This upcoming week and month will bring attention from the FPA towards Latin America. In addition, Fareed Zakaria interviewed Alvaro Uribe, President of Colombia last week and the interview was aired this past Sunday. Brazil and Rio de Janeiro has also won their bid to host the first Olympics for Brazil and South America as a whole, but issues abound as developing countries will always be seen in the light of the negative and positive aspects of the last Olympics in China, a fellow BRICs nation where order and progress might not include all Carioca in this celebrated event.

A book signing by Ambassador Heraldo Muñoz will take place on October 8th in New York City. Heraldo is the Permanent Representative of Chile to the United Nations and Chairman of the United Nations Peace-Building Commission. He will discuss his new book, “The Dictator’s Shadow: Life Under Augusto Pinochet” at the lecture and book signing. Those of you in New York who would like to attend can find the link to the event here on the FPA website.

Later in the month, a lecture series supported by the FPA will be presenting His Excellency Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan, Ambassador of Mexico to the United States. He will be speaking on: “Mexico’s Foreign Policy and the Current State of Mexican-American Relations.” For more information on the October 21st event, please see the link here.

Fareed Zakaria has interviews numerous leaders in the Middle East and Latin America last week. His interviews with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Gadhafi last week were topped off with a short interview with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, which was aired this past Sunday. I have a great appreciation of Zakaria’s work and focus on global policy issues and thought his interviews last week did bring out important questions and concerns, which were politely asked and validly addressed and pressed upon in all three initial interviews. Uribe’s interview, while informative, did lack deeper questions and seemed to be a lot shorter than those last week. Generally Zakaria asks many questions of leaders which I have always wanted to know myself, but often can only find in Spanish language or Arab language media. The interview with Uribe was altogether good, but for a leader who is likely the most popularly elected leader in the Western Hemisphere, certain questions were absent for the most part. Zakaria is well aware of the threats on Uribe’s life, 15 and counting, and Uribe answered those questions diligently. What I believe was lacking was questions on Colombia’s position and evidence regarding foreign support for the FARC and other internal terrorist movements in Colombia. This was a disappointment due to the lack of attention in English language media on the topic and the fact that in the interview with Chavez, conflict with Colombia was addressed but not responded to in the accompanying Uribe interview. As well, claims by US and Canadian officials denying support for an FTA between Colombia and its northern neighbours did not enter into the discussion, despite the growing debate over the country’s human rights record. This would have been interesting as the US and Canada has a trade policy that avoids criticizing similar or worse human rights records with other US and Canadian trading partners, namely China and for Canada, China and Cuba to name a few. While the agreement will be passed it seems between Canada and Colombia, an election in Canada was almost created over the issue two weeks ago and another election might be started ironically on the lack of trade between Canada and China as seen in early election commercials by one of the opposition parties. No matter what position viewers might have taken on Colombia and associated issues, a discussion on those topics would have informed us better on a situation that many have opinions on but few really understand.

Now for lighter fare, Rio de Janeiro has won their bid to host the 2016 Olympics, being the first South American nation to host the event ever. Mexico did host it nearly 40 years ago, but for the continent to the South it is a deserved first. It seems that the Olympic Committee is starting to see themselves as the ones who should pick the winners of the global economy in the future, but success does not always come from the event even if the country does well post Olympics. China received much criticism of their treatment of Tibet and Uigurs in the build up to their Olympic games and many citizens in Beijing lost their rights to property and their homes in the process of building grand structures for the games and making China look issueless in the process. The Committee should have expected this and many protestors sought to hold them to account for it.

Regarding Brazil, like with China and other developing nations, the Committee should consider questions of poverty and the benefit to the whole. If they choose to pick winners for policy reasons that often slide into issues of security and economics, then the result of that progress should be taken into account. Brazil has done its best since the 1980s to reform every aspect of its society, reduce poverty and balance the economy, even successfully in the latest economic storm. Crime and poverty however will be a major issue in Rio even in 2016, and while these issues cannot be resolved in such a short time, a focus on reduction and avoiding the repeat of China 2008 where the disadvantaged in China were ignored by China and the Olympic Committee is unacceptable in 2016 as it was in 2008. I do have faith that Brazil will do its best to provide for all events, and have learned from China 2008 on what not to do and who not to avoid. Boa Sorte Cidade of the Cariocas!

This past week has been filled with numerous interesting policy stories and interviews regarding issues that affect every nation in the world, focusing on those regions such as the Middle East and Latin America, which seem to be the source of much of the security tensions for the members of the UN Security Council.

