Latin America

In an article released last week by Spiegel International, evidence of FARC activities have been discovered after the killing of one of its leaders in Ecuador last month. The article goes into detail on what information was discovered. Information about the state of Ingrid Betancourt was detailed in the files. What most expected, is that she is quite ill and is putting up a strong front against her kidnappers. Another piece of valuable information is that the FARC is also in possession of 30 kilos of Uranium, not suitable for making bombs but useful in the production of armor piercing rounds which can cut through most modern tanks and APC’s possessed by the Colombian military.

What was most striking about the recent information is the evidence found linking Hugo Chavez with the FARC. Beyond mere sympathy for their cause, the documentation lists funds and weapons from Chavez’s Venezuela going to FARC rebels in Colombia. Despite threats by Chavez against Colombia a few weeks prior, it is in fact Chavez who is supplying arms against Colombia via the FARC according to Spiegel International. Details of Chavez’s assistance to the FARC includes $300 million in aid to the FARC as well as arms from the Venezuelan military and even a suggestion of giving the FARC shares from Venezuela’s oil revenues. Moreover, suspicions of Venezuela’s cooperation in the drug trade have been a constant concern of the Colombian government. The FARC makes most of its revenue from narcotics, but getting the drugs to Europe and the US is said to be done in some part through Venezuelan airports. An estimated 30% of the narcotics are said to go through Venezuela to outside markets according to Colombian drug authorities. A captured narcotics boss even referred to Venezuela saying “Venezuela is the drug trafficking mecca” in a statement made after his arrest.

With the release of this evidence to the international community is will be interesting to see how much the EU and US are willing to support a possible hot conflict in South America. With the War on Terror siphoning resources, a US election which is increasingly anti-trade and protectionist and years of ignoring foreign policy issues in the Andean region by most countries, Colombia has had little effective aid in the last 8 years except from Sarkozy of France. Evidence of the possible direction of the next US President may have taken its form in the recent discussion of opening a Free Trade Agreement with Colombia. The current debate between President Bush and the Democrats in Congress concerns threats in Colombia against local labour leaders. A debate to suspend the FTA has strong support in reaction to Colombia’s record of violence against local labour leaders, according to Human Rights Watch. Alternatively, the debate to increase trade has been linked with the current battle against the FARC in Colombia by addressing poverty in the country through helping grow the Colombian economy and eliminate the need for a paramilitary state and the need for drug money to support the underground markets in Colombia. The export of flowers and coffee and other agricultural products, grown on massive scale in Colombia may have the effect of displacing the need for illegal crops and create new markets for Colombia’s legal commodities. To date, Bush is pushing to pass the FTA through despite opposition. Trade might become the major election issue indeed, with Clinton gaining a lifeline from much of the debate against Obama who has taken a recent hit due to comments made about small town Americans. And it continues on and on…

An April 17th article by the Economist.com challenges the issues discussed above. The Economist suggests that for the last 6 years of Uribe’s Presidency, he has done everything a US ally who is fighting a War on Terror should do, and that is to win. His successes in driving the FARC from Bogota towards the small grottos in Colombia’s jungles and his support for the US Plan Colombia has made Uribe a poster child for US support abroad. With challenges due to human rights issues in the US Congress and the likely failure of a future FTA, pressure on Uribe may be limited as temporary trade measures currently in place can be extended towards Colombia. The real effect of US pressure as suggested by The Economist may have little weight as the security situation in Colombia, as support by most of the population in Colombia, takes precedent over any politics abroad. A possible end to the FARC and Uribe’s hand in those action will prove to reward Uribe in a Colombia free of major internal threats and strong enough to resist pressures from Washington. With threats from its neighbours as well, Uribe will likely get as much support as he needs if Colombia is threatened with any coercive actions which may help the FARC or the drug trade in Colombia originating from a foreign power. The US will likely be seen as abandoning its allies if it lets Colombia be attacked from abroad. It will be a likely paradox for the next President, if they give aid for security reason, but will not allow trade and development in the process. US Foreign Policy may seek to aid in a success in Colombia, as failures in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan may be the only legacy of US Foreign Policy for the next decade.

