

While the general impression of Brazilians in Spain is a positive one, there have been some problems against immigrants at the main Spanish airports and in society as a whole. Many immigrants, including many Brazilians often enter Spain and stay illegally. This has been a problem one many fronts, as many Latin Americans, Africans and other Europeans do not go through the normal procedures to live and work in Spain but come as temporary workers or as refugees or simply pass through the border and disappear. With Spain having some economic expansion and the closing off of the US to many immigrants, the Spanish immigration system has become overwhelmed. Since 2006, the number of Brazilians coming into Spain has nearly "tripled or quadrupled", while at the same time in Spain eight Brazilians a day are deported.

The solution to the Brazil-Spain situation needs to be addressed by both countries. Brazil needs to reform its immigration to fit with its position as an emerging power in the world. With 3-4 millions Brazilians living abroad, Lula will have the responsibility to create and international Brazil without losing all of the most talented to other countries and still maintain funds coming from those emigrants abroad. Spain will also have to accept Brazilians and the diversity of the Brazilian social strata now living throughout the Iberian Peninsula. It will take a long time to adapt the infrastructure to treat foreigners in a respectful fashion, but attempts need to begin immediately. Brazilians and others will be challenged living in Spain in becoming Spanish. While it might be easier from some, it is doubtful that those migrants to Spain who are not seen in a positive light will be so easily welcomed in the near future.

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

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

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

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

Since the 1930s there has been a debate on how to compensate private companies when their assets they have invested from abroad gets Nationalised by local governments. These debates have always been heavy in Latin America which has been for the most part dependent on foreign investment since the colonial period and have been the most severe victims of economic collapse from abroad since the early 1900s. Carlos Calvo, an Argentine government official in the early part of the 20th Century created a philosophy on how to approach issues of Nationalisation of foreign property at the time. His theory eventually became known as the Calvo Doctrine, where the state would be the ultimate judge on when, what and how much is to be compensated during the Nationalisation of a private company by a state. Compensation to foreign investors has moved much more in balance with the needs of investors and a preference for international arbitration since then, but the old debate has arisen again in Chavez's Venezuela.

This week Hugo Chavez has warned that he will not sell oil to the US if the judgment of a British court to award fair and equitable compensation for Venezuela's nationalisation of assets belonging to Exxon Mobile takes place. The judgment, taken in a British court as accepted by both parties to the agreements, and compensation which was also agreed to upon the setting of capital investment in Venezuela by Exxon was agreed to by both parties through contracts before the investment took place and via treaty obligations accepted by Venezuela. This decision by Chavez is clearly behind the times in the treatment of foreign investment for any country anywhere and has not been an option for any state in the international community in more than 70 years. Severe cases in the past such as Iran's nationalization of US assets in the late 70's even valued the idea of compensation, where in the end compensation was paid to many US companies, albeit less than many of them expected.

The populist trend by Chavez has likely reached its height of cleverness awhile ago in the eyes of all but his most admiring supporters. Success in policies to help Venezuela's poor at first were welcomed by the masses in Venezuela who wish for a way out of poverty. His attacks on Bush has become the trend by not only him, but many liberal policy supporters worldwide. Recently however his interruption of left wing President Zapatero in Spain which lead King Juan Carlos to tell Chavez to bluntly shut up has become an echo for many in the world community who are anti-Bush as well, but are far from being pro-Chavez. Ignoring international norms and laws such as those regarding compensation is another strike again a Chavez who must deal with a post-Bush world where left wing policies as those of Lula of Brazil are taking the place of socialist and capitalist policies which dominated Latin America in the 1970s to 1990s. Lula, a former factory worker turned policy chair of Brazil's Worker's Party and eventual balanced socialist President has been Latin America's true left wing revolutionary, reducing poverty and working amongst all of Brazil's social and economic classes to achieve results. Chavez's non-nonsense approach has recently been seen by many as lacking tact, and perhaps embarrassing Venezuela not in the US where it doesn't count for many, but internationally. In Venezuela's latest referendum Chavez lost, and in the end populism is Chavez's only real currency in the control in Venezuela. Offending the international community can be helped in aiding Colombian kidnap victims and forming partnerships with Iran and Cuba, but in the end populism and oil are very volatile commodities for any leader who wishes to control the fate of Venezuela.

No one would like to tell Hugo Chavez "Por que no te calles!(Why don't you shut up!)" more than President Uribe of Colombia, as King Juan Carlos of Spain did a few weeks ago. Today Chavez accused the very popular Colombian President of working with the United States to form an army to attack Venezuela. This comes as Condaleeza Rice visits Colombia in support of Uribe's anti-drug war, anti-FARC war and pro-trade agenda with the US which hopes to pull Colombia out of the quagmire of poverty, conflict and kidnappings which has kept one of the most advanced countries in Latin America in conflict for more than four decades.

Hugo Chavez has had mixed blessing since his verbal embarrassment by the King of Spain. Firstly he lost in a referendum to increase his powers and give him an indefinite term of elected office as President in the Venezuelan Constitution. On a second more positive note, Chavez helped negotiate the release of Colombians Consuelo Gonzalez, a former Colombian Congresswoman and Clara Rojas from a 5 year abduction by FARC rebels. This helped form a media coup against Uribe government's failure to have hostages released in his tough campaign against the FARC. While Chavez's help was appreciated by the hostages and he is making efforts to have more of them freed and limit hostage takings in Colombia, he is also pushing Uribe to react to his criticisms of the Uribe government's incredibly popular policies in Colombia. In reality, Chavez said openly that FARC should be recognized as a real political power as they have an army and control territory, which angered many in Colombia who do not believe that the release of Gonzalez and Rojas gives Chavez the right to interfere in their local affairs beyond his humanitarian involvement.

Chavez has taken the opportunity in the last few years as Latin America's greatest oil producer to push his politics beyond Venezuela's borders. His visits to Iran and oil aid to Cuba and Bolivia did not illicit a strong physical reaction by the United States to date as the war in Iraq and petrol problems in the rest of the world has made Latin America a low priority for the Bush Administration since the rise in petrol prices 2 years ago. During this time however, countries like Colombia have been dealing with Chavez in good economic times. In a FT.com article on Latin American economies, the recent downturn due to the US housing crisis may affect non-petrol economies in Latin America with greater pressure than any other region in the world. While countries such as Chile, Mexico and Brazil can most likely weather an economic downturn with some negative temporary effects, Venezuela and Ecuador's petrol economies will likely make them stronger in the region, which means more verbal fodder from Hugo Chavez. Increased poverty in hard economic times never yields a positive result for any Latin American political leader, but for Uribe who is the man who's destiny is linked with the fight against the FARC, the backseat criticisms from Chavez in Venezuela will likely become louder in the next year. The only saving grace for Uribe is that no one really takes Chavez seriously outside of Venezuela, so unless Colombia does react through coercion against Chavez the best response may just be to take a page from the book of King Juan Carlos of Spain.