First to address the return of Zelaya to Honduras, mind you within the legal jurisdiction of Brazil. Manuel Zelaya, the removed elected leader of Honduras finally returned to Tegucigalpa after several attempts. He arrived with unknown help, but ended up inside Brazil’s Embassy in the Honduran capital. Arrests were attempted and protests ensued, but he remains there for the time being as the OAS and US push for a meeting between Zelaya and the “new” leaders of Honduras. The reality is that Central America is often not a principal concern for many major powers in the Americas, but major powers often determine the outcome of politics in Central America as opposed to the people themselves. The role of Brazil, who many see as South America’s political giant is somewhat skewed in this incident, as often Central America is left alone to the sphere of the US. Brazil might unwillingly be dragged into the Honduran mess in a mediation role and since the US is surprisingly supporting Zelaya, Brazil may be the only country in the region who can be seen as somewhat impartial in this incident as is usually the case in the region. Even though the US and Venezuela are supporting Zelaya, the reason why Honduras has become for the first time in its history a subject of national interest is because Zelaya’s attempt to be elected indefinitely mirrors the populist approach Chavez has taken in Venezuela successfully. Obama’s support for Zelaya may be tantamount to his speech in Cairo, showing a new moderation towards past opposition, in this case leftists in the region, and a balanced approach to policy. It does not seem to be working all that well unfortunately, as possible interference by Venezuela in Honduran affairs cannot be balanced by an impartial Brazil and is not being critcised by the US in any substantial form. This leaves the “new” Honduran leadership with few options but to hold up a strong front against Zelaya, one that will remain at the doors of the Brazilian Embassy as not to cross into Brazil’s legal property inside Honduras. As long as Zelaya is accused by his opposition in the Senate and Judiciary of Honduras, the likelihood of allowing Zelaya to regain any position of power will result in more protests and cracking down of protestors. The only positive aspect of a likely messy outcome is that at least they are not in Iran.

Larry King on CNN brought two surprise interviews this past week with Hugo Chavez, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Fareed Zakaria will be interviewing Gadhafi this weekend. Gadhafi has received a lot of attention recently with his extended speech at the UN and the scandal in the UK regarding the release of a convicted terrorist and their return to Libya due to illness. Before that incident however the relations between Libya and the western world were luke warm. The issue that will likely have the largest impact long term is the open policy actions by the UK government mixing business interests with justice issues, as opposed to actions by Gadhafi himself which were most likely expected by anyone who knew anything about Libya. The view of the British people shows that their government might be doing something which many in developing regions have accused western powers of doing for decades, placing oil before rights, and this will bring down the Labour Government and tarnish Mr. Blair’s reputation and keep Mr.Brown in the political crosshairs where he essentially has always been. Like Honduras, Libya’s issue will die out with a lengthy investigation or the death of the Lockerbie bomber, and the world will refocus on the major players, which brings us to King’s interviews.

The first one I was able to see was the one with Hugo Chavez. It was an interesting interview, but no new information came out of it that Chavez did not speak about in length whenever he had the opportunity. Three comments stood out as one’s of interest in my opinion. Chavez compared his military spending as being one-tenth of that of Colombia. Documented information makes his claims quite puzzling, as Venezuela has purchased and continues to purchase a great number of top of the line Russian military equipment. Compared to similar equipment in Colombia there is no threat from the Colombian army technologically. Colombia also has internal security issues, claimed by Colombia as supported by Chavez himself and would be able to justify large amounts of spending. Chavez’s fear was that Colombia could attack Venezuela as was done briefly two years ago against Ecuador when raiding a FARC encampment seems to the root of his security concerns, but with people dying in Colombia possibly due to arms coming from Venezuela, he might not be the innocent party between the two countries.

Chavez also spoke about his past detention and referring to Bush as the devil. He is convinced that in his past detention in Venezuela and afterwards that US agents were trying to kill him. He didn’t explain how he knew this was the case, but there will be an Oliver Stone movie coming out about Chavez soon that will likely explain as little as Stone movie about Castro did.