The real problem may be a current of anti-trade in the upcoming US election. While Colombia does have issues with its labour leaders, countries like Mexico and even Canada have been placed in the penalty box in Clinton’s speeches towards the electorate in Pennsylvania in order to gain more votes by poking at trade and immigration issues with its neighbours amidst the growing concern over trade with China. Depending on who becomes the next US president, it is certain that trade with any country in the Americas will be threatened if it will gain more votes for their candidate. Unfortunately reality and politics may never meet in that dialogue and US relations with its neighbours and assistance to Colombia will continue to be a problem for another 4 years of the American Presidency. The next vote will likely have as great an effect on America’s neighbours as it does on Americans themselves. The most interesting result may be to what degree will the next President placate China while placing economic and security concerns on its friendly neighbours to the north and to the south. What remains to be true is that a conflict in South America may mirror the next decade of international politics, which unfortunately may be as obtuse as the last eight years of ineffective foreign policy towards Colombia and Venezuela.

In 2004 Haiti took the attention of the world community. With the UN making a home in the poorest country in the Americas and the fall of the leader at the time, refugees from Haiti fled on boats, across the Dominican border and through any means possible to escape the chaos of their home country. Ever since, Haitians have tried to escape a bleak future my any means possible. For those who have not left, starvation has set in to punish the people of Haiti even further.

A phenomenon in 2008 has taken place. With crops that often were staple food for many now being valued as fuel for cars and machines that do not yet exist, the world’s poor are losing their ability to be fed because there might be an environmental change. While this change may take place in 10-20 years time, the reaction of the markets are to drive the value of cash crops through the roof and produce another commodity which does more harm than good. In line with tobacco, oil, coffee and sugar, the new gold rush may be corn or sugar cane. The result is the same 9,000 strong UN force which came to help stop political violence and crime, are now shooting rubber bullets at Haitians who protest the high food prices and wish to avoid starvation. With an average wage of $2 a day, the environmental concerns of the Developed world has affected the people who care least about the issue to the greatest degree.

Some aid has come to the Haitian people. The OAS has engaged the problem and is sending food aid to the poor people of Haiti. UNICEF has also stepped in to help ease the pressure of possible starvation in the country. These band-aid solutions may not help in the long run however as the rise in fuel prices in the future may become a constant problem as biofuels start to be used. Starvation is already setting in and the only countries to use biofuels are in South America, which has not had a large effect on the world economy as crops used in Brazil, like Sugar Cane, has met production need for food as well as for fuel production. A measured policy response is required, as a shock to food prices has been created by mere talk of a future biofuel alternative without any plan to create sufficient supply and demand. An ironic turn of events is that the problems with oil and countries associated with oil production may be inherited by biofuel producing states with issues of poverty. The difference is that this does not have to be any country’s destiny, as proper planning and a rationalization of environmental and industrial policy should be measured to avoid crisis.

The hyper-reaction and narrow debate surrounding the Global Warming issue often has not had an effect on the world economy, but this first bitter economic shock to the Developing world is a clear disgrace. Countries like Haiti are paying for a theory on Global Warming that is still a very open and debatable issue. Paranoia in the Global Warming debate is driving reactionary policy in the Developed world, and being paid for by the poorest of the poor in the Americas and worldwide. The responsibility of a food shortage crisis should be assumed when creating foreign and local policies for the Developed world in the future, especially if the problems may not exist and the solutions have yet to be implemented.

Few people have attracted so much attention in France and in Colombia as Ingrid Betancourt. The daughter of a Colombian diplomat and a former Miss Colombia, Ingrid grew up in France studying at Sciences Po and eventually made her way to Colombia in support of a movement that supported anti-drug trafficking and anti-corruption policies. With the assassination of anti-drug presidential candidate Luis Carlos Galan, Ingrid threw her own hat into the political ring, eventually becoming a Senator of Colombia in 1998. In 2002, Ingrid began to run to become Colombia’s anti-drug president. On an unescorted trip in February 2002 to help calm tensions and meet with the FARC, the group kidnapped her in the demilitarized zone and added her name to hundreds of kidnap victims claimed by the FARC in Colombia’s persistent national trauma. Ingrid was a hero to many in France and Colombia, but in 2002 many thought Ingrid’s fate would be one of a martyr.