The issue that caught my attention was King’s question on why Chavez is supporting Iran’s government, despite the popular protests taking hold there. Chavez noted that internal issues of a state are internal, mind you Chavez often involves himself in the issues of other countries, but for some reason when blood is spilled for a similar cause he stands for in Venezuela and is crushed in Iran, then it seems to be allowed. This is nothing less than disgraceful to those in Latin America who had to endure real threats to their lives and those in Iran who peacefully protest and are cut down in the streets while Chavez ignorantly tours the Middle East. They both shared the perspective that Israel’s “genocide” was the issue that dominated internal issues in Iran and Latin America, although I am unsure why possible crimes in another city gives the right for someone to kill their neighbours in their own city. Chavez did acknowledge the Holocaust unlike Ahmadinejad. He also said he was a friend of the Jewish people and even said he was a Colombian himself. Previously he also said Colombia was Latin America’s Israel; maybe he is an Israeli too?

In the interview with Ahmadinejad, the issue of Venezuela did come up. Two points were addressed by King that were related to Venezuela. One was the fate of the young girl Neda, who was shot during a protest. Ahmadinejad supposed that in Venezuela a similar incident took place where two cameras were fixed on the victim before they died in a protest in Caracas. He didn’t say much after that, but it hinted that the death was arranged somehow, and they left it at that. The second issue that was asked by King of both leaders I believe was the growing ties between Iran and Venezuela, especially ties to nuclear energy. While both countries are energy giants with vast oil reserves, the persistent development of nuclear energy and ties with Iran and Iran’s aggressive stance in the region might turn Chavez from Castro minus the wit into a major security concern, or another “missile crisis” with Iran and Venezuela pressuring western powers in Europe and the US with ballistic missile threats in both the Middle East and Latin America. With the discovery of a new secret nuclear plant in Iran and a cohesive stance being built in the Security Council, it is likely that sanctions will not be seen as sufficient in dealing with Iran, and any nuclear activity in Venezuela may be swiftly dealt with by the US itself. The reality is that a minimal percentage of people in Venezuela and Iran would give their lives in a war to keep either leader in power. Both claim the right to any activity they wish as a sovereign state, but when other states are affected by their actions, a right to respond is also within reason. It could be that Zelaya is returned to power and Gadhafi simply retires as their allies enter into armed conflict over issues that do not need to exist. King’s interviews did not bring to light anything new, but his great questions did confirm the worst expectations most have of leaders who wish to define their destiny as populists who do not mind claiming sovereignty over local jurisdiction while involving themselves aggressively within their regional issues.

The yearly two month Cold War between Colombia and Venezuela has come this summer amidst talks between the US and Colombia to place approximately seven US bases in Colombian territory in order to aid US anti-drugs forces. A week ago as a response, Venezuela withdrew its ambassador from Colombia and is threatening to restrict trade relations between the two countries. Claims by Chavez that Colombia is Latin America’s “Israel” has mapped the policy approach Venezuela has taken against Colombia. Some who support Chavez’s point of view echo the same concerns, but support for and against the US and Colombia taking closer security ties has not placed the entire continent against Colombia, in a larger way, actions between Colombia and its neighbors is making Venezuela look more like the region’s “Iran”, as opposed to making Colombia into Latin America’s Israel.

Venezuela, Ecuador, Uruguay and Bolivia have expressed their stance against the US bases, even though there was one US base in Ecuador until recently. Trade restrictions by Chavez against Colombia may refocus attention on the US’s criticisms against a Free Trade Agreement between the US and Colombia, but might backfire due to many US policymakers wishing to not support actions by Venezuela against Colombia. Evidence found by the Colombian military that some critical FARC bases were located in Ecuador lead to an attack last year, culminating in last year’s two month Cold War among the Andean states. Upon analyzing the rubble, more information was found as claimed by Colombia’s government showing support for the FARC coming from Venezuela itself. In reality, claims by Chavez always are measured against his belief that the US will assassinate him, or lead an invasion of Venezuela via Colombia. While this might be at best plausible and very unlikely, Venezuela, as opposed to Colombia have been purchasing some of the best weapons technology worldwide, arming its Air Force with the SU-27 series of fighter interceptors which are continually upgraded and can match any other fighter jets worldwide, especially the 1970s era F-21/Kfirs used by Colombia’s Air force. Venezuela also mobilized its military on the border between the two nations last year after Colombia attacked the FARC base inside of Ecuador in order to prevent an invasion by Colombia inside Venezuela, as claimed by Chavez. While not reported in much of mainstream media, tacit support for the FARC by Venezuela was claimed by Colombian officials as including heavy and advanced weapons from the Venezuelan Army directly, as well as funding for the FARC being signed off by Venezuela’s leaders themselves.