President Sarkozy of France challenged the fate of Ingrid Betancourt this week. The French Presidential Falcon 900 was sent to French Guyana in an effort to get medical attention and a possible release of Mme Betancourt in an effort by Mr. Sarkozy to keep his campaign promise to free Ingrid Betancourt despite years of failures by past French and Colombian attempts. Colombia aided in the gesture by calling a temporary ceasefire with the FARC while French officials and medical personnel sought to find and treat Ingrid who is said to be gravely ill while in captivity.

Tensions in finding Mme Betancourt are a serious concern. With the recent successes by the Colombian intelligence service in helping kill one of the top FARC leaders and possible reactions to President Uribe pressing the attack, all sides are extremely nervous and any political maneuvering by Colombia, France or perhaps Venezuela will likely create an unwelcome negative response by the FARC and injure Ingrid even further. With Ingrid Betancourt having much clout, and past attempts by the FARC to kill Mr. Uribe himself, it is understandable why the momentum of Colombia’s recent strikes against the FARC would justify a further push to end their existence in Colombia. Ingrid Betancourt as a symbol against the FARC is at the same time suffering from her own importance as France and Colombia’s most beloved daughter is also FARC’s most valuable victim of terrorism in Colombia. In the end, if Ingrid dies in FARC hands it will most likely push Uribe further to attack the FARC whenever possible and consolidate his opposition in Colombia into supporting any military efforts against the FARC. The only option for the FARC to keep their prized kidnap victim might be that of allowing medical attention for Ingrid, a small success for Sarkozy, Uribe and most importantly Mme Betancourt. We wait to see what will come from France’s gesture and Sarko’s Falcon 900.

France 2 Video en Francais: Falcon 900 et Ingrid Betancourt. Voyez Ici.

France 24 Video in English: Who is Ingrid Betancourt. See here. 

On March 20th Steve Paiken of TVO.org’s The Agenda had a discussion on Cuba After Fidel and a possible boycott of the Olympic Games. This international panel first discussed the ability and rationale of boycotting the Olympics due to accusation of Human Rights abuses against the Tibetan people and later on a full discussion on the future of Cuba from the perspective of locals, US Experts, Cubans expats and the international community on Cuba after Fidel’s control. The discussion can be seen here and the video on the TVO.org March 20th Video page.

The panel’s discussion hit some key issues important to foreign policy towards Cuba. A comparison of policies towards China when abuse of rights is accepted by the international community, as compared to the heavy sanctions on Cuba for less abusive acts was the glue between the discussions of the two issues. Much of the criticism comes from the openness of the US and other countries towards China when many of the policies towards Tibet run contradictory to policies which support an embargo of Cuba. While rights abuses by any country are unacceptable, it is those who are abused which suffer from inconsistent policies which allow trading partners to ignore political pressures while placing a small country into poverty for the same reasons. Ideally, abuses by Cuban and Chinese officials should not be accepted for the sake of trade, and policies should not starve citizens of any country in an attempt to protect them from the abuses of the own government. This was the case during the oil sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War, which lead to the starvation of many innocent civilians at the behest of Saddam Hussein. Bad policy which leads to increased suffering of politically oppressed people should be clearly unacceptable in any rights based society.

I encourage our FPA readers to take the time to watch the TVO program. Please address these issues in our blog comments accordingly.

After much anger, resentment and accusations by Colombian officials and Hugo Chavez, a Cold Peace has been declared between officials from Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador. After an attack on FARC rebels by Colombia that took place inside Ecuador’s border, a negative reaction by Ecuador’s President and the movement of troops and saber rattling by Chavez of Venezuela could have lead to an open war between the South American neighbors. Even the country of Nicaragua set to oppose Uribe and Colombia, but in the end disgruntled hand shakes and an official apology by Colombia towards Ecuador allowed everyone to maintain stability on the borders. The only real losses were to the FARC organization. In the recent bout of political maneuvering, the FARC for the first time lost one of its top leaders, Raul Reyes based on proper intelligence work and efforts by Colombia and Uribe. Two days later, another one of FARC’s top officials was assassinated by his own bodyguard. Motivations for this were partially due to a $2.6 million reward as well as fatigue and a loss of cohesion in much of the FARC organization. In the end, the FARC soldier defected with his commander’s hand and brought Colombia the knowledge that FARC might be losing its luster of having untouchable leadership and a stable command structure.

In an ISN article last week called Colombia: Unintended Consequences, journalist Sam Logan discusses the outcome of the latest Andean skirmish after the attack on the FARC camp by the Colombian Armed Forces. The view, as discussed by Logan is that there were no obvious winners or losers in the latest political drama, but that the end of the situation showed that the FARC may have lost its image of invincibility due to the death of one of its top seven leaders and tacticians. This rolling success was only complemented by the death of a second FARC mid-level leader, showing to everyone that FARC’s discipline and command and control of its 16,000 plus soldiers did not stop one of its other leaders from losing his hand and his life to his own bodyguard. Logan explains that not only luck aided Colombia in creating FARC’s problems, but new intelligence helped produce FARC’s recent troubles. Colombia has recently adjusted its intelligence gathering system to disseminate information in a more productive manner. This may have contributed a great deal in finding Reyes, as well as allowed Colombian forces to press the attack on the FARC.

The damage to FARC’s reputation will do nothing more than help Uribe gain more support in Colombia’s own “War on Terror”. Political support and nationalism will likely remain high for Uribe, who himself was attacked by the FARC before taking office. Chavez has also saved face among his people, but may not be willing to proclaim another conflict so easily as the FARC’s unintended losses and his own political career depend on the will of the Venezuelan people to support an attack on its neighbor. With half of the country supporting Chavez and the other half opposed, support for FARC kidnappings, attacks on Colombia and spilling blood for those causes may not put Venezuela’s self proclaimed Caesar in a position to hold power in the future.

The clear losers of the whole situation are those kidnapped victims held by the FARC to date. While Chavez did aid in getting some hostages released, the use of kidnapping against Colombians and others is an effective torture on society in Colombia. Many seek to blame aggressive policies in maintaining captives like Ingrid Betancourt in FARC hands and put pressure on Uribe to negotiate with the FARC to gain her release. It is unlikely this debate will end with a possible aggressive push against a weakened FARC in the near future.

I was happy to read a clever article called: Linking NAFTA and Immigration by Ted Lewis of the San Diego Tribune as he discusses the campaign issues and how they are being spun to effect the campaign and America’s neighbours in a negative fashion. Lewis suggests that reform in NAFTA and effects on the poorest in the three member states needs to be addressed in a logical fashion, and not via the lens of the complete benefit of free trade or lowbrow electioneering. Addressing poverty and its root causes of increased unemployment in Mexico needs to be addressed in any future NAFTA negotiation. Lewis states that much of the illegal immigration comes from a lack of economic progress in Mexico since the agreement began and has lead to massive amounts of immigration to the US. Lewis also mentions that the electioneering between Obama and Clinton creates arguments against free trade, and in my impression creates intentional dissent in the US against Canada and Mexico. While Obama was blamed for not being serious in changing NAFTA, Clinton has used this small scandal to re-ignite her campaign. Ironically, the alienation of friendly foreign governments was always something linked with Bush, but support for the next Clinton Presidency may rest on the backs of Canadians and Mexicans alike if it continues to hurt Obama.

With much of the support for the Clinton campaign coming from the blue collar democrats in the northern states and America’s traditional industrial heartland, it makes sense that Clinton would use Canada and Mexico to blame for poor US policy in the past, much of which came under her husband’s term in office. In reality, the Mexican economy has purged its traditional weaknesses since 1994 and has maintained a solidly valued Peso, growth in the long run and even produced a more equitable government with the PRI dominated Presidency toppling a few years after NAFTA came into effect. The reality is that Mexico is a developing nation in many ways and has problems which 10 years of trade policy could never resolve in its best performance. To end poverty and develop a country a generation is needed to end generations of poverty and inequality. Targeted anti-poverty policy is needed to help remove the 30% of Mexicans who live in poverty and have always lived in poverty. Economic progress in Mexico has created such negative results because the flow of money often reaches the poorest last. This is the trend in almost every country where poverty dominated the political agenda. No one has addressed this in the Obama camp, and with the Clinton campaign it seems that immigration and NAFTA come second to embarrassing Obama as much as possible.