While the debate continues regarding Chavez’s extent of support for the FARC, in the Middle East, Iran’s support for its clients in Hizbollah have been quelled with an open election in Lebanon showing popular support against them and protests in Iran itself showing how media blackouts and oppression of the opposition can only fool some, but not many as young Iranians continue to protest amongst bullets and continually are subjected to torture in Iran’s infamous Evin Prison. The recent referendum allowing Chavez to be elected indefinitely does not hold the same opposition limits as elections in Iran as the electorate still ahs the ability to vote out Chavez if desired. This is not as easy as one would think, as opposition leaders claim that during elections there are numerous acts of opression. One current example is a recent law against media who choose to attack the ruling government, stinking of a growing fight against the opposition, many who claim that in elections they have been not only silenced, but people have disappeared for opposing the Chavez government. This will now become law, unfortunate for any journalists in Venezuela or those who choose to criticize Chavez and plan to work or visit there. While Chavez does enjoy some popular support and has taken many actions to fight against poverty in the region, his support for Iran’s government and against populist support for the opposition in Iran runs against the basic ideologies of Latin America’s populist leader and shows how Chavez’s self interest and power in the region overrides his ideology that the people’s will should control the state. His support for Iran’s government is so absurd that a recent law allowing the Iranian government to execute those Muslims who convert to other religions, including Christianity, would surely persecute those who would convert to the same faith as the majority of Venezuelans share themselves.

The rest of South America has stated passive opposition or simply left Colombia’s sovereignty to Colombia in this policy mess. While many including Lula of Brazil feel that the addition of bases could have been handled more tactfully and openly, in the end the US bases will likely be set in some form or numbers. With regards to Venezuela, a unlikely US attack would more likely come from the numerous bases located across the waters from Caracas in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Florida, where a good number of US Forces are based. The support for bases in Colombia in this case does not make a great deal of sense, as unless short haul aircraft are used to track narco-trafficking, many of the air bases in Colombia would be within an hour flight from the US in any case. This is a matter for debate, and I encourage readers to place their comments, but for me the question is not whether or not the US should be able to have bases in Colombia, but more so why would they need them considering the troubles politically having them on Colombian soil?

UPDATE August 8th 2009: According to the BBC World Service Broadcast, Venezuela has now returned its Ambassador to Colombia. Accusations by Colombia today that Chavez has been supporting the FARC may have had some influence on the return of the Ambassador.

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.

TVO.org out of Ontario, Canada presented a show this week concentrating on Colombia, security, human rights, trade and relations with the US and Canada. The panel consisted of 5 experts on Latin America and Colombia from FOCAL, The Latin America Working Group, The Inter-American Dialogue and a number of North American universities where issues and statistics were discussed in an open and concise manner.

Questions which arose in the discussion surrounded many key statistics. Some notable stats on the drastic drop in crime albeit with a slight drop in narcotics being sold were key issues in the discussion. Internal Refugees also resulted in some shocking discussions. Behind Sudan with nearly 6 million internally displaced people, Colombia has between 2.2 and 4.4 million internally displaced people, second worldwide above Iraq with 2.8 internally displaced people according to the program. Human rights abuses and the opinion of President Alvaro Uribe were also discussed, with the fight against FARC and ELN being compared with threats against native groups and labour leaders in Colombia, balancing rights for some against threats to others.

Colombia's foreign relations and Plan Colombia were discussed heavily. Plan Colombia, which sent $US1.3 billion to curb drug trafficking since 2000 was seen as a failure in many regards by experts on the panel. The result was the militarization of Colombia against internal threats which often were met by a cold peace with its neighbours while bringing Colombia closer to the US and its allies. Recently, trade agreements between Canada and Colombia and talks pushing the US to open a Free Trade Agreement with Colombia briefly brought Colombia's human rights record into debate among US politicians.

For video, show blogs and other info. on the Colombia Panel, please click on the link here.

Guests

Albert Berry is professor emeritus of Economics, and research director of the Programme on Latin America and the Caribbean at the Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto.

Carlo Dade is executive director of the Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL) where he also directs research programs in Diasporas and Remittances, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Canadian engagement in Haiti.

Lisa Haugaard has been executive director of the Latin America Working Group since June 2002. She has also served as senior associate at the LAWG, where she worked on Colombia and Central America policy.

Cristina Rojas is an associate professor at The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University.

Michael Shifter is vice president for policy at the Inter-American Dialogue. He is also adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, where he teaches Latin American politics.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Associated Press

International Herald Tribune

CNN