While poverty and success in Mexico’s economy can always be debated, the main issue of concern is that anti-immigrant and anti-NAFTA effects of running a negative campaign. It seems apparent that even though NAFTA is a mixed blessing, the current concerns with China seems to be targeted towards America’s neighbours. While China has a right to progress economically and diversify its society as it wishes, Americans need to debate how they want to proceed with their neighbours and China in a logical, fair and respectful manner and choose where they wish to take America in the future. No country can live in a vacuum, but every country has the ability to take measured and fair responses to grow its own economy and produce trade and development to assist its own people, create a net benefit in jobs and reduce poverty.

In a response to one of the FPA’s blogs, a candidate for Congress in the US claimed the wholly negative effects of NAFTA and America as losing its sovereignty over NAFTA. I responded in kind in order to dispel myths which seek to create straw man arguments of America’s friends and neighbours. I encourage readers to read the responses to the blog and address their concerns in kind. All fair points of view are respected and I encourage open debate. The response is noted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog: Paranoia on the Frontier: NAFTA and the US Election

Today the well known leader of the island nation of Cuba, Fidel Castro has started on the first steps to the end of his legacy. He retired finally after 49 years of rule since the Cuban Revolution. He is well known as the one of the only leaders in Latin America to successfully stand up to the United States and the man who took Cuba into the Cold War, socialized government and nationalized health care as well as tackling severe poverty in his country which remains an unmanageable historical inheritance in most of Latin America. He is also known for his suppression of media and independent protest in Cuba and has been characterized in many different perspectives by American directors to Simpsons writers to coalitions for the freedom of Cuba and expat Cubans living in Miami and abroad. Today he took a major step to the end of what is certainly known as Castro’s Cuba to most of the world.

The real effect will be on the Cuba people themselves. Since the fall of the Soviet Union the economy of Cuba has been supported by massive non-American tourism and petroleum supports from Hugo Chavez and investment from many unnamed companies who wish to avoid being caught under American commercial bans on Cuba. The likelihood of a large change right now is slim, as Castro will still have a large hand in the policy of Cuba while his brother Raul Castro deals with the continuing embargo and loads of tourists coming to the country. Many prospects of change have already started, as some restrictions on owning property have been weakened in the last 7 years. Foreign companies who wish to buy up anything from this tourist paradise have been able to in recent years as long as the Cuban government or citizens share 50% or more of the property. Cuban exports of sugar and tobacco products have found a place in Europe and abroad, and with the open market policies with other communist nations such as China, the restrictions on Cuba are not finding complete support as they once did in the past. The exception is of course the few interest groups who have direct ties to Cuba itself, who are not likely to forget Castro after only one or two generations living outside Cuba.

The expectation of quick change after Castro dies avoids recognition of the slow change that has taken place in Cuba since 1991. For the most part Cuba’s change is inevitable with Castro or without him. The Cuban government in reality has gained a lot of strength in the last 15 years and quick change will most likely come about if the Castro’s decide it, or if a new JFK happens to take great interest in Cuba and its future.

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.

In Mexico’s “Dirty War” between 1968 and 1971, more than 600 people were “disappeared” for their political convictions. While much progress has been made with disappeared people in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay since the 1970s and the fall of military dictatorships in those countries, there has not been the same level of attention on disappeared Mexicans within Mexico or the international community like there was with many countries in South America.

With the lack of a strong military government in Mexico and the nature of the intricate political system under the 80 years of PRI rule in the country, finding information about missing people in the process was only plausible after the loss of the PRI’s political hegemony in Mexico and the political will of the new PAN government over the last 7 years.

Jose Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch in this link discusses the advances, or lack thereof, of the Special Prosecutor’s Office which was created under the Fox Administration to investigate the disappeared people during the 70’s in Mexico. Recently the office formally closed when the government published its agreement A/317/06 in the federal official newspaper. With the end of the investigation, not a single conviction was produced and only limited progress was made in uncovering the fate of hundreds of people who were “disappeared”.

In Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, while there have been many difficulties and conditions in prosecuting past disappearances and abuses, Vivanco suggests that: “Mexico must still find a way to meet its obligation to investigate and prosecute these cases.” While prosecutions have never been an easy task in any country, progression has come with new democratic governments in those countries most greatly affected by “disappeared” in the 1970s. With the election of another PAN government in Mexico, there must be some reconciliation in Mexico for the 600 missing